Biblical unitarianism[1] (otherwise capitalized asbiblical Unitarianism,[2][3] sometimes abbreviated asBU)[4] is aUnitarianChristian tradition whose adherents affirm theChristian Bible as theirsole authority, and from it base their beliefs thatGod the Father isone singular being,[1] and thatJesus is God's son but not divine.[1] The term "biblical Unitarianism" is connected first withRobert Spears andSamuel Sharpe of theChristian Life magazine in the 1880s.[5] It is aneologism (orretronym) that gained increasing currency innontrinitarianliterature during the 20th century as theUnitarian churches moved away from mainstream church traditions and, in some instances in the United States, towards merger withUniversalism.[citation needed] It has been used since the late 19th century by conservative Christian Unitarians, and sometimes by historians, to refer to scripture-fundamentalist Unitarians of the 16th–18th centuries.[citation needed]
A few denominations use this term to describe themselves, clarifying the distinction between them and those churches which, from the late 19th century, evolved intomodern British Unitarianism and, primarily in the United States,Unitarian Universalism.[1]
Thehistory of Unitarianism was as a "scripturally oriented movement" whichdenied the Trinity[6] and held variousunderstandings of Jesus. Over time, however—specifically, in the mid-19th century—some proponents of Unitarianism moved away from a belief in the necessity of the Bible as the source of religious truth.[6] The nomenclature "biblical" in "biblical Unitarianism" is to identify the groups which did not make such a move.[1]
 | Theneutrality of this section isdisputed. Relevant discussion may be found on thetalk page. Please do not remove this message untilconditions to do so are met.(January 2022) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Biblical unitarians claim that history shows that the earliest Christians (especially in the first century CE) believed in one God and did not believe that Jesus was himself God.[7]
Their beliefs are based primarily on arguments that both Old Testament and New Testament describe a strictly Unitarian theology with no explicit description of God as three co-equal persons of one substance, and that Trinitarianism is a theory that was developed by some church leaders over the course of centuries, heavily influenced by their contemporary cultures and philosophies. It was not until disputes withArius that unitarianism began to be labeled as heretical.
To support these arguments Biblical unitarians point to the statements of the Bible that consistently proclaim the unity of God along with descriptions of Jesus as God’s anointed, human Messiah—distinct from and subordinate to God. For example: “One God, the Father," and "One Lord, Jesus the Christ."[8]
There is also historical evidence for the gradual development of Trinitarian doctrine from the second century through the fourth century,[9] culminating in the formal statement of theCouncil of Constantinople in 381 CE.
Historians such asGeorge Huntston Williams (1914–2000) rarely employ the term "biblical Unitarian," as it would be anachronistic.[10] Those individuals and congregations that we may now think of as Unitarians went through a range of beliefs about Jesus: that he was eternallypre-existent but was created by God the Father (Arianism); or that God the Father andGod the Son were two distinct Gods (Binitarianism); or that he originated at thevirgin birth (Socinianism); or that he was simply a godly man (Adoptionism orPsilanthropism).[11]
For early unitarians such asHenry Hedworth, who introduced the term "Unitarian" from Holland into England in 1673, the idea that Unitarianism was "Biblical" wasaxiomatic, since the whole thrust of the 16th and 17th century Unitarian and Arian movements was based onsola scriptura argumentation from Scripture, as in the case of the Christological writings ofIsaac Newton.[12]
Theophilus Lindsey established the first avowedly Unitarian church in England in 1774 atEssex Street Chapel.[13]Nontrinitarianism was against the law until theDoctrine of the Trinity Act 1813, but legal difficulties with the authorities were overcome with the help of barristerJohn Lee, who later becameAttorney General. Unitarians of this time continued to consider their teachings as "Biblical", though increasingly questioning theinspiration of the Bible and the accounts of the miraculous.[14] (SeeRational Dissenters for more.) Divergence in the Unitarian Church was increasingly evident after 1800 with the majority following the rationalist views of writers such asThomas Belsham andRichard Wright, who wrote against themiraculous conception, while a minority held to the views of traditionalists.[15][16][17]
TheUnitarian Church of Transylvania remained a conservative "Biblical" Unitarian movement largely isolated from developments inthe West until the 1830s. TheSumma Universae Theologiae Christianae secundum Unitarios (1787) represents a conservative position which held into the late 19th century.
TheNew Encyclopædia Britannica notes that theTranscendentalist movement ofRalph Waldo Emerson "shattered rationalist, biblical Unitarianism — now grown conservative — and replaced it with intuitional religion and social idealism. When Unitarianism spread to the newly openedMiddle West, its religious fundamentals changed to human aspiration and scientific truth, rather than Christianity and the Bible."[18]
An early example of the term "Biblical Unitarianism" occurs in theBritish and Foreign Evangelical Review (1882) in an article on the "Waning of Biblical Unitarianism".[19] In the following year,Peter William Clayden's biography ofSamuel Sharpe (1883) describes him as a "Biblical Unitarian", adding, "His intensely practical mind, and his business training, joined with his great though rational reverence for the Bible, made him long for definite views expressed in scripture language."[20]
The context of the term in the above examples relates to the tension from the 1830s onward between more traditional and relatively scripture-fundamentalist Unitarians and those advocating a freer approach such as transcendentalistsTheodore Parker andJames Martineau. This conflict came to a head in 1876 whenRobert Spears resigned from theBritish and Foreign Unitarian Association and, with the support of Sharpe, a former president of the Association, began to publish a rival magazine.[21] In this context, Sharpe is referred to again byJohn M. Robertson (1929) as a "Biblical Unitarian,"[22] and adds that Sharpes' magazine,The Christian Life, was largely aimed at combatting growingagnosticism in Unitarian pulpits. However, though Sharpe may have used the term, and later been called, "Biblical Unitarian", he did not set up any lobby group of that name within Unitarianism.
The label of "Biblical Unitarianism" is also attributed to earlier generations than Sharpe by Henry Gow (1928), who even compares this with "Channing Unitarianism", a reference to the still relatively scripture-fundamentalist views ofWilliam Ellery Channing:[23] "... and for a time, Unitarianism became the faith of many, if not most, of the leading citizens and thinkers of New England. As in England, it was a definitely Biblical Unitarianism."[24]
Alexander Elliott Peaston (1940) pinpoints 1862 as the year of change from "Biblical Unitarianism" to newer models in England,[25][26] where formerly belief in miracles and the resurrection were dominant.[27] The entry ofhigher criticism into Unitarianism viaAlexander Geddes and others dealt a "blow at the biblical Unitarianism ofJoseph Priestley".[28] Walter H. Burgess (1943) adopts the same terminology — "Biblical Unitarianism" vs. "the newer Unitarianism" — to describe the tension in Wales in the 1870s between thedeists David and Charles Lloyd vs.Gwilym Marles.[29][30] A similar example occurs in quotation marks from historian Stange (1984).[31]
Earl Morse Wilbur, in his monumentalA History of Unitarianism (1945), does not describe any group by the terminology "Biblical Unitarian", though the tension between the fundamentalist origins of Unitarianism and post-Christian direction of late 19th century Unitarianism does begin to appear in the later volumes.[32]
Although Spears and Sharpe made appeal to the term "Biblical Unitarianism" inThe Christian life (e.g. Volume 5, 1880), an appeal to the concept of "Biblical Unitarianism" by individuals and churches is rare until afterUnitarian Universalism was formed from the merger in 1961 of two historically Christian denominations, theUniversalist Church of America and theAmerican Unitarian Association.[33] In some cases in the 1870s where the name "Unitarian" was still considered too associated with "the narrowly Biblical type ofliberal theologian", other names, such as "Christian Free Church", were employed.[34] Larsen (2011) applies Spears' "biblical Unitarian" to him in regard to his 1876 resignation.[35]
Identification of the conservative biblical-literalist strain of Unitarianism is found also in consideration of conservative Scottish Unitarians such asGeorge Harris, described as a supporter of "old biblical Unitarianism." (Stange, 1984).[36]
The term "biblical Unitarian" only begins to reappear frequently in the 1990s in the writings of those associated with a revival of interest in early Unitarian figures such asFausto Sozzini andJohn Biddle ("the Father of English Unitarianism"[37]), as well as Arians likeWilliam Whiston. An example is the journalA Journal from the Radical Reformation, A Testimony to Biblical Unitarianism (1993–present).[38]
Alongside this historical interest in theRadical Reformation, during the 1990s the term "biblical unitarian" also begins to appear in antitrinitarian publications without either 'b' or 'u' capitalized.[39][40]
There may be small continuing groups of Christian Unitarians descended from the Unitarian churches who look to the works of Spears, Sharpe and earlier.[41] However, in terms of denominations today which could be identified as "biblical Unitarian", the two most visible names are theChurch of God General Conference (CoGGC), with 5,000 members in the USA, andChristadelphians, with 60,000 members worldwide. Both of these groups share nontrinitarian, specificallySocinian Christology, and both have historians —Anthony Buzzard among CoGGC, the geographerAlan Eyre among Christadelphians[42] — who have acknowledged works such as theRacovian Catechism and Biddle'sTwofold Catechism as prefiguring and compatible with their beliefs.
Christadelphians are more reserved than CoGGC in association with the name "Unitarian", given that theUnitarian Church still exists in Britain and many of its independent congregations are post-Christian.[43] Although the Christadelphians' early growth in Scotland in the 1850s was partly a result of intake of ScottishNonconformists and Free Church members including conservative Unitarians, members also came from the disaffected nontrinitarian wing of theRestoration Movement.[44]John Thomas, founder of the Christadelphians, was equally unsympathetic to Trinitarians and Unitarians, saying that an exposition of scripture clears away a lot of 'rubbish' from discussion on theGodhead and delivers a 'quietus' to Trinitarianism and Unitarianism.[45]
In his overview ofBiblical Monotheism Today, along withChristadelphians and the CoGGC, ProfessorRob J. Hyndman lists theChurch of God of the Abrahamic Faith (aka Church of the Blessed Hope),The Way International, Spirit and Truth Fellowship International,[46] Living Hope International Ministries, andChristian Disciples Church as current "Biblical monotheistic groups".[47] He also recognises "scattered congregations meeting independently who are unaffiliated with any denomination or para-church organization", but who might interact via networks like the Worldwide Scattered Brethren Network and the Association for Christian Development.[47]
There are presently a number of small Christian groups calling themselves "biblical unitarians" (or: Christian monotheists or one God believers) to distinguish themselves from late 19th to 21st century Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists. Their arguments draw on early modern unitarian sources, while eschewing some of the idiosyncrasies ofSocinus's theology and most of the extra revisions of thePriestley-derived stream of unitarians. Like late 18th to early 19th century unitarians, they argue at length that trinitarianism has no biblical foundation, and is inconsistent with its clear teachings. They also reject trinitarianism as contradictory or unintelligible, as involvingidolatry, and as having been, as it were, illegally imported fromPlatonic philosophy [...]. On some issues they draw support from recentbiblical scholarship, for example, the point that talk of "generation" and "procession" in theGospel of John doesn't support later claims about inter-trinitarian relations [...]. Although this literature points out real tensions within contemporary theology (between text-oriented commentators and systematic theologians) it is widely ignored in academic theology and philosophy, and its adherents are generally excluded from the institutions of mainstream Christianity.