The Trinity is a very misunderstood topic, and unfortunately those misunderstandings usually begin with the church. A theological battle or sorts was waged in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and is still being waged today, to help codify what the church had always taught but had never realized it needed to codify. There are four streams of thought on the Trinity: 1) the orthodox view, One God, three persons; each co-equal with the other; 2) One God where Jesus is either a subordinate or lesser god, or a man; 3) that each, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are each separate gods, and 4) that God is one being that manifests Himself as three different beings at different times, sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son and sometimes the Holy Spirit. I subscribe to view number one, the orthodox view, which was believed from the beginning. Believe it or not the church fought off the other three views for the first three centuries, which is why it sought to codify the biblical view with a developed theology of the Trinity. If you understand the state of the church during the first three centuries, you will understand why it took until the beginning of the 4th to develop it. It you need help, just think 'persecution', you'll get there.This is also a doctrine that most Christians are afraid of. When some one asks a question about it, or worse, questions the doctrine altogether, they go white as a ghost, get sweaty palms and a mouth full of cotton. 'Anything but that!', right? But Christians should know that they really have nothing to fear from questions. Of all belief systems, it is Christianity that has a rich tradition of defended its beliefs from both external and internal questioning. Most belief systems are scared of questions. Muslims, for instance, do not allow internal dialog questioning core beliefs – that can significantly shorten your life expectancy. Its is true, not because I can prove it, but because I said so! And the external world is not allowed to ask them either. But Christianity, from its very beginning has historically made questions an open discussion. Unfortunately, too many Christians have forgotten that they already have the answers the world is looking for. Most Christians seem to shy away from questions, but I embrace them. Why? Because it is an opportunity to show others that Christianity is not a collection of mindless rules to be followed, but an intellectual and well as spiritual faith built on a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. I don't believe because I have to, I believe because I want to. I don't believe because its what I've been told is true, I believe because I have investigated and tested this faith and found it to be true. That doesn't mean I have all the answers to every possible question, I certainly do not. But I do not fear any question. It also means that I will listen to all views, but you will have to convince me that I'm wrong, and you will have to do so with Scripture and logic.
So, let's set some ground rules for our discussion. First, the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons and the Muslims are three groups that state that the Bible was somehow tampered with, making what we have today somehow incomplete or otherwise corrupt. If this is your view, then please do me a favor, send me ten verses in the New Testament that are supposed to be corrupted, with supporting documentation proving they are in fact corrupt (and 1 John 5:7 cannot be one of them – something added in the late 15th century does not qualify). If you cannot substantiate your claim, then don't state that the Bible is corrupt. To the Christian it is the very words of God to mankind.
Second, do not use a single obscure “scholar” to prove a major point. I read a lot, and that means I recognize the names of many scholars, Catholic and Protestant. When I don't, I ALWAYS look them up. Always. It doesn't have to be a scholar that I know or have read, but it should be some one that is actually a scholar. Some pastor of a church of 100 people is not a scholar, no matter how much you like what he says.
Third, everyone makes mistakes, even scholars. That is why I almost always double check sources. I'm not a scholar, nor do I wish to insinuate that I am. But I do read and study all of the time, and have for the last 15 years. I have had to make the difficult decisions to change long held beliefs. Many times in my studies, I have disagreed with a number of scholars, like John Calvin, John MacArthur, Millard Erickson, John Gill, George Eldon Ladd, Albert Barnes, Matthew Poole, John Wesley, Bishop Irenaeus, and many others. My disagreements don't make me correct and them wrong. But my point is that any one can make mistakes. These disagreements however are usually on secondary issues. None of these men disagreed with the Orthodox view of the Trinity, though they may disagree with some minor points about the Trinity.
Fourth, do your own research. I do not get my information from any “all powerful” group or denomination or society. I consult scholars from many backgrounds by reading books, but it is my research with my own books in my own bookshelf. Although I do from time to time quote sources which are quoted in some one's book or article, I do try to verify the author quoted them properly. I have actually caught one particular author improperly quoting a source in a published book (roughly 15 yrs go in fact), for which he has never retracted. When that happens, I find it extremely hard to respect that author again, no matter what they say, unless of course, they publish a retraction. If all you can submit are articles that some one else or some particular organization publishes, that does not qualify as 'doing your own research.' I can copy from a booklet or an article, just like every one else.
So with that said, here is something that some one posted as their blog, which is asking some very valid questions. I post it in its entirety because it will be my intention to respond to each of these points.
JESUS called God "the only true God." (John 17:3) Never did he refer to God as a deity of plural persons. That is why nowhere in the Bible is anyone but Jehovah called Almighty. Otherwise, it voids the meaning of the word "almighty." Neither Jesus nor the holy spirit is ever called that, for Jehovah alone is supreme. At Genesis 17:1 he declares: "I am God Almighty." And Exodus 18:11 says: "Jehovah is greater than all the other gods."Sound authoritative, doesn't it? Looks intimidating with all of the Hebrew words and Scripture quotes doesn't it? But looks can be deceiving. Fact of the matter, this is straight out of the anti-Trinity pamphlet, “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” (which will be referred to as: SYBT), distributed by the Jehovah's Witnesses – I thought I had read that somewhere. Regardless of the source, these questions do deserve to be answered.
In the Hebrew Scriptures, the word ´eloh'ah (god) has two plural forms, namely, ´elo·him' (gods) and ´elo·heh' (gods of). These plural forms generally refer to Jehovah, in which case they are translated in the singular as "God." Do these plural forms indicate a Trinity? No, they do not. In A Dictionary of the Bible, William Smith says: "The fanciful idea that [´elo·him'] referred to the trinity of persons in the Godhead hardly finds now a supporter among scholars. It is either what grammarians call the plural of majesty, or it denotes the fullness of divine strength, the sum of the powers displayed by God."
The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures says of ´elo·him': "It is almost invariably construed with a singular verbal predicate, and takes a singular adjectival attribute." To illustrate this, the title ´elo·him' appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what God said and did is singular. (Genesis 1:1-2:4) Thus, that publication concludes: "[´Elo·him'] must rather be explained as an intensive plural, denoting greatness and majesty."
´Elo·him' means, not "persons," but "gods." So those who argue that this word implies a Trinity make themselves polytheists, worshipers of more than one God. Why? Because it would mean that there were three gods in the Trinity. But nearly all Trinity supporters reject the view that the Trinity is made up of three separate gods.
The Bible also uses the words ´elo·him' and ´elo·heh' when referring to a number of false idol gods. (Exodus 12:12; 20:23) But at other times it may refer to just a single false god, as when the Philistines referred to "Dagon their god [´elo·heh']." (Judges 16:23, 24) Baal is called "a god [´elo·him']." (1 Kings 18:27) In addition, the term is used for humans. (Psalm 82:1, 6) Moses was told that he was to serve as "God" [´elo·him'] to Aaron and to Pharaoh.—Exodus 4:16; 7:1.
Obviously, using the titles ´elo·him' and ´elo·heh' for false gods, and even humans, did not imply that each was a plurality of gods; neither does applying ´elo·him' or ´elo·heh' to Jehovah mean that he is more than one person, especially when we consider the testimony of the rest of the Bible on this subject.
But before I do that, I want to point out that too many Christians are intimidated by the material that the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (to be referred to as WBTS) distributes, and if you are one of them, you shouldn't be. It is easy to appear scholarly, just use big words that no one understands. But the real proof of good scholarship is found by inspecting the claims and reviewing the source material quoted, which is sometimes easier said than done.
So, along those lines, I want to give you an example of the scholarship of the WBTS. You ready? On page 4 of the Trinity booklet (http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_02.htm), it states, "The Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is considered to be 'beyond the grasp of human reason'". That sounds pretty conclusive doesn't it? I mean, the prestigious Encyclopedia Americana has spoken, right? But the quote they provided was taken out of context. You want to see what it really says? Here it is:
"It is held that although the doctrine is beyond the grasp of human reason, it is, like many of the formulations of physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind".The first question you should be asking is, “which of you are telling the truth?” Here's my proof. The Encyclopedia Americana is not posted on the Internet, but is freely available at any public library. I'm not going to take a digital picture of the page and post it in my blog, I leave it to you to verify it at your leisure. I submit these Internet links as my proof:
http://www.towertotruth.net/ShouldYouBelieveintheTrinity.htm
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-Americana.htm
http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP2W0402.pdf
http://www.watchman.org/jw/believeinwatchtower.htm
http://docbob1.home.comcast.net/misquotes.htm
http://witforjesus.org/jehovahs_witness/online/ysbt/ysbt_ch1.php#s1b
(NOTE: I do not vouch for the entire content of these sites – I have not had nor do I have the time to review an entire website. I only submit the proof of the exact quote from the encyclopedia in question.)
So, as you can see, you cannot always believe what some one or some organization prints in a magazine. You need to make the person or the organization earn its trustworthiness. It cannot be assumed simply because it has hundreds of millions of dollars to spend. Money does not equal trustworthiness.
Now, did you get the same thing from reading the “real” quote as you did from reading the WBTS quote? No? Gee, I wonder why? Again, let me caution you – don't just believe any one, not even me! I mean, who am I? If I quote properly, and you can verify that I have, then I earn credibility, but I don't have any until you actually make sure that I know what I'm talking about. And this is the state of the WBTS. The really sad thing is that no Jehovah's Witness seems to have the wherewithal, ability or even the desire to make sure that the WBTS is being honest, truthful and trustworthy. As you can see from the above links, the correction has been posted all over the Internet, but they don't accept anything that anyone says or writes unless it comes from the WBTS. And WBTS is never wrong, so the material posted by these “anti-Witness” sites are lies. It is a shame. I can tell you that I would not want to be part of an organization or group that misrepresented the truth of what others say.
So that you do not think that this is an isolated quote, here's another. On page 6 or the SYBT pamphlet (http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/article_03.htm) it states,
Jesuit Fortman states: "The New Testament writers ... give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. ... "Any time you see ellipses – that's those three little dots (...) – you should always ask the question, “what am I not being told?” Sometimes they are legitimate, but some times they are not. So here is what Fortman really wrote: (I'll italicize the WBTS quoted material to help you see the differences)
If we take the New Testament writers together they tell us there is only one God, the creator and lord of the universe, who is the Father of Jesus. They call Jesus the Son of God, Messiah, Lord, Saviour, Word, Wisdom. They assign Him the divine functions of creation, salvation, judgment. Sometimes they call Him God explicitly. They do not speak as fully and clearly of the Holy Spirit as they do of the Son, but at times they coordinate Him with the Father and the Son and put Him on a level with them as far as divinity and personality are concerned. They give us in their writings a triadic ground plan and triadic formulas. They do not speak in abstract terms of nature, substance, person, relation, circumincession, mission but they present in their own way the ideas that are behind these terms. They give us no formal or formulated doctrine of the Trinity, no explicit teaching that in one God there are three co-equal persons. But they do give us an elemental Trinitarianism, the data from which such a formal doctrine of the Triune God may be formulated.http://www.pnc.com.au/~fichrist/lies.html
http://www.towertotruth.net/ShouldYouBelieveintheTrinity.htm
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-JW-SYBTT-Watchtower-BOOKLET-Should-You-Be...
http://witforjesus.org/jehovahs_witness/online/ysbt/ysbt_ch1.php#s6b
So, as you can see, this quote is even worse than the first. They have chopped up a paragraph to form exactly what they want to present as the truth. In the process, they have put words into the mouth of some one else and then insinuated that he said them to support their viewpoint, for the sole purpose of “proving” to you that their premise – namely that the Trinity is a lie – is in fact true. This is at best, the very worst form of scholarship imaginable; and at worst, outright purposeful deception.
By the way, these are not the only two misrepresented quotes in this pamphlet; there are many more where these two came from. The SYBT pamphlet has been in print since 1989, and as you can see, the online version says exactly what I reproduced above. As bad as these two examples are, these misrepresented quotes should not be the soul reason to reject the message of the WBTS. Each of us should want to know the truth, and we need to find out if they are in fact correct. The very last thing we should ever want to do is reject the truth because some one is a bad messenger of it. Eternity is a long time ...
I will begin addressing the above blog posting as well as the truths about the Trinity in my upcoming blogs. I welcome all questions and comments on this topic. If there is something that you disagree with, please, by all means, comment. If I am wrong, please help me see the truth. I make mistakes, and I admit it when I do. Do you?
Comments