Hello George
here you go again
By the way I am almost done correcting your pdf. I will have it soon and e mail it back. :-D
Here is the link where the below is at if you would like to save it and study it later.
http://www.pro4machineworks.com/The_doc ... inity.html
The Blessed Trinity.
I have many of Norman Geislers books and highly recommend them. You can purchase them here.
Below you will find Norman Geislers simple answer to the trinity.
MATTHEW 28:18-20 How can three persons be God when there is only one God?
MISINTERPRETATION: Matthew speaks of the Father, Son, and Holy Spiritas all being part of one name.The Jehovahs Witnesses argue that this verse does not say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are coequal or coeternal or that all are God(Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1989, 415). Therefore this verse does not support the doctrine of the Trinity.
CORRECTING THE MISINTERPRETATION: God is one in Essence, but three in Persons. God has one Nature, but three Centers of Consciousness. That is, there is only one What in God, but there are three Whos; there is one It, but three Is. This is a mystery, but not a contradiction. It would be contradictory to say God was only one person, but also was three persons, or that God is only one nature but has three natures. But to declare, as orthodox Christians do, that God is one essence, eternally revealed in three distinct persons, is not a contradiction.
A grammatical analysis of Matthew 28:19 is highly revealing. The verse says: Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit(nasb, emphasis added). The word name in Matthew 28:19 is singular in the Greek, indicating that there is one God. But there are three persons within the Godhead, each with a definite article (in the Greek language, firmly indicating distinctness)the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The verse does not say in the names [plural] of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,nor does it say in the name of the Father, the name of the Son, and the name of the Holy Spirit.Nor does it say in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit(omitting the definite articles). It says in the name [singular, asserting the oneness of God] of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit(each distinct from the others as persons). This verse very clearly demonstrates the doctrine of the Trinity.
Below you will find the writings of Wayne Grudem.
These writing are from his book Systematic Theology.
Its deep heavy reading, but I am sure you will be blessed.
I would encourage you to purchase the whole book as its awsome. To purchase click here.
God in Three Persons: The Trinity
How can God be three persons, yet one God?
The preceding chapters have discussed many attributes of God. But if we understood only those attributes, we would not rightly understand God at all, for we would not understand that God, in his very being, has always existed as more than one person. In fact, God exists as three persons, yet he is one God.
It is important to remember the doctrine of the Trinity in connection with the study of Gods attributes. When we think of God as eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, and so forth, we may have a tendency to think only of God the Father in connection with these attributes. But the biblical teaching on the Trinity tells us that all of Gods attributes are true of all three persons, for each is fully God. Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient, and so forth.
The doctrine of the Trinity is one of the most important doctrines of the Christian faith. To study the Bibles teachings on the Trinity gives us great insight into the question that is at the center of all of our seeking after God: What is God like in himself ? Here we learn that in himself, in his very being, God exists in the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, yet he is one God.
EXPLANATION AND SCRIPTURAL BASIS
We may define the doctrine of the Trinity as follows: God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God.
A. The Doctrine of the Trinity Is Progressively Revealed in Scripture
1. Partial Revelation in the Old Testament. The word trinity is never found in the Bible, though the idea represented by the word is taught in many places. The word trinity means tri-unityor three-in-oneness.It is used to summarize the teaching of Scripture that God is three persons yet one God.
Sometimes people think the doctrine of the Trinity is found only in the New Testament, not in the Old. If God has eternally existed as three persons, it would be surprising to find no indications of that in the Old Testament. Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly found in the Old Testament, several passages suggest or even imply that God exists as more than one person.
For instance, according to Genesis 1:26, God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.What do the plural verb (let us) and the plural pronoun (our) mean? Some have suggested they are plurals of majesty, a form of speech a king would use in saying, for example, We are pleased to grant your request. 11 1. Both Alexander the Great (in 152 b.c.) and King Demetrius (about 145 b.c.) refer to themselves in this way, for example, in the Septuagint text of 1 Macc. 10:19 and 11:31, but this is in Greek, not Hebrew, and it is written long after Genesis 1. However, in Old Testament Hebrew there are no other examples of a monarch using plural verbs or plural pronouns of himself in such a plural of majesty,so this suggestion has no evidence to support it. 22 2. See E. Kautzsch, ed., GeseniusHebrew Grammar 2d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), Section 124g, n. 2, with reference to the suggestion of a plural of majesty: The plural used by God in Genesis 1:26, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8 has been incorrectly explained in this way.They understand Gen. 1:26 as a plural of self-deliberation.My own extensive search of subsequent Jewish interpretation in the Babylonian Talmud, the targumim and the midrashim showed only that later Rabbinic interpreters were unable to reach agreement on any satisfactory interpretation of this passage, although the plural of majestyand God speaking to angelsinterpretations were commonly suggested. Another suggestion is that God is here speaking to angels. But angels did not participate in the creation of man, nor was man created in the image and likeness of angels, so this suggestion is not convincing. The best explanation is that already in the first chapter of Genesis we have an indication of a plurality of persons in God himself. 33 3. The plural Wewas regarded by the fathers and earlier theologians almost unanimously as indicative of the Trinity[Keil and Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Associated Publishers and Authors, n.d.], 1:48, with objections to other positions and an affirmation that Gen. 1:26 contains the truth that lies at the foundation of the Trinitarian view). We are not told how many persons, and we have nothing approaching a complete doctrine of the Trinity, but it is implied that more than one person is involved. The same can be said of Genesis 3:22 (Behold, the man has become like one of us knowing good and evil), Genesis 11:7 (Come, let us go down, and there confuse their language), and Isaiah 6:8 (Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?). (Note the combination of singular and plural in the same sentence in the last passage.)
Moreover, there are passages where one person is called Godor the Lordand is distinguished from another person who is also said to be God. In Psalm 45:67 (NIVNIV nivNew International Version), the psalmist says, Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever....You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.Here the psalm passes beyond describing anything that could be true of an earthly king and calls the king God(v. 6), whose throne will last forever and ever.But then, still speaking to the person called God,the author says that God, your God, has set you above your companions(v. 7). So two separate persons are called God(Heb. , H466). In the New Testament, the author of Hebrews quotes this passage and applies it to Christ: Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever(Heb. 1:8). 44 4. The RSV translates Ps. 45:6, Your divine throne endures forever and ever,but this is a highly unlikely translation because it requires understanding the Hebrew noun for thronein construct state, something extremely unusual when a noun has a pronominal suffix, as this one does. The RSV translation would only be adopted because of a theological assumption (that an Old Testament psalmist could not predict a fully divine messianic king), but not on the grounds of language or grammar. The KJV, NIV, and NASB all take the verse in its plain, straightforward sense, as do the ancient translations and Heb. 1:8. Derek Kidner, Psalms 172 TOTC (London: Inter-Varsity Press, 1973), p. 172, says this verse is an example of Old Testament language bursting its banks, to demand a more than human fulfillment,and this paradox is consistent with the Incarnation, but mystifying in any other context.
Though some ancient kings, such as the Egyptian pharaohs, were sometimes addressed as gods,this was part of the falsehood connected with pagan idolatry, and it should not be confused with Ps. 45, which is part of Scripture and therefore true.
The suggested translation of Heb. 1:8 in the RSV margin, God is your throne forever and ever,while possible grammatically, is completely inconsistent with the thinking of both Old and New Testaments: the mighty God who created everything and rules supreme over the universe would never be merely a thronefor someone else. The thought itself is dishonoring to God, and it should certainly not be considered as a possibly appropriate translation.
Similarly, in Psalm 110:1, David says, The Lord says to my lord: Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet(NIV). Jesus rightly understands that David is referring to two separate persons as Lord(Matt. 22:4146), but who is Davids Lordif not God himself ? And who could be saying to God, Sit at my right handexcept someone else who is also fully God? From a New Testament perspective, we can paraphrase this verse: God the Father said to God the Son, Sit at my right hand.But even without the New Testament teaching on the Trinity, it seems clear that David was aware of a plurality of persons in one God. Jesus, of course, understood this, but when he asked the Pharisees for an explanation of this passage, no one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day did any one dare to ask him any more questions(Matt. 22:46). Unless they are willing to admit a plurality of persons in one God, Jewish interpreters of Scripture to this day will have no more satisfactory explanation of Psalm 110:1 (or of Gen. 1:26, or of the other passages just discussed) than they did in Jesus day.
Isaiah 63:10 says that Gods people rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit(NIV), apparently suggesting both that the Holy Spirit is distinct from God himself (it is his Holy Spirit), and that this Holy Spirit can be grieved,thus suggesting emotional capabilities characteristic of a distinct person. (Isa. 61:1 also distinguishes The Spirit of the Lord GODfrom the Lord,even though no personal qualities are attributed to the Spirit of the Lord in that verse.)
Similar evidence is found in Malachi, when the Lord says, The Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts. But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears?(Mal. 3:12). Here again the one speaking (the Lord of hosts) distinguishes himself from the Lord whom you seek,suggesting two separate persons, both of whom can be called Lord.
In Hosea 1:7, the Lord is speaking, and says of the house of Judah, I will deliver them by the Lord their God,once again suggesting that more than one person can be called Lord(Heb. , H3378) and God(, H466).
And in Isaiah 48:16, the speaker (apparently the servant of the Lord) says, And now the Lord God has sent me and his Spirit. 55 5. This RSV translation of Isa. 48:16 accurately reproduces both the literal sense of the Hebrew words and the word order in the Hebrew text. Here the Spirit of the Lord, like the servant of the Lord, has been sentby the Lord GOD on a particular mission. The parallel between the two objects of sending (meand his Spirit) would be consistent with seeing them both as distinct persons: it seems to mean more than simply the Lord has sent me and his power. 66 6. The NIV translation, with his Spirit,is not required by the Hebrew text and tends to obscure the parallel thoughts of the Lord sending meand his Spirit.The word with in the NIV is the translatorsinterpretation of the Hebrew conjunction , H2256, which most commonly means simply and.The common Hebrew word for with(, H6640) is not in the text. In fact, from a full New Testament perspective (which recognizes Jesus the Messiah to be the true servant of the Lord predicted in Isaiahs prophecies), Isaiah 48:16 has trinitarian implications: And now the Lord God has sent me and his Spirit,if spoken by Jesus the Son of God, refers to all three persons of the Trinity.
Furthermore, several Old Testament passages about the angel of the Lordsuggest a plurality of persons in God. The word translated angel(Heb. , H4855) means simply messenger.If this angel of the Lord is a messengerof the Lord, he is then distinct from the Lord himself. Yet at some points the angel of the Lord is called Godor the Lord(see Gen. 16:13; Ex. 3:26; 23:2022 [note my name is in himin v. 21]; Num. 22:35 with 38; Judg. 2:12; 6:11 with 14). At other points in the Old Testament the angel of the Lordsimply refers to a created angel, but at least at these texts the special angel (or messenger) of the Lord seems to be a distinct person who is fully divine.
One of the most disputed Old Testament texts that could show distinct personality for more than one person is Proverbs 8:2231. Although the earlier part of the chapter could be understood as merely a personification of wisdomfor literary effect, showing wisdom calling to the simple and inviting them to learn, vv. 2231, one could argue, say things about wisdomthat seem to go far beyond mere personification. Speaking of the time when God created the earth, wisdomsays, Then I was the craftsman at his side. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in his presence, rejoicing in his whole world and delighting in mankind(Prov. 8:3031 NIV). To work as a craftsmanat Gods side in the creation suggests in itself the idea of distinct personhood, and the following phrases might seem even more convincing, for only real persons can be filled with delight day after dayand can rejoice in the world and delight in mankind. 77 7. In response to these arguments, one could argue that there are similarly detailed personifications of wisdom in Prov. 8:112 and 9:16, and of foolishness in Prov. 9:1318, and no interpreter understands these to be actual persons. Therefore, Prov. 8:2231 does not represent an actual person either. This argument seems convincing to me, but I have included the following paragraph because Prov. 8:2231 has a long history of interpreters who think it refers to God the Son.
But if we decide that wisdomhere really refers to the Son of God before he became man, there is a difficulty. Verses 2225 (RSVRSV rsvRevised Standard Version) seem to speak of the creation of this person who is called wisdom:
The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,
The first of his acts of old.
Ages ago I was set up,
at the first, before the beginning of the earth.
When there were no depths I was brought forth,
when there were no springs abounding with water.
Before the mountains had been shaped,
before the hills, I was brought forth.
Does this not indicate that this wisdomwas created?
In fact, it does not. The Hebrew word that commonly means create(, H1343) is not used in verse 22; rather the word is , H7865, which occurs eighty-four times in the Old Testament and almost always means to get, acquire.The NASBNASB nasbNew American Standard Bible is most clear here: The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his way(similarly KJVKJV kjvKing James Version (Authorized Version)). (Note this sense of the word in Gen. 39:1; Ex. 21:2; Prov. 4:5, 7; 23:23; Eccl. 2:7; Isa. 1:3 [owner].) This is a legitimate sense and, if wisdom is understood as a real person, would mean only that God the Father began to direct and make use of the powerful creative work of God the Son at the time creation began 88 8. The confusion surrounding the translation of the verse seems to have been caused by the unusual translation of the Septuagint, which used (G3231, create) rather than the usual translation (G3227, acquire, take possession of) to translate the Hebrew term at this verse. , H7865, occurs eighty-four times in the Hebrew Old Testament and is translated more than seventy times by but only three times by (Gen. 14:19; Prov. 8:22; Jer. 39(32):15), all of which are questionable translations. The other Greek translations of the Old Testament by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotian all have at Prov. 8:22. : the Father summoned the Son to work with him in the activity of creation. The expression brought forthin verses 24 and 25 is a different term but could carry a similar meaning: the Father began to direct and make use of the powerful creative work of the Son in the creation of the universe.
2. More Complete Revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament. When the New Testament opens, we enter into the history of the coming of the Son of God to earth. It is to be expected that this great event would be accompanied by more explicit teaching about the trinitarian nature of God, and that is in fact what we find. Before looking at this in detail, we can simply list several passages where all three persons of the Trinity are named together.
When Jesus was baptized, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased(Matt. 3:1617). Here at one moment we have three members of the Trinity performing three distinct activities. God the Father is speaking from heaven; God the Son is being baptized and is then spoken to from heaven by God the Father; and God the Holy Spirit is descending from heaven to rest upon and empower Jesus for his ministry.
At the end of Jesusearthly ministry, he tells the disciples that they should go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit(Matt. 28:19). The very names Fatherand Son,drawn as they are from the family, the most familiar of human institutions, indicate very strongly the distinct personhood of both the Father and the Son. When the Holy Spiritis put in the same expression and on the same level as the other two persons, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is also viewed as a person and of equal standing with the Father and the Son.
When we realize that the New Testament authors generally use the name God(Gk. , G2536) to refer to God the Father and the name Lord(Gk. , G3261) to refer to God the Son, then it is clear that there is another trinitarian expression in 1 Corinthians 12:46: 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 working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one.
Similarly, the last verse of 2 Corinthians is trinitarian in its expression: 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). We see the three persons mentioned separately in Ephesians 4:46 as well: There is one body and one Spirit just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.
All three persons of the Trinity are mentioned together in the opening sentence of 1 Peter: According to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with his blood(1 Peter 1:2 NASB). And in Jude 2021, we read: But you, beloved, build yourselves up on your most holy faith; pray in the Holy Spirit; keep yourselves in the love of God; wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life.
However, the KJV translation of 1 John 5:7 should not be used in this connection. It reads, For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
The problem with this translation is that it is based on a very small number of unreliable Greek manuscripts, the earliest of which comes from the fourteenth century a.d. No modern translation (except NKJVNKJV nkjvNew King James Version) includes this KJV reading, but all omit it, as do the vast majority of Greek manuscripts from all major text traditions, including several very reliable manuscripts from the fourth and fifth century a.d., and also including quotations by church fathers such as Irenaeus (d. ca. a.d. 202), Clement of Alexandria (d. ca. a.d. 212), Tertullian (died after a.d. 220), and the great defender of the Trinity, Athanasius (d. a.d. 373).
B. Three Statements Summarize the Biblical Teaching
In one sense the doctrine of the Trinity is a mystery that we will never be able to understand fully. However, we can understand something of its truth by summarizing the teaching of Scripture in three statements:
1. God is three persons.
2. Each person is fully God.
3. There is one God.
The following section will develop each of these statements in more detail.
1. God Is Three Persons. The fact that God is three persons means that the Father is not the Son; they are distinct persons. It also means that the Father is not the Holy Spirit, but that they are distinct persons. And it means that the Son is not the Holy Spirit. These distinctions are seen in a number of the passages quoted in the earlier section as well as in many additional New Testament passages.
John 1:12 tells us: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.The fact that the Word(who is seen to be Christ in vv. 918) is withGod shows distinction from God the Father. In John 17:24 (NIV), Jesus speaks to God the Father about my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world,thus showing distinction of persons, sharing of glory, and a relationship of love between the Father and the Son before the world was created.
We are told that Jesus continues as our High Priest and Advocate before God the Father: If any one does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous(1 John 2:1). Christ is the one who is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them(Heb. 7:25). Yet in order to intercede for us before God the Father, it is necessary that Christ be a person distinct from the Father.
Moreover, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. They are distinguished in several verses. Jesus says, But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you(John 14:26). The Holy Spirit also prays or intercedesfor us (Rom. 8:27), indicating a distinction between the Holy Spirit and God the Father to whom the intercession is made.
Finally, the fact that the Son is not the Holy Spirit is also indicated in the several trinitarian passages mentioned earlier, such as the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19), and in passages that indicate that Christ went back to heaven and then sent the Holy Spirit to the church. Jesus said, It is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you(John 16:7).
Some have questioned whether the Holy Spirit is indeed a distinct person, rather than just the poweror forceof God at work in the world. But the New Testament evidence is quite clear and strong. 99 9. The following section on the distinct personality of the Holy Spirit follows quite closely the excellent material in Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology p. 96. First are the several verses mentioned earlier where the Holy Spirit is put in a coordinate relationship with the Father and the Son (Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 12:46; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:46; 1 Peter 1:2): since the Father and Son are both persons, the coordinate expression strongly intimates that the Holy Spirit is a person also. Then there are places where the masculine pronoun (Gk. , G1697) is applied to the Holy Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:1314), which one would not expect from the rules of Greek grammar, for the word spirit(Gk. , G4460) is neuter, not masculine, and would ordinarily be referred to with the neuter pronoun . Moreover, the name counselor or comforter (Gk. , G4156) is a term commonly used to speak of a person who helps or gives comfort or counsel to another person or persons, but is used of the Holy Spirit in Johns gospel (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7).
Other personal activities are ascribed to the Holy Spirit, such as teaching (John 14:26), bearing witness (John 15:26; Rom. 8:16), interceding or praying on behalf of others (Rom. 8:2627), searching the depths of God (1 Cor. 2:10), knowing the thoughts of God (1 Cor. 2:11), willing to distribute some gifts to some and other gifts to others (1 Cor. 12:11), forbidding or not allowing certain activities (Acts 16:67), speaking (Acts 8:29; 13:2; and many times in both Old and New Testaments), evaluating and approving a wise course of action (Acts 15:28), and being grieved by sin in the lives of Christians (Eph. 4:30).
Finally, if the Holy Spirit is understood simply to be the power of God, rather than a distinct person, then a number of passages would simply not make sense, because in them the Holy Spirit and his power or the power of God are both mentioned. For example, Luke 4:14, And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee,would have to mean, Jesus returned in the power of the power of God into Galilee.In Acts 10:38, God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and with power,would mean, God anointed Jesus with the power of God and with power(see also Rom. 15:13; 1 Cor. 2:4).
Although so many passages clearly distinguish the Holy Spirit from the other members of the Trinity, one puzzling verse has been 2 Corinthians 3:17: Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.Interpreters often assume that the Lordhere must mean Christ, because Paul frequently uses the Lordto refer to Christ. But that is probably not the case here, for a good argument can be made from grammar and context to say that this verse is better translated with the Holy Spirit as subject, Now the Spirit is the Lord.... 1010 10. Grammatically both the Spirit( ) and the Lord( ) are in the nominative case, which is the case taken both by the subject and by the predicate noun in a sentence with the verb to be.And word order does not indicate the subject in Greek as it does in English. The definite article (, G3836, the) before Lordhere is probably anaphoric (that is, it refers back to the previous mention of Lordin v. 16 and says that the Spirit is the Lordwho was just mentioned in the previous sentence). (See Murray Harris, 2 Corinthians,in EBC 10:33839.) In this case, Paul would be saying that the Holy Spirit is also Yahweh(or Jehovah), the Lord of the Old Testament (note the clear Old Testament background of this context, beginning at v. 7). Theologically this would be quite acceptable, for it could truly be said that just as God the Father is Lordand God the Son is Lord(in the full Old Testament sense of Lordas a name for God), so also the Holy Spirit is the one called Lordin the Old Testamentand it is the Holy Spirit who especially manifests the presence of the Lord to us in the new covenant age. 1111 11. Another possible interpretation is to say that this is speaking of the function of Christ and the function of the Holy Spirit as so closely related in the New Testament age that they can be spoken of as one in purpose. The verse would then mean something like The Lord Jesus is in this age seen and known through the activity of the Holy Spirit, for the Holy Spirits function is to glorify Christ.But this is a less persuasive interpretation, since it seems unlikely that Paul would speak of an identity of function in such an obscure way, or even that Paul would want to say that the work of Christ and the work of the Spirit are identical.
2. Each Person Is Fully God. In addition to the fact that all three persons are distinct, the abundant testimony of Scripture is that each person is fully God as well.
First, God the Father is clearly God. This is evident from the first verse of the Bible, where God created the heaven and the earth. It is evident through the Old and New Testaments, where God the Father is clearly viewed as sovereign Lord over all and where Jesus prays to his Father in heaven.
Next, the Son is fully God. Although this point will be developed in greater detail in chapter 26, The Person of Christ,we can briefly note several explicit passages at this point. John 1:14 clearly affirms the full deity of Christ:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God; all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.
Here Christ is referred to as the Word,and John says both that he was with Godand that he was God.The Greek text echoes the opening words of Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning...) and reminds us that John is talking about something that was true before the world was made. God the Son was always fully God.
The translation the Word was Godhas been challenged by the Jehovahs Witnesses, who translate it the Word was a god implying that the Word was simply a heavenly being but not fully divine. They justify this translation by pointing to the fact that the definite article (Gk. , G3836, the) does not occur before the Greek word (G2536, God). They say therefore that should be translated a god.However, their interpretation has been followed by no recognized Greek scholar anywhere, for it is commonly known that the sentence follows a regular rule of Greek grammar, and the absence of the definite article merely indicates that Godis the predicate rather than the subject of the sentence. 1212 12. This rule (called Colwells rule) is covered as early as chapter 6 of a standard introductory Greek grammar: See John Wenham, The Elements of New Testament Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965), p. 35; also, BDF 273. The rule is simply that in sentences with the linking verb to be(such as Gk. , G1639), a definite predicate noun will usually drop the definite article when it precedes the verb, but the subject of the sentence, if definite, will retain the definite article. So if John had wanted to say, The Word was God,John 1:1 is exactly the way he would have said it. (Recent grammatical study has confirmed and even strengthened Colwells original rule: see Lane C. McGaughy, Toward a Descriptive Analysis of EINAI as a Linking Verb in the New Testament [SBLDS 6; Missoula, Mont.: SBL, 1972], esp. pp. 4953, 7377; and the important review of this book by E.V.N. Goetchius in JBL 95 [1976]: 14749.)
Of course, if John had wanted to say, The Word was a god(with an indefinite predicate, a god), it would also have been written this way, since there would have been no definite article to drop in the first place. But if that were the case, there would have to be some clues in the context that John was using the word (G2536) to speak of a heavenly being that was not fully divine. So the question becomes, what kind of God (or god) is John talking about in this context? Is he speaking of the one true God who created the heavens and the earth? In that case, was definite and dropped the definite article to show that it was the predicate noun. Or is he speaking about some other kind of heavenly being (a god) who is not the one true God? In that case, was indefinite and never had a definite article in the first place.
The context decides this question clearly. From the other uses of the word to mean Godin vv. 1, 2, 6, 12, 13, et al., and from the opening words that recall Gen. 1:1 (In the beginning), it is clear that John is speaking of the one true God who created the heavens and the earth. That means that in v. 2 must be understood to refer to that same God as well. (A recent publication by the Jehovahs Witnesses now acknowledges the relevant grammatical rule but continues to affirm their position on John 1:1 nonetheless.) 1313 13. The argument is found in a detailed, rather extensive attack on the doctrine of the Trinity: Should You Believe in the Trinity? (no author named; Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1989). This group apparently deems this booklet a significant statement of their position, for page 2 states, First printing in English: 5,000,000 copies.The booklet first advances the traditional argument that John 1:1 should be translated a godbecause of the absence on the definite article (p. 27). But then it later acknowledges that Colwells rule is relevant for John 1:1 (p. 28) and there admits that the context, not the absence of the definite article, determines whether we should translate the Word was God(definite) or the Word was a god(indefinite). Then it argues as follows: ...when the context requires it, translators may insert an indefinite article in front of the noun in this type of sentence structure. Does the context require an indefinite article at John 1:1? Yes, for the testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God(p. 28).
We should note carefully the weakness of this argument: They admit that context is decisive, but then they quote not one shred of evidence from the context of John 1:1. Rather, they simply assert again their conclusion about the entire Bible.If they agree that this context is decisive, but they can find nothing in this context that supports their view, they have simply lost the argument. Therefore, having acknowledged Colwells rule, they still hold their view on John 1:1, but with no supporting evidence. To hold a view with no evidence to support it is simply irrationality.
The booklet as a whole will give an appearance of scholarly work to laypersons, since it quotes dozens of theologians and academic reference works (always without adequate documentation). However, many quotations are taken out of context and made to say something the authors never intended, and others are from liberal Catholic or Protestant scholars who themselves are questioning both the doctrine of the Trinity and the truthfulness of the Bible.
The inconsistency of the Jehovahs Witnessesposition can further be seen in their translation of the rest of the chapter. For various other grammatical reasons the word (G2536) also lacks the definite article at other places in this chapter, such as verse 6 (There was a man sent from God), verse 12 (power to become children of God), verse 13 (but of God), and verse 18 (No one has ever seen God). If the Jehovahs Witnesses were consistent with their argument about the absence of the definite article, they would have to translate all of these with the phrase a god,but they translate Godin every case.
John 20:28 in its context is also a strong proof for the deity of Christ. Thomas had doubted the reports of the other disciples that they had seen Jesus raised from the dead, and he said he would not believe unless he could see the nail prints in Jesushands and place his hand in his wounded side (John 20:25). Then Jesus appeared to the disciples when Thomas was with them. He said to Thomas, Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side; do not be faithless, but believing(John 20:27). In response to this, we read, Thomas answered him, My Lord and my God!(John 20:28). Here Thomas calls Jesus my God.The narrative shows that both John in writing his gospel and Jesus himself approve of what Thomas has said and encourage everyone who hears about Thomas to believe the same things that Thomas did. Jesus immediately responds to Thomas, Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe(John 20:29). As far as John is concerned, this is the dramatic high point of the gospel, for he immediately tells the readerin the very next versethat this was the reason he wrote it:
Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:3031)
Jesus speaks of those who will not see him and will yet believe, and John immediately tells the reader that he recorded the events written in his gospel in order that they may believe in just this way, imitating Thomas in his confession of faith. In other words, the entire gospel is written to persuade people to imitate Thomas, who sincerely called Jesus My Lord and my God.Because this is set out by John as the purpose of his gospel, the sentence takes on added force. 1414 14. The Jehovahs Witnessesbooklet Should You Believe in the Trinity? offers two explanations for John 20:28: (1) To Thomas, Jesus was like a god,especially in the miraculous circumstances that prompted his exclamation(p. 29). But this explanation is unconvincing, because Thomas did not say, You are like a god,but rather called Jesus my God.The Greek text has the definite article (it cannot be translated a god) and is explicit: is not a god of minebut my God.
(2) The second explanation offered is that Thomas may simply have made an emotional exclamation of astonishment, spoken to Jesus but directed to God(ibid.). The second part of this sentence, spoken to Jesus but directed to God,is simply incoherent: it seems to mean, spoken to Jesus but not spoken to Jesus,which is not only self-contradictory, but also impossible: if Thomas is speaking to Jesus he is also directing his words to Jesus. The first part of this sentence, the claim that Thomas is really not calling Jesus God,but is merely swearing or uttering some involuntary words of exclamation, is without merit, for the verse makes it clear that Thomas was not speaking into the blue but was speaking directly to Jesus: Thomas answered and said to Him My Lord and my God!(John 20:28, NASB). And immediately both Jesus and John in his writing commend Thomas, certainly not for swearing but for believing in Jesus as his Lord and his God.
Other passages speaking of Jesus as fully divine include Hebrews 1, where the author says that Christ is the exact representation(vs. 3, Gk. , G5917, exact duplicate) of the nature or being (Gk. , G5712) of Godmeaning that God the Son exactly duplicates the being or nature of God the Father in every way: whatever attributes or power God the Father has, God the Son has them as well. The author goes on to refer to the Son as Godin verse 8 (But of the Son he says, Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever), and he attributes the creation of the heavens to Christ when he says of him, You, Lord, did found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands(Heb. 1:10, quoting Ps. 102:25). Titus 2:13 refers to our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,and 2 Peter 1:1 speaks of the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ. 1515 15. Both Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 have marginal readings in the RSV whereby Jesus is referred to as a different person than Godand therefore is not called God: the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ(Titus 2:13 mg.) and our God and the Savior Jesus Christ(2 Peter 1:1 mg.). These alternative translations are possible grammatically but are unlikely. Both verses have the same Greek construction, in which one definite article governs two nouns joined by the Greek word for and (, G2779). In all cases where this construction is found the two nouns are viewed as unified in some way, and often they are two separate names for the same person or thing. Especially significant is 2 Peter 1:1, for exactly the same construction is used by Peter three other times in this book to speak of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ(1 Peter 1:11; 2:20; 3:18). In these three other verses, the Greek wording is exactly the same in every detail except that the word Lord (, G3261) is used instead of the word God (, G2536). If these other three instances are all translated Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ,as they are in all major translations, then consistency in translation would seem to require the translation of 2 Peter 1:1 as Our God and Savior Jesus Christ,again referring to Christ as God. In Titus 2:13 Paul is writing about the hope of Christs second coming, which the New Testament writers consistently speak of in terms that emphasize the manifestation of Jesus Christ in his glory, not in terms that emphasize the glory of the Father. Romans 9:5, speaking of the Jewish people, says, Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen(NIV). 1616 16. The marginal reading in the NIV is similar to the reading in the main text of the RSV, which is, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ. God who is over all be blessed for ever. Amen(Rom. 9:5 RSV). But this translation is far less likely on grammatical and contextual grounds and is justified primarily by arguing that Paul would not have referred to Christ as God.The NIV translation, which refers to Christ as God over all,is preferable because (1) Pauls normal pattern is to declare a word of blessing concerning the person about whom he has just been speaking, who in this case is Christ; (2) the Greek participle on being,which makes the phrase say literally, who, being God over all is blessed forever,would be redundant if Paul were starting a new sentence as the RSV has it; (3) when Paul elsewhere begins a new sentence with a word of blessing to God, the word blessedcomes first in the Greek sentence (see 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; cf. Peters pattern in 1 Peter 1:3), but here the expression does not follow that pattern, making the RSV translation unlikely. See Donald Guthrie, New Testament Theology (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1981), pp. 33940. For a definitive treatment of all the New Testament texts that refer to Jesus as God,see Murray Harris, Jesus as God (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992).
In the Old Testament, Isaiah 9:6 predicts,
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government will be upon his shoulder,
and his name will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God.
As this prophecy is applied to Christ, it refers to him as Mighty God.Note the similar application of the titles Lordand Godin the prophecy of the coming of the Messiah in Isaiah 40:3, In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God,quoted by John the Baptist in preparation for the coming of Christ in Matthew 3:3.
Many other passages will be discussed in chapter 26 below, but these should be sufficient to demonstrate that the New Testament clearly refers to Christ as fully God. As Paul says in Colossians 2:9, In him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily.
Next, the Holy Spirit is also fully God. Once we understand God the Father and God the Son to be fully God, then the trinitarian expressions in verses like Matthew 28:19 (baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit) assume significance for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, because they show that the Holy Spirit is classified on an equal level with the Father and the Son. This can be seen if we recognize how unthinkable it would have been for Jesus to say something like, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the archangel Michaelthis would give to a created being a status entirely inappropriate even to an archangel. Believers throughout all ages can only be baptized into the name (and thus into a taking on of the character) of God himself. 1717 17. 1 Tim. 5:21 should not be seen as a counter example to this claim, for there Paul is simply warning Timothy in the presence of a host of heavenly witnesses, both divine and angelic, who he knows are watching Timothys conduct. This is similar to the mention of God and Christ and the angels of heaven and the spirits of just men made perfectin Heb. 12:2224, where a great heavenly assembly is mentioned. 1 Tim. 5:21 should therefore be seen as significantly different from the trinitarian passages mentioned above, since those passages speak of uniquely divine activities, such as distributing gifts to every Christian (1 Cor. 12:46) or having the name into which all believers are baptized (Matt. 28:19). (Note also the other trinitarian passages mentioned above: 1 Cor. 12:46; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:46; 1 Peter 1:2; Jude 2021.)
In Acts 5:34, Peter asks Ananias, Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit...? You have not lied to men but to God.According to Peters words, to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 3:16, Do you not know that you are Gods temple and that Gods Spirit dwells in you?Gods temple is the place where God himself dwells, which Paul explains by the fact that Gods Spiritdwells in it, thus apparently equating Gods Spirit with God himself.
David asks in Psalm 139:78, Whither shall I go from your Spirit? Or whither shall I flee from your presence? If I ascend to heaven, you are there!This passage attributes the divine characteristic of omnipresence to the Holy Spirit, something that is not true of any of Gods creatures. It seems that David is equating Gods Spirit with Gods presence. To go from Gods Spirit is to go from his presence, but if there is nowhere that David can flee from Gods Spirit, then he knows that wherever he goes he will have to say, You are there.
Paul attributes the divine characteristic of omniscience to the Holy Spirit in 1 Corinthians 2:1011: For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For what person knows a mans thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God [Gk., literally the things of God] except the Spirit of God.
Moreover, the activity of giving new birth to everyone who is born again is the work of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born anew(John 3:57). But the work of giving new spiritual life to people when they become Christians is something that only God can do (cfcf cf.compare. 1 John 3:9, born of God). This passage therefore gives another indication that the Holy Spirit is fully God.
Up to this point we have two conclusions, both abundantly taught throughout Scripture:
1. God is three persons.
2. Each person is fully God.
If the Bible taught only these two facts, there would be no logical problem at all in fitting them together, for the obvious solution would be that there are three Gods. The Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God. We would have a system where there are three equally divine beings. Such a system of belief would be called polytheismor, more specifically, tritheism,or belief in three Gods. But that is far from what the Bible teaches.
3. There Is One God. Scripture is abundantly clear that there is one and only one God. The three different persons of the Trinity are one not only in purpose and in agreement on what they think, but they are one in essence, one in their essential nature. In other words, God is only one being. There are not three Gods. There is only one God.
One of the most familiar passages of the Old Testament is Deuteronomy 6:45 (NIV): Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lordis one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.
When Moses sings,
Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?
Who is like you, majestic in holiness,
terrible in glorious deeds, doing wonders?(Ex. 15:11)
the answer obviously is No one.God is unique, and there is no one like him and there can be no one like him. In fact, Solomon prays that all the peoples of the earth may know that the Lord is God; there is no other(1 Kings 8:60).
When God speaks, he repeatedly makes it clear that he is the only true God; the idea that there are three Gods to be worshiped rather than one would be unthinkable in the light of these extremely strong statements. God alone is the one true God and there is no one like him. When he speaks, he alone is speakinghe is not speaking as one God among three who are to be worshiped. He says:
I am the Lord, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I gird you, though you do not know me,
that men may know, from the rising of the sun
and from the west, that there is none besides me;
I am the Lord, and there is no other.(Isa. 45:56)
Similarly, he calls everyone on earth to turn to him:
There is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none besides me.
Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
(Isa. 45:2122; cf. 44:68)
The New Testament also affirms that there is one God. Paul writes, For there is one God and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus(1 Tim. 2:5). Paul affirms that God is one(Rom. 3:30), and that there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist(1 Cor. 8:6). 1818 18. 1 Cor. 8:6 does not deny that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also God,but here Paul says that God the Father is identified as this one God.Elsewhere, as we have seen, he can speak of God the Son and God the Holy Spirit as also God.Moreover, in this same verse, he goes on to speak of one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.He is here using the word Lord in its full Old Testament sense of Yahwehas a name for God, and saying that this is the person through whom all things were created, thus affirming the full deity of Christ as well, but with a different name. Thus this verse affirms both the unity of God and the diversity of persons in God. Finally, James acknowledges that even demons recognize that there is one God, even though their intellectual assent to that fact is not enough to save them: You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believeand shudder(James 2:19). But clearly James affirms that one does wellto believe that God is one.
4. Simplistic Solutions Must All Deny One Strand of Biblical Teaching. We now have three statements, all of which are taught in Scripture:
1. God is three persons.
2. Each person is fully God.
3. There is one God.
Throughout the history of the church there have been attempts to come up with a simple solution to the doctrine of the Trinity by denying one or another of these statements. If someone denies the first statement then we are simply left with the fact that each of the persons named in Scripture (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) is God, and there is one God. But if we do not have to say that they are distinct persons, then there is an easy solution: these are just different names for one person who acts differently at different times. Sometimes this person calls himself Father, sometimes he calls himself Son, and sometimes he calls himself Spirit. 1919 19. The technical name for this view is modalism, a heresy condemned in the ancient church: see discussion below. We have no difficulty in understanding that, for in our own experience the same person can act at one time as a lawyer (for example), at another time as a father to his own children, and at another time as a son with respect to his parents: The same person is a lawyer, a father, and a son. But such a solution would deny the fact that the three persons are distinct individuals, that God the Father sends God the Son into the world, that the Son prays to the Father, and that the Holy Spirit intercedes before the Father for us.
Another simple solution might be found by denying the second statement that is, denying that some of the persons named in Scripture are really fully God. If we simply hold that God is three persons, and that there is one God, then we might be tempted to say that some of the personsin this one God are not fully God, but are only subordinate or created parts of God. This solution would be taken, for example, by those who deny the full deity of the Son (and of the Holy Spirit). 2020 20. The technical name for this view is Arianism, another heresy condemned in the ancient church: see discussion below. But, as we saw above, this solution would have to deny an entire category of biblical teaching.
Finally, as we noted above, a simple solution could come by denying that there is one God. But this would result in a belief in three Gods, something clearly contrary to Scripture.
Though the third error has not been common, as we shall see below, each of the first two errors has appeared at one time or another in the history of the church and they still persist today in some groups.
5. All Analogies Have Shortcomings. If we cannot adopt any of these simple solutions, then how can we put the three truths of Scripture together and maintain the doctrine of the Trinity? Sometimes people have used several analogies drawn from nature or human experience to attempt to explain this doctrine. Although these analogies are helpful at an elementary level of understanding, they all turn out to be inadequate or misleading on further reflection. To say, for example, that God is like a three-leaf clover, which has three parts yet remains one clover, fails because each leaf is only part of the clover, and any one leaf cannot be said to be the whole clover. But in the Trinity, each of the persons is not just a separate part of God, each person is fully God. Moreover, the leaf of a clover is impersonal and does not have distinct and complex personality in the way each person of the Trinity does.
Others have used the analogy of a tree with three parts: the roots, trunk, and branches all constitute one tree. But a similar problem arises, for these are only parts of a tree, and none of the parts can be said to be the whole tree. Moreover, in this analogy the parts have different properties, unlike the persons of the Trinity, all of whom possess all of the attributes of God in equal measure. And the lack of personality in each part is a deficiency as well.
The analogy of the three forms of water (steam, water, and ice) is also inadequate because (a) no quantity of water is ever all three of these at the same time, 2121 21. There is a certain atmospheric condition (called the triple pointby chemists) at which steam, liquid water, and ice can all exist simultaneously, but even then the quantity of water that is steam is not ice or liquid, the quantity that is liquid is not steam or ice, etc. (b) they have different properties or characteristics, (c) the analogy has nothing that corresponds to the fact that there is only one God (there is no such thing as one wateror all the water in the universe), and (d) the element of intelligent personality is lacking.
Other analogies have been drawn from human experience. It might be said that the Trinity is something like a man who is both a farmer, the mayor of his town, and an elder in his church. He functions in different roles at different times, but he is one man. However, this analogy is very deficient because there is only one person doing these three activities at different times, and the analogy cannot deal with the personal interaction among the members of the Trinity. (In fact, this analogy simply teaches the heresy called modalism, discussed below.)
Another analogy taken from human life is the union of the intellect, the emotions, and the will in one human person. While these are parts of a personality, however, no one factor constitutes the entire person. And the parts are not identical in characteristics but have different abilities.
So what analogy shall we use to teach the Trinity? Although the Bible uses many analogies from nature and life to teach us various aspects of Gods character (God is like a rock in his faithfulness, he is like a shepherd in his care, etc.), it is interesting that Scripture nowhere uses any analogies to teach the doctrine of the Trinity. The closest we come to an analogy is found in the titles Fatherand Sonthemselves, titles that clearly speak of distinct persons and of the close relationship that exists between them in a human family. But on the human level, of course, we have two entirely separate human beings, not one being comprised of three distinct persons. It is best to conclude that no analogy adequately teaches about the Trinity, and all are misleading in significant ways.
6. God Eternally and Necessarily Exists as the Trinity. When the universe was created God the Father spoke the powerful creative words that brought it into being, God the Son was the divine agent who carried out these words (John 1:3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2), and God the Holy Spirit was active moving over the face of the waters(Gen. 1:2). So it is as we would expect: if all three members of the Trinity are equally and fully divine, then they have all three existed for all eternity, and God has eternally existed as a Trinity (cf. also John 17:5, 24). Moreover, God cannot be other than he is, for he is unchanging (see chapter 11 above). Therefore it seems right to conclude that God necessarily exists as a Trinityhe cannot be other than he is.
C. Errors Have Come By Denying Any of the Three Statements Summarizing the Biblical Teaching
In the previous section we saw how the Bible requires that we affirm the following three statements:
1. God is three persons.
2. Each person is fully God.
3. There is one God.
Before we discuss further the differences between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and the way they relate to one another, it is important that we recall some of the doctrinal errors about the Trinity that have been made in the history of the church. In this historical survey we will see some of the mistakes that we ourselves should avoid in any further thinking about this doctrine. In fact, the major trinitarian errors that have arisen have come through a denial of one or another of these three primary statements. 2222 22. An excellent discussion of the history and theological implications of the trinitarian heresies discussed in this section is found in Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: The Image of Christ in the Mirror of Heresy and Orthodoxy from the Apostles to the Present (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1984), pp. 95157.
1. Modalism Claims That There Is One Person Who Appears to Us in Three Different Forms (or Modes). At various times people have taught that God is not really three distinct persons, but only one person who appears to people in different modesat different times. For example, in the Old Testament God appeared as Father.Throughout the Gospels, this same divine person appeared as the Sonas seen in the human life and ministry of Jesus. After Pentecost, this same person then revealed himself as the Spiritactive in the church.
This teaching is also referred to by two other names. Sometimes it is called Sabellianism, after a teacher named Sabellius who lived in Rome in the early third century a.d. Another term for modalism is modalistic monarchianism,because this teaching not only says that God revealed himself in different modesbut it also says that there is only one supreme ruler (monarch) in the universe and that is God himself, who consists of only one person.
Modalism gains its attractiveness from the desire to emphasize clearly the fact that there is only one God. It may claim support not only from the passages talking about one God, but also from passages such as John 10:30 (I and the Father are one) and John 14:9 (He who has seen me has seen the Father). However, the last passage can simply mean that Jesus fully reveals the character of God the Father, and the former passage (John 10:30), in a context in which Jesus affirms that he will accomplish all that the Father has given him to do and save all whom the Father has given to him, seems to mean that Jesus and the Father are one in purpose (though it may also imply oneness of essence).
The fatal shortcoming of modalism is the fact that it must deny the personal relationships within the Trinity that appear in so many places in Scripture (or it must affirm that these were simply an illusion and not real). Thus, it must deny three separate persons at the baptism of Jesus, where the Father speaks from heaven and the Spirit descends on Jesus like a dove. And it must say that all those instances where Jesus is praying to the Father are an illusion or a charade. The idea of the Son or the Holy Spirit interceding for us before God the Father is lost. Finally, modalism ultimately loses the heart of the doctrine of the atonementthat is, the idea that God sent his Son as a substitutionary sacrifice, and that the Son bore the wrath of God in our place, and that the Father, representing the interests of the Trinity, saw the suffering of Christ and was satisfied (Isa. 53:11).
Moreover, modalism denies the independence of God, for if God is only one person, then he has no ability to love and to communicate without other persons in his creation. Therefore it was necessary for God to create the world, and God would no longer be independent of creation (see chapter 12, above, on Gods independence).
One present denomination within Protestantism (broadly defined), the United Pentecostal Church, is modalistic in its doctrinal position. 2323 23. Some of the leaders who formed this group had earlier been forced out of the Assemblies of God when the Assemblies decided to insist on a trinitarian statement of faith for its ministers in 1916. The United Pentecostal Church is sometimes identified with the slogan Jesus only,and it insists that people should be baptized in the name of Jesus, not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Because of its denial of the three distinct persons in God, the denomination should not be considered to be evangelical, and it is doubtful whether it should be considered genuinely Christian at all.
2. Arianism Denies the Full Deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit.
a. The Arian Controversy: The term Arianism is derived from Arius, a Bishop of Alexandria whose views were condemned at the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325, and who died in a.d. 336. Arius taught that God the Son was at one point created by God the Father, and that before that time the Son did not exist, nor did the Holy Spirit, but the Father only. Thus, though the Son is a heavenly being who existed before the rest of creation and who is far greater than all the rest of creation, he is still not equal to the Father in all his attributeshe may even be said to be like the Fatheror similar to the Fatherin his nature, but he cannot be said to be of the same natureas the Father.
The Arians depended heavily on texts that called Christ Gods only begottenSon (John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). If Christ were begottenby God the Father, they reasoned, it must mean that he was brought into existence by God the Father (for the word begetin human experience refers to the fathers role in conceiving a child). Further support for the Arian view was found in Colossians 1:15, He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation.Does not first-bornhere imply that the Son was at some point brought into existence by the Father? 2424 24. Prov. 8:22 was also used by the Arians, who gained support from the fact that the Septuagint misleadingly translated it, The Lord created me(Gk. , G3231) rather than Th
