Unitarian consistency throughout the passage of time

Unitarianism: From John Wright to Anthony Buzzard

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

With unwavering conviction in the Unitarianism of the lord Messiah, Unitarian author John Wright swiftly repels the Trinitarian belief that Jesus ever desired or sought religious adoration or worship from his Jewish monotheistic believers.

” If we examine the New Testament, we find no instance of prayers being offered to Christ in his absence; Jesus no where directed his followers to pray to him, or to worship him. When he taught his disciples to pray, it was to address the Father; and on different occasions he directed them to pray to the Father, The acts of the Apostles contains no instance of divine worship being paid to any but the Father, or of prayer being addressed to any one else, as the object of religious worship. The case of Stephen, though a particular one, is not an exception to what I say. Stephen was the first Christian Martyr, and was favored at that important moment, with a vision of Jesus. He did not see him as God on a Throne; but as “standing on the right hand of God.” He did not contemplate him as God, but as “the son of man,” he said, “I see the son of man,” Nor did he address him as the supreme God.” [1]

Some 100 years later, another Unitarian scholar, Professor (Dr.) Sir Anthony F. Buzzard testifies:

“There are other equally unambiguous statements confirming Jesus’ belief in the God of Judaism. There is no hint of the introduction of a second people into the Godhead in the farewell prayer Jesus offered at the conclusion of his ministry… No evidence is presented to show that the New Testament abandons its own roots in the Old Testament and ascribes to the title “Son of God” a meaning never hinted at in the Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament meaning of “Son of God” is devastating to the Trinitarian cause. “Son of God” was used in various ways — to describe the nation of Israel, its king, and, in the plural, even angels. In none of these instances does the title imply Deity in a Trinitarian sense.” [2]

While Trinitarians continue to fumble in the starless emptiness of suffocating space through the darkness of the night with a torch whose batteries have long run their course, the Unitarian belief as defended by Wright in 1819 and relentlessly proclaimed by Buzzard in 2016, guided by the unfettered torch of monotheism, remains consistently true to its fundamental Unitarian article of faith: God is absolutely one and Jesus Christ is his human servant. As Trinitarians continue to aimlessly wade in a muddle of confusion as they yesterday believed that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons in one God, today they believe that God is a person that has revealed Himself in three persons (that’s four persons; see the Moody Bible College’s article of faith) and tomorrow they may well believe that the Father is the Son and the Son is the Holy Spirit as they consecutively appear one after the other, throughout the passage of time (modalism; a Trinitarian pastor named Iben Arang, who shepherds the Saint Mary Anglican church, actually gave me this definition of the Trinity when we spoke about it). To avoid the convoluted Trinitarian terminology in their careless attempt to define their god, leading to confounded self-contradictory statements, one should throw overboard the deadwood that’s putting such unnecessary load and weight on the ship of salvation and begin to embrace the true and historical faith of Jesus that only recognises one ultimate truth: “The Lord our God, the Lord is One!”

 

Notes:

[1] Wright, J. (1819). American Unitarian Controversy, Containing the Author’s Defence of the Unitarian Doctrines Against Several Opponents; Including also their Letters or Essays against those Doctrines. Georgetown: F. B. Wright. p. 104

[2] Buzzard. A. F. & Hunting, C. F. (1998). The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Would. Maryland: International Scholars Publications. pp. 38-42

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Leave a Reply