Skip to main content

Is God a Trinity?



Jehovah's Witnesses are known for their Unitarian doctrine of God. Utterly rejecting the Trinity doctrine of the Christian Church, they insist:

'Many Christian denominations teach that God is a Trinity. However, note what the Encyclopædia Britannica states: “Neither the word Trinity nor the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament. . .The doctrine developed gradually over several centuries and through many controversies.” In fact, the God of the Bible is never described as being part of a Trinity.'

We begin with a point I never tire of making, and that I made in my last post. I think of the generations of theologians, teachers, and leaders who have studied such things in great depth. Does the Watch Tower Society, which discourages further and higher education in favour of door-knocking, think it knows better?

This no more true than when it comes to the nature of God. Do Jehovah’s Witnesses think the answer to this question is there to be had by anyone who cracks open a Bible and takes its ‘plain meaning?’ Let’s see…


In the Name…

Jesus commissioned his disciples to make disciples, ‘baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…’ (Mt.28:19)

Peter, standing before the council of rulers, elders, and scribes, declared, ‘This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.’ (Acts 4:11,12)

Name’ in these texts, ὄνομα onoma, means a given name. Jesus doesn’t say ‘names’ but uses the singular ‘name.’ Following Jesus’ clear teaching, Peter uses the singular ‘name’ rather than names. This is a Trinity reference as all three members of the godhead have the one name. It is an indication of Jesus’ deity. It is sometimes argued that ‘name’ means authority, but the primary meaning of onoma indicates a personal name.

When Jesus speaks ‘as one having authority’ (Mt.7:29) he clearly says, ‘...you have heard that it was said...but I say to you…’ (Mt.5) All the prophets spoke what they heard from God, the apostles spoke what they heard from Jesus, but Jesus spoke in his own name. We are baptised in the name of the three, there is no other name by which we are saved, and Jesus used that name as his own.

In John 3:16 Jesus is typically described in our Bibles as the ‘Only Begotten Son’ (KJV), ‘only Son’ (ESV), ‘only-begotten Son’ (NWT). This has rather muddied the water and opened the door for the cults to claim either Jesus is a son in the human sense and so can’t the God he is the son of, or Jesus is one god among many. Islam, of course makes something of this, insisting ‘God cannot have a son’ and this is not wrong. The Greek μονογενής monogenēs is better translated ‘one of a kind, unique.’ God is the kind, the Bible tells us there is no other God (Is.44:6-8), and that Jesus is that kind (Jn. 3:16). Paul goes so far as to tells us that in Christ, ‘the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily…’ (Col.2:9)

John, in his gospel, describes Jesus as making his dwelling among us (Jn.1:14). The Greek σκηνόω skēnoō better translates as ‘pitched his tent among us’ or, ‘tabernacled among us,’ which takes us back to Exodus when God literally ‘pitched his tent,’ or, ‘tabernacled’ among his called out people. Jesus is God come to call out a people ‘from every nation, tribe, and tongue,’ (Rev.7:9, cf Gal.3:28) so he may dwell among them (Jn.14:23).


Trinity

The early church and its leaders held councils to address the challenge of heresies, the first we have a record of being the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15. Here they tackled the challenge of those who would take Christian believers back to the law. The deity of Jesus was an established doctrine long before the much misrepresented Council of Nicea, which was convened to defend that established doctrine; not to make Jesus God but to defend the doctrine that he is God. If you want to give some time to better understanding these issues you would profit from the teaching of Dr. Michael Heiser on the early doctrine of the Trinity.

It was the Carthaginian lawyer Tertullian (155-220AD), who converted to Christianity at age 35, first used the Latin word Trinity (trinitas). at a time when Latin was overtaking Greek as the language of the empire. He is remembered as the father of Latin Christianity, also famous for giving us the terms Old Testament (vetus testamentum) and New Testament (novum testamentum).

Be confirmed in the decrees of the Lord and of the Apostles, in order that in everything you do, you may prosper in body and in soul, in faith and in love, in Son and in Father and in Spirit.’ Ignatius of Antioch 110 AD

It is inescapable that this [man] is the Christ of God...that He pre-existed as the Son of the Creator of all things, being God, and that He was born a man by the Virgin.’ Justin Martyr, (100 to 165 AD)

Being God and likewise perfect man, He (Christ) gave positive indications of His two natures: Of His deity, by the miracles during the three years following after His Baptism; of His humanity, in the thirty years which came before His Baptism, during which, by reason of His condition according to the flesh, He concealed the signs of His deity, although He was the true God existing before the ages.’ Melito of Sardes 177 AD

The Son of God is the Word of the Father, in thought and in actuality. By Him and through Him all things were made, the Father and the Son being one. Since the Son is IN the Father and the Father is IN the Son by the unity and power of the Spirit, the Mind and Word of the Father is the Son of God. And if, in your exceedingly great wisdom, it occurs to you to inquire what is meant by 'the Son', I will tell you briefly: He is the First-begotten of the Father, not as having been produced -- for from the beginning God had the Word in Himself... Who, then, would not be astonished to hear those called atheists, who speak of God the Father and of God the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and who proclaim their power in union and their distinction in order.’ Athenagoras of Athens 180 AD

The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning - for He was in God - and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man.’ Clement of Alexandria (about150 to 216 AD)

For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even eternal may be understood. It is all other things, indeed, which are outside the Trinity, which are to be measured by time and ages.... It seems right to inquire into the reason why he who is 'born again through God' to salvation has need of both Father and Son and Holy Spirit and will not obtain salvation apart from the entire Trinity, and why it is impossible to become partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. In discussing these points it will undoubtedly be necessary to describe the activity which is peculiar to the Holy Spirit and that which is peculiar to the Father and Son.’ Origen (c 225 AD)

Tertullian used ‘Trinity’, not to describe a novel doctrine but, in the spirit of those early church councils, to reinforce an accepted teaching. He encapsulated for the ordinary believer in this one word the established doctrine of the church. Tertullian was an early Christian apologist who went on to write the earliest and most extensive defence of the post apostolic faith of the early church. His work is found in the collection of the writings of the Patrologia Latina, the Early Church Fathers

Comments

BarryJ said…
JWs discount the doctrine of the trinity due to it not being in place until the councils in the 4th century, so they allege. But they are happy to accept the doctrine of Jesus’ invisible ‘presence’ that didn’t come in to existence until the 20th century as well as the idea that Jesus is the archangel Michael that didn’t exist before the 20th century either!

Popular posts from this blog

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...