In the following article, Dr. Francis Beckwith shows us the Biblical
doctrine of the Holy Trinity.
May God bless,
Carl
my website -- http://www.nettally.com/saints/
my blog -- http://www.anniemayhem.com/cgi-bin/wordpress/
---
The Trinity
by Francis J. Beckwith
PART I: THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY, GOD, AND THE DEITY OF THE FATHER
I. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is part of every major creed in
the
history of Christendom. It can be defined in the following way: In the
nature of the one God there are three centers of consciousness, which we
call persons, and these three are equal. Though the term "trinity" is not
found in the Bible, the doctrine is nevertheless taught there. "Trinity"
is
merely the term employed by theologians and church historians in order to
describe the phenomena of God they find in the Bible.
The doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at in much the same way as a
scientific theory. A scientific theory, for the most part, is a reasoned
explanation of observed (or unobserved, in some cases) phenomena in the
natural world. Analogously, the doctrine of the Trinity is a reasoned
explanation of what we observe to be the phenomena of God in the Bible.
Church fathers, councils, denominations, etc. have been so overwhelmed
with
the evidence for the trinity in the scripture that there has been a
universal creedal acknowledgement in church history. The argument behind
the
doctrine can be put this way:
Premise 1: The Bible teaches that there is only one God.
Premise 2: The Bible teaches that there are three distinct personscalled
God, known as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Conclusion: So, the three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - are
the
one God.
Let us take a look at how each premise is justified in the New Testament.
II. THE PREMISES
A. Premise #1: There is only one God
This premise is almost universally accepted by those who claim to be
Christians. For this reason, it should suffice to simply cite I Timothy
2:5,
which reads: "For there is only one God, and there is only mediator
between
God and mankind, himself a man, Christ Jesus...."
B. Premise #2: There are Three Persons called God.
1. The Father is called God.
That there is a person named the Father, who is called God, is
acknowledged
by a host of Biblical passages, such as I Cor. 1:3, which reads: "May God
our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ send you grace and peace." (see also,
Rom 1:7; I Pet 1:17). Because virtually no pseudo-Christian cultist
disputes
this point, the above citation should suffice.
PART II: THE DEITY OF THE SON
2. The Deity of the Son.
The Bible also asserts that Jesus of Nazareth is God. That is, the Son is
God as well as the Father. In John 8:56-59 Jesus calls Himself "I am,"
equating himself with Jehovah God of the Old Testament (Ex. 3:14).
Christ's
participation in the creation of the cosmos necessitates that He is God
(John 1:3 and Collosians 1:16 cf. Isaiah 44:24).
These three passages, when carefully compared and with one another,
clearly
affirm the deity of Christ. The last passage, Isaiah 44:34, states that
Jehovah *alone* made all things. The first and second passages both affirm
that all things were made through Christ. Therefore, if Jehovah *alone*
made
all things, and all things were made through Christ, it logically follows
that Christ is in fact Jehovah God. The text of Scripture, and the force
of
logic, leaves us with no other option.
The Apostle John calls both God and Jesus *the First and the Last* and
*the
Alpha and the Omega* (Rev. 1:18,17;22:13), and hence equates Jesus with
God.
Other passages of the New Testament which implicitly or explicitly affirm
Christ's deity include Mark 2:5-7, John 20:28-29, John 1:1-14, and
Collosians 2:9.
In reply to many of these passages, those who accept the authority of
Scripture and yet deny the deity of Christ, such as the Jehovah's
Witnesses
and the Way International, cite passages in the Bible which apparently
conflict with Christ's deity, e.g., those which seem to say that Jesus
does
not possess the attributes of God (e.g., Luke 18:18,19; John 14:28; I Cor.
11:3, 15:28; Collosians 1:15).
The use of these passages rests on a misunderstanding of the nature of
Christ's incarnation. When God became man in Christ Jesus God the Son did
not "give up" his divine attributes, but simply took on a human nature and
denied his human mind access to his divine mind. Consequently, when he
said
he did not know something he was speaking truly since in the incarnation
he
willingly gave up access to omniscience, though he remained omniscient,
since God cannot give up any of his attributes and still remain God.
Therefore, when Jesus said "the Father is Greater than I" (John 14:28), he
was referring to his current incarnate position in relation to the first
person of the Trinity. This also counts against Oneness, because to say
that
the "Father" is greater than "I" is to imply two different persons. If
they
were the same person, one could not be greater than the other; they would
be
equal. The incarnation, since it involves the Son taking on human nature
and
thus becoming positionally inferior to the Father, explains how the Father
can be greater than the Son and yet the Father and Son share the same
nature
of deity. The Oneness view can't do that, and the JW view cannot explain
the
deity-affirming passages. It seems that the traditional view does the
trick
rather nicely. That is why the church fathers, the church councils, and
the
three major branches of Christendom have seen the doctrine of the Trinity
and the Son's Deity as a natural result of a plain reading of the Biblical
text.
PART III: THE DEITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT
3. The Deity of the Holy Spirit
The deity of the Holy Spirit has been questioned by many cultic groups.
For
example, the Jehovah's Witnesses state that the term "Holy Spirit" merely
refers to the "invisible active force of the Almighty God that moves his
servants to do his will" ("Let God Be True," rev. [1952], 89). In other
words, the Holy Spirit is not only not deity, he is also *not a person*;
it
is an impersonal force which God actively employs. That is, for the JW's,
the "Holy Spirit" is to God what the left-hook is to fictional Rocky
Balboa:
an impersonal "it" directed by a personal being.
This being the case, it is necessary that we first show that the Bible
teaches the personhood of the Holy Spirit. A sufficient condition for
being
a person is that he-she be a "self-conscious or rational being" (*Random
House Dictionary*, 1075). Self-consciousness entails attributes such as
knowing, thinking, and communicating. The following passages clearly show
that the Holy Spirit is considered a person in Holy Scripture:
And when he comes [the Holy Spirit], he [the personal pronoun] will show
the
world how wrong it was about judgment [communication].... But when the
Spirit of truth comes he will lead you to the complete truth, since he
will
not be speaking as from himself but will say only what he has learned
[knowing and thinking]; and he will tell you of the things to come
[communicating]." (John 16:8,13)
One day while they were offering wor****p to the Lord and keeping a fast,
the
Holy Spirit said [communicating], "I [first personal pronoun] want
Barnabas
and Saul set apart for the work which I have calle them." (Acts 13:2)
In both these passages the Holy Spirit is described as acting in very way
a
self-conscious person acts: He communicates, thinks, knows, and is
described
in personal pronouns (i.e., "he" and "I").
Furthermore, there are several other passages that ****tray the Holy Spirit
as exhibiting attributes that are exclusive of personhood. For example,
the
Holy Spirit is described as consoling (Acts 9:31), helping us in our
weakness (Rom 8:26), forbidding (Acts 16:6,7), and able to be lied to
(Acts
5:3). Moreover, the Holy Spirit can be grieved (Eph. 4:30) and insulted
(Heb. 10:29), and is said to possess a will (I Cor. 12:11).
The Bible also plainly teaches the *deity* of the Holy Spirit by
attributing
to him characteristics that are possessed only by God. For example, the
Spirit is described as *Eternal*, having no beginning and no end (Heb
9:14).
Moreover, he described as *Omniscient* (I Cor. 2:10,11), *Sovereign* (I
Cor.
12:6,11), and *possessing the wrath of God* (Heb. 3:7-12). In addition,
Jesus tells us that to sin against the Holy Spirit is to commit an
*eternal*
sin (Matt. 12:31,32).
In Acts 5:3-5, the Holy Spirit is clearly called God:
"Ananias," Peter said, "how can Satan have so possessed you *that you
should
lie to the Holy Spirit* and keep back part of the money from the Lord?
While
you still owned the land, wasn't it yours to keep, and after you had sold
it
wasn't the money yours to do with it as you liked? What put this scheme
into
your mind. *It is not to men that you have lied, but to God*." (emphasis
mine)
Peter is equating a lie to the Holy Spirit with lying to God. In other
words, to lie to the Holy Spirit *is* to lie to God. And since one cannot
lie to a force or to a non-personal object, this passage also teaches the
personality of the Holy Spirit as well as his deity.
PART IV: THE THREE PERSONS ARE THE ONE GOD
C. Conclusion: The Three Persons are the one God.
Let us review our argument for the Trinity. First, we showed that the
Bible
teaches that there is only one God. Second, we found that the Bible tells
us
that there are three persons who are called God. Hence, the inescapable
conclusion: the three persons are the One God. Theologians have called
this
the Trinity.
To further buttress this argument, there are several places in the Bible
in
which the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly implied. For example,
concerning *Christ's Resurrection* we are told that the Father raised
Jesus
from the dead (I Thess. 1:10), the Son raised Himself from the dead (John
2:19-22), and the Spirit raised Jesus from the dead (Rom 8:11). Yet, we
are
told in Acts 17:30,31 that *God raised Jesus from the dead*. Therefore,
either the Bible contradicts itself or the three persons are the one God.
In *Christ's Great Commission* to preach the Gospel, he instructs his
disciples to "go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations;
baptize
them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."
(Matt 28:19). It is im****tant to note that the Greek word "name," used in
this verse, is singular (homonos). It does *not* say, "in the *names* of
the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," but rather, it says, "in
the
*name*...." In other words, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three
distinct
*persons*, have only one name. This clearly implies the Triune nature of
God. Furthermore, the Trinity is revealed at *Christ's incarnation* (Luke
1:35) and *baptism* (Matt 3:16,17), in the *Apostolic benediction* (II Cor
13:13), and in *Christ's own teachings* (John 14:26; 15:26).
PART V: ONENESS OBJECTIONS
III. ONENESS OBJECTIONS
In the first four parts of this series we concluded that (1) the Bible
teaches that there is only one God by nature, and (2) the Bible teaches
that
there are three persons who are God. From those two premises we drew the
inference that the three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - are the
one God. We also concluded that the three are distinct persons, not simply
three different functions of one person.
But according to the "Jesus Only" sect (a.k.a "Oneness Pentecostalism,"),
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not distinct persons who
share
the same nature and being, but rather, they are the same person. Each
title--"Father," "Son," and "Holy Spirit"--represents a different mode by
which God, a single person, manifests Himself, just as "uncle," "husband,"
and "brother" each represents a different mode by which Frank Beckwith
(FB),
a single human person, manifests himself. This is why the ancient heresy
which Oneness embraces is called "modalism."
Consequently, anything true of Frank Beckwith uncle (FBu) must be true of
Frank Beckwith husband (FBh) and Frank Beckwith brother (FBb). That is to
say, it can *not* be the case that FBu is married to Frankie Rozelle
Dickerson Beckwith (yes, my wife's name is Frankie) while FBh is not. It
can
*not* be the case that FBh hit 9 3-pt. jumpshots in a city league
basketball
game in February 1993 while FBb did not. What is true of FBu, as a person,
must be true of FBh and FBb if they are all the same person. Certainly it
is
true that the relation****ps that make u, h, and b distinct are different,
but the *person* to which these titles apply must possess all the same
properties regardless of in what role he is functioning (that is, whether
brother, husband, or uncle). That is, everything that is true of the Frank
Beckwith who is the uncle of Dean James Beckwith and Dylan Patrick
Beckwith
is true of the Frank Beckwith who is married to Frankie R.D. Beckwith and
who is the brother of Dr. James Beckwith and Patrick Beckwith.
Thus, in order for modalism (or "Oneness") to be correct there *must be
nothing true of one "mode" which is not true of another "mode"*. But if
there is just one thing true of one which is not true of another, then
*they
cannot be the same person* and modalism is false.
Understand the monumental task of the Oneness apologist: he must overturn
our common sense intuition that when the Bible speaks of Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit the Bible is in fact speaking of three persons rather than
one.
That is to say, on the face of it, it would appear that a plain reading of
the text clearly presents three distinct persons, since we have numerous
verses that indicate communication and relation****p between persons, such
as
when Jesus prayed to his Father and the Holy Spirit descended upon him. In
other words, since the common sense plain reading of the text indicates
three distinct persons, the burden of proof is without a doubt on the
Oneness person to show the common sense plain reading is false. The
Trinitarian does not have the burden of proof.
Consider the following:
(1) Jesus of Nazareth is called the one and only mediator between God and
man (I Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24). This would mean that God the Son
has
a property - mediator****p - which is possessed by neither God the Father
nor
God the Holy Spirit, since the text is saying he is the ONLY mediator
*between* humanity and the Godhead.
(2) "As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that
moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a
dove and lighting on him. And a voice from heaven said, `This is my Son,
whom I love; with him I am well pleased.'" (Matt. 3:16-17). The Son has
the
property of "being the Son loved by the Father" but not the property of
"being the Father who loves the Son." The Spirit has neither property.
Thus,
we have in this verse a clear distinction between the persons of the
Trinity.
(3) "`No one knows, however, when that day and hour will come - neither
the
angels in heaven nor the Son; the Father alone knows.'" (Matt. 24:36).
Here
the Son has a property (not knowing the day or hour of his second coming)
which the Father does not. Imagine if I said, "Only Frank Beckwith as an
uncle knows what he's getting from his wife for Christmas. Frank Beckwith
as
a brother does not know what he's getting from his wife for Christmas."
You
would have to infer from this that there must two Frank Beckwiths. If not,
then it is logically incoherent.
(4) "Therefore 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).
In the Greek, tou ("the") is used for each title, and each is separated by
kai ("and"). This helps sup****t the view that in this text three distinct
individual persons are being spoken of:
....in the name of *the* (tou) Father *and the* (kai tou) Son, *and the*
(kai
tou) Holy Spirit.
If the Greek text had been referring to only one person, it would have
most
likely read:
....in the name of *the* Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
or,
....in the name of *the* Father, *the* Son, and *the* Holy Spirit.
I don't want to make too much of grammatical constructions, but it seems
that because of the use of both the article and its own conjunction, it is
highly unlikely that the author was talking about only one person (on
this,
see Bruce Tucker, TWISTING THE TRUTH: RECOGNIZING HOW CULT GROUPS SUBTLY
DISTORT BASIC CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES (Bethany House, 1987)).
If two things have every property in common, then they are one thing
(e.g.,
Norma Jean Baker and Marilyn Monroe, Casius Clay and Muhammed Ali). But if
there is *only one property that is not the same*, then they are separate
persons. This is called the indiscernibility of identicals (II), or in
symbolic form:
(x) (y) [(y=x)-->(P)(Px<-->Py)]
That is, for any entities x and y, if x and y are the same thing, then any
property P, P is true of x if and only if P is true of y. If x is the Son
and y is the Father, then if Oneness is true, x must be identical to y. On
the other hand, if something is true of the Son which is not true of the
Father, then the Son is not identical to the Father and Oneness if false.
II
is a principle of sound reasoning which is the basis for all thought. But
we
have seen that there are things true of the Son which are not true of the
Father and there are things true of the Spirit which are not true of
either
the Father or the Son.
Suppose the Oneness person denies the applicability of logic to God. But,
of
course, he can't, because this very claim *presupposes* logic. That is,
the
Oneness apologist is saying "It cannot be the case that we can apply logic
to God," which means that God cannot both be "a being to which logic
applies" and "a being to which logic does not apply." So the Oneness
person
assumes the most fundamental principle of logic--the law of
non-contradiction--in his denial of logic. Also, Oneness itself as a
theory
of the Godhead presupposes a number of logical virtues which its
proponnents
think it exemplifies in comparison to Trinitarianism: coherency,
simplicity,
consistency with the biblical text, etc.
Of course, much more can be said critiquing the Oneness view of God. There
are many verses Oneness apologists use in order to prove their case. I
simply do not have the time to go over them. My purpose was to present a
positive case for the traditional doctrine of the Trinity and why church
history has sup****ted this doctrine. Scholarly responses to oneness can be
found in Gregory Boyd's ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE
TRINITY (Baker Books, 1992) and E. Calvin Beisner's forthcoming book
"JESUS
ONLY" AND ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM (Zondervan, 1995), published as part of
Zondervan's series of small books on cults.
I hope that this series has been helpful to you.
Francis J. Beckwith, Ph.D., Dept. of Philosophy, Univ. of Nevada, Las
Vegas
School of Apologetics, Simon Greenleaf University (Anaheim, CA)
|
