Skip to main content

Jehovah’s Witnesses: A Catholic Priest Denies the Trinity?

Image
By


In their book Reasoning from the Scriptures, 1989, pp 405-424 the WBTS describes Christians who believe the Trinity doctrine:

‘In what position does belief in the Trinity put those who cling to it?

It puts them in a very dangerous position. The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches...It grossly misrepresents the true God. Yet, Jesus Christ said: “The hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers (sic) will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for such the Father seeks to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” (John 4:23,24, RS)...

...Serious questions confront each one of us: Do we sincerely love the truth? Do we really want an approved relationship with God? Not everyone genuinely loves the truth. Many have put having the approval of their relatives and associates above love of the truth and of God. (2 Thess. 2:9-12; John 5:39-44).’ (pp425-425)

They are quite sure, ‘The evidence is indisputable that the dogma of the Trinity is not found in the Bible, nor is it in harmony with what the Bible teaches...It grossly misrepresents the true God.’ Should we start worrying if the evidence is so indisputable? They quote several sources, including the Dictionary of the Bible by Father John L McKenzie:

‘John L. McKenzie, S.J., in his Dictionary of the Bible, says: “The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of ‘person’ and ‘nature’ which are G[ree]k philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as ‘essence’ and ‘substance’ were erroneously applied to God by some theologians.”—(New York, 1965), p. 899.’ (Reasoning, 1989, p.406)

A Catholic Priest Denies the Trinity?

John L McKenzie was an American biblical scholar and a Catholic priest. His writings are extensive, including his Dictionary of the Bible, which has proved extremely popular among both Catholics and Protestants. Father McKenzie was a Trinitarian whose work is often misquoted, taken out of context, and misrepresented by Unitaritian groups.

The following is the full entry in his Dictionary of the Bible, with the quotes that are routinely lifted from the text highlighted in bold. This demonstrates how dishonest the WBTS is in quoting outside sources. We needn't allow them to intimidate us with their scholarly sounding terms and explanations. Always remember, I looked this stuff up, they didn't and they won't.


John L McKenzie

John L McKenzie

‘TRINITY. The trinity of God is defined by the Church as the belief that in God are three persons who subsist in one nature. The belief as so defined was reached only in the 4th and 5th centuries AD and hence is not explicitly and formally a biblical belief. The trinity of persons within the unity of nature is defined in terms of “person” and “nature” which are Gk philosophical terms; actually the terms do not appear in the Bible. The trinitarian (sic) definitions arose as the result of long controversies in which these terms and others such as “essence” and “substance” were erroneously applied to God by some theologians. The ultimate affirmation of trinity of persons and unity of nature was declared by the Church to be the only correct way in which these terms could be used.

The elements of the trinity of persons within the unity of nature in the Bible appear in the use of the terms Father, Son, and Spirit. The personal reality of the Spirit emerged more slowly than the personal reality of Father and Son, which are personal terms. On the application of the name of Spirit to the Son in the Pauline writings cf spirit. The unity of nature does not appear as a problem in the Bible, and indeed could only arise when a philosophical investigation of the term nature as applied to God was begun. In the NT the Father is “the God” (Gk ho theos), and Jesus is “the Son of the God” (ho hyios tou theou). The Spirit is “the spirit of the God” or “the holy spirit,” in this context a synonymous term. Deity is conceived not in the Gk term of nature but rather as a level of being, “the holy”; between this level and the level of “flesh” there is an impassable gulf. Impassable, that is, by man; it is bridged by Jesus, the Son, who renders it possible for men to be adopted sons. Without an explicit formula the NT leaves no room to think that Jesus is Himself an object of the adoption which He communicates to others. He knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being. What is less clear about the Spirit is His personal reality; often He is mentioned in language in which His personal reality is not explicit. This distinction between God and flesh is the NT basis for the affirmation of the unity of nature; the very identification of the Father with “the God” shows that the NT writers intend to distinguish the Son and the Spirit from the Father. The NT does not approach the metaphysical problem of subordination, as it approaches no metaphysical problem. It offers no room for a statement of the relations of Father, Son, and Spirit which would imply that one of them is more or less properly on the divine level of being than another. In Jewish thought of the time the son and the spirit are angels; it does not even take the trouble explicitly to deny it. At the same time, it is necessary to recall that in Catholic belief the trinity of persons within the unity of nature is a mystery which ultimately escapes understanding; and in no respect is it more mysterious than in the relations of the persons to each other. “Son” and “Spirit” do not express perfect identity and are not intended to express it; the distinction of persons is not merely numerical but reposes upon a mysterious personality or character in each one which is unknown in its ultimate reality. The Church has declared that any statement of this distinction which reduces the divinity of any of the persons is a false statement; equally false would be a statement which would deny their personal distinction. The notions of Father, Son, and Spirit are revealed that we may know God better; and the theologian should explore these ideas.

The OT does not contain suggestions or foreshadowing of the trinity of persons. What it does contain are the words which the NT employs to express the trinity of persons such as Father, Son, Word, Spirit, etc. A study of these words shows us how the revelation of God in the NT advances beyond the revelation of God in the OT. The same study of these words and their background is the best way to arrive at an understanding of the distinction of persons as it is stated in the NT.’

(Dictionary of the Bible, pp.899-900, John L. McKenzie)

You note McKenzie states:

‘The unity of nature does not appear as a problem in the Bible…’

‘[Jesus] knows the Father and reveals Him. He therefore belongs to the divine level of being; and there is no question at all about the Spirit belonging to the divine level of being.’

‘[The NT] offers no room for a statement of the relations of Father, Son, and Spirit which would imply that one of them is more or less properly on the divine level of being than another.’

Father John L McKenzie was a Catholic priest, an accomplished theologian, and a Trinitarian, and Unitarians, including Jehovah’s Witnesses, misquote him to support their erroneous and unbiblical Unitarianism. Trinitarians are not in ‘a very dangerous position’ with regard to the Trinity. On the contrary, no less an authority than the late Jon L McKenzie supports the Trinitarian doctrine.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

By
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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

By
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...
70 comments
Read more

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

By
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...
18 comments
Read more