Defending The Trinity (pt. 3) (RP1)

(Audio version; Music: "We Believe" by: Newsboys and "This I Believe (The Creed)" by: Hillsong)

Introduction

            Last week, in Part Two of our lesson on Defending The Trinity, I attempted to identify some tools that might be useful in the defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. We looked at how Jesus’ divinity could be defended against claims that He lacked the essential qualities of God because He didn’t always appear to be omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient by showing that those qualities could have been an act of self-limitation in order to accomplish the Father’s will of insuring humanity’s redemption.

We dispelled the notion that the Trinity was a pagan belief system by remembering that the Trinity existed before every other belief system. Furthermore, pagan belief systems employed tri-theistic (three gods) belief systems.

We provided some assurance that just because something is unknown, it’s not unknowable. And just because something is unknown doesn’t make it untrue. Finally, confessing that some things are a mystery isn’t necessarily surrendering to ignorance as much as it is confessing that humanity, in its limited capacity, will never be able to understand everything about God. If you think about it, isn’t that the way it should be? If you can know absolutely everything about God, that wouldn’t be much of a God now would it?

            Finally, we shed some light on the confusion over God’s three-in-oneness by understanding the Trinity not as persons quantified mathematically but as illuminated grammatically by clarifying the use of the word “is.” Consequently, when we say the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, we are using the “is” of predication as opposed to the “is” of identity.

There are, of course, countless other arguments against the Trinity and equally sound defenses to counter those arguments. However, the most important defense for any orthodox Christian doctrine or belief is the revelation God gave us in the Scriptures. Therefore, we will now turn our attention to that very important revelation of God.

What The Bible Says

For the Christian, God’s revelation of Himself in Scripture is a crucial element of faith. So it is essential to investigate the Scriptures to determine its teaching relative to the Trinity. It is often argued by those that would oppose the doctrine of the Trinity that it is merely a man-made invention since it is never identified formally or informally in Scripture. The word “Trinity” never appears in either the Old or New Testaments. However, “many technical terms familiar to Christian teaching, like eschatology, anthropology, pneumatology, hamartiology, and cosmology, are not found expressly in Scripture but derive explicitly from scriptural teaching. So it is with trinity.”[1]

Old Testament Support

Like many things about God’s revelation, it becomes clearer with the passage of time and perhaps with expanded revelation. This is the case with Old Testament support for the Trinity. For example, “Elohim, the divine term used of God at the beginning of the Bible (Genesis1:1), is a plural noun used some 500 times by Moses…accompanied continually by a verb in the singular. This is a term revealing the oneness of Deity and the plurality of Persons in the Godhead.”[2] God uses the plural pronoun “us” and “our” during the creative process recorded in Genesis when He says, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness... (Genesis 1:26).” “This evidence attests that the God of revelation was conceived from the very beginning as a composite rather than a solitary unity.”[3] What shall we make of the physical appearances of God, also known as theophanies, in the Old Testament? (Gen. 18, Jos. 5 and Dan. 3) Since the Father is spirit and has no physical body per se, these theophanies are largely held to be the preincarnate Jesus Christ himself. Furthermore, there are occasions when God speaks of the actions of His Spirit among Israel in terms that beg the question: What Spirit is God referring to when God the Father is spirit (Joel 2:28)? It seems clear that there is a distinction between God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit. However, it isn’t until the New Testament that we begin to see an expanded revelation of God and a much clearer view of the Trinity.

New Testament Support

“Any doctrine latent in the Old Testament is patent in the New Testament.”[4] The unfolding of the Trinity becomes increasingly clearer in the New Testament where there are countless examples that clearly identify both the unity and the plurality of God. One of the clearest examples of God’s plurality is demonstrated at Jesus’ baptism where Mark records the event beautifully saying, “As Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. And a voice came from heaven: ‘You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.’” (Mk. 1:10-11) With similar clarity, the unity of God is demonstrated through the words of Jesus himself. John records an encounter between Jesus and one of his disciples, Philip, with respect to Jesus’ anticipated death, and return to the Father. Jesus is trying to give his disciples a glimpse of blessings that await them in the presence of the Father. “Philip said, ‘Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.’ Jesus answered: ‘Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father (Jn. 14:8-9).’” Certainly Jesus is not saying that He and the Father are the same person. We know this because Jesus is often shown praying to the Father (cf. Matt. 26:39-42). It seems beyond reason to insist that He was praying to himself. Instead, it is far more reasonable to see in Jesus’ words and actions throughout Scripture that He and the Father are the same in essence while at the same time distinct in their individual personhood.

So What! What Difference Does It Make?

            Some of you might be thinking that I have droned on about this long enough and are wondering, why or if, belief in the Trinity is really such a big deal. I suppose that’s a fair question but consider for a moment how many false religions that are out there who, in some form or another, have hijacked the name of Jesus as a tool to build and expand their false religious claims. However, they all reject the Trinity, in large part because they refuse to confess Jesus’ full divinity and full, sinless humanity. For example, Christian Scientists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormons all include some form or another of Jesus in their belief system. However, Christian Scientists (founded by Mary Baker Eddy in the latter half of the 19^th century) do not believe Jesus is God. Furthermore, they believe the spiritual Jesus was without sin but the human Jesus was sinful. Jehovah’s Witnesses (founded by Charles Taze Russell in the latter half of the 19^th century) believe Jesus was created (very similar to Arianism). Mormons (founded by Joseph Smith in the first half of the 19^th century) believe that Jesus is Lucifer’s spiritual brother because they are both God the Father’s offspring. They also believe that Jesus was conceived through normal conception by a mortal mother and an immortal Elohim (a Hebrew name for God) who was once a man and became a God like Jesus was a man and became a God like all Mormons who will eventually become gods. (Good luck trying to sift through that mess and let me know if you ever get to the place where someone along the way was God from the beginning! Who created the first man if God was first a man like us?) So to answer the question: What difference does it make? It makes a difference between believing the truth and believing a lie. The Trinity is only part of orthodox Christianity. Belief systems that reject the Trinity, whatever they may or may not say about Jesus, are not Christian. But it goes even deeper. It’s a matter of being in relationship with God—the real God, not some god made up by some religious charlatans looking to make a buck off of people’s biblical ignorance; the God of the Bible; the God who revealed Himself to us as Father, Son, and Spirit.

            When you enter into an intimate relationship with someone, the depth of that relationship is, to a large degree, dependent on getting to know that person. And it’s no different for our relationship with God. We tend to gravitate toward Jesus for obvious reasons—because He sacrificed His life for us. However, there are other, perhaps less obvious reasons as well that we gravitate toward Jesus—we can relate to Him because He was one of us. He occupied time and space with us so we are able to relate to Him better. However, this is just one way God has revealed Himself to us in order to be in relationship with us. If we get stuck on relating to God only in the person of Jesus, we wind up with a truncated relationship with God. It would be like being in relationship with your husband or wife only on the basis of your shared interest in hiking, biking, traveling, or reading. But God has revealed Himself to us in many other ways so that we can have a well-rounded understanding of who He is and how He loves us.

            We walk along a sandy beach or stand at the foot of a towering mountain and get a sense for how awesome the Creator, God the Father is that could create something so beautiful and breath-taking. And we are even more in awe when we realize that He created all things for us to enjoy. All of creation is, in part, God the Father’s revelation of Himself to us. Look up into the night sky at all the stars and listen to God the Father tell you that there are more ways that He loves you than there are stars in the sky.

            When the time was right, God revealed Himself to us in the person of Jesus Christ as God the Son. God wanted us to know that He is not a far-off Creator that can’t be seen or touched. Instead, He is close to us; He is Immanuel—God with us. Jesus revealed God to us in a real and tangible way. He was a friend, a teacher, a healer, and finally our Savior. When it came time for God to reveal His love for us in a way other than through creation, He allowed Himself to be nailed to a cross in our place. Look at the cross and listen to God the Son tell you that He loves you so much that He wants to make it possible for you to spend eternity with Him.

            When Jesus told His disciples that He would be going away, they were understandably distraught. God was finally there with them; close enough to touch; they could talk with Him and eat with Him, they didn’t want to give that up. However, God was preparing to reveal Himself to humanity in yet another way. Jesus said that He would send us a Comforter; an Advocate. In place of God the Son’s bodily presence with us, God would go one step farther, God the Spirit would come to dwell within our lives to encourage us, to guide us, and to remind us of all the things Jesus taught. God, in the person of Jesus, as we have seen, limited Himself in order to accomplish the primary task of providing for our salvation. However, God needed to be available to everyone, at all times, and in all places who put their faith in the saving work of God the Son. And that could only be done by God the Spirit. In those quiet and desperate times of your life, when you sense that God is right there standing beside you or holding your hand or carrying you, you are sensing that God the Spirit is with you saying I won’t leave you, let me guide you, let me comfort you, let me encourage you. God the Spirit, every day in every way, is saying I love you.

Conclusion

          It goes without saying that there is no perfect argument in defense of the Trinity that would convince all doubters. However, to say that there is clear evidence against belief in the Trinity is far from accurate as well. The historical development of the doctrine was methodical and intentional. Biblical support, although not explicitly identifying the “Trinity,” nonetheless contains the building blocks necessary for the sound development of the doctrine. While these all may be fine sounding arguments in defense of the Trinity, there are some essential elements that must be considered in closing. John records an event before Jesus is crucified where Jesus says, “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth.” (Jn. 16:12-13) Christians are at times criticized for being unscientific in their biblical theology and instead relying on their faith as opposed to reason in matters such as the Trinity. However, while we may be called to give a defense of our beliefs, it is unreasonable to expect that we can somehow always present a compelling argument to someone lacking the illumination of truth provided by the Spirit. “One lesson to be learned from this is that there is no sledgehammer apologetics. There are no arguments for the truth of Christianity which force the atheist or non-Christian to their intellectual knees. The unbeliever can always backtrack and give up some other belief instead.”[5] Additionally, one of the operative words in Christianity is “faith.” Faith, by definition, is belief in something that is not entirely certain. There are so many things about Christianity that are built upon the foundation of faith in something uncertain. We don’t understand nor can we explain how God exists outside of creation yet we believe it by faith. We don’t understand how God created something out of nothing yet we believe it by faith. We don’t understand how God became a man in the person of Jesus yet we believe it by faith. We don’t understand how Jesus died on a cross and then rose from the dead three days later yet we believe it by faith. We can’t explain how the Spirit lives within us when we accept Christ yet we believe it by faith. We believe these things by faith yet skeptics decry that it is unreasonable to believe that God exists as one essence in three persons because we don’t fully understand it and can’t fully explain it. It would seem that this is unbelief for unbelief’s sake. Instead, although the doctrine of the Trinity is built on a strong foundation of biblical support and sound scholarship, its ultimate acceptance is still a matter of faith.

---

[1] Thomas C. Oden, The Living God, (HarperSanFrancisco, New York, NY, 1987) p. 186.

[2] Herbert Lockyer, All the Doctrines of the Bible, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1964) p. 123.

[3] Donald G. Bloesch, God the Almighty, (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, IL, 1995) p. 168.

[4] Lockyer, All the Doctrines of the Bible, p. 124

[5] Michael J. Murray, ed., Reason for the Hope Within, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1999) p. 13.

Defending The Trinity (pt. 2) (RP1)

(Audio version; "Creed" by: Third Day & Brandon Heath and "This I Believe (The Creed)" by: Hillsong)

Introduction

            In Part One of our lesson on Defending The Trinity, we looked at the how belief in the Trinity is a critical component in the belief structure of orthodox Christianity. We also looked at how the advent of Jesus Christ, while providing the means for our salvation, presented us with a problem: If we confess that Jesus is fully divine, how do we reconcile our understanding of God’s revelation of Himself in the New Testament with Jewish monotheism in the Old Testament?

We looked at how the Modalistic Formulation attempted to explain God’s revelation of Himself as God the Father in the Old Testament, God the Son during Jesus’ earthly ministry, and God the Spirit after Pentecost. However, we noted that the Modalistic Formulation falls apart at Jesus’ baptism when the Father spoke, the Son was baptized, and the Spirit descended like a dove.

            We then looked at the proposal advanced by Arius, bishop of Alexandria. Arius advanced the idea that there was a time when Jesus and the Spirit did not exist. Although Arianism gained some popularity during the 4^th century, it would eventually be rejected by the church as heretical given the clear biblical evidence contradicting its claims. Specifically, Jesus’ own words in John 15:7 reveal that Jesus existed with the Father from the very beginning. And the opening text of John’s gospel should remove all doubt that Jesus was not created when He says, “in the beginning the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made (Jn 1:1-3).” There are of course countless other biblical texts that serve to demonstrate the fallacy of Arianism. Nevertheless, demonstrating how others are wrong is not sufficient to advance a biblical alternative.

            Consequently, we looked at the orthodox formulation of the Trinity as advanced by The Capadoccians, Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa. They advanced the theological formulation of the Trinity that was eventually adopted by church and orthodox Christianity to this day. They made the crucial distinction between “essence” (ousia) and “persons” (hypostaseis). “By ousia they meant one invisible, divine nature, and by hypostaseis they meant mode of being or personal center with independent existence and unique characteristics.”[1] God’s essence or ousia is undivided. In other words, all three persons are equally God. The differences in the persons or hypostaseis are functional or relational as opposed to essential.

The Defense

The church council convened in A.D. 325 at Nicea to address the issue of Jesus’ divinity once and for all and developed a formal church position that was used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381. Nevertheless, countless treatises and tomes have been written in an attempt to unravel the difficulties associated with the doctrine of the Trinity and there is still considerable confusion and dissent about this very important Christian doctrine. But what are some of the more common arguments against Trinitarian belief and how can we, as orthodox Christians, defend our belief in the Trinity?

Argument #1

If the Trinity is such a critical teaching to orthodox Christianity, why is there no explicit mention of it anywhere in Scripture?

Defense #1

This argument sets up the straw man that the only biblical teaching that is valid is a teaching that is explicitly identified in the Bible. However, this can be easily refuted using numerous arguments. For example, “To require of the New Testament writers that they should have fully answered questions that would not be posed until over a century later is unreasonable.”[2] Although a very strong argument can be made about the implicit teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity from both the Old and New Testaments, one must keep in mind the first rule of biblical interpretation; The Bible was written a long time ago to people from a different culture who lived far away and spoke a different language. Equally important was the intent of the author. Although all Scripture is useful for teaching, the various authors certainly did not intend to teach all things explicitly. That doesn’t mean, however, that we cannot combine the various elements presented in the Bible to develop a better understanding of God’s revelation of Himself. An analogy serves to illustrate this point. We know explicitly or intuitively that each individual science textbook is not intended to exhaustively teach everything about science. However, when we use the information we glean from each textbook, we are more likely to be able to develop complex scientific theories that are not necessarily explicit in any one textbook yet are nevertheless coherent and supportable theories.

Argument #2

Jesus never explicitly claimed to be God. If Jesus is not God then there is no Trinity.

Defense #2

Like the first argument, this is an argument from silence. Proponents of this argument mistakenly insist that because Jesus didn’t make a clear public pronouncement that He was God that therefore He wasn’t. However, a closer look at Scripture will reveal that Jesus made it very clear that He was God without making an overt public announcement to that effect. In fact, Jesus made it so clear that the religious leaders sought to stone Him on numerous occasions and eventually found Him guilty of such claims and had Him nailed to a cross. In an encounter with religious leaders, Jesus is threatened with stoning as John writes, “Again the Jews picked up stones to stone Him, but Jesus said to them, ‘I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me? We are not stoning you for any of these,’ replied the Jews, ‘but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.’” (Jn. 10:31-33)

Ultimately, however, at his trial before the religious leaders, Jesus was asked specifically, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” To which he replied, “I am.” (Mk. 14:61-62) As a result, they sentenced Him to death. Clearly, even though Jesus didn’t make it a habit to announce that He was God, that is, in fact, what He and His followers believed Him to be and those who conspired in His execution believed He was claiming to be. As a result, because Scripture teaches that Jesus is God, there is an obvious need to address the plurality of God created thereby.

Argument #2a

I have identified this as “Argument 2a” because of its close association with the question of Jesus’ divinity discussed in Argument 2 above. This argument introduces some complexities that this writing will not attempt to fully explain or defend. Again, although it is not the intention to herein defend the divinity of Jesus necessarily, it is precisely the issue of Jesus’ divinity that has forced Christians from the time of Nicea (A. D. 325) until now to defend the Trinity. Specifically at issue in this argument are the apparent incoherencies between Jesus as both fully man and fully God. This issue impacts the argument of the Trinity in this respect: If it can be demonstrated that Jesus as fully God and fully man is logically incoherent, then Jesus probably wasn’t both and based on some of the more troubling inconsistencies, it appears that He probably wasn’t God. The argument hinges on what is assumed as God’s “essential” qualities. For the purposes of this argument, we will consider three such qualities (although there are countless others); Omnipresence—present everywhere at once, Omnipotence—all powerful, and Omniscience—all knowing. These three qualities have been identified because it would seem that Jesus did not possess these qualities identified as essential to being God. The heart of the argument, therefore, would insist that if Jesus did not contain these essential qualities then He could not be God.

Defense #2a

First, it is useless to deny that Jesus did not appear to be omnipotent—He did not do everything, He did not appear to be omnipresent—He only appeared in one place at any given time and finally he did not appear to be omniscient—He did not know everything. Scripture leaves little doubt about these matters. However, what Scripture fails to disclose is why and to what extent Jesus lacked (if at all) any or all of these essential qualities. Jesus’ omnipotence and omnipresence, or lack thereof, can be explained relatively easily as a self-limitation. Specifically, just because Jesus could do anything doesn’t necessarily require Him to do so. Furthermore, just because Jesus could be everywhere at once didn’t necessitate Him to do so. Not doing everything or being everywhere at once doesn’t necessarily conclude an inability to do so only an unwillingness to do so at all times. In other words, the essential qualities of being omnipotent and omnipresent can be self-limited without being lost as essential qualities. Consequently, although Jesus’ limitations in these particular areas are perhaps troubling at times, it does not necessarily disqualify Him from divinity. Omniscience, however, is another matter altogether. It is one thing to voluntarily refrain from doing something you have the ability to do, it is quite another to voluntarily stop knowing something that you know. This is the problem we face when dealing with Jesus’ omniscience, or lack thereof. It is clear from Scripture that Jesus does not know everything. For example, Mark 13:32 records Jesus’ response to the disciples’ inquiry about the Second Coming when He says “No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” Another example would be Jesus’ prayer to the Father at Gethsemane when he says, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me.” (Matt. 26:39) Certainly if Jesus were omniscient, He would know what other possibilities would be available for redemption. Interestingly, however, Jesus asked this question because He knew the gruesome task that lay before Him. In any event, it would certainly appear that Jesus didn’t know everything as would be expected of God. Nevertheless, there are two plausible theories that have been advanced that may shed some light on the matter.

Kenoticism

This theory is from the Greek word kenosis meaning “emptying.” The kenotic tradition in large part derives its authority from Philippians 2:5-11 where it states;

“Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death—even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

“A kenotic theology would handle the tricky matters we are now considering by maintaining that the preexistent second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, gave up his position and certain features of divine existence in order to take on humanity. Among those things he emptied himself of was his omniscience.”[3] It is important to remember that Christ did not empty Himself of His divinity. Instead, He set aside the independent use of His divine attributes when necessary to accomplish the Father’s will of redemption for humanity. Still, Christ foretold the future (Matt. 26:34), He healed those who were sick and lame (John 5:2-14), He gave sight to the blind (John 9:1-12), He raised the dead (John 11:41-44), and walked on water (Mark 6:45-52)—all actions that support His ongoing divine nature.

Two-Minds

A second theory advanced with respect to Jesus’ omniscience is the idea that Jesus possessed two minds—one divine and one human. Jesus’ divine mind was omniscient while His human mind was limited to what was common among humanity. Jesus’ omniscience like His omnipotence is masked by his humanity.

“Just as contemporary psychology suggests that much of what goes on in the human mind goes on below the conscious surface, one might suppose that taking on humanity required Christ’s consciousness to be similar to ours but that below the conscious surface there existed the omniscient mind of God. Of course, this wouldn’t mean that Jesus was limited to only the contents of his human mind. For God the Father could have chosen to allow the earthly mind to have more or less access to the contents of the divine mind, as might be necessary for completion of his ministry on earth.”[4]

That last sentence would seem to explain why Jesus knew some things but not others. For example, Matthew records an event at the beginning of Holy Week where he writes, “Jesus sent two disciples, saying to them, ‘Go to the village ahead of you, and at once you will find a donkey tied there, with her colt by her. Untie them and bring them to me. If anyone says anything to you, tell him that the Lord needs them, and he will send them right away.’" (Matt. 21:1-3)

Certainly, both of these explanations come with their own difficulties. However, the goal has not been to resolve, beyond a shadow of a doubt, the issue of Jesus’ omniscience, it has been to advance plausible explanations to counter the arguments against Jesus’ divinity advanced by those who seek to discredit Christianity generally and the doctrine of the Trinity specifically on the basis of Jesus’ omniscience or lack thereof.

Argument #3

Christian’s must fall on the sword of “mystery” in order to accept the Trinity.

Defense #3

            First of all, just because something is considered a mystery doesn’t automatically make it untrue or illogical. Furthermore, a mystery is something that is unknown not something unknowable. There are countless crimes and natural events whose consequences are readily observable but whose causes and/or forces remain a mystery. We may have extensive knowledge about individual aspects of such mysteries yet the ultimate cause is nonetheless a mystery. These mysteries are not untrue or illogical—just unknown. This is the case with the Trinity. We understand God’s unity and His plurality but we’re not quite sure how they fit together because nothing in nature is perfectly analogous. Nevertheless, that does not, in and of itself, make it untrue or illogical—just mysterious.

Argument #4

            The Trinity is a pagan belief system.

Defense #4

            Interestingly, if God existed as a Trinity from eternity past then the Trinity pre-dates any pagan practices. However, that argument may be somewhat circular because it assumes the existence of the Trinity. More importantly, however, any pagan practices resembling Trinitarian theology prior to and after Christianity were/are generally tri-theistic—having three distinct gods ruling separately with separate wills. This is not the Christian construct of Trinitarian thought. Instead, the Trinity consists of one God in essence and three persons within the one Godhead. There is no distinction in the essence or will of the persons of the Godhead. Consequently, Trinitarian theology is monotheistic as opposed to the tri-theism of pagan cultures.

Argument #5

            God as three and one contradicts the laws of nature and math.

Defense #5

With respect to the laws of nature, if natural events are our only relevant background knowledge then it is difficult to accept God apart from the laws of nature. However, since God is the creator of all things, it necessarily exempts Him from being bound by the laws of nature. “Since, if there is a God, there exists a being with the power to set aside the laws of nature that he normally sustains.”[5] That’s not to say that God never works within the bounds of nature, but His miracles testify to the fact that He is not constrained to work within those laws.

With respect to contradicting the laws of math, the difficulty here is a bit more complex but is ultimately a matter of grammar and not a matter of math. It seems clear based on the principle of transitivity that if we say A=B and B=C then A=C. Critics of the Trinity apply this same principle to the Trinity to demonstrate its logical inconsistency. The argument goes something like this: If Jesus is God and the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God then it follows that Jesus is the Father or the Father is the Holy Spirit or Jesus is the Holy Spirit. Of course this is a logical absurdity and it naturally follows that the three cannot be the same thing and yet different. However, it is at this point that the argument moves from math to grammar. Specifically at issue is the easily overlooked word “is.” The now infamous phrase used by former President Clinton when asked about the adulterous relationship he had with an intern while he was a sitting President, “It depends on your definition of ‘is’,” is precisely the key to overcoming this seemingly insurmountable obstacle to understanding the three-in-oneness of God. Grammatically, “is” can either be used as one of identity or as one of predication. With respect to a statement using the “is” of identity, what is to the left of the “is” is identical to what is to the right of the “is.” For example, N. W. Clerk is C. S. Lewis uses the “is” of identity because what is to the left and right of the “is” are different names for the identical person. When using the “is” of predication, what is to the right of the “is” describes something about what is to the left of the “is.” For example, Joe is human and Laura is human describe something about both Joe and Laura but it does not then follow that Joe is Laura. “So the first point of clarification that the Christian apologist will make is to note that the relevant sentences (i.e., The Father is God, The Son is God, and The Holy Spirit is God) do not, as one might have first thought, include the ‘is’ of identity but merely the ‘is’ of predication. Another way of stating our trinitarian triad is The Father is divine, The Son is divine, The Holy Spirit is divine.”[6] Although this understanding resolves the issue of how the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not the same, we must be careful to avoid the pitfall of tri-theism (three gods). As such, we must demonstrate the unification of the three. In other words, in what way are the three the same. “The relationship between the Father and the Son is said to be one of eternal generation. Eternal because there is no temporal priority; the Father did not exist before the Son. Each is coeternal. Generation…Historically, the use of this term was to insist that the Son is the same kind of being (i.e. divine) as the Father…The Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the Father and the Son, once again to insist that the Spirit, like the Father and the Son, is eternal and divine…The Father, Son, and Spirit are ontologically united. The existence of any of these persons is logically sufficient for the existence of all three…it is simply not possible for one of the three to exist independently from the other two.”[7]

By combining the elements of the three distinctive persons of God—God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit—with the ontological unity of their divine essence, we begin to see a little more clearly the three-in-oneness of God.

In Part Three of our lesson we will take a closer look at both the Old Testament and New Testament support for the Trinity.

---

[1] Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996) p. 256.

[2] Thomas C. Oden, The Living God, (HarperSanFrancisco, New York, NY, 1987), p. 209.

[3] Michael J. Murray, ed., Reason for the Hope Within, (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, MI, 1999) pp. 250-251.

[4] Ibid., p. 252

[5] Richard Swinburne, The Existence of God, (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2004), p. 284.

[6] Murray, Reason for the Hope Within, p. 255.

[7] Ibid., p. 258

Defending The Trinity (pt. 1) (RP1)

(Audio version; Music: "Praise The Father, Praise The Son" by: Chris Tomlin and "This I Believe (The Creed)" by: Hillsong)

Introduction

The doctrine of the Trinity is one of my favorite doctrines. However, for many years, I was afraid to fully embrace the doctrine because I didn't understand it. Perhaps you feel the same way. Of course, this is also one of the favorite doctrines that unbelievers love to attack because it is so difficult to understand and even more difficult to explain and defend. I'm hoping this series will equip you with a few tools to encourage you to embrace this beautiful revelation of God and be able to share that gift with others. There are many individuals who claim to be Christians along with various cults who proclaim the name of Jesus Christ yet reject the doctrine of the Trinity. Don’t be deceived! Rejection of the Trinity is a rejection of orthodox Christianity. Confessing Christians must accept the doctrine of the Trinity even if they don't fully understand it or don’t feel confident explaining it. There are many Christian doctrines that have multiple positions that are open for debate and disagreement. The doctrine of the Trinity is not one of those doctrines. Christians accept it, non-Christians do not. Stand your ground and keep digging for the truth...I'll bring a shovel to help!

The Problem

I will grant you that this doctrine is one of, if not, the most perplexing theological concepts advanced by any major theological system of beliefs. Although adherence to a certain set of beliefs is essential to the Christian’s inclusion within the Church, adherence is never a requisite that precludes questioning or the quest for understanding. Developing and understanding the doctrine of the Trinity is no different. However, reaching a complete and concrete “understanding” of the Trinity is precisely the problem. Specifically at issue and the primary focus of this lesson series is the apparent contradiction between the clear teaching that God is one while at the same time experiencing God’s revelation of Himself as three distinct persons—God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. However, the apparent contradiction with God’s “three-in-oneness” is just that—an apparent contradiction. A true contradiction would state that God is one and not one at the same time or three and not three at the same time. This, however, is not the case. Instead, the difficulty with the Trinity, in addition to being mysterious, is largely rooted in the limitation of language and a misunderstanding of previously accepted terminology. Although we are still constrained by the limitations of language, a closer look at some of the terminology used to describe and define the Trinity might alleviate some of the confusion usually associated with this very crucial doctrine. First, however, it might be helpful to briefly review the events that necessitated the development of the doctrine and how the doctrine reached its current understanding.

Jesus and Jewish Monotheism

It is hard to argue that the Jewish faith is anything but fiercely monotheistic. This is imminently clear from the Old Testament biblical teaching known as the Shema: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Deut. 6:4) Although we will take a closer look later at how the Old Testament intimated at the plurality of God, for the time being we will consider the crucial event that has created the tension between monotheism and the Trinity. The central figure that precipitated the need to develop this doctrine is Jesus. It is accepted within orthodox Christianity that Jesus is not only fully human but is simultaneously fully God. It is not the purpose of this writing to defend the deity of Christ specifically but to make that assumption generally in order to develop a clearer understanding and defense of the Trinity. It is with this assumption that the tension with monotheism begins. During the first four centuries of the Church, various attempts were made to try and explain how God is Father, Son and Spirit without falling into the polytheistic trap of claiming three gods. As a consequence, a number of hypotheses were advanced.

Modalistic Formulations

           

In order to maintain that God is only one person, the modalist makes the claim that God is one person that has revealed Himself to us in three different forms. “In the Old Testament God appeared as ‘Father.’ Throughout the Gospels, this same divine person appeared as ‘the Son’ as seen in the human life and ministry of Jesus. After Pentecost, this same person then revealed Himself as the ‘Spirit’ active in the church.”[1] Although at first glance this appears to be a nice, neat package that explains God’s revelation of Himself to us in three different ways, it fails to take into consideration the eternal relationship between Father, Son and Spirit alluded to by Jesus when He said, “And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began (Jn 17:5).” Furthermore, the hypotheses falls flat at Jesus’ baptism when the Father speaks, the Son is baptized and the Spirit descends upon Him. In short, this event in the life of Jesus necessarily demonstrates that God cannot be one person manifest in three different ways at the same time.

Arianism

Receiving its name from Arius, a bishop of Alexandria, Arians taught that there was some time when Jesus and the Spirit did not exist. Instead, Arius insisted that both were created by God. Although he was willing to concede to a certain level of deity for both the Son and the Spirit, neither was equal to the Father. Arius depended heavily on biblical texts identifying Jesus as “only begotten” and “first-born over all creation” while at the same time neglecting the biblical text that demonstrate that there was never a time when Jesus did not exist (Jn 17:5). Ultimately, the church council convened in A.D. 325 at Nicea to address the issue of Jesus’ divinity once and for all and developed a formal church position that was used to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381.

Orthodox Formulation

           

Basil and Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa, also known as “the Cappadocians,” may have been the most influential in the development of Trinitarian theology during the fourth century. They made the crucial distinction between “essence” (ousia) and “persons” (hypostaseis). “By ousia they meant one invisible, divine nature, and by hypostaseis they meant mode of being or personal center with independent existence and unique characteristics.”[2] God’s essence or ousia is undivided. In other words, all three persons are equally God. The differences in the persons or hypostaseis are functional or relational as opposed to essential. Consequently, the Father is the source of creation through the Son as the agent of creation through the power of the Spirit who consummates creation.

           

Now that we’ve identified the “The Problem” and established some very important historical context, stay tuned for Part 2 and the beginning of “The Defense.”

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (InterVarsity Press, Leicester, England, 1994) p. 242.

[2] Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, (Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI, 1996) p. 256.