Chuck Smith and the Trinity
Strange Things Are Happening at CCCM
This was the previous page on Calvary Chapel and the Trinity. We thought that these issues were settled only to learn that they were not.
On 5-18-97 at the evening service, Pastor Chuck Smith defended his unusual view of the incarnation. In Smith's unique view, Jesus set aside His deity when He became a man and will rejoin the Trinity at some point in time in the future. Smith can be heard speaking about the time when Jesus will once again take his place in the Triune Godhead.
Before you conclude that Smith must have been speaking about the false teachings of some cult you need to know that Chuck Smith is defending his own view of the Trinity and the deity of Jesus.
Here's the quote in its greater context.
The Father was not put in subject to the Son, but the Son willingly to the Father. Now, when this purpose is accomplished then Jesus will once again take His place in the Triune Godhead. And no longer will there be that, uh, position of a little lower than the angels, but now returned in the glory and as he prayed Father, glorify me with the glory I had with thee before the world ever was. When God said "Let us make man in our image and after our likeness". And so, uh that's the way that things are going to progress until there is just one God, the Triune God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit ruling over the universe. All things then in subjection to Him. That God may be all and in all.
What's the Truth?
Jesus has never left the Triune Godhead.
Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
Jesus was deity when He was here on the earth. He said that was a test for salvation:
John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.
The New Doctrinal Statement
We had great hopes when we were told that there was to be a new doctrinal statement from Calvary Chapel. It appeared that Calvary Chapel was finally going to start dealing with some of the issues raised on this page. This doctrinal statement was to be published in the new Calvary Chapel Bible College Catalog (1997-1998). We recently received a copy of the catalog. The new statement of beliefs was included. It is on page 40-41 of that catalog. The following is the new statement from that catalog:
We believe that God is eternally existent in three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
This is good. The word separate has been replaced with the word distinct. Sadly, though, there is still not unity statement (i. e., a statement that there is one God.) Thus, we applaud the progress, but there is still a long way to go here.
Here's the web page that has Chuck Smith's newest Statement of Beliefs (dated 7-4-97).
Chuck Smith's writing on the Trinity
We once believed that Larry Taylor was the source of the Calvary Chapel Statement of Beliefs Trinity error. We are no longer sure that is the case. This phrase appears in the © 1996 book by Pastor Chuck Smith, Living Water, on page 28.
In this excerpt, Smith states that the three persons of the Trinity are separate.
Chuck Wooley Says the Same Thing
We thought that Chuck Smith was all alone on this one until we heard Pastor Chuck Wooley on the same subject. This was recorded from KWVE on 10-19-97. Pastor Chuck Wooley, on his Coming Home program said:
This means, that when Jesus Christ has completed His millenial reign here upon this earth, and has established His eternal reign, I believe that He will turn over to David his throne on the earth, then He will return to his place in the Godhead where he was in the beginning, so that God may be all in all.
Past Recent History
Doug called the radio program "To Every Man an Answer" and asked about the Statement of Beliefs on the Trinity. Hear the Real Audio. [This is recorded at 14.4 and Real Audio version 2.0 to conserve space.] The following is a transcript of that call which aired 4-2-97.
Don:
Let's move now from Bangor, Maine to Anaheim Hills California. Doug is on the line, Doug, thanks for waiting Doug, you're on "To Every Man an Answer".
Caller:
Hi Chuck and Don-
I have a question about the Calvary Chapel Statement of Beliefs by Larry Taylor as it relates to the Trinity.
Don:
Caller:
The Calvary Chapel Statement of Beliefs states that God exists in three separate persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
And, I've been looking at different systematic theologies, and whatnot and they seem to uniformly say that separate isn't the correct word to use, but that distinct is the word that should be used.
At this point I was cut off and no more comments or questions can be heard.
Chuck Smith:
Probably so, and, and uh, Larry probably made a mistake there, but I think that it is just a thing of semantics
Don:background
Chuck Smith:
and all, I don't think that it's really an issue, Doug. Uh, three distinct, but, you say distinct or separate, That's semantics, and so people are just trying to split hairs and that's so typical of guys that get into theological arguments, is the splitting of hairs, and that's where the church has gone wrong, in my estimation, through the centuries, are these guys that want to split the hairs, and uh, say well you said, separate instead of distinct, and um, my you know, that puts you a whole different category of faith, or whatever.
And so I think that Larry used probably the wrong word at least in the minds of a lot of people, but what he meant and that's really we should look at, the intent of the heart, and he means that there's only One God and He's manifested in the three persons of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit. And that's definitely the position that Calvary Chapel takes.
Don:
Amen: And just to set your mind at ease, Doug, we're putting out a new catalog in the fall, we've already changed the word separate to distinct, because we noticed it could be a little bit more precise, but I think that's the only question, you could be more precise, but still, the same thing was meant, you know, One God, three eternal persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. One substance God, yet three eternal persons, co-equal, co-eternal, the doctrine of the Trinity, the historic doctrine which we hold very strongly to, and we believe with all our heart and soul and mind. And yet, sometimes, ya, you can use be a little bit more distinct language as it were, more precise language, and you know, I'm sure we're all guilty of that from time to time, I know that I am, of not saying things as precisely as I would like.
So I guess point well take, we could be a little bit more precise, in some instances, and we try to do it. We appreciate the question, and thank you so much for it, let's move on now...
My Commentary on Their Response
Since they did not give me a chance to respond, but rather muted me, I will add my comments to this here.
1. The Unity of God was included GOOD
2. The distinct Vs separate point was included GOOD
3. They did not defend separate as proper GOOD
4. They said this is hair-splitting BAD
5. They stated Taylor was source of the error QUESTIONABLE
6. They said the SoB should be judged on the intent of Larry's heart, and not the actual words used by Larry VERY WRONG
From the Old Dead Guys Vault
St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Summa Theologica (Copyright)
First Part
Question 31
Article 2
Whether the Son is other than the Father?
Objection 1. It would seem that the Son is not other than the Father. For "other" is a relative term implying diversity of substance. If, then, the Son is other than the Father, He must be different from the Father; which is contrary to what Augustine says (De Trin. vii), that when we speak of three persons, "we do not mean to imply diversity."
Objection 2. Further, whosoever are other from one another, differ in some way from one another. Therefore, if the Son is other than the Father, it follows that He differs from the Father; which is against what Ambrose says (De Fide i), that "the Father and the Son are one in Godhead; nor is there any difference in substance between them, nor any diversity."
Objection 3. Further, the term alien is taken from "alius" other. But the Son is not alien from the Father, for Hilary says (De Trin. vii) that "in the divine persons there is nothing diverse, nothing alien, nothing separable." Therefore the Son is not other that the Father.
Objection 4. Further, the terms "other person" and "other thing" alius et aliud have the same meaning, differing only in gender. So if the Son is another person from the Father, it follows that the Son is a thing apart from the Father.
On the contrary, Augustine [Fulgentius, De Fide ad Petrum i.] says: "There is one essence of the Father and Son and Holy Ghost, in which the Father is not one thing, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another; although the Father is one person, the Son another, and the Holy Ghost another."
I answer that, Since as Jerome remarks [In substance, Ep. lvii.], a heresy arises from words wrongly used, when we speak of the Trinity we must proceed with care and with befitting modesty; because, as Augustine says (De Trin. i, 3), "nowhere is error more harmful, the quest more toilsome, the finding more fruitful." Now, in treating of the Trinity, we must beware of two opposite errors, and proceed cautiously between them--namely, the error of Arius, who placed a Trinity of substance with the Trinity of persons; and the error of Sabellius, who placed unity of person with the unity of essence.
Thus, to avoid the error of Arius we must shun the use of the terms diversity and difference in God, lest we take away the unity of essence: we may, however, use the term "distinction" on account of the relative opposition. Hence whenever we find terms of "diversity" or "difference" of Persons used in an authentic work, these terms of "diversity" or "difference" are taken to mean "distinction." But lest the simplicity and singleness of the divine essence be taken away, the terms "separation" and "division," which belong to the parts of a whole, are to be avoided: and lest quality be taken away, we avoid the use of the term "disparity": and lest we remove similitude, we avoid the terms "alien" and "discrepant." For Ambrose says (De Fide i) that "in the Father and the Son there is no discrepancy, but one Godhead": and according to Hilary, as quoted above, "in God there is nothing alien, nothing separable."
To avoid the heresy of Sabellius, we must shun the term "singularity," lest we take away the communicability of the divine essence. Hence Hilary says (De Trin. vii): "It is sacrilege to assert that the Father and the Son are separate in Godhead." We must avoid the adjective "only" unici lest we take away the number of persons. Hence Hilary says in the same book: "We exclude from God the idea of singularity or uniqueness." Nevertheless, we say "the only Son," for in God there is no plurality of Sons. Yet, we do not say "the only God," for the Deity is common to several. We avoid the word "confused," lest we take away from the Persons the order of their nature. Hence Ambrose says (De Fide i): "What is one is not confused; and there is no multiplicity where there is no difference." The word "solitary" is also to be avoided, lest we take away the society of the three persons; for, as Hilary says (De Trin. iv), "We confess neither a solitary nor a diverse God."
This word "other" alius, however, in the masculine sense, means only a distinction of "suppositum"; and hence we can properly say that "the Son is other than the Father," because He is another "suppositum" of the divine nature, as He is another person and another hypostasis.
Reply to Objection 1. "Other," being like the name of a particular thing, refers to the "suppositum"; and so, there is sufficient reason for using it, where there is a distinct substance in the sense of hypostasis or person. But diversity requires a distinct substance in the sense of essence. Thus we cannot say that the Son is diverse from the Father, although He is another.
Reply to Objection 2. "Difference" implies distinction of form. There is one form in God, as appears from the text, "Who, when He was in the form of God" (Phil. 2:6). Therefore the term "difference" does not properly apply to God, as appears from the authority quoted. Yet, Damascene (De Fide Orth. i, 5) employs the term "difference" in the divine persons, as meaning that the relative property is signified by way of form. Hence he says that the hypostases do not differ from each other in substance, but according to determinate properties. But "difference" is taken for "distinction," as above stated.
Reply to Objection 3. The term "alien" means what is extraneous and dissimilar; which is not expressed by the term "other" alius; and therefore we say that the Son is "other" than the Father, but not that He is anything "alien."
Reply to Objection 4. The neuter gender is formless; whereas the masculine is formed and distinct; and so is the feminine. So the common essence is properly and aptly expressed by the neuter gender, but by the masculine and feminine is expressed the determined subject in the common nature. Hence also in human affairs, if we ask, Who is this man? we answer, Socrates, which is the name of the "suppositum"; whereas, if we ask, What is he? we reply, A rational and mortal animal. So, because in God distinction is by the persons, and not by the essence, we say that the Father is other than the Son, but not something else; while conversely we say that they are one thing, but not one person.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.