ON THE TRINITY

THE PROBLEM OF EWALD

FRANK, THE BRAHNAMIST

BY ERIC GATERA
October 29, 2018

Contact:
https://practicalhelpwitheric.blogspot.com/
Table of Contents
Background ................................................................................................................................... 3

I) Where is the Trinity in Bible?.................................................................................................. 3

II) Ewald Frank doesn’t take into account the context of his source ....................................... 6

III) The Trinity was invented in the Fourth century? ............................................................... 7

Early Witness on the Trinity .................................................................................................... 9

Witness #1: Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 181): ....................................................................... 9

Witness #2: Tertullian (A.D. 145–220): .................................................................................. 9

Witness #3: Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 202). .................................................................... 10

Witness #4: Origen (A.D. 185–254) ...................................................................................... 10

Witness #5: Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria (A.D 200–265) .............................................. 11

Witness #6: Cyprian (A.D. 200–258) .................................................................................... 11

Witness #7: Gregory the Wonderworker (A.D. 265) ............................................................. 11

Witness #8: Methodius (A.D. 300)......................................................................................... 11

IV) What is the Orthodox biblical view of the Trinity? .......................................................... 12

1) The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are all referred as God ................................ 12

2) The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit interacts between themselves as distinct
persons ...................................................................................................................................... 13

3) There is only One God ........................................................................................................ 14

V) The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has parallels with Pagans religious belief (trinities
in pagan religions)? ..................................................................................................................... 15

Afterword..................................................................................................................................... 17

2
 On the Trinity: The Problem of Ewald Frank, the Brahnamist
Background
I recently saw a series of posts on social media attacking the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. I
know, there is nothing new about it for we know that non-believers and heretical folks associated
to Christianity have been doing as much since the time of the Roman Empire. So why do I bother
writing about it again you may ask? Well, let say I love engaging people and bringing to the public
what are the correct (orthodox) Christian perspectives. And I also thought this could help others
see clearly what are the errors usually made by anti-Trinitarian communities.
The person who posted the series of attack on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is part of a
protestant sect known as ‘Brahnamism’. Their anti-Trinitarian stance differs from those from the
Jehovah Witness and even the Muslim anti-Triniterian position. For this reason, this post will only
deal with this issue coming from the Brahnamist vantage point.
My response will follow some specific arguments that were raised in the mentioned social-media
posts. The author of the posts was referring uniquely from a book from one of his spiritual leaders,
Ewald Frank. His pots was a selection of quotes from Frank’s short book which I was able to find
online and read over the weekend, titled ‘Le Défie de la theologie Chrétienne et Plus …’. The book
is in French so I will always first quote the relevant section in French before providing a translation.
The book delves into different topics, however I will limit my interaction with it on the subject of
the Trinity since this was the initial challenge. Frank dedicates 3 short sections (chapters) on this
very topic.
Ewald Frank challenges follow the usual suspects, (1) Where is the Trinity in Bible?; (2) The
Trinity was invented in the Fourth century; (3) The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has parallels
in Pagans religious belief (trinities in pagan religions).
Let’s take his challenge one by one and assess its merit.

I) Where is the Trinity in Bible?

Ewald Frank sums well his challenge in these words:
(French version) «Si la notion non biblique de "Trinité" signifiait que Dieu s’est révélé pour notre
salut dans le Nouveau Testament comme notre Père dans le ciel, comme notre Sauveur dans le
Fils sur la terre et par le Saint-Esprit, nous pourrions la tolérer. Mais quand pourtant on dit que
le Dieu éternel a amené à l’existence une deuxième et une troisième Personne qui seraient Dieu,
et que les trois sont une en toutes choses, alors on doit s’enquérir et premièrement se demander:
"Où donc se trouve cela dans la Bible?". Cette question ne peut recevoir qu’une réponse: "Nulle
part!". »
(English translation): «If the unbiblical notion of "Trinity" meant that God revealed Himself for
our salvation in the New Testament as our Father in heaven, as our Savior in the Son on earth and
by the Holy Spirit, we could tolerate it. But when, however, it is said that the eternal God has
brought to existence a second and a third Person who would be God, and that the three are one in
all things, then we must inquire and first ask ourselves: "Wherefore find that in the Bible?” This
question can only receive one answer: "Nowhere!"»
3
This question is based on the assumption that if something or a belief is not written in the Bible,
therefore this belief must be false or just the fruit of human invention. This is quite a surprising
approach for a Brahnamist to make for at least two reasons:
1) The word ‘Bible’ itself is not found in the scripture. Does it mean that Ewald Frank believe
that this book which is today called the ‘Bible’ is therefore the fruit of human invention or
false simply because its name is not found within any letters or writings of the apostles
(Matthew, John, Paul and Peter) or associates of the apostles (such as Luke, Marc, Jude,
Hebrew and Jacques)?
2) The word ‘Brahnam’ is not found in the Bible either. And yet, Brahnamists like Ewald
Frank would fight tooth and nail to affirm that Brahnam coming in the 20th Century is
clearly prophesized in the book of Malachi as the new Elijah1. So will Ewald Frank change
his mind now and affirm that Brahnam is no longer the prophet of Malachi given that his
name is nowhere to be found in the Bible? And that this belief in Brahnam prophethood is
simply false or the fruit of human invention?
I doubt any of these two options will be acceptable to Ewald Frank or to any Brahnamist for that
matter, and I can understand why. This is sloppy and lazy thinking.
The word, ‘Trinity’ or the word, ‘Bible’ doesn’t have to be written within the pages of the bible
for it to be true. Why not? Simply because those two words are descriptive words, they are not an
invention of something new but simply a later description of something that already existed. They
describes actual biblical realities. For-example, the word ‘Bible’ describes the collection of Holy
Scriptures. The word ‘Bible’ is linked to the word ‘Bibliotheque’ or Library in English. It simply
means a bibliotheque (library) of Holy Scriptures. And yes, the Bible is a library of 66 books (if
one adheres to the protestant Canon of the 16th Century) or 75 books (if one adheres to the Catholic
Canons of the 4th Century). It is a descriptive word and not a later doctrine invented about the
scriptures. The same applies to the word, ‘Trinity’.
The word Trinity comes from two words, Three-Unity. Numerically speaking this is represented
as (3 – 1). It is a description of the identity of ‘Three names’ in the Bible which is said to be ‘One’.
Here is the primary example:

Matthew 28: Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

1 Followers of William Marion Branham are under the incorrect impression that the prophecy of Malachi 4.5 about
the coming of Elijah the prophet before the arrival of the Lord is a reference to their prophet, Mr. Brahnam. They
willingly ignore and distort Jesus words in the gospel which clearly state that John the Baptist was the Elijah that was
prophesized (Matthew 11:13 “For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you will receive it, this
is Elijah who is to come.”), See also Mark 9:11-13; Luke 1:17. And this is not the only thing that they distort in the
scriptures as we will see in this Essay on the Trinity.
4
As seen in the scripture above, the word Trinity is not an invention of an extra-biblical doctrine
but simply a description or if you will, a label put on what is observed in the scripture as 3 names
(The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit) and yet they are presented as One name in the singular.
A label or a descriptive word can come later in time but this doesn’t mean that this is when what
it is describing or labelling begun to exist. When Adam gave names to animal, he was simply
labeling them and not creating them for the first time. When Christian started using the label of
the ‘Trinity’, they were not inventing or creating a new doctrine they were simply labeling what
they were already observing in the scripture as Three names, and yet One name. This makes so
much sense that even Ewald Frank at a moment was ready to accept the Trinity (a word not found
in the bible) as a correct description of God, and I quote him:
(French): ‘Si la notion non biblique de "Trinité" signifiait que Dieu s’est révélé pour notre salut
dans le Nouveau Testament comme notre Père dans le ciel, comme notre Sauveur dans le Fils sur
la terre et par le Saint-Esprit, nous pourrions la tolérer.’(Section/Chapter, ‘QUELQUE CHOSE
ALLANT DE SOI?’)
(My English Translation) : ‘If the concept of the Trinity, not found in the Bible, meant that God
revealed himself for our salvation in the New Testament as our Father in heaven, as our Savior in
the Son on earth and by the Holy Spirit, we could tolerate it.’
Tolerated? But how can he tolerate what is false or sinful or a deception? This prove that his issue
with the Trinity is not the word in itself as he pretended above by asking if it could be found in the
Bible. This was simply an excuse to reject the doctrine of the trinity. No, his true issue is not with
the DESCRIPTIVE WORD ‘Trinity’ which he freely admits can be tolerated. His true issue is that
he believes the word ‘Trinity’ should have described a God who played roles through those names
and not that those names represent distinct personalities within God. His belief was rather that God
was Father when in heaven, and when he came down on earth he became known as Son, and after
God went to heaven at the ascension he became the Holy Spirit acting through the disciples. Hence
from his erroneous perspective, the Father is not distinct from the Son. This divine roleplay is the
concept on which he would agree the use of the descriptive word, ‘Trinity’. Unfortunately for him,
this is not what the Trinity makes reference to within ancient Christianity. That is why he cannot
tolerate the word Trinity. It is not because it was not written in the Bible that he rejects it. That is
simply an excuse to refuse to deal with the true biblical issue on the identity of God. We know
already that he is willing to tolerate the word ‘Trinity’ if this word describes what he wants it to
mean by his Unitarian understanding of God’s personality but he cannot tolerate it if it means what
the Christian Church has meant by it, Three distinct personalities and yet One God.
Now we know why he can’t tolerate the word, Trinity. I will discuss later what Christians have
always meant by the Trinity in a different section below. Suffice for now to mention that his first
objection against the Trinity, namely that it is not written in the Bible is not a serious objection
that himself believes in, for he is willing to even entertain the word Trinity if it means what he
wants it to mean. And let not forget he also believes in the Bible even if the word, ‘Bible’, doesn’t
appear anywhere in the scriptures.

5
II) Ewald Frank doesn’t take into account the context of his source
Before I go to the next objection, I need to make a small bracket here in order to point out how
Frank selectively if not incorrectly quotes his sources in order to make them say what they did not
say or intend to say. Here is a clear example of quoting someone, Theologian Emil Brunner, out
of context:
French: ‘"PAR CONSÉQUENT IL N’Y A UN FILS QUE DEPUIS L’INCARNATION. Mais Celui-
ci est Dieu véritable. Ainsi Christ est devenu une sorte de théophanie, et Dieu Lui-même, le Père,
a souffert l’agonie de la mort…". Il est certain que le professeur Brunner connaissait le
témoignage de Paul: "… Dieu était en Christ, réconciliant le monde avec lui-même" (2 Cor. 5.19).
Une telle démonstration, juste et merveilleuse, provient d’un professeur de théologie qui
appartient au camp de la Trinité!’ (Section/Chapter: Le Témoignage des Historiens)

(My English translation): «THUS THERE HAS ONLY BEEN A SON SINCE THE INCARNATION,
but this "Son" is truly God. This makes Christ a kind of theophany, and God the Father Himself
suffers the pangs of death …’’. It is certain that the Professor Brunner knew the testimony of Paul:
‘…God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself’ (2 Cor 5.19). Such a demonstration, just
and marvelous, is provided by a professor of theology who belongs to the Trinitarian team!’

When I read it, I was curious about this professor of theology. So I went looking for him and found
certain things worth mentioning about his protestant theology. For sure, Brunner had an alarming
take on some of the orthodox Christian beliefs such as Brunner’s dismissal of the doctrine of the
Virgin Birth of Christ2 or his temperate views on the history of the Trinity. But what was the
greatest surprised for me what when I was able to find the source of the quotation above
(unfortunately Ewald Frank doesn’t provide his sources exact references, which makes it a bit
difficult to track them). Despite the hurdle to read through chunks of texts, I was able to get one
of his most provocative quotation which Frank quotes above. See below the full quotation and see
how totally misrepresented Emil Brunner’s writing was at the hands of Ewald Frank who attributes
to him a view which he doesn’t hold. The quotation below show you how Emil Brunner was
referencing the heretics of earlier centuries known as Sabellians. This is not his view but Sabellians
views:

‘In the second form of Monarchianism, known as "Modalism", the situation is different. Here both
elements of truth are maintained; the unity of God and the divinity of Christ; but here, too, the
identity of the Revealer with that which is revealed is lost. The "unicus Deus" has incarnated itself
in Mary, and as such is called "Son". Thus there has only been a Son since the Incarnation, but
this "Son" is truly God. This makes Christ a kind of theophany, and God the Father Himself
suffers the pangs of death. Whether this was really the doctrine held by the Sabellians, or whether
it is merely a caricature created by the theologians who triumphed over them, cannot now be
determined with any precision. The provenance of this Modalism from Asia Minor, however,
rather suggests that here was a type of doctrine which was still close to the thought of the New

2
Emil Brunner: A Theologian for the Academy and Church Today by Allister McGrath, page 5.
(https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:4df7cb00-2b3d-48eb-9e29-
62ca29320aef/download_file?file_format=pdf&safe_filename=Emil%2BBrunner%2BMcGrath%2Brevised%2BTh
Z.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article)

6
Testament, but was already being misunderstood by the Church, and was therefore distorted,
and—in this form rightly contested.3’’

Emile Brunner is not embracing the Sabellians view, he was simply explaining what they believed,
where they were closer to the New Testament teachings and where they misunderstood and
distorted it. Brunner also pointed out that this is why this early heresy was ‘rightly contested’. He
was not approving it as Ewald Frank makes it sounds. Brunner was not thinking of
2Corinthians5:19 when he made his remarks on Sabellians as Frank incorrectly insinuated.
Ewald Frank is not careful in the way he is handling his source, all for one purpose: to prove his
point. But I can understand why he did it and jumped in the first seemingly supporting text to his
case without even looking at the context. It is because Ewald Frank himself (the author of the
book) or William Marion Brahnam (his personal prophet) or the Oneness Pentecostalism (which
influenced Brahnam anti-trinitarian views) are modern day Sabellians. What Sabelius argued for
then, is what Brahnamists are advocating today. A God who played roles at different time of history
under different names. This is the tolerated Trinity of Ewald Frank, Sabellianism.
I will present the Orthodox view of the blessed Trinity later on. I still have couple other objections
raised by Ewald Frank that I still need to go through.

III) The Trinity was invented in the Fourth century?

One of the recurrent claim made by anti-Trinitarians is that the doctrine origin can only be traced
in the fourth century but not earlier. Why is this important for them? They usually have two
arguments, one is their beliefs that in the fourth century during the reign of Emperor Constantine,
Christianity embraced pagan beliefs and introduced them as Christian beliefs while rejecting the
faith of the apostles. The second reason why they choose the fourth century is predicated on the
belief that if they can successfully prove that the Trinity was not expressed earlier in history, then
this must have been a fraudulent views that the primitive Christian community did not know about,
nor entertained in the first 3 century prior to it. The earlier one goes in history to the original event,
the more authentic and correct the information they are conveying will be. This makes sense in
principle. Since Frank doesn’t use the first argument about Constantine in the three sections of his
work dealing with the Trinity, I will ignore it for now and tackle the second one which is linked to
the actual argument he made.
Nota Bene: Let me also just add this as a note in passing, the 27 canonized books of the New
Testament Bible did not appear before the 4th century either. What does it mean to the Brahnamist
such as Frank? That the New Testament Bible shouldn’t be trusted because it was canonized in the
4th century?
Hence Ewald Frank tries to bring to his side the witness of history against the Christian belief of
the Trinity. Matter of fact, he dedicates a whole section of his short book which he titled, ‘LE

3
Emil Bruner, The Christian Doctrine of God. Dogmatics: Vol. I. Chapter 16: ‘’The Triune God’’. Page 221.
(https://ia800205.us.archive.org/18/items/dogmatics01brun/dogmatics01brun_bw.pdf.)
7
TEMOIGNAGE DES HISTORIENS’ which means ‘THE TESTIMONY OF HISTORIANS’. But
truth to be told he doesn’t name any historians, he rather simply quotes Encyclopedias.
(French) ‘Dans toute encyclopédie traitant de la "Trinité", il est unanimement dit que ce mot ne se
trouve pas plus dans l’Ancien que dans le Nouveau Testament. Dans les premiers siècles du
Christianisme la "Trinité" était également inconnue.’ (Section/chapter, ‘Le Temoigange des
Historiens’)
(English translation) “In any encyclopedia dealing with the "Trinity", it is unanimously said that
this word is no more in the Old than in the New Testament. In the early centuries of Christianity
the "Trinity" was also unknown.”

Ewald Franks quotes a series of different sources from The New Catholic Encyclopedia, the
Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, the Encyclopedia America to reinforce his argument that the
word Trinity did not appear in early centuries before the 4th Century. Here is two examples that
can represent the other quotations:

Quotation #1 :

(French): Dans l’Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics nous lisons: "La foi chrétienne n’était pas
trinitaire au commencement… Elle ne l’était pas au temps apostolique, et pas davantage encore
au temps post-apostoliques, comme cela ressort du Nouveau Testament et d’autres écrits des
Chrétiens primitifs".

(English translation): ‘The Christian faith was not Trinitarian at the beginning ... It was not at the
apostolic time, nor at the post-apostolic time, as is evident from the New Testament and other
writings of the early Christians’

Quotation #2:

(French): "Dans l’Encyclopædia America nous trouvons cette déclaration cruciale: ‘La doctrine
de la Trinité du 4ème siècle ne reflétait pas correctement la doctrine des Chrétiens primitifs sur
la nature de Dieu: au contraire, elle s’écartait de cette doctrine’."

(English translation): "The doctrine of the 4th century Trinity did not correctly reflect the
doctrine of the early Christians on the nature of God: on the contrary, it departed from this
doctrine".

I guess these two quotation from Ewald Frank is sufficient to demonstrate his supposed confidence
on his claim. The problem with it is that they are false readings of history. Either Frank’s sources
were incorrect or (as we have already seen) Frank must have incorrectly quoted them as he did
with Theologian Emil Brunner. But we shouldn’t be too hard on Ewald Frank. The man was born
in the 1930s and operated most of his adult life without having a proper theological or historical
training. And moreover, there was no Internet which makes ancient knowledge easily accessible
as it is today. So Frank must have read few quotes here and there from other secondary sources
without ever being able to check if what they presented were true. The very unfortunate things
about these false claims that early Christians before the 4th century did not know about the Trinity
8
is that modern Brahnamist who have access to much more information than Ewald Frank continue
to believe it. They prefer to be lazy instead of doing the hard work in fact-checking their old
leaders’ claim. I have a sympathy for Ewald Frank now that I read his book. At least he was trying
to be honest despite having all the wrong information from his sources. I think if he were alive in
our modern time with access to the right information, Ewald Frank would have never been a
Brahnamist nor believe many of the things he wrote in his book.

Let us now turn to the REAL testimony of history. Below are direct quotation from the original
sources of earlier Christians from the Second century (101-200 AD) to the Third century (201-300
AD) who not only recognizes the distinct ‘Three and yet One’ concept of God as referred above
but they literally used the word ‘Trinity’.

Early Witness on the Trinity4

I am going to only use quotation of Christian leaders who were writing before the 4th Century and
not at the 4th century or after the 4th century to demonstrate the folly of the anti-Trinitarian believers
who dare to leverage history against the correct Christian beliefs on the Trinity. This descriptive
word, ‘Trinity’, goes back to the apostolic age and post apostolic age prior to the 4th century. I give
you eight witnesses against Ewald Frank for your reflection.

Witness #1: Theophilus of Antioch (A.D. 181):

"It is the attribute of God, of the most high and almighty and of the living God, not only to be
everywhere, but also to see and hear all; for he can in no way be contained in a place. . . . The
three days before the luminaries were created are types of the Trinity: God, his Word, and his
Wisdom" (To Autolycus 2:15).

Witness #2: Tertullian (A.D. 145–220):

"We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better
instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only
God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία, as it is called, that this one only God has
also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without
whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to
have been born of her—being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have
been called by the name of Jesus Christ … while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded,
which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but
in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power,
inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under

4
References from the Early Church Father: Source: https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-trinity; Source:
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_the_trinity.htm; Source: http://apostles-creed.org/confessional-reformed-christian-
theology/theology/early-church-fathers-quotes-trinity/

9
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number
without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.” (Against Praxeas Chapter II)
‘... although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία . The
numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas
the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is
actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two
gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers
of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and
the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth.” – (Against Praxeas Chapter III)

Witness #3: Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 202).

“I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and
the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father” -
(Stromata 5:14)

Witness #4: Origen (A.D. 185–254)

“From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that
saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all,
i.e., by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the
Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit . . . Nevertheless it seems
proper to inquire what is the reason why he who is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do
both with Father and Son and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the co-
operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the
Son without the Holy Spirit.” (Origen De Principiis. Book I Chapter III)

“But in our desire to show the divine benefits bestowed upon us by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,
which Trinity is the fountain of all holiness, ... We shall, however, with the permission of God
through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, more conveniently consider in the proper place the
subject of all rational beings, which are distinguished into three genera and species.” - (Origen
De Principiis. Book I Chapter IV)
“For in the Trinity alone, which is the author of all things, does goodness exist in virtue of
essential being; while others possess it as an accidental and perishable quality, and only then
enjoy blessedness, when they participate in holiness and wisdom, and in divinity itself.” – (Origen
De Principiis. Book I Chapter VI)
“For by His power He comprehends all things, and He Himself is comprehended by the strength
of no created thing, because that nature is known to itself alone. For the Father alone knoweth
the Son, and the Son alone knoweth the Father, and the Holy Spirit alone searcheth even the deep
things of God. But as, in the instances referred to, a diversity in the participation of the light was
observed, when the glance of the beholder was described as being duller or more acute, so also a
diversity is to be noted in the participation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, varying with the
degree of zeal or capacity of mind.” (Origen De Principiis. Book IV Chapter I.35, I.36)
10
Witness #5: Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria (A.D 200–265)

“But they are ignorant that neither the Father, in that He is Father, can be separated from the
Son, for that name is the evident ground of coherence and conjunction; nor can the Son be
separated from the Father, for this word Father indicates association between them. And there is,
moreover, evident a Spirit who can neither be disjoined from Him who sends, nor from Him who
brings Him. How, then, should I who use such names think that these are absolutely divided and
separated the one from the other? Thus, indeed, we expand the indivisible Unity into a Trinity;
and again we contract the Trinity, which cannot be diminished, into a Unity.”
"Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it
were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one
but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came
into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently,
there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd" - (Letter to Dionysius of
Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).

Witness #6: Cyprian (A.D. 200–258)

“Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are
bidden to baptize the Gentiles “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
How, then, do some say, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and in opposition
to the Church, so that it be only in the name of Jesus Christ, everywhere, and in whatever manner,
can obtain remission of sin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full
and united Trinity?” (Epistle LXXII.5.18)

Witness #7: Gregory the Wonderworker (A.D. 265)

"There is one God. . . . There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither
divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor
anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period
it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the
Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of
Faith).

Witness #8: Methodius (A.D. 300)

“Whence also in this place they are not only said to hymn with their praises the divine
substance of the divine unity, but also the glory to be adored by all of that one of the sacred
Trinity, which now, by the appearance of God in the flesh, hath even lighted upon earth” -
(Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna 2).

Clearly the word, ‘Trinity’ is not an invention of the fourth century. What happened after the fourth
century is that the descriptive word ‘Trinity’ was made official in response to heretical views that
were challenging the divinity of Jesus Christ (Arianism) or confusing the Father with the Son
(Sabelianism). All in order to clarify what Christians have always believed. Let me turn for a brief

11
moment to the presentation of the Orthodox view of the blessed Trinity before touching the last
challenge of Frank.

IV) What is the Orthodox biblical view of the Trinity?

As informed earlier, the word TRINITY is a descriptive word, a label of what was observed in the
scriptures. It was not a late doctrinal invention. It is a label. Matter of fact, different people use
different words to describe the same phenomenon. For example, theologian Emil Brunner who
was quoted approvingly by Ewald Frank also use the word, TRIUNE GOD. It is the same concept
being labelled differently. The issue has never been the word used for description, but rather, ‘is
what is being described correct and true?’
The doctrine of the Trinity is NOT an explanation of how God is. It is simply a description of how
God has revealed himself in Scripture, as The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. No one can
pretend to understand how it is possible that 3 distinct names are also one name. That is why the
Trinity is regarded as a mystery on the same length as the Lord Jesus being both man and God is
a mystery (the mystery of godliness, see 1Timothy3:16). A mystery in common parlance is that
which is observed but yet not understood.
In brief, the Trinity refers to the biblical facts that:
1) these three names, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit, are all referred as God in
different scriptural passages
2) these three names, The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit interact between themselves
as distinct persons
3) there is only One God.
These are the biblical facts that have brought Christians from apostolic time to recognize there is
a mention of three distinct persons referred as God and yet there is a firm affirmation that there is
only one God. This observation from the scripture is what was labelled or described as Tri-Une
God (Triune) or Tri-Unity (Trinity).

Here are few biblical facts that lays down the foundations of the teaching on the Trinity:

1) The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit are all referred as God
a) The Father is God:
The divinity of the Father of Jesus Christ is usually easily recognized by all, even sectarians from
within Christianity. Here is a text nevertheless to point out the Father divinity in 2Corinthians1:3,
“Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus, the Messiah! He is our merciful Father and
the God of all comfort,”

b) The Son is God:

There are plenty texts that could be used to point out to Jesus divinity in the scriptures. Here are
only two of them:
12
Text #1: Epistle of 1Timothy 3:16 “And confessedly, great is the mystery of godliness: God was
manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among the Gentiles,
believed on in the world, and was received up in glory.”

Text #2: Gospel of John 20:28-29 “And Thomas answered and said to Him, ‘My Lord and my
God!’ Jesus said to him, "Because you have seen Me, you have believed.”

c) The Holy Spirit is God:

One of the most clear interesting text on the divinity of the Holy Spirit is when St. Peter refers to
the Holy Spirit as God in Acts 5:3-4,
“But Peter said, Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart for you to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to
keep back part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was
sold, was it not in your own authority? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You
have not lied to men, but to God.”

2) The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit interacts between themselves as distinct
persons
Case #1: In Mathew 3:16, we see the Son in the Water who can see the Holy Spirit in the air
coming toward the Son, while at the same time being able to hear the Father in heaven speaking
approvingly of him (the Son of God):
‘And Jesus, when He had been baptized, went up immediately out of the water. And lo, the
heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting
upon Him. And lo, a voice from Heaven, saying, This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well
pleased.’

Case #2: In John 14:16, Jesus make a reference to Father as a distinct person he needs to make a
request to and he make a reference to the Holy Spirit as ‘ANOTHER’ comforter which indicates
the Holy Spirit is an ‘another’ and not the same as Him.
“And I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, so that He may be with
you forever”

Case #3: In 1 Corinthians 15:27, we read from the apostle Paul that God (The Father) has put
everything under his feet (The Son’ feet).St. Paul shows that the Son is distinct from the Father
and that the Son even at the end of the age, in the last day, will himself submit to the Father. It is
not only something He did when he was on earth, it is something the Son of God will continue to
do. Clearly this text shows the distinction between the Son and the Father, one is greater than the
other. One submit to the other.
“for ‘God has put everything under his feet.’ Now when he says, ‘Everything has been put under
him,’ this clearly excludes the one [the Father] who put everything under him [the Son]. But
when everything has been put under him, then the Son himself will also become subject to the
one who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”

13
Case #4: In 1 Corinthians 11:3, St. Paul continuous to express this distinction between the Son
and the Father by using a distinction in a married couple who are the image of God. Just as a man
is distinct to a woman, and just as a Christ is distinct to a man, so is God (the Father) distinct from
Christ (the Son).
‘But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is
the man; and the head of Christ is God.’

3) There is only One God

The New Testament insists that there is but One God as we can read it from the same Apostle Paul
who have clearly described above that the Son is God and that there is a distinction between God
the Father (the authority) and Christ the Son (submitted to the authority of the Father even in the
last day):
“But the Mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.”- Galatians 3:20

For St. Paul the apostle, he also see the same mystery and doesn’t try to explain it nor explain it
away either. He simply states what he observes, Jesus is God manifested in the flesh (1Tim3:16),
Jesus us submitted to the Father now (1Co11:3) and up to the last days (1Co15:27), and God is
one. This very mysterious way of God to be is what later on Christians have labeled or described
as the Trinity.
Unlike the Sabellians heretics then and the Brahnamist sectarians now who prefers to either chose
one part of the bible and reject the other, (they chose to believe in one God as the scripture teach
but reject the distinctions between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as the same scriptures
teach), the orthodox Christian beliefs from the apostolic age up to now rejects this false dichotomy
but rather embrace both revelation of the scriptures, which is (1) that there is 3 distinct persons
called God; (2) that God is One.
Keeping both revelations of the scriptures, the distinction of the persons in God and the Oneness
of God, is what has been labeled, Trinity (three – unity). Again, it is not an explanation of the
trinity but it is a description, a labelling of the phenomenon observed in the Holy Scriptures.
Even in the Old Testament, the Psalmist, in Psalm 45:7, could recognize through revelation that
there is a distinction within God and yet as a good Jew still believe in One God and not fall into
the sin of Polytheism; “You love righteousness, and hate wickedness; therefore God, Your God,
has anointed You with the oil of gladness above Your fellows.”(Psalm 45:7)

To quote again Theologian Emil Brunner who was quoted earlier approvingly by Ewald Frank,
“The starting-point of the doctrine of the Trinity is, naturally, not a speculative one, but the simple
testimony of the New Testament.”5

I will end this section by quoting another early Christian writer from the early part of the Second
century of Church history who was influenced by Polycarp who himself was a student of St. John
the apostle as Timothy was a student of St. Paul. See if what I said above on the Trinity is different
from what this early Church father described even if he doesn’t use the word Trinity:
5
Emil Bruner, The Christian Doctrine of God. Dogmatics: Vol. I. Chapter 16: ‘The Triune God’. Page 206.
https://ia800205.us.archive.org/18/items/dogmatics01brun/dogmatics01brun_bw.pdf
14
Irenaeus (A.D 120–202): “Therefore neither would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles,
have ever named as God, definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly
God; nor would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father ruling
over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all creation, as this passage
has it: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy
footstool.” Here the [Scripture] represents to us the Father addressing the Son; He who gave
Him the inheritance of the heathen, and subjected to Him all His enemies. Since, therefore, the
Father is truly Lord, and the Son truly Lord, the Holy Spirit has fitly designated them by the
title of Lord.” (Against Heresies Book III Chapter VI)

V) The Christian doctrine of the Trinity has parallels with Pagans religious
belief (trinities in pagan religions)?
This is the last strategy that Ewald Frank tried to use to discredit the biblical Christian doctrine of
the Trinity, he tries to force the Trinity in Christianity to mirror beliefs in other pagan religion. He
tried to make it disreputable by trying to associate it with pagan source, we call it ‘Guilt by
Association’. Not that he could prove that the Trinity was guilty of any biblical mistake, on the
contrary, what he does rather is to argue for its guilt by associating it with parallel pagan beliefs.

Here I how Frank puts it in his book,

Quote #1:
(French): «Dans l’ancienne Babylone et l’Assyrie, bien des siècles avant le temps de Christ,
existaient déjà des triades ou des trinités.» (Section/Chapter, ‘Le Temoignage des historiens’)

(English Translation): “In ancient Babylon and Assyria, many centuries before the time of Christ,
there already existed triads or trinities”

Quote # 2 :
(French) : «Dans le culte de Mithra, où est également enseigné la pensée d’un dieu trinitaire, existe
cette thèse:"Dans une deuxième création le ‹père le grand› engendra l’esprit vivant. Le ‹père le
grand› envoya un ‹troisième envoyé› qui vainquit les démons" (Chronik der Menschheit).» -
(Section/Chapter, ‘l’histoire le confirme’).

(English translation): "In the cult of Mithras, where the thought of a trinitarian god is also taught,
there exists this thesis: "In a second creation the 'great father' engendered the living spirit, the
'great father' sent a 'third sent Who defeated the demons’ " - (Chronik der Menschheit).’

First, it is not true that that the Christian concept of the Trinity has a parallel in ancient Mystery
Religion. As already discussed above, the Trinity is intrinsically Monotheistic. While the other
religions being referred were Polytheistic.

Second, there are words and concepts which are shared by different religions. For example, the
word ‘God’ or the hope of eternal life or of immortality. This word, God, is found in Islam,

15
Judaism, Christianity, Greek pantheons, Eastern religions, and other polytheistic religions. Does
this mean that Christianity teaches the same thing as all these other religions because we all use a
similar word, ‘God’? Of course not. What Christians mean by ‘God’ is different from what Greek
pagan worshipers meant by ‘God’. True there are similarities such as the belief that God is spirit.
But there are also dissimilarities, profound dissimilarities between what Christians believe about
God and what Hindus believe about their ‘God or Gods’.

For example, Christians call God, ‘The Father’. Well, the Greek God Zeus was also called ‘Father’.
As we read in this source6, “In the first prayer in the poem addressed to Zeus, Thetis, speaking on
behalf of her son Achilles, calls him ‘Father Zeus’”. What does this means to the Brahnamists
such as Ewald Frank? That Christianity teaches pagans beliefs because the word ‘Father’ is also
found in another ‘Religion’? The answer is no. Obviously not. This type of criticism doesn’t even
begin to do justice to the complexity that exists between religions, the meaning of theological
terminologies, and more. It is a useless criticism for all intents and purposes. With such careless
reasoning we will end up destroying everything and proving nothing. Even the word, ‘Sin’ is found
in other belief systems outside of Christianity.

As the Christian Thinker, Ravi Zacharias, once put it: because two things have something in
common doesn’t mean that these two things are necessarily the same or that they are necessarily
connected. Clearly, a dog has teeth, a man has teeth but this doesn’t mean that men are suddenly
dogs or vice versa. The similarity are superficial and linguistic in nature but they do not refer to
the same concept.

To end this section, let us remember that other religions have had sacred books long before
Christianism have had the New Testament Bible (4th Century), this will be ridiculous to assume
that because Christians have a Holy Book and that Egyptians long before Christianity had their
holy book, that therefore Christianity is simply a pagan version of the Egyptian religion, or of
Hinduism or Buddhism, etc. All these religions had holy books before Christians had their own
holy book.

This is a nonsensical argument but unfortunately this is the road to which Ewald Frank had
ventured into. There are other religions who had the concept of ‘Son of God’ such as the Religion
of the Roman Empire. But we know that what they called ‘Son of God’ such as the Caesars, is
different from what we mean as ‘the Son of God’ in the New Testament. Similarities in
nomenclature doesn’t mean it is the same thing conceptually.

Frankly, it doesn’t matter a little bit at all, if all the religions and non-religious philosophies had a
word similar to the Christian word, ‘Trinity’ or “Father” or “Holy Scriptures” or “Baptism” or
“Followers” or “Disciples” or any other words for that matter. It doesn’t matter AT ALL. What
matters is if the word ‘Trinity’ in Christianity refers to something which is biblical or not. This is
the only thing that matters. All the rest is just smoke-screen thrown out to delay the inevitable in
the dialogue, which is, the Trinity is a descriptive word that labels correctly the Biblical teaching

6
Homer on the Gods and Human Virtue By Peter J. Ahrensdorf. The Theology of Homer. Page 31.
(https://books.google.rw/books?id=V7dUBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=Zeus+addressed+as+Father&so
urce=bl&ots=sDY3Og1AAD&sig=LWkEt2R1QX_SoWwiZuvXb3NuPQA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwikz_ai1
qveAhUG66QKHQr1CHkQ6AEwEXoECAAQAQ#v=onepage&q=Zeus%20addressed%20as%20Father&f=false)

16
of the New Testament that portrays and unambiguously points out that there is (a) three distinct
names (persons) referred as God and yet (b) there is one God. This is the inescapable conclusion
from the Holy Scriptures, there is no running away from these two biblical facts which is described
as the ‘TRINITY’.

Afterword
In ending this essay, it is important to keep in mind that the Church does not diminish the mystery
surrounding God by coining a label, such as Trinity or Triune God or Godhead or anything else,
to identify His nature. The early believers knew as much. In the quotes I posted earlier in the
section on the 8 witnesses of History against Ewald Frank, We see Origen also using the word
‘Trinity’ as a description of God’s nature but he never had the pretention to explain how it was
even possible in the first place. He was simply content to describe the dynamism that exist with
the three distinct persons in God while informing us that what looks mysterious to us about God
is known to God himself:

“For in the Trinity alone, which is the author of all things, does goodness exist in virtue of
essential being ... For by His power He comprehends all things, and He Himself is comprehended
by the strength of no created thing, because that nature is known to itself alone” – (Origen, 2nd -
3rd Century Christian Leader).

17