- This topic has 25,959 replies, 116 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 24 2008,04:22) Hi all……..if we take some of the things Jesus said into count it may help clarify John 1:1. Lets conceder John 6:63….> It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing; the (WORDS) that I speak unto you, (ARE) spirit and (ARE) life. and John 4:24…> God is (A) Spirit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. So if we conceder that GOD is SPIRIT and the WORD is SPIRIT, then they are one in the same. So John does mean that the WORD is GOD, and to the degree His words are in you is God in you, because the word of GOD is GOD. Jesus could easily say the Father was in Him, how by the words in Him and we can also say the same thing. That why Jesus could also say ” I in you and you in me, it's through the words of GOD in both Him and us, it puts us all together in GOD. love and peace to all…………..gene
Hi brother Gene,
That is so wonderful as you have explained the 'word of God' as His Spirit working in Jesus as well as in us. The 'word' is an expression of same One God which was in Jesus was doing mighty things according to God's purpose.Thanks and peace to you
AdamQuote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 24 2008,13:48) Hi GB,
Only some translations has these words added in 1 jn5.
Suggest a better translation that does not contain such additions.
Nick….i know that, but the same analogy can be drawn from what Jesus said and can amount to the same thing, GOD and His Word and His Spirit are truly one and the same. You can not separate GOD from His WORD or SPIRIT no more then you can separate your words from you. It is your words that define who and what you are and it's the same with GOD. So while that scripture may have been added it's still true. imoQuote (gollamudi @ Oct. 24 2008,17:27) Quote (Gene Balthrop @ Oct. 24 2008,04:22) Hi all……..if we take some of the things Jesus said into count it may help clarify John 1:1. Lets conceder John 6:63….> It is the spirit that quickens; the flesh profits nothing; the (WORDS) that I speak unto you, (ARE) spirit and (ARE) life. and John 4:24…> God is (A) Spirit; and they that worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. So if we conceder that GOD is SPIRIT and the WORD is SPIRIT, then they are one in the same. So John does mean that the WORD is GOD, and to the degree His words are in you is God in you, because the word of GOD is GOD. Jesus could easily say the Father was in Him, how by the words in Him and we can also say the same thing. That why Jesus could also say ” I in you and you in me, it's through the words of GOD in both Him and us, it puts us all together in GOD. love and peace to all…………..gene
Hi brother Gene,
That is so wonderful as you have explained the 'word of God' as His Spirit working in Jesus as well as in us. The 'word' is an expression of same One God which was in Jesus was doing mighty things according to God's purpose.Thanks and peace to you
Adam
Question is was He A Being? Since the Word became flesh? He was a Spirit like our Heavenly Father is. And to that glory He became again after He died for us.
John 17:5 ” And now O Father, glorfy Me together with Yourself, with the glory I had with You BEFORE THE WORLD WAS.”
Notice He did not say I became your Spirit.Peace anc Love Irene
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 25 2008,05:23) Hi GB,
So something added by men can be as useful as truth?
Hi N…. could it be that rather than men (supposedly, allegedly) “adding” something to God's truth, that some men are “detracting” from it?Do you always answer questions with questions?
Did you know that
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe….?Do you consider yourself a modern day Socrates?
Why do you answer with questions?
Do you think that is more profound than answering questions directly?
Do you think that by doing so you are causing people to come to their own conclusions and that they may then cease to believe in profoundly biblical like the trinity simply because you answer with a question?
oh…. btw, found something for you…. I just bet you have never seen this before~!! lol… well, since you probabkly have, this is for any lurkers out there who maybe haven't…. ok?
(had to end with another question…. do you see the irony? 😉 )
As the nature of God is progressively revealed in Scripture, the one God is seen to exist eternally in three persons. These three persons share the same divine nature yet are different in role and relationship. The basic principle at the heart of God's triune being is unity and distinction, both coexisting without either being compromised. Anything that is necessarily true of God is true of Father, Son, and Spirit. They are equal in essence yet distinct in function.
The doctrine of the Trinity is most fully realized in the NT where the divine Father, Son, and Spirit are seen accomplishing redemption. But while the NT gives the clearest picture of the Trinity, there are hints within the OT of what is yet to come. In the beginning of the Bible, the Spirit of God is “hovering over the face of the waters” at creation (Gen. 1:2) and is elsewhere described as a personal being, possessing the attributes of God and yet distinct from Yahweh (Isa. 48:16; 61:1; 63:10). Some interpreters think that the plurality within God is seen in the Hebrew word for God, ’Elohim, which is plural in form (though others disagree that this is significant; the word is used with singular verbs and all agree that it has a singular meaning in the OT). In addition, the use of plural pronouns when God refers to himself hints at a plurality of persons: “Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our image’” (Gen. 1:27; cf. Gen. 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8). The plurality of God also seems to be indicated when the Angel of the Lord appears in the OT as one who represents Yahweh, while yet at times this angel seems to be no different in attributes or actions from God himself (cf. Gen. 16:7, 10–11, 13; 18:1–33; Ex. 3:1–4:31; 32:20–22; Num. 22:35, 38; Judg. 2:1–2; 6:11–18). There are also passages in the OT that call two persons God or Lord: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness; you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. Therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your companions” (Ps. 45:6–7). David says, “The Lord says to my Lord: ‘Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool’” (Ps. 110:1). The God who is set above his companions (Ps. 45:6) and the Lord of Psalm 110:1 are recognized as Christ in the NT (Heb. 1:8, 13). Christ himself applies Psalm 110:1 to himself (Matt. 22:41–46). Other passages give divine status to a messianic figure distinct from Yahweh (Prov. 8:22–31; 30:4; Dan. 7:13–14).
The OT glimpses of God's plurality blossom into the full picture of the Trinity in the NT, where the deity and distinct personalities of Father, Son, and Spirit function together in perfect unity and equality (on the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, see The Person of Christ). Perhaps the clearest picture of this distinction and unity is Jesus' baptism, where the Son is anointed for his public ministry by the Spirit, descending as a dove, with the Father declaring from heaven, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased” (Matt. 3:13–17). All three persons of the Trinity are present, and each one is doing something different.
The NT authors employ a Trinitarian cadence as they write about the work of God. Prayers of blessing and descriptions of gifts within the body of Christ are Trinitarian in nature: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor. 13:14); “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone” (1 Cor. 12:4–6). The persons of the Trinity are also linked in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19–20, “baptizing them in [or into] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” There are many other passages that reveal the Trinitarian, or at least the plural, nature of God (e.g., John 14:16, 26; 16:13–15; 20:21–22; Rom. 8:9; 15:16, 30; 2 Cor. 1:21–22; Gal. 4:4–6; Eph. 2:18; 4:4–6; 1 Pet. 1:1–2; 1 John 4:2, 13–14; Jude 20–21).
Differences in roles also appear consistently in biblical testimonies concerning the relationships between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The uniform pattern of Scripture is that the Father plans, directs, and sends; the Son is sent by the Father and is subject to the Father's authority and obedient to the Father's will; and both Father and Son direct and send the Spirit, who carries out the will of both. Yet this is somehow consistent with equality in being and in attributes. The Father created through the Son (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and the Father planned redemption and sent the Son into the world (John 3:16; Rom. 8:29; Gal. 4:4; Eph. 1:3–5). The Son obeyed the Father and accomplished redemption for us (John 4:34; 5:19; 6:38; Heb. 10:5–7; cf. Matt. 26:64; Acts 2:33; 1 Cor. 15:28; Heb. 1:3). The Father did not come to die for our sins, nor did the Holy Spirit, but that was the role of the Son. The Father and Son both send the Holy Spirit in a new way after Pentecost (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:7). These relationships existed eternally (Rom. 8:29; Eph. 1:4; Rev. 13:8), and they provide the basis for simultaneous equality and differences in various human relationships.
Within God there is both unity and diversity: unity without uniformity, and diversity without division. The early church saw this Trinitarian balance clearly. For example, the Athanasian Creed (c. a.d. 500) says:
We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity; we distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance. . . . The entire three persons are co-eternal and co-equal with one another, so that . . . we worship complete unity in Trinity and Trinity in Unity.
This unity and diversity is at the heart of the great mystery of the Trinity. Unity without uniformity is baffling to finite minds, but the world shows different types of reflections of this principle of oneness and distinction at every turn. What is the source of the transcendent beauty in a symphony, the human body, marriage, ecosystems, the church, the human race, a delicious meal, or a perfectly executed fast break in basketball? Is it not, in large part, due to the distinct parts coming together to form a unified whole, leading to a unified result? Unity and distinction—the principle at the heart of the Trinity—can be see
n in much of what makes life so rich and beautiful. Woven into the fabric of the world are multiple reflections of the One who made it with unity and distinction as the parallel qualities of its existence.
Historical Misunderstandings of the TrinityOne of the most fundamental ways to misunderstand the Trinity is tritheism, which overemphasizes the distinction between the persons of the Trinity and ends up with three gods. This view neglects the oneness of the natures of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. At the other end of the spectrum is the heresy of modalism (also known as Sabellianism, named after its earliest proponent, Sabellius, 3rd century), which loses the distinctions between the persons and claims that God is only one person. In this view, the appearance of the three persons is merely three modes of existence of the one God. For instance, God reveals himself as Father when he is creating and giving the law, as Son in redemption, and as Spirit in the church age. A contemporary version of modalism is found in the teaching of Oneness Pentecostalism. Both tritheism and modalism fail to maintain the biblical balance between the one reality of God and his eternal existence in three persons. A third error is to deny the full deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and to say that they were at some time created. This is the heresy of Arianism (after a teacher named Arius, c. a.d. 256–336), and it is held today by Jehovah's Witnesses.
Practical Implications of the TrinityWhat are some of the practical implications of the doctrine of the Trinity?
1. The doctrine of the Trinity makes definitive revelation of God possible as he is known in Christ: “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known” (John 1:18). No man can see God and live (Ex. 33:20; 1 Tim. 6:16), but God the Son provided an actual manifestation of God in the flesh.
2. The Trinity makes the atonement possible. Redemption of sinful man is accomplished through the distinct and unified activity of each person of the Godhead: “how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God” (Heb. 9:14).
3. Because God is triune, he has eternally been personal and relational in his own being, in full independence from his creation. God has never had any unmet needs, “nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything” (Acts 17:25). Personhood becomes real only within realized relationships, and the reality of relationship can only exist where one has something or someone that is not oneself to relate to; if, then, God had not been plural in himself he could not have been a personal, relational God till he had begun creating, and thus would have been dependent on creation for his own personhood, which is a notion as nonsensical as it is unscriptural. Between the persons of the Trinity, there has always existed total relational harmony and expression; God is, from this standpoint, a perfect society in himself. Apart from the plurality in the Trinity, either God's eternal independence of the created order or his eternally relational personal existence would have to be denied.
4. The Trinity provides the ultimate model for relationships within the body of Christ and marriage (1 Cor. 11:3; 12:4–6; Eph. 4:4–7).
The doctrine of the Trinity is well beyond human ability to ever fully comprehend. However, it is central to understanding the nature of God and the central events in the history of salvation, in which God is seen acting as, in effect, a tripersonal team. Biblical Christianity stands or falls with the doctrine of the Trinity.
The Person of ChristFour statements must be understood and affirmed in order to attain a complete biblical picture of the person of Jesus Christ:
1. Jesus Christ is fully and completely divine.
2. Jesus Christ is fully and completely human.
3. The divine and human natures of Christ are distinct.
4. The divine and human natures of Christ are completely united in one person.The Deity of Christ
Many passages of Scripture demonstrate that Jesus is fully and completely God:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:1, 14).
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known (John 1:18).
Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen (Rom. 9:5).
Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men (Phil. 2:5–7).
. . . waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ (Titus 2:13).
He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power (Heb. 1:3).
But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.” . . . And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands” (Heb. 1:8, 10).
Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 1:1).
Jesus' Understanding of His Own Deity
Even though the passages cited above clearly teach the deity of Christ, this truth is often challenged. Some say that Jesus never claimed to be God and that these verses were written by his disciples who deified him because of the impact he had on their lives. Jesus, it is claimed, only saw himself as a great moral teacher on a par with other religious leaders. However, Jesus' understanding of his own deity in the Gospels does not support this perspective. He clearly saw himself as God. This can be seen primarily in six ways.
1. Jesus taught with divine authority. At the end of the Sermon on the Mount, “the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes” (Matt. 7:28–29). The teachers of the law in Jesus' day had no authority of their own. Their authority came from their use of earlier authorities. Even Moses and the other OT prophets and authors did not speak in their own authority, but would say, “This is what the Lord says.” Jesus, on the other hand, interprets the law by saying, “You have heard that it was said. . . . But I say to you” (see Matt. 5:22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44). This divine authority is shown with staggering clarity when he speaks of himself as the Lord who will judge the whole earth and will say to the wicked, “I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness” (Matt. 7:23). No wonder the crowd was amazed at the authority with which Jesus spoke. Jesus recognized that his words carried divine weight. He acknowledged the permanent authority of the law (Matt. 5:18) and put his words on an equal plane with it: “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished” (Matt. 5:18); “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away” (Matt. 24:35).
2. Jesus had a unique relationship with God the Father. When he was a young boy, Jesus sat with the religious leaders in the temple, amazing people with the answers he gave. When his distraught parents finally found their “lost” adolescent, he replied
by saying, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?” (Luke 2:49). Jesus' reference to God as “my Father” is a radical statement of a unique, intimate relationship with God, of which he was already fully conscious. Such a reference by an individual was unprecedented in Jewish literature. Jesus took this unique personal address to another level by referring to God the Father using the affectionate Aramaic expression ’Abba’.3. Jesus' favorite self-designation was the title Son of Man. The phrase “a son of man” could mean merely “a human being.” But Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man (implying the unique, well-known Son of Man), which indicates that he sees himself as the Messianic Son of Man in Daniel 7 who is to rule over the whole world for all eternity:
I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed (Dan. 7:13–14).
Jesus establishes his divine authority as the glorious Messianic Son of Man by declaring that he has the power to forgive sin and is Lord of the Sabbath: “‘But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins’—he said to the paralytic—‘I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home’” (Mark 2:10–11); “And he said to them, ‘The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath’” (Mark 2:27–28).
4. Jesus' teaching emphasized his own identity. Jesus came teaching the kingdom of God, and in it he was the King. His teaching dealt with many topics but was centrally about himself. His question to his disciples, “But who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15), is the ultimate question of his ministry.
5. Jesus received worship. Perhaps the most radical demonstration of Jesus' belief that he was God is the fact that when he was worshiped, as he sometimes was, he accepted that worship (Matt. 14:33; 28:9, 17; John 9:38; 20:28). If Jesus did not believe he was God, he should have vehemently rejected being worshiped, as Paul and Barnabas did in Lystra (Acts 14:14–15). That a monotheistic Jew like Jesus accepted worship from other monotheistic Jews shows that Jesus realized that he possessed a divine identity.
6. Jesus equated himself with the Father, and as a result the Jewish leaders accused him of blasphemy:
But Jesus answered them, “My Father is working until now, and I am working.” This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God (John 5:17–18).
Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” [a clear allusion to the sacred divine name of Yahweh; cf. Ex. 3:14]. So they picked up stones to throw at him (John 8:58–59).
“I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. . . . The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God” (John 10:30–33).
Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?” And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven” [a reference to Daniel 7; see point 3 above]. And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need? You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death (Mark 14:61–64).
Implications of Christ's Deity
Because Jesus is God, the following things are true:
1. God can be known definitively and personally in Christ: “No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known” (John 1:18); “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
2. Redemption is possible and has been accomplished in Christ: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5).
3. In Christ risen, ascended and enthroned we have a sympathetic high priest who has omnipotent power to meet our needs: “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need” (Heb. 4:15).
4. Worship of and obedience to Christ is appropriate and necessary.
Historical Misunderstandings of Christ's Deity
The earliest and most radical denial of the deity of Christ is called Ebionism or Adoptionism, which was taught by a small Jewish-Christian sect in the first century. They believed that the power of God came on a man named Jesus to enable him to fulfill the Messianic role, but that Christ was not God. A later and more influential Christological heresy was Arianism (early 4th century), which denied the eternal, fully divine nature of Christ. Arius (c. 256–336) believed Jesus was the “first and greatest of created beings.” Arius's denial of Jesus' full deity was rejected at the Council of Nicea in 325. At this council, Athanasius showed that according to Scripture Jesus is fully God, being of the same essence as the Father.” (ESVSTUDYBIBLE)
Oh… and this is really good too….. and N… especially, note your very common “questions” as they are addressed under the section entitled “categorical fallacies”…. I was really amazed at how directly this refers to and refutes your oft repeated “objections”….
“Basic Arian Arguments
After spending over thirty years studying such Arian cults as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, The Way International, etc., it is obvious that most of them have never studied logic, philosophy, Hebrew, Greek, hermeneutics, history, or linguistics. Most of their arguments are erroneous on the simple basis of logic. A brief summary of the more glaring fallacies is as follows:
1. Circular Reasoning: If you begin with the assumption that the Trinity is not true, and then proceed to conclude that the Trinity is not true, you have assumed in your premise what you are attempting to prove in your conclusion.
For example, when we point to a passage in the Apostolic Fathers where the Trinity doctrine in clearly in view, some Arians will respond, “That is not possible because the Trinity was not invented until many centuries later.” They, thus, ignore the evidence by arguing in a circle:
Since the early Church did not believe in the Trinity, then there cannot be any references to the Trinity in the early Church.
Since there are no references to the Trinity in the early Church, therefore the early Church did not believe in the Trinity.
Another example of circular reasoning is:
Since the New Testament never calls Jesus “God,” then there cannot be any verses where he is called “God.”Since there are no verses which call Jesus “God,” then the New Testament never calls Jesus “God.”
Circular reasoning is invalid regardless of who is doing it.
2. Undistributed Middle Term: If you argue that if A implies B and B implies C, then A implies C, you are giving a valid argument. But if you argue A implies B and C implies D, then A implies D, your argument is invalid because the middle term B is not distributed in both the first and second premises. This is the root fallacy underlying all the pagan source arguments. You cannot jump from the pagan sources over to the Bible because there is no middle term to link the two together.
3. Categorical Fallacies: Whenever you hear such questions as:
“If Jesus was God, who ran the universe the three days he was dead?”
“If God cannot be tempted, why was Jesus tempted?”
“If Jesus was God, then to whom did he pray?”
“Since Jesus did not know when he was coming back, how can he be God?”
“How can Jesus have faith in God if he was God?”
“Why would Jesus call the Father God if he himself was God?
“If Jesus was God, how could he die?
Such questions arise only if you fail to distinguish between the categories of the economical and ontological Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the three persons in the Trinity. They are called “nonsense questions” in logic.
4. Arguments from silence: When Arians challenge Trinitarians to show them where the word “Trinity” is found in the Bible, where Jesus said, “I am God” in the New Testament, etc., they are arguing from silence.
5. Straw man argument: Why do Arians keep defining the Trinity as “three gods”? Because it is easy to knock down such a straw man. Why do they give the following argument on John 1:1? Someone who is with another person cannot also be that other person.
Do Trinitarians maintain that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one person? No. Do Trinitarians interpret John 1:1 to mean that Jesus and the Father are one person? No. Then why does the Watchtower waste everyone’s time by proving that there is only one God and refuting the idea that two persons can be one person? Because it is easier to refute a straw man of your own creation than to deal honestly with Trinitarian arguments.
6. Arguments from ignorance: It is sheer ignorance to use pre-archeological and pre-Dead Sea Scroll nineteenth century arguments against the Trinity. For example, the claim is still made that the early Jews did not use “Lord” (κύριος) as a title for God.
7. Arguments of false cause: Claiming that the Trinity doctrine was derived from pagan sources, from the Emperor Constantine, etc.
8. Appeal To Misery: Some Arians appeal to the misery and suffering they have endured over the centuries at the hands of Trinitarians as proof that the doctrine of the Trinity is false.
9. Ad Hominem Arguments: Arians often malign the character and motives of Trinitarian theologians by calling them crooks, thieves, racketeers, devilish, etc. This is malicious as well as invalid.
10. Hidden assumptions: For example, let us examine the question, “If Jesus was God, who ran the universe the three days he was dead?”
First, the person who asks this question assumes that the Trinity doctrine teaches that Jesus is the entire Godhead. But what Trinitarian would say this?
Second, he assumes that death means extinction or annihilation. This is the false doctrine of “soul sleep.”
Third, he assumes that, if Jesus was non-existent for three days, then the entire Godhead was non-existent for three days. And, if God did not exist for three days, who ran the universe while he was non-existent?
Since the hidden assumptions are erroneous, is it any wonder that the conclusions are false as well?
11. Self-contradictory Arguments: When the Watchtower Society describes the Arian Controversy at the beginning of the third century, sometimes it states that Arius was reacting to an already established Trinity doctrine. They even describe the Trinitarian Bishops running from the church with their fingers in their ears when they heard the blasphemous ideas of Arius. They define the Nicene Creed and the others creeds which followed as “Trinitarian.” Athanasius represented the majority view.
But in another place, they claim that the Trinity doctrine was not invented until the ninth century and, thus, there were no Trinitarians in the third century. The Nicene Creed and even the Athanasian Creed were not Trinitarian. Athanasius represented a minority view. Evidently, they can contradict themselves without the least embarrassment.
Another example of convoluted reasoning is the Watchtower’s argument that since the word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible, therefore, the doctrine is not in the Bible. But then they turn around and claim that Plato taught the Trinity, even though the word “trinity” does not appear in Plato’s’ writings. If we were to follow their convoluted reasoning, then Plato did not teach the Trinity either.
12. Out of Date Arguments: The Unitarians during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries produced the most scholarly attacks on the doctrine of the Trinity in the history of the Arianism. Modern anti-Trinitarians for the most part still heavily rely on these arguments because it is assumed that they are still valid.
But the rise of the sciences of archeology and critical analysis has invalidated most of these old arguments. The only ones still using them are those Arians who still depend on nineteenth century Unitarianism.Having pointed out the basic kinds of logical fallacies which underlie most Arian arguments, we will now deal with those arguments which are still being used by such Arian cults such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Objection #1 The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be true because no one can fully comprehend or explain it.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (i.e., Jehovah’s Witnesses) is the largest and most aggressive Arian cult in modern times. In its booklet Should You Believe In The
Trinity? The Society argues that the doctrine of the Trinity cannot be a true because it is “beyond the grasp of human reason.”They go on to ask:
…would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek, and Latin scholars cannot really explain it?They conclude the Trinity cannot be true because it ends in mystery. But when we turn to their main reference work, Aid To Bible Understanding, we find that they admit that they believe in many such things as the infinite nature of Jehovah even though:
The human mind…cannot actually comprehend the infinity of Jehovah’s existence.We are at once confronted with a double standard. If it is true that incomprehensibility refutes the Trinity, then it should also equally refute “the infinity of Jehovah’s existence.” The attempt of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to have their cake and eat it too, dooms their argument. (For the proof that the incomprehensibility of God is a biblical doctrine found in both the Old and New Testaments, see chapter 6.)
Objection #2 Why should God be Three instead of One? How can God be One and Three at the same time?
Trinitarians readily admit that the Trinity is beyond our finite capacity to understand or explain Him in an exhaustive sense. There is simply nothing in this world which is one and three at the same time, in the same sense in which God is One and Three. The Trinity is incomprehensible.
Modern cultists and liberal theologians join hands at this point and declare that, if no one can fully understand or explain the Trinity, then it is nonsense at its worst and error at its best. They may have different reasons for saying this, but they are united on this point.Trinitarians admit that they do not have all the answers. But neither does anyone else. When anti-Trinitarians ask, “Why should God be Three Persons instead of One Person?” Trinitarians can just as easily ask, “Well, why should God be One Person instead of Three Persons?” The sword cuts both ways.
Obviously, no one can explain WHY or HOW God is what He is. He existed long before we were around and He is what He is regardless whether we can fully understand or explain Him.
Obviously, any god which man could fully understand and explain would be less than what man is. Such a god would not be worthy of our worship, awe or praise. The inescapable truth is that God will always be greater than our finite capacity to understand or explain Him.
Our failure to understand or explain fully the Trinity or any other aspect of God is not due to some defect in God or in His revelation. The “defect,” if it can be called that, is nothing more or less that the reality of our own finiteness.
Objection #3 The Trinity is irrational. It is not in accord with human Reason.
When Arians bitterly complain that the trinity cannot be true because it is not “rational,” i.e., it cannot be fully explained to their satisfaction, they are using the same old tired arguments developed by the Socinians in the 16th and 17th centuries. The vaunted rationalism of that age may be long gone but its anti-Trinitarian arguments remain.”
Morey, R. A. (1996). The Trinity : Evidences and Issues (479). Iowa Falls, IA.: World Pub.EXCELLENT stuff!!! Addresses many many posts here….
blessings,
KenHe continues, and please note, while some of this may be of special interest to david, it will be applicable to others not specifically claiming to be JW's, simply because others often use JW arguments, so please do not dismiss anything simply because it seems to address JW's specifically, the arguments (either pro or con) might apply to your own beliefs, so don't discount them out of hand:
“II. Historical Arguments
Objection #4 The word “Trinity” does not appear in the early Church. Thus, they did not believe in the Trinity.Since this is an argument from silence, it is logically invalid. All you can prove from silence is silence. But since this is a favorite argument of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it is important to point out that the word “Jehovah” first appeared in Europe in the late Middle Ages as an erroneous translation of YHWH.
If we are to date the doctrine of the trinity according to when the word “trinity” first appeared, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses claim, then we must date the appearance of Jehovah to the Middle Ages! the Arians are clearly guilty of committing the logical fallacy of dating an idea by it final terminology.
Objection #5 Since the Nicene Creed does not state that the Holy Spirit is a person or God, then it is clear that the early Church did not believe that the Holy Spirit was a person or God.
Once again, this is an argument from silence. To claim that the early Church did not believe in the deity or personhood of the Holy Spirit because it was not dealt with at that time is illogical.
We must also point out that after stating that they believed in the Father and in the Son, the Nicene Fathers went on to say, “We believe in the Holy Spirit.” Obviously, the Holy Spirit was affirmed as part of the core beliefs of Christianity.
Since the issue which caused the Nicene Council to convene was Arius’ denial of the deity of Christ, they did not deal with the issue of the Holy Spirit. But as soon as that issue was resolved, they did in fact convene the Council of Constantinople which reaffirmed that the Church had always worshipped the Holy Spirit as the third Person in the Holy trinity:
In the initial stages of the Arian controversy, up to about the middle of the fourth century, the status of the Holy Spirit was not a central issue; the creed approved by the Council of Nicaea in 325 powerfully emphasized the consubstantiability of the Son with the Father but concluded with the simple, traditional affirmation, “And we believe in the Holy Spirit.” By the time that the Council of Constantinople terminated the controversy in 381 and promulgated what is today known as the Nicene Creed, the third article had been considerably expanded to read, inter alia, “And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life Giver, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.” these formulations, although not explicitly calling the Spirit “God” or “co-substantial” with the Father and the Son, are nevertheless clear enough in their intention. the Spirit is “Lord” (a divine title) and “life Giver” (i.e., creator), comes forth “from the Father” (as does the Son), is worshipped “with the Father and the Son,” and is the same Spirit in the Old Testament (“who spoke by the prophets”) as in the New.Objection #6 The New Testament concepts of God and Christ have been historically traced back to pre-Christian pagan religions and philosophies such as Gnosticism. The concepts of a “virgin birth,” “the redeemer-myth,” and a “dying and rising Savior” are all found in many pre-Christian pagan religions such as the Iranian savior myth. Paul’s Christ was only an imitation of Adonis, Isis, Zeus, etc.
This is a version of the Werde-Bousset thesis via Bultmann. It is still standard fare in most liberal seminaries and state universities. Several comments are in order.
First, as Machen, Kim, Yamauchi, Ridderbos, and many other scholars have pointed out, when you ask those who make this claim to give you some clear pre-Christian primary source materials, they don’t produce any. They will quote modern writers such as Bultmann, but they do not provide any primary documentation from pre-Christian sources.
For example, Bultmann claimed that the pre-Christian Gnostics had a “redeemer-myth” concept that influenced the New Testament’s concept of the person and work of Jesus. Yet, he did not produce any pre-Christian materials to back up his claim. Even his devoted disciple, Schweitz had to admit:
I even think that, as far as the redeemer-myth (and not merely the gnostic atmosphere) is concerned, cross-fertilization started by and large only in the period after the New Testament and that the New Testament has scarcely been influenced by it.The idea of a pre-Christian “redeemer-myth” is itself a myth. As Hengle states:
In reality there is no gnostic redeemer myth in the sources which can be demonstrated chronologically to be pre-Christian.36
The same holds true for all the “virgin births,” “savior-myths” and “crucified saviors” which supposedly predate the New Testament. For example, the Iranian “redeemer-myth” has been exposed as a fraud. Quispel comments:
Everyone now agrees that R. Reitzenstein, when reconstructing the Iranian mystery of salvation, made a mistake when he took Manichean for Iranian fragments and thus antedated the concept of the Saved Savior by a millennium. In other words: this Iranian mystery of salvation was a hoax.Since we have already demonstrated that the New Testament is thoroughly Jewish in its concepts of God and the Messiah, we will not deal with the idea any further.
Not Enough Time
The fatal problem with all the pagan source arguments is that they require extremely late dates for the New Testament. Why? A sufficient amount of time had to transpire in order for people to forget what Jesus and the apostles really taught. This means that the New Testament could not be written while people who were eyewitnesses to Jesus or the apostles were still alive. If they were still alive, they would have protested the injection of pagan ideas into the New Testament.
The Unitarians in the nineteenth century understood that they were entirely dependent upon very late dates for the New Testament, particularly the Pauline Epistles. They realized that if the New Testament was written before 70 a.d., when the eyewitnesses were still alive, then the idea that some theologian could get away with contradicting what Christ or the apostles taught, is absurd. Using circular reasoning, they had to give extremely late dates for the New Testament in order to give enough time for all the eyewitnesses to Christ and the apostles to die.
As early as 1907, John Illingworth points out this error:
Parallelism in different religions are too readily assumed to be causally connected. Thus the Christian trinity is said to be borrowed from earlier sources. But the critical reestablishment of the early date of the New Testament leaves no room for this and the Patristic tradition attributed the doctrine of Christ to Himself.
…the doctrine of the trinity is sometimes explained away by a similar misuse of the comparative method.…The possibility of such a supposition was further facilitated by assigning an extravagantly late date to all the writings in the New Testament…But it is now a familiar fact that this radical attempt upon the dates of the documents in question has been abandoned, by all critics who are worthy of the name.Yamauchi points out that late dates are assigned to the New Testament by those who desperately need sufficient time for paganism to creep into the Church without anyone noticing:
It is not altogether coincidental that scholars who assume a Gnostic background for New Testament documents in some case
s also adopt very late dates for these books, because late dates for these documents would make a stronger case for affinities with Gnosticism. Thus Ruldoph dates Colossians to 80 a.d., Ephesians to the end of the first century, and both the Pastoral and the Johannine Epistles at the beginning of the second century. Koester dates the Pastorals to as late as between 120 and 160 a.d.40
The internal evidence that the New Testament in its entirety was written before 70 a.d., has been irrefutably demonstrated by the well-known liberal theologian, John A. T. Robinson.41 The external evidence found in Cave Seven of the Dead Sea Scrolls has confirmed that the New Testament was written before 70 a.d.42 thus, the pagan source theory is patently absurd.Objection #7 The Christian Church derived its doctrine of the Trinity from pagan religions and from Greek philosophy, particularly Plato.
This is the same argument as above, but this time applied to the early Church instead of the Bible. While liberals use both arguments, Arian fundamentalistic cults such as the Watchtower Society will avoid the idea that the Bible was corrupted by pagan religions. Instead, they make the claim:
Many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads or trinities, of gods in ancient Babylon and Assyria.43 Throughout the ancient world, as far back as Babylon, the worship of pagan gods grouped in threes, or triads, was common. That influence was also prevalent in Egypt, Greece, and Rome in the centuries before, during, and after Christ. After the death of the apostles, such pagan ideas began to invade Christianity.
The Watchtower then “proves” their claim by pictures of three idols of various pagan deities standing together as if they represent the source of the Christian concept of the Trinity. For example, they point to Egyptian idols of Osiris, Isis, and Horus.
This argument is based on two very basic logical fallacies. First, it commits the fallacy of equivocation in that the word “Trinity” is being used with several different meanings. the word “Trinity” according to Christian theology refers to one, infinite/personal God eternally existing in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit But the word “trinity” is used by the Arians to refer to any grouping of three finite gods and goddesses. Obviously, there is no logical relationship between three finite gods and the one triune God of Christianity.Second, the fallacy of equivocation leads to the categorical fallacy of trying to relate together concepts which have no relationship at all. the following diagram illustrates the radical difference between the trinity and pagan triads:
THE TRINITY
one God
infinite in nature
infinite in attributes
omnipotent
omniscient
omnipresent
immutable
perfect
goodPAGAN TRIADS
three gods & goddesses
finite in nature
finite attributes
impotent
ignorant of some things
limited to one place
mutable
imperfect
good and evilThe Watchtower’s attempt to link the Trinity to pagan triads reveals either that they do not understand the Trinity, or that, if they do, they are being deliberately deceptive.
The same problem arises when they claim the doctrine of the Trinity came from Plato. They do not indicate where the Trinity can be found in the writings of Plato. They quote from Unitarians and other anti Trinitarians who make the same claim, but nowhere do they quote Plato.
Since we are quite familiar with Plato and have translated some of his dialogues from the original Greek, we must go on record that we have never found in Plato anything even remotely resembling the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. Perhaps this is why Arians never give a single reference in Plato’s works to back up their claims.
Furthermore, we can use one of the Arian arguments against the Trinity Against itself. Does the word “Trinity” ever appear in the writings of Plato? No. Does it appear in Aristotle? No. Does it appear in any pre-Christian pagan writings? No.
Since the Arians claim that the absence of the word “Trinity” in the Bible means that the concept is not present, then they must admit that since the word “Trinity” does not appear in Greek philosophy or in ancient pagan religions, the concept is not present either.
If the Arian responds that while the word “Trinity” may not be found in Plato, etc., the concept is there, then the Trinitarians have just as much a right to argue that the concept of the Trinity is in the Bible, even though the word “Trinity” is not found there.Objection #8 The early Christians took Plato’s concept of the Demiurge and turned it into their concept of Christ.
In 1976, the Watchtower published an article entitled “How Christendom Borrowed from Plato.” In it they claimed that the “early Christians” borrowed their concept of the Trinity from Platonism and used Plato’s Demiurge as their concept of Christ. They have made this claim many times.
What they fail to tell their readers is that Plato’s Demiurge was a finite being created by God and, thus, not equal to God. The following diagram reveals whose Christ is patterned after the Demiurge.
The Demiurge
Platonism
created
finite
not eternal
not omnipresent
not omniscient
not omnipotent
semi-divineTwo Views of Christ
Arianism:
created
finite
not eternal
not omnipresent
not omniscient
not omnipotent
semi-divineTrinitarianism:
not created
infinite
eternal
omnipresent
omniscient
omnipotent
full deityFrom the above chart, it is clear that it is Arianism that has patterned its view of Christ from Plato’s Demiurge.
The Watchtower and Greek Philosophy
The Watchtower has argued that the Trinity doctrine is wrong because “there is but one First Cause.” This argument deserves several comments.
First, the title of the article from which we just quoted is, “the Three Gods of Religious Racketeers.” It is clear that the Watchtower deliberately misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity as belief in three gods. to add insult to injury, it also uses the ugly ad hominem argument that all Christian clergymen are “racketeers” i.e., thieves.
Second, The Watchtower magazine uses the phrase “First Cause” as a title for their God on many occasions. See The Watchtower 10/1/59 p.586; 10/15/61 p.614; 1/1/65 p.14; 9/1/70 p.537; 5/15/71 p.304; 1/15/71 p.52; 5/1/79 p.6; 2/15/81 p.5; 10/1/82 p.4; 6/15/93 p.13, etc.In a debate, one of the best ways to refute the other side is to use their own arguments against them. In desperation, they will often declare their own arguments invalid! In effect, you get them to refute themselves. Let us apply the same arguments they used against the word “Trinity” to the words “First Cause.”
Are the words “First Cause” found in the Old Testament? No. Are they found in the New Testament? No. Are they found in the early creeds of the Church such as the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed? No.
If the Jehovah’s Witnesses applied to the words “First Cause” the same argument that they use concerning the word “Trinity,” then they would have to conclude that the concept of God as the “First Cause” is not a biblical doctrine.
Where then did the words “First Cause” originate? If we turn to Plato in the Timeaus 455a-b; 465d-466a or the Statesman 587a-589c or to Aristotle in Physics BK VII, chronicles 1-2, 326a-329a; VIII, 334a-355d, we find the pagan Greek philosophers were the ones who invented the phrase “First Cause” to indicate that there can be only one final and ultimate cause for all things and this First Cause of causes must be divine. Aristotle’s argument for the existence of the Unmoved Mover depends entirely on the concept of an ultimate “Fi
rst Cause.”
If we were to follow the Watchtower’s convoluted reasoning, we would conclude that the Jehovah’s Witnesses derived their idea of God as the “First Cause” from pagan Greek philosophy!Sauce for the Gander and for the Goose
The Watchtower could argue that the concept of God as the “First Cause” is found in Genesis 1:1, long before there were any Greek philosophers. Thus the use of the phrase has nothing to do with the origin of the concept. They were simply using the common philosophical language of today.
If they can do this, then so can the Trinitarians. The use of philosophic terms by the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers in their definitions of the Trinity are not to be faulted either. They were simply using the common philosophical terms of their day.
Faulty Assumptions
How were the Arians able to turn the concept of God as the “First Cause” into an argument against the Trinity? By assuming that the Trinity means three gods, they concluded that the Trinity would also mean three First Causes! Since you cannot have three “Firsts,” they felt they could use it against the belief in three gods. But,the truth is the trinity doctrine is a statement about one God, and has nothing to do with three gods.
Just one added note. When Trinitarians show that Christ is called “the First and the Last” (Rev. 1:17; 2:8; 22:13) and then link it to Yahweh being “the First and the Last” (Isa. 41:4), the Jehovah Witnesses usually respond by saying that there can be more than one “First and Last.” It would seem that they are attempting to both deny and affirm that there can be only one “First.”
Morey, R. A. (1996). The Trinity : Evidences and Issues (484). Iowa Falls, IA.: World Pub.”Good stuff! I will be suire to keep my eye out for other very informative information for you…. agree… disagree…. its good information….
blessings,
KenHi E,
You say
“TrinityAs the nature of God is progressively revealed in Scripture, the one God is seen to exist eternally in three persons.”
Where is this written?
Or is this your own idea?Hi E,
You say
“What are some of the practical implications of the doctrine of the Trinity?”Would it not be best first to find this concept taught in scripture?
E………I can only tell you this I personnel do not believe in the Trinity or Preexistences at all and have taught against them both. I can also say I have had Many Miracles and proofs of God in my life Hundreds of them, now why would God do that seeing I denounce the TRINITY and preexistences of Jesus openly. Wouldn't that be blasphemy against the spirit, but for some reason God still Hears my prayers and answers them. As for me i will stay with what works. Here is the simple truth, Jesus Quoted, Hear O Israel the LORD our GOD is (ONE) LORD, and again “FOR THOU ART THE (ONLY) TRUE GOD.
Peace and love ……………..gene
GB,
Miracles are not absolute proof af anything.
Revelation 16:14
For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.Nick…..Show us where any Demon as you say saved a sick or dying person ever. Maybe you don't count miracles as proofs, but i do and i think Jesus and Abraham did also as well as the Apostles and Disciples, or do you think God does them for no reason at all, then why do them then? Miracles were very much the sign of God being with them. Do you want me to list them there are probably over a thousand in the scriptures. In fact almost all the bible is a book of Miracles. You can't separate GOD from His miracle working power. Take the miracles out of my life and i would have nothing more then suppositions.
Gb,
As you said in another thread such miraculous works are not absolute evidence of anyone's standing with God.“Jesus said that many in that day would come to him and say Lord in you name we did all these good works, and he would reply, depart from me you workers of iniquity I know you not. So they certainly had the knowledge of God's words but obviously were not converted. I believe Jesus gave the answer about Faith in the Parable of the unjust Judge. Luk 18:4 Shows that direct proof is given by God to those who seek him as He has said “I am found by those who diligently seek me”. I wonder how many of us may just have supposition and no real Faith at all?,
Hi Gene & Nick,
this is my simple reasoning concerning God, spirit and son:We, human beings have a pattern/shape/structure made of flesh.In it, blood is made to flow which bears source of life to us,.That means blood is the life to us and causes animation to our structure.
inference:flesh became a living thing through blood which came through God's breathing.Our procreation /seed also comes through blood(semen production)
Similarly, God has a unknown structure because size is not known to us.God's structure assumably is similar to us according to the scripture that we were made in his image.As God is spirit, spirit took the role of blood in celestial bodies.as per our procreation , God can carry and create his offspring in spirit only.Therefore, God is carrying his seed ,jesus with him in spirit all the time ever since the unknown past eternity.
inference: celestial structure similar to us and spirit making that structure a living one, bearing son /seed also.The size of the God' seed , jesus is only debatable.We cannot see the size of our semen with naked eyes.Instead oof semen, God carrying a hidden son in him/spirit invisibly as we carry semen invisibly.
final combined inference:God=spirit=son, though trinity word is not found in bible.
wishing you lit up eyes of holy spirit,
babuQuote (Nick Hassan @ Oct. 26 2008,07:52) GB,
Miracles are not absolute proof af anything.
Revelation 16:14
For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty.
Hi brother Nick,
Why do go into such criticism on brothers ? Please be kind and considerate to all.Thanks and love to you
AdamQuote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 28 2008,02:17) So, how do we know FOR CERTAIN that the “word” or “Word” spoken of in John 1:1 is in fact………Jesus?
Mandy…….we don't and they don't know either, if John wanted to say Jesus He would simply said Jesus, it Just that simple. A Word is simply an expression of intellect. And it is with GOD (power) and was GOD (power) and by it all things came into being.According to Jeff Benner God simple means (POWER) and LORD means HE EXISTS, put them together and you get HE EXISTS WITH POWER IE., LORD GOD. There is no reason to try to change the word, (word), to mean anything other then what it simple means, its the expression of the one and only true GOD. imo
love and peace to you and yours……………gene
Adam….if we apply Jeff Benners interpretation to John 1:1……> it would be like this …> in the beginning was the word and the word was with Elohim (powers) and the word was Elohim (powers). Elohim simple means (POWERS) we need to remember things were spoken into existence, in the beginning. Benner adds an interesting point to what John may have meant.
love and peace to you and yours……….gene
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
