• 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?

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.
With you brother on manuscripts. No NIV user here.

But, using one single proof verse is the thing cultists use (not calling you or trinitarianism a cult). I am still a trinitarian, but just like "anti polygyny" preaching as a kid, trinitarian teaching has always left me less than impressed and usually leaves me thirsty for something more.
 
Very interesting list of references @Verifyveritas76 . There is certainly a larger amount of early support for the verse than I realised. Nevertheless I do notice that all the names cited are Latin. None of the Apostolic or Greek church fathers are said to have cited this verse, only the Latin writers - despite many of the Greek fathers discussing the nature of the Father, Son and Spirit. This would suggest that it was not in the original Greek manuscripts but entered in during translation to Latin - possibly at a very early date, but still as an addition. Alternatively though it could just suggest that 1 John was simply not widely used by the Greek Fathers but only became popular among the Latin, given the canon had not been formally settled at this early stage - I haven't read widely enough to know whether they cited from elsewhere in this book.
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.
This is a serious issue, which is why I deliberately quoted from the WEB, not a translation based on those manuscripts.
 
I'm not a rude or overly forward guy, usually, but I don't want this thread to rabbit trail into manuscripts over this one verse. To bring this back to binitarianism, can anyone address my question about if this single verse has any other support or linked verses to reference back or forth to it?
 
The link I posted had several notable men's analyses on the verse as well as those around it examining it in the context of grammar within the surrounding verses. Specifically the change from gender neutral in verse 6 to gender masculine in verse 8. As I understand their position, without the masculine gender supplied by verse 7, it does create a black hole grammatically. Obviously they say it better than I can.
I'll look for more tonight
 
I agree with Mojo that we shouldn't get too sidetracked over a single verse. I have had a quick hunt around myself for analysis on this issue, and have basically found that all ancient translations of the New Testament into every other language (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopian, Arabic, Slavonic) omit the passage, only the Latin has it, and even then the most ancient manuscripts omit it and only later manuscripts contain it. Also, only English-speakers seem to be debating it, it's just not an issue for most of the world, because their bibles often never included it in the first place. I am very hesitant to accept "the consensus of scholars" on issues like this, but the raw evidence of which manuscripts include it and which do not does seem to point firmly in a particular direction here.
I know an internal argument can be made for it, but also know an internal argument can be made against it, I've seen both, so that doesn't really help. Maybe @frederick could clarify this?

At the end of the day, it is a single verse. Even if it is supposed to be there, we can't decide doctrine based on a single verse, but it must be at least confirmed by 2 or 3 witnesses.
There are many verses that refer to God as a plurality - the very word "Elohim" is plural, statements like "let us make man in our image" etc. There are also a lot of verses asserting the deity of Yeshua. These are the usual proof-texts cited to demonstrate the trinity - but all are equally consistent with binitarianism so don't really help this discussion.
The only verses I can think of that actually refer to the Father, Son and Spirit together are:
Matthew 28:19
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
2 Corinthians 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. Amen.

Neither of those verses actually state anything clear about the nature of the three, they just mention that the three exist. They are obviously consistent with a trinity, but are not conclusive proof of one.
 
I guess I must have missed something. Do the Binarians deny that there are three "persons" in the Godhead or just that there are three but the three aren't one? Or that only two of the three are actually in the "Binity"?
 
Last edited:
I guess I must have missed something. Do the Binarians deny that there are three "persons" in the Godhead or just that there are three but the three aren't one? Or that only two of the three are actually in the "Binity"?
As I understand it(but I've just begun studying it) is that Father and Son are "Godhead" and Spirit is more of a force, energy, influence or apparition of sorts coming from the Father or Son. It is their spirit, but isn't a person. So things like a Theophany or Christophany could be explained as "the spirit of The Father or Son" appeared, but not the actual person. Just like God breathed into Adam to animate him and make him a living soul, but didn't deify Adam, God's pneuma that eminates from him isn't deity, it's just his essence.

Did I just make sense?
I hope I did the idea justice. Like I said, I'm just now beginning to study, so I'm probably not doing it justice. But it does intrigue me.

Soteriologically, does it have amy implications? I don't think so. What say the others? Jesus does seem to implicate that another (like him, or same as him) was promised to come after him. Is it just his "spirit" coming from him, or an equal to him (deity and part of the Godhead)? This "other just like him" seems to play a huge role in convincing/convicting us of our sin and need of redemption.
 
I guess I must have missed something. Do the Binarians deny that there are three "persons" in the Godhead or just that there are three but the three aren't one? Or that only two of the three are actually in the "Binity"?
Tri = three. Trinitarian = three persons in the Godhead (Father, Son and Holy Spirit)
Bi = two. Binitarian = two persons in the Godhead (Father and Son), the Holy Spirit being their power / breath / life force / mode of action on the world.
Fundamentally, both views are very similar, and most scripture that appears to support one is equally consistent with the other.
 
Like everyone else (I think) that's posted so far, I am a Trinitarian, but I'm not sure that it's essential for salvation. As Samuel said (on the previous page), God and Jesus are clearly two persons in the Godhead, and the question is whether we can meaningfully distinguish between God the Father, and the Holy Spirit. After all, in John 4:24, "God is a spirit." So how can we have the Spirit of God who is separate from God who is a spirit. I think a key problem (both in this thread, and in the demons thread) is our lack of understanding of what the nature of a spirit is. I certainly don't claim to have an answer (though it is something I've been thinking about recently).

As far as verses that distinguish between God the Father and the Holy Spirit, one that I haven't seen mentioned yet is Jesus' baptism (Matt. 3:16-17)
"He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming on him. Behold, a voice out of the heavens said, 'This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.'"
So, aside from Christ, we see God manifesting both as a dove, and as a voice.

In fact, this seems to be the primary distinction between the Father and the Spirit: one is a voice from heaven, and one goes into the world. In the Creation account, God speaks the world into existence, and his Spirit is actively hovering over the waters. In the present time, God is portrayed as being on the throne in Heaven (where Christ intercedes for us), while the Comforter is come into the world to indwell us, teach us, and seal us. Whether this distinction of roles is enough to make them distinct persons? That sounds close to being an exercise in semantics, with little value for application, but as I said, I err on the side of yes.
 
Distinction without a difference?

I like your Matthew 3 verse. It's a good one to lean towards Trinity. But, other counter points still are interesting.
 
What is gained or lost by having the HS separate from the Godhead?

I don't know that anything is lost or gained. In my opinion this doesn't change anything about someone's beliefs except in terminology, as binitarians, as defined here, are not denying the presence or power of the Spirit of God, just whether it is a separate person of the Godhead. I love discussions like this, but I find them mostly fun for interesting debate and mind stretching.

I have actually been pondering this topic for a long time now. I now lean toward thinking that the Father and the Son are both God, and the Spirit is the actionable power of God. Notice I said "lean", I am still debating this with myself, and paying close attention to what is said here.
 
I don't think a conclusion can be reached and frankly I think the masses are probably better off left with the traditional idea of the Trinity. The only unforgivable sin is not an issue to encourage people to experiment with.
 
What is gained or lost by having the HS separate from the Godhead?
I guess not much gained. Just the satisfaction "that we might know Him" better.

Lost? I'm not sure. The thief on the cross didn't need to understand theology, christology, or trinitarianism to be in Paradise.

It's just another "Things that make you go hmmmm" exercise around our virtual Algonquin round table.
 
I don't think a conclusion can be reached and frankly I think the masses are probably better off left with the traditional idea of the Trinity. The only unforgivable sin is not an issue to encourage people to experiment with.
But if the "Spirit" is the influence of Christ or the Father, blaspheming it is blaspheming them. And if the Spirit is part of a unified Godhead, wouldn't blaspheming one be blaspheming the others?

Why must it be a separate "person" to be applicable or more intense. Is it forgiveable to blaspheme Christ?

Maybe we just don't understand that verse correctly.

Just asking questions...not trying to pick on you individually. I'd like to hear your responses, since I'm just thinking out loud( actually on a screen).
 
But if the "Spirit" is the influence of Christ or the Father, blaspheming it is blaspheming them. And if the Spirit is part of a unified Godhead, wouldn't blaspheming one be blaspheming the others?

Why must it be a separate "person" to be applicable or more intense. Is it forgiveable to blaspheme Christ?

Maybe we just don't understand that verse correctly.

Just asking questions...not trying to pick on you individually. I'd like to hear your responses, since I'm just thinking out loud( actually on a screen).

Since it was Christ who was speaking I assume that there is a separation. He didn't say "Don't blaspheme us." He seemed to make a distinction.
 
Since it was Christ who was speaking I assume that there is a separation. He didn't say "Don't blaspheme us." He seemed to make a distinction.
But....could he have been speaking of the spirit coming from the Father, not himself or another Person?

Would he be warning us not to be in contempt of court by blaspheming and dishonoring "The Judge"? The Father is the judge, the Son is the advocate. No matter how good your lawyer is, if you dishonor the court and the judge...you're going to be sent to the pokey!

When Moses was at the burning bush, he had to take off his sandals in the presence of holiness. Was he speaking to "The Holy Spirit"? or to the Father directly, or the Force or power of God manifest within the bush? Was it Christ? No man can see God and live, so did The Father send his spirit to the bush as a way to mitigate the damage to Moses? Hmmmmm.
 
[QUOTE="Mojo, post: 146017, member: 1866 No man can see God and live, so did The Father send his spirit to the bush as a way to mitigate the damage to Moses? Hmmmmm.[/QUOTE]

Just his hind parts!
 
Back
Top