Point 1: The Trinity--Is it or is it not sound biblical doctrine?
Once again the first point of debate is:
“The Trinity—is it or is it not sound Biblical doctrine?”
This is very important as Searchingone1033 wants to divert the issue via red herring argumentation to early Christian creeds and the alleged beliefs of the Church fathers.
I fail to see how I didn’t address the Bible’s claims of God being Three Persons. I went to great lengths to define what a Person is in the sense Trinitarians use it, as well as demonstrated from scripture each Personality. Let me mention that the Bible never describes the Father as one Person. By whatever reasoning Searchingone1033 considers the Father to be a Person, I can take that and use it to prove the Personality of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The pronoun issue is a non-issue. Trinitarians affirm One Being who is God. If the One Being speaks as a whole then we’d expect to see singular pronouns. If any One Person which constitutes the One Being speaks then we’d expect singular pronouns. Searchingone1033 has failed to notice that plural pronouns are used by God and can only be explained in light of His Tri-Unity. In other words, when one is speaking for the others we’d expect to see plural pronouns such as in John 3:11. We’d expect to see plural pronouns when the Trinity converses amongst itself such as Genesis 1:26 or 3:22. (Cf. Genesis 11:7 & Isaiah 6:8).
The Bible itself doesn’t outline specific heresies in explicit terms. Thus we have to establish sound Biblical doctrine and conclude that any denial or deviation of these doctrines is heresy. Perhaps the clearest statement we have concerning what heresy is may be in 2Peter 2:1 which speaks of false teachers bringing damnable heresies, denying the Lord Jesus. If denying Jesus is considered heresy then it follows that denying the Trinity is heresy as well because denying the Trinity is denying the second person of the Trinity who is the Jesus of scripture. Denying Jesus’ humanity is heresy because this denies the incarnation (1John 4:3), but to deny that Jesus was merely a man and nothing else is just good sense. The Bible presents a clear picture of the deity of Christ.
The Apostles teaching that there is One God is not anti-Trinitarian. We’re monotheists. They never taught that God was One Person, the Father, and once again I point out that by whatever criteria Searchingone1033 believes the Father to be a Person, I can use it to prove the Personality of the Son and Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus’ confirmation of the Father as the “only true God” is not a denial of His status as the “only true God.” 1John 5:20 refers to the Son as “true God.”
The earliest creedal statements make no comments about God being only one Person, this has been read into them by Searchingone1033. We see the foundation of Nicene Trinitarianism in these creeds. And notice that more precision in definition was only needed as deviant teaching arose (e.g. Arian controversy). Even if no creed affirmed the Trinity that would have no bearing on the Bible’s statements concerning the Nature and Persons of God. Once again, this is a red herring used to divert the issue.
Now the request of INDIVIDUAL passages that show Yahweh to be One Being subsisting as Three Persons—I’ll save us all some time—There is no SINGLE passage that states this. As I said, we arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity systematically. Systematic theology brings consistency, harmony, and exclusion of contradiction in the Bible. Without it we run into more problems than can possibly exist in an inerrant Word of God.
Concerning the syllogism, Searchingone1033 didn’t tell us WHY the syllogism in question was fallacious. He just said that it was, and once again he is representing the belief as 3X = 1X. That would be false. We would represent it as 1A, 1B, 1C = 1X. No illogic involved.
Next notice the straw man argument presented in arguing that the logic of one syllogism is appealed to in one argument yet rejected in another. Notice the difference:
The Father is God, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God, and there is Only One God.
The Father is A Person, The Son is A Person, The Holy Spirit is A Person, and there are Three Persons.
See the difference? The difference is in the distinction made between Persons. The Father is A Person distinct from the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Spirit. Yet there is no distinction in Deity. Each is not A God—They are the Same God!
Now we’re faced with the attempted refutations of the scriptures I presented. The claim that Hebrews 1:8 does not refer to Jesus as God is ridiculous. “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God…” is clear enough.
Next we’re told that the Holy Spirit isn’t referred to as God in Acts 5:3-4 but rather a divinely appointed man filled with the Holy Spirit was. Such an interpretation is not warranted from the text. Clearly the Holy Spirit was lied to in vs. 4 “why did Satan fill your heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?” and then in vs. 5 it’s said that Ananias lied to God. A clearer statement couldn’t have been made.
The Holy Spirit being an “attribute” of God in no way diminishes His Personality. Likewise Wisdom is an attribute of God yet we know that the Person Christ is the Wisdom of God (1Corinthians 1:24). No one would claim that Christ is not a Person.
As for the eternality of the Son in Micah 5:2, additional witnesses can be added, this one was used because of the clear implications of the phrase “mi'y'mei olam” (from everlasting). First note that this is the only time this phrase appears in the entire Tanach. Secondly, notice the progression in emphasis, “from old, from everlasting.” Thirdly, although not identical, there’s a supporting reference in Proverbs 8:23 speaking of God’s Wisdom (see above) as being set up from everlasting, and Wisdom is obviously an eternal attribute of God.
We can just as easily point to John 1:1 which speaks of the Word existing in the beginning making use of the imperfect tense which represents a continuous or reoccurring action in past time. The only way the Word could have been present in the beginning (no matter how far back the beginning extends) is to have pre-existed the beginning of time, which shows eternality. While it’s true that Jesus had a beginning (via the incarnation) the Son has existed from all eternity. In Proverbs 30:4 the question was asked concerning the name of God’s Son (pre-incarnation). Job knew his redeemer lived before the incarnation (Job 19:25).
“The Trinity—is it or is it not sound Biblical doctrine?”
This is very important as Searchingone1033 wants to divert the issue via red herring argumentation to early Christian creeds and the alleged beliefs of the Church fathers.
I fail to see how I didn’t address the Bible’s claims of God being Three Persons. I went to great lengths to define what a Person is in the sense Trinitarians use it, as well as demonstrated from scripture each Personality. Let me mention that the Bible never describes the Father as one Person. By whatever reasoning Searchingone1033 considers the Father to be a Person, I can take that and use it to prove the Personality of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
The pronoun issue is a non-issue. Trinitarians affirm One Being who is God. If the One Being speaks as a whole then we’d expect to see singular pronouns. If any One Person which constitutes the One Being speaks then we’d expect singular pronouns. Searchingone1033 has failed to notice that plural pronouns are used by God and can only be explained in light of His Tri-Unity. In other words, when one is speaking for the others we’d expect to see plural pronouns such as in John 3:11. We’d expect to see plural pronouns when the Trinity converses amongst itself such as Genesis 1:26 or 3:22. (Cf. Genesis 11:7 & Isaiah 6:8).
The Bible itself doesn’t outline specific heresies in explicit terms. Thus we have to establish sound Biblical doctrine and conclude that any denial or deviation of these doctrines is heresy. Perhaps the clearest statement we have concerning what heresy is may be in 2Peter 2:1 which speaks of false teachers bringing damnable heresies, denying the Lord Jesus. If denying Jesus is considered heresy then it follows that denying the Trinity is heresy as well because denying the Trinity is denying the second person of the Trinity who is the Jesus of scripture. Denying Jesus’ humanity is heresy because this denies the incarnation (1John 4:3), but to deny that Jesus was merely a man and nothing else is just good sense. The Bible presents a clear picture of the deity of Christ.
The Apostles teaching that there is One God is not anti-Trinitarian. We’re monotheists. They never taught that God was One Person, the Father, and once again I point out that by whatever criteria Searchingone1033 believes the Father to be a Person, I can use it to prove the Personality of the Son and Holy Spirit. Also, Jesus’ confirmation of the Father as the “only true God” is not a denial of His status as the “only true God.” 1John 5:20 refers to the Son as “true God.”
The earliest creedal statements make no comments about God being only one Person, this has been read into them by Searchingone1033. We see the foundation of Nicene Trinitarianism in these creeds. And notice that more precision in definition was only needed as deviant teaching arose (e.g. Arian controversy). Even if no creed affirmed the Trinity that would have no bearing on the Bible’s statements concerning the Nature and Persons of God. Once again, this is a red herring used to divert the issue.
Now the request of INDIVIDUAL passages that show Yahweh to be One Being subsisting as Three Persons—I’ll save us all some time—There is no SINGLE passage that states this. As I said, we arrive at the doctrine of the Trinity systematically. Systematic theology brings consistency, harmony, and exclusion of contradiction in the Bible. Without it we run into more problems than can possibly exist in an inerrant Word of God.
Concerning the syllogism, Searchingone1033 didn’t tell us WHY the syllogism in question was fallacious. He just said that it was, and once again he is representing the belief as 3X = 1X. That would be false. We would represent it as 1A, 1B, 1C = 1X. No illogic involved.
Next notice the straw man argument presented in arguing that the logic of one syllogism is appealed to in one argument yet rejected in another. Notice the difference:
The Father is God, The Son is God, The Holy Spirit is God, and there is Only One God.
The Father is A Person, The Son is A Person, The Holy Spirit is A Person, and there are Three Persons.
See the difference? The difference is in the distinction made between Persons. The Father is A Person distinct from the Person of the Son and the Person of the Holy Spirit. Yet there is no distinction in Deity. Each is not A God—They are the Same God!
Now we’re faced with the attempted refutations of the scriptures I presented. The claim that Hebrews 1:8 does not refer to Jesus as God is ridiculous. “But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God…” is clear enough.
Next we’re told that the Holy Spirit isn’t referred to as God in Acts 5:3-4 but rather a divinely appointed man filled with the Holy Spirit was. Such an interpretation is not warranted from the text. Clearly the Holy Spirit was lied to in vs. 4 “why did Satan fill your heart to lie to the Holy Ghost?” and then in vs. 5 it’s said that Ananias lied to God. A clearer statement couldn’t have been made.
The Holy Spirit being an “attribute” of God in no way diminishes His Personality. Likewise Wisdom is an attribute of God yet we know that the Person Christ is the Wisdom of God (1Corinthians 1:24). No one would claim that Christ is not a Person.
As for the eternality of the Son in Micah 5:2, additional witnesses can be added, this one was used because of the clear implications of the phrase “mi'y'mei olam” (from everlasting). First note that this is the only time this phrase appears in the entire Tanach. Secondly, notice the progression in emphasis, “from old, from everlasting.” Thirdly, although not identical, there’s a supporting reference in Proverbs 8:23 speaking of God’s Wisdom (see above) as being set up from everlasting, and Wisdom is obviously an eternal attribute of God.
We can just as easily point to John 1:1 which speaks of the Word existing in the beginning making use of the imperfect tense which represents a continuous or reoccurring action in past time. The only way the Word could have been present in the beginning (no matter how far back the beginning extends) is to have pre-existed the beginning of time, which shows eternality. While it’s true that Jesus had a beginning (via the incarnation) the Son has existed from all eternity. In Proverbs 30:4 the question was asked concerning the name of God’s Son (pre-incarnation). Job knew his redeemer lived before the incarnation (Job 19:25).
Matthew 28:18 certainly refers to the Son as omnipotent and the Father’s giving the authority to him in no way detracts from this fact. A.T. Robertson describes this act as a “timeless aorist” since there is no point in time where we are shown the giving of authority. The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says, “His [God’s] omnipotence, in which Christ shares as Kurios (1 C. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Mt. 28:18), extends over the whole world, over heaven and earth.” (TDNT, 1:679) We can also reason that only an omnipotent being can create ex nihilo (from nothing) which the Son has done (John 1:3; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:3).
In John 16:30 Jesus does not correct the statement that he knows all things. This is confirmed in John 21:17 post-resurrection. An argument can only be made that Jesus was not omniscient if we focus on his humanity alone. Impossible since within the one Person there are two Natures. Jesus’ not knowing the hour of His return is not a denial of omniscience, but rather spoken in His humiliated state. So even if we exclude John 16:30 which was also during Christ’s humiliated state, we have John 21:17 after Christ was glorified.
The textual variant in John 3:13 don’t affect the omnipresence of the Son a bit. We also have Matthew 28:20 to bear witness to this fact. To be with the disciples always even unto the end of the age would require that the Son be everywhere that disciples are. This is an impossible task without omnipresence.
I’m out of space but allow me to state:
Tertullian: Not a modalist, in fact he "was branded with the charge of polytheism in circles where modalism flourished." (Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrine, p. 110)
Athenagoras: Too clear to misunderstand.
Theopholus: Used trias in the sense of the Trinity (See footnotes 2 & 3 in ANF, 2:101) or Triad (Kelly, ECD, p. 109)… Tertullian derived his Latin trinitas from Theopholus’ trias. No anachronism necessary.
Hippolytus: Equally as clear, “God is one…threefold manifestation.” (See also Kelly, ECD, p. 110-15).
Cyprian: Why expect an exact definition that didn’t come for another 75 years?
Want earlier quotes? OK… Earlier quotes here.
The earliest creedal statements do not define God as One Person; in fact they all list all Three Persons of the Trinity thus laying the foundation for later more exact definitions.
