• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Any Binitarians out there?

Mojo

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
I am still trinitarian myself, but I am intrigued by the teachings of Binitarians.

Keeping true to form, I want to ask questions of my BF associates here.

Any thoughts out there?
Is it heresy?
Do you believe trinitarianism essential to redemption and salvation?
Would you profess anything other than trinitarian viewpoints in your houses of worship?

Interested in your feedback.
 
I am not binitarian, but I'm also not completely sold on the trinity as it's taught now. I believe that YHWH is complicated, and I believe He's made up of multiple parts as well as being one being. I also believe that the trinity is currently the best way of us understanding how that works.
We don't need to understand the trinity correctly to be saved. Being saved is incredibly simple, people complicate it with their current doctrine that they follow and say you have to believe exactly as they do to be saved, which is not what the bible says.
Would you profess anything other than trinitarian viewpoints in your houses of worship?
My place of worship is my own home, and Samuel and I discuss this stuff all the time, so yes :D.
That's my opinion for what it's worth. I'll leave you guys to hash it out now with scripture and ancient Hebrew writings and big long posts...
 
Oh and I just had a wee thought to add on here. I hate labels. I sometimes use them because it's easier for people to understand, like I say I'm a Christian, but I don't follow half of what modern 'Christians' do, etc. When you put a label on someone with their beliefs then you put them in a box and it's difficult to break out of a box, rather than learning all the time and finding you were wrong, and Christianity essentially being a 'fluid' thing. Does that make sense? So any labels like trinitarianist or binitarianist won't fit me. I wonder if it's similar with others on here?
 
I'm not binatarian either but pretty much think like Sarah does in this one.

I th.ink scripture never says we mist subscribe to church philosphical tradition x,y,z to be saved. The pathway to salvation is clearly laid out. We must accept the atoning blood sacrifice of Yeshua as redemption from the death we invited into our own lives.

The way that G-d exists outside and inside of space-time is deep and interesting but not necessary to apprehend in order to be saved. I'm a heretic many times over according to the protestant church traditions though so I may be the wrong person to chime in. I shoild have made my user name 'alleged heretic' bit I think most here in Biblical Families fit in this box...thinking outside of it
 
I believe that YHWH is complicated, and I believe He's made up of multiple parts as well as being one being.
I agree with @FollowingHim2 here. It's "complicated". The best horrifically imperfect analogy that I can think of is... Me. I am a father, a son, a brother, a friend and a husband. They are all me, a single entity, but how I act, or interact, with people and how they view me, all depends on what role I'm playing. When I'm being a Son, I say Yes Sir and No Sir. When I'm being Father, I say Do This and Do That. When I'm being a Husband, well... you never mind that.

We're also talking about a multidimensional being outside of time and space. Go ahead and put Him in a box. I dare you. (I'm being facetious, BTW. Big Smiles...)

But to take the long way around to answering @Mojo :
  • I think there is a Trinity, or rather, a trinary state of God that's easy to accept on faith, but difficult if quantified logically. There are references in Scripture to them being separate and the same. Now, i don't know specifically the teachings of Binarianismists (that was intentional), but i'm supposing they're questioning the existence of the Spirit or rolling the Spirit into God the Father as one. The thing about the Spirit is that He/It doesn't talk about himself.
  • I don't think it is heresy in and of itself as they are believing in something according to their own understanding. But maybe the problem is with the term "heretical". I find myself using the word from time to time as well, but if you look at the actual definition, it states "holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted." The problem with that is what is generally accepted may not be the Truth. We, here at BF, are, by definition, heretical because the "generally accepted" view of Polygyny is "NO!"
  • Essential? I don't think so. Christ, Paul, Peter, et al. told us what the essentials to redemption and salvation were. I don't recall believing in a specific Trinity or Binity being one of them. but that hasn't stopped "people" from trying to make it so.
  • To profess anything other than a trinitarian view would require belief in that other view. so, yes, i would, if i believed that. One professes what one believes.
 
Scripture is clear that the Father is a person, and is God. It is also clear that the Son is a person, and is God. That's two persons in the godhead, ie Binitarianism. The question is whether the Holy Spirit is a third person in the Godhead, making a trinity, or whether the Spirit is a force, the power/breath of the Father and the Son, but not a personality. To be honest, I don't know the answer. The nature of the Holy Spirit is not clearly described in scripture. It is entirely reasonable to believe the Spirit is a person, but equally reasonable to believe the Spirit is simply the power of the Father and the Son. I am comfortable with either binitarianism or trinitarianism, neither contradicts any essential doctrine regarding salvation.
 
Scripture is clear that the Father is a person, and is God. It is also clear that the Son is a person, and is God. That's two persons in the godhead, ie Binitarianism. The question is whether the Holy Spirit is a third person in the Godhead, making a trinity, or whether the Spirit is a force, the power/breath of the Father and the Son, but not a personality. To be honest, I don't know the answer. The nature of the Holy Spirit is not clearly described in scripture. It is entirely reasonable to believe the Spirit is a person, but equally reasonable to believe the Spirit is simply the power of the Father and the Son. I am comfortable with either binitarianism or trinitarianism, neither contradicts any essential doctrine regarding salvation.

In the Aramaic Targum Onqelos, we have:
וְרוּחָא מִן קֳדָם יוי מְנַשבָא עַל אַפֵי מַיָא ׃
Gen 1:2b
"and the spirit from before Hashem(L-RD) blew over the face of the waters"

For those who don't know the targums are Aramaic translations used by Jews of antiquity who had lost their Hebrew or felt their Hebrew was weak...living in the diaspora. This particular targum is from around the time of Yeshua. The translator was a convert to Judaism, Onqelos and it's Orthodox Jewish tradition to read the torah portion twice in Hebrew in the week and 1x in the Targum Aramaic. The Aramaic is like a time capsule of how Jews in that time saw the scripture.
Onqelos tends to be more literal where some of the others are basically commentary built into the translation (Jonathan etc).

Anyway, I thought the targum translation was interesting since instead of the Hebrew "the spirit of the L-rd hovered over ..." we get "the spirit from before the L-rd blew..." I'm inclined to say 'spirit' but to be fair we can also translate it "the wind from before the L-rd blew over the face of the waters".
 
Scripture is clear that the Father is a person, and is God. It is also clear that the Son is a person, and is God. That's two persons in the godhead, ie Binitarianism. The question is whether the Holy Spirit is a third person in the Godhead, making a trinity, or whether the Spirit is a force, the power/breath of the Father and the Son, but not a personality. To be honest, I don't know the answer. The nature of the Holy Spirit is not clearly described in scripture. It is entirely reasonable to believe the Spirit is a person, but equally reasonable to believe the Spirit is simply the power of the Father and the Son. I am comfortable with either binitarianism or trinitarianism, neither contradicts any essential doctrine regarding salvation.

I couldn't have said it better myself.
 
Yeah, this is important but beyond complete understanding. If someone gets God and Christ right and remembers that the Spirit is important enough that blaspheming Him (It) is unforgivable then I'm not going to pick fights.

It is interesting that you can blaspheme God and Christ and not blaspheme the spirit since you can be forgiven for blaspheming them apparently.
 
@ZecAustin that was what I was thinking as well. Apparently Jesus is more offended by blasphemy of the Holy Spirit than blasphemy of the Father.

I also agree with the other posters that this is not a critical belief for salvation.

One of my favorite passages for this topic is 1 John 5:7&8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
 
Aargh. I'm trying to stay out of this....

Wanted to point out that the concept of "speaking injuriously against the pneuma" doesn't confer personhood. The spirit/breath/wind of God is at work among us (see John 3:8). Maybe that's a person, maybe it's not. I'm not taking a position here; I'm writing only to point out that it would not be nonsense for Jesus to have meant that you don't get to criticize the visible work of God in the world without potentially causing an unforgiveable problem.

Going further, we might stop and think about this: The word "person" literally means the visible, tangible way that we show up. It's derived from the Latin word persona ("mask", as worn by actors in Greek theater), which itself means to "sound through" (from per (through) and sona (sound)). That which we speak through is our persona. We retain this sense of the word when we say someone will be "appearing in person" (i.e., their body will be present in the room).

So what'll really bake your noodle is this: In a "words are important" sense, you could say that Jesus is what happens when God shows up "in person". That's the most literal sense of the word, and there's a non-trivial semantic argument that Jesus is the only "person" in view here. In a metaphorical sense, you could say that the pneuma (breath/wind/spirit) of God is a kind of "person", because that's how God shows up in our lives (Jesus having ascended and no longer being our visible manifestation of God the Father (for the time being)). On the other hand, it's difficult to the point of nonsensical to see God the Father as a "person", except in maybe the most anthropomorphic, Sistine Chapel sense.

I am the spitting image (eikon) of my earthly father. A guy I visited awhile back that hadn't seen my father in over 20 years and hadn't seen me in maybe longer couldn't believe it. "Oh my god, you look and sound just like your dad." For those that don't know my (earthly) father, it's not much of a stretch to say that 'if you've seen me, you've seen him'. I bear his image and likeness.

The father/son analogy gives us a way to think about the relationship between the incarnate ('in meat') Jesus (Emmanuel) who walked among us and the transcendent God we do not and cannot comprehend directly. But it's not the only way, and while it's useful up to a point, at some point arguing about exactly how it works becomes counter-productive, and once again the body of Christ splits into factions....

[Not here, though, as one can already see from the discussions above and throughout the forums. Except for the occasional spat between friends and the even more occasional requirement that we ban somebody that clearly is here as a spoiler, one of the attributes that unites us is an openness to the truth, wherever it leads, and another such attribute is a certain robustness of spirit that comes (a) from a robust faith in the God we serve, and (b) from having the strength to do our own due diligence in support of our truth claims and the humility and self-discipline to listen to others and be willing to revise our understanding when appropriate. Having confidence in God and in our own ability to seek and understand truth, we are not personally threatened when others disagree with us in the way that so many of the more insecure churchgoers seem to be, so we find our unity in something other than dogmatic conformity. Sounds pretty scriptural to me. Something about "by this shall all men know you are my disciples"....]
 
One of my favorite passages for this topic is 1 John 5:7&8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
This is the only direct statement in the New Testament on the topic - and it appears to be a late addition by someone who was concerned by the fact that the scriptures did not clearly support the trinity doctrine, so they wrote it in. It does not appear in any ancient Greek manuscript, and I understand was not cited by any early church father when arguing for the trinity (which immediately raises a red flag, as it would be the most obvious verse to cite, if it existed at the time). It first appears in Latin. It then turns up in some very late Greek manuscripts (after 1500AD) as marginal notes, and in only two of these manuscripts appears in the actual text. It appears in the KJV and the Geneva, but because it is so highly questionable has been rejected by most other translators. Click here for an explanation of where this came from and how it found its way into the English KJV but not into German translations of the same period - it was not included in earlier compilations of the Greek by Erasmus, but appears to then have been added by him under pressure from the Catholic church, and this was then used to translate the KJV.

This is how the World English Bible renders the passage. The WEB uses the majority text, so unlike most other modern translations it actually usually agrees with the KJV - except where the KJV used a debatable source:
John 5:7-8 WEB said:
For there are three who testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three agree as one.
 
This is the only direct statement in the New Testament on the topic - and it appears to be a late addition by someone who was concerned by the fact that the scriptures did not clearly support the trinity doctrine, so they wrote it in. It does not appear in any ancient Greek manuscript, and I understand was not cited by any early church father when arguing for the trinity (which immediately raises a red flag, as it would be the most obvious verse to cite, if it existed at the time). It first appears in Latin. It then turns up in some very late Greek manuscripts (after 1500AD) as marginal notes, and in only two of these manuscripts appears in the actual text. It appears in the KJV and the Geneva, but because it is so highly questionable has been rejected by most other translators. Click here for an explanation of where this came from and how it found its way into the English KJV but not into German translations of the same period - it was not included in earlier compilations of the Greek by Erasmus, but appears to then have been added by him under pressure from the Catholic church, and this was then used to translate the KJV.

This is how the World English Bible renders the passage. The WEB uses the majority text, so unlike most other modern translations it actually usually agrees with the KJV - except where the KJV used a debatable source:

So which verse is disputed? 7, 8 or both?
 
Both. The addition is to the end of 7 and the start of 8, ie to use the kjv, red italicised text being disputed and likely a late addition:
7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth
, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
 
Both. The addition is to the end of 7 and the start of 8, ie to use the kjv, red italicised text being disputed and likely a late addition:
7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8. And there are three that bear witness in earth
, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

I knew this would come up. Headed out the door now so I'll reply later
 
This is the only direct statement in the New Testament on the topic - and it appears to be a late addition by someone who was concerned by the fact that the scriptures did not clearly support the trinity doctrine, so they wrote it in. It does not appear in any ancient Greek manuscript, and I understand was not cited by any early church father when arguing for the trinity (which immediately raises a red flag, as it would be the most obvious verse to cite, if it existed at the time). It first appears in Latin. It then turns up in some very late Greek manuscripts (after 1500AD) as marginal notes, and in only two of these manuscripts appears in the actual text. It appears in the KJV and the Geneva, but because it is so highly questionable has been rejected by most other translators. Click here for an explanation of where this came from and how it found its way into the English KJV but not into German translations of the same period - it was not included in earlier compilations of the Greek by Erasmus, but appears to then have been added by him under pressure from the Catholic church, and this was then used to translate the KJV.

This is how the World English Bible renders the passage. The WEB uses the majority text, so unlike most other modern translations it actually usually agrees with the KJV - except where the KJV used a debatable source:


I am aware of the controversy of this verse. I am mostly a KJV user myself, but have found this troubling before. But, let's say it's a valid verse. Is it good hermaneutics and doctrine building to hang your whole doctrine on one verse anyway? No other verse in scripture even comes close to this strong a profession of a trinity that I can think of.

The reason I ask about opinions of salvation and binitarianism is only because we are told in John 16..."Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and ofrighteousness, and of judgment: Of sin, because they believe not on me; Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more; Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into alltruth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear...." Sounds pretty "persony". Sounds pretty dependent for realization of our depravity and hopeless state and need of redemption. Can this be explained away as Yeshua sending a "force" or a "person"? I'd be the last person to quote ECF on anything as authority, but, iirc, EC writings seemed to stress Christ as deity, not the Spirit. Am I wrong?

I personally wouldn't call it heresy myself.
Probably wouldn't think it worth it to ruffle feathers in my brick and mortar congregation, so probably would stay silent.
 
Is it good hermaneutics and doctrine building to hang your whole doctrine on one verse anyway?
Which is where I'm coming from. It is a bad idea. Things that are important are stated multiple times. We have 4 gospels for a start. When we discover something new, like that PM is ok, we find it in lots of different places. And not once is it stated that a man must have only one wife, except for possibly one verse IF you translate it that way. That doesn't work for me.

Here's what makes me wonder about the trinity more though. In Revelation 1:4 there's the 7 spirits of YHWH. It says, hiya from the father (the One), hiya from Yeshua, and hiya from the seven spirits.
Strongs says you can translate that word as angels, but since when do angels randomly say gidday?

Is the Holy Spirit 1 or 7? Is YHWH 3 or 9?

See how this gets complicated?

at some point arguing about exactly how it works becomes counter-productive, and once again the body of Christ splits into factions....
Exactly. Too often we split. Too often if you don't fit in those handy labelled boxes you have to make another church and label yourself something different. But once again everyone still ends up in boxes. What's important is to break out of those and really look at the bible, then see what truly matters. Does it matter if YHWH is 1 or 500? Sometimes we can study something forever to work out the 'truth', but is what we will find profitable?
 
And what to make of all the epistles, save maybe I Peter that introduce their greetings as from Father and Son only?
 
Here's a good reference from Chick publications website. For those who aren't familiar with the primitive church I've referred to in the past, the reference to the Vaudois is a leg of that primitive church

A Trail of Evidence

But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitateagainst the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it. (MY notes here. This Old Latin ms is HUGE in this argument. It was originally called THE Latin Vulgate and was considered the standard for scripture in Latin speaking congregations where it enjoyed almost universal acceptance. When the Catholics commissioned Jerome to translate, he utilized two Alexandrian text called the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaticus as the basis for his work. Because of the issues with those text, the Latin speaking primitive churches refused its use and kept with their Old Latin Vulgate. To counteract this rejection, they named Jerome's work the Latin Vulgate also and worked to destroy as much of the original Vulgate as possible. Because of Catholic influence in later centuries, Jerome's work kept the name Latin Vulgate while the original Vulgate was referred to as the Old Latin)
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.
The Vaudois

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.
 
Last edited:
The reason that virtually all of the recent translations omit this verse is because they are based upon the same manuscripts that Jerome based his work upon. The Vaticanus and Sinaticus text. Notice in the list above that it was later inserted in his work from the Old Latin. Please see my notes on the Old Latin.

Another good discussion at this link http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_information/40-1.pdf
 
Last edited:
Back
Top