Body, Soul, and Spirit

We believe in the Holy Trinity. It's not an easy concept. It is not natural to the mind. Three persons; one God. Not three gods (tritheism). Not one god in three phases (modalism). Not a "becoming", where God inhabits Christ (panentheism). No, a trinity where there is one substance but three "persons". Very difficult concept. So we come up with ideas to illustrate it. There is the popular triangle -- one shape with three corners. There is the egg, consisting of egg, yolk, and (Can you name the white part?) albumen. But when examined very closely they all break down. And, I'm fairly sure, this has to be the case because, after all, God is One. There is no other. He is an absolute one-of-a-kind.

My favorite example of something approaching (but, as I've already indicated, not actually achieving) tritheism is the human being. This would be fitting if it is true since we are made in His image. As such, we should retain something "God-like" in our make up. I think this is at least part of it. I think we are sort of trinitarian in our existence. How? Well, Scripture lists three components of the human being. We all know the body part. We are physical bodies. But no one (almost no one -- certainly not Christians) doubts that we are more than "meat suits". What other components does the Bible list? One of the clearest spots for this is in Paul's first epistle to the church at Thessalonica.

Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thess 5:23)

There are three pieces there -- "spirit and soul and body". All three need to be sanctified completely. All three will be sanctified by God Himself.

There is disagreement among Christians about that "spirit and soul" part. Many -- even some for whom I have a great deal of respect -- argue that we are dual in nature, not three. They hold that "spirit and soul" are one term, one concept. One reason is that Scripture often uses these terms interchangeably. The other reason is that there are those who, believing that spirit and soul are distinct, use this distinction to produce an unbiblical, even heretical condition where you can be what they call a "carnal Christian", where you are saved "in the spirit" (not the Holy Spirit), but it can have absolutely no effect on your soul. In order to combat this heresy, they eliminate the distinction. But we read in Hebrews,

The word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart." (Heb 4:12)

So I believe that, while the division is perhaps difficult, it exists.

So, we know what the body is. That's the physical part. We know what the spirit is. That's the metaphysical part. That's the "essence". What is the soul? First, remember that the Bible often uses "spirit" and "soul" as interchangeable. So you may find references to "soul" that do not provide a distinctive to "spirit". As such, for instance, both are used to describe the animating principle -- what we call "life". We use it this way when we say, "There were 30 souls on board." Living beings. But that's the spirit. So assuming there is a division between soul and spirit, what is it? Well, the soul is often used to express desire (Prov 23:2; 1 Sam 1:15; Psa 42:1-2), volition (Isa 26:8-9; Prov 21:10; 2 Sam 3:21), and emotions (Isa 1:14; Jer 13:17; Psa 42:5; 1 Sam 1:15). Thus, the soul and spirit form the real life of the body -- the real person -- but the soul and spirit differ slightly in that the soul would constitute the mind, will, and emotions of the person. And we get this in our view of humans. There is the physical person that we see and know, but we all understand that there is a "real you", an underlying personhood that is formed of how you think and feel and what you choose. That's the "real you". Some people have "beautiful souls" with ugly bodies and others have beautiful physical appearance with "ugly souls". We get that. The spirit, then, is the bottom line, the absolute essence of human life.

Note, then, that the three are one. One being. Not three beings. They are three "parts" of one person. It is possible for the body to die, but the person isn't gone. The spirit lives on. The soul continues. And, in the end, the body is restored as well. A sort of "trinity". (Remember, no human representation of the Divine Trinity is completely suitable.) If this "trinity" is in the image of God, it would follow that each component corresponds to some component of God as well. And it does. We have, at our core, a spirit. In the Triune God, there is the Father. Closely tied and barely distinguishable to the spirit is the soul -- the mind, will, and emotions of each of us. In Scripture, the Holy Spirit is generally referenced in terms of the mind, will, and emotions of God. And, of course, we know that Christ is the physical manifestation of God just as our own bodies are our own physical manifestation.

Now, feel free to take all this with a grain of salt. I'm not offering dogma here. It isn't "agree with me or be found a rank heretic." I'm offering a parallel, an illustration. I think it makes sense. Further, I think it helps sketch out the Divine Trinity by finding an image of it in the creation of God that is in His image. All form one being. Each is distinct but not separate. All have one essence. I think it works. If it works for you, warts and all, you're welcome to it. If not, feel free to discard it. I think I'll hang onto it (lightly) for awhile.

Constantine and the Trinity

How many times have you heard it? It will likely be repeated until Christ comes and settles the dispute once and for all. Unfortunately, the proponents of the claim don't seem to care about backing up the claim. It's as if making the claim is sufficient to prove it. What claim? The oft-repeated accusation against 1600 years of Christian doctrine is that the Trinity was a manufactured belief inserted by Constantine at the Council of Nicaea.

Now, I've already offered a host of biblical reasons for the doctrine (reasons that precede Nicaea). Unfortunately, I've also offered the caution of playing the "For the Bible tells me so" card too easily. And we're all aware that "lots of Scriptures" doesn't equate to "necessarily true." So, your Honor, I'd like to offer a couple of other pieces of evidence.

Did you know that the Emperor Constantine was not a believer in the Trinity? Truth be told, Constantine favored Arianism. There was an argument in the Church, so Constantine I called the very first Church Council together to unify the Church. The primary question was the nature of Jesus. The outcome was the Nicene Creed, which includes this statement about Christ: "very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father". Arius denied this and claimed that Jesus was made, not of one substance with the Father. The Council voted some 316 to 2 against Arius. Constantine's role in all of this was to call the Council and to pay for some of their travel and lodging expenses. As it turns out, Constantine himself supported Arianism, but felt that unity in the empire was more important than his view and exiled Arius. Several times in later years he attempted to bring back Arius and his beliefs, but the subsequent Councils continued to deny the Arian doctrine as valid and the Church officially adopted the doctrine of the Trinity against Constantine's personal preferences.

The doctrine of the Trinity, however, predates the Council of Nicaea. This is a key point that so many detractors seem to fail to comprehend. The Council of Nicaea didn't bring it about; it was already in place. The Council of Nicaea didn't make the doctrine; it defended it against a challenge.

Take a cruise around the Internet sometime. You will find several sites that offer a variety of quotes from sources as early as the first century that assume or defend the doctrine of the Trinity. From Polycarp to Irenaeus to Tertullian to Origen, all of whom precede the 4th century, there is a host of references to the Trinity. Indeed, it was the lawyer Tertullian who first coined the term "persons" in reference to the three "persons" of the Trinity. The doctrine historically existed and was assumed as true centuries before it was affirmed at Nicaea despite the best arguments of its detractors.

In closing, your Honor, I'd like to offer one last piece of interesting evidence. It's somewhat outside of the normal realm of the argument, but I think it is pertinent. There are those who argue that the Aramaic Peshitta version of the Bible is the original form. They argue that, rather than being written first in Greek, it was written first in the language of the day, Aramaic, then translated to Greek. There are several interesting reasons for the argument and I don't intend to offer them here or settle that dispute. However, one of the differences between Aramaic and Greek is found in the solely Hebraic word for the Name of God: YHWH. In the Old Testament translations we often find the word YHWH translated as "LORD", where the letters are all capitalized to signify that it is the Tetragramatton -- YHWH. In Greek, however, there is no such possibility. So what if an author of a New Testament book intended that usage? Well, they would have used YHWH in their original Aramaic version, but it would have been translated to kurios in the Greek version. Interestingly, in the English translation of the Aramaic Peshitta version of the New Testament we read this:

No one can say, "Yeshua is YHWH," except by the Set-Apart Spirit (1 Cor. 12:3).

It would appear that one of the earliest known versions of the New Testament assumes an equivalence between "Jesus" (Yeshua) and Jehovah ("YHWH"). That is Trinitarian at its heart.

The next time you hear that Constantine interjected the Trinity into the Church, shake your head and walk away. It has been repeated enough that you will be thought a fool do deny it ... but it isn't true. The historical facts don't support it. Your Honor, I object. Assumes facts not in evidence. Instead, all the evidence -- both biblical and historical -- supports the doctrine of the Trinity from the start of Christianity.

Defending the Trinity

I wonder if it will always be true that the defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity will need to defend against beliefs that are not part of the doctrine as much as beliefs that are. Examples:

1. "Three 'persons' means three individual beings."

2. "The members of the Godhead are distinct and separate."

3. "Trinitarians believe in 3 gods."

4. "If Jesus was God, how could God die?"

And the list goes on.

"Persons" is not a reference to "beings", but more at "personas". Perhaps "characters" would be a better word? Maybe "roles"? Anyway, the doctrine does not allow for a separation of the three. It allows for distinction without separation. (As an example of how something can be distinct without being separate, a hand consists of a palm and five fingers. These parts are distinct, but not separate.) It demands one essence. Since there is only one essence, the Trinity is not tritheism, a triad, or 3 gods in any way, shape, or form.

And Jesus was not solely God - He was God and Man. God didn't die on the cross - the Son of Man did. If the human part of Jesus is ignored entirely, there will never be the inkling of comprehension of the doctrine of the Trinity. Remember, there two types of heresies in the early Church on the nature of Christ. One set out to diminish His deity. The other set out to remove His humanity. Both are heretical. The doctrine of the Trinity demands both that He was God and that He was Man.

I found this interesting quote from Jonathan Edwards describing the Trinity.

"And this I suppose to be that blessed Trinity that we read of in the Holy Scriptures. The Father is the deity subsisting in the prime, unoriginated and most absolute manner, or the deity in its direct existence. The Son is the deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of Himself and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the deity subsisting in act, or the divine essence flowing out and breathed forth in God's infinite love to and delight in Himself. And I believe the whole Divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the Divine idea and Divine love, and that each of them are properly distinct persons." (Jonathan Edwards, "An Essay on the Trinity," in Treatise on Grace and Other Posthumously Published Writings, ed. Paul Helm, Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971, 118.)

That really sums it up nicely.

Christological Heresies Review

This is a listing of Christological Heresies (those that disagree with the Trinity) in history. Questioning the doctrine of the Trinity isn't new. Defending the doctrine isn't new.

Arianism.
Started by the followers of Arius who lived in the late 3rd and early 4th century. Arians viewed God the Father as the eternal God, and Christ was a separate, lesser, created being. They held that there was a time when Christ was not. Arianism enjoyed some popular belief before the First Council of Nicaea because Constantine preferred the view as did the Goths, the Ostrogoths, and the Visigoths. Arianism was condemned by the First Council of Nicaea, and the doctrine of the Trinity (whose central term is homoousios - "of the same substance") was confirmed. The Nicene and Athanasian Creeds were written to counter Arianism.

Arianism didn't stop with the decision of the Council. Constantine's son set out to reverse the Nicene Creed. He exiled those who held to the creed and made Arian beliefs the standard of the realm. Arianism was the predominant view in the East for a time despite the multiple councils that met to settle it. Finally, in A.D. 381, the Second Ecumenical Council met (note that Constantine was long dead by this time) and the Eastern bishops accepted the Nicene Creed.

Arianism was the primary view in early medieval Germany even into the 5th century, when they took down the Roman Empire. However, despite their superior strength, they were converted to the Trinitarian view by the 8th century.

Arianism is essentially the same view held by Jehovah's Witnesses today with slight variations. Arius held that Jesus was created "out of nothing", not "begotten" of the same substance as God. (This kind of makes Jesus an adopted son rather than a natural-born son.) Jehovah's Witnesses hold that God is the Father, and that Jesus His firstborn Son. They believe that God created all things by the Word, who is Jesus, but they view the Word as the instrument, while Arius viewed Christ as a co-creator.

Others are viewed to be similar, but they are not accurately "Arian". Mormonism holds more to tritheism rather than Arianism (although it would be more accurate to describe them as polytheists), and Unitarianism believes in the oneness of God (as opposed to the Trinitarian view), but not in the same way as Arius.

Tritheism
Tritheism is the teaching that three separate beings form the Godhead. Tritheism can trace its roots to pagan beliefs, such as the Hindu triad of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. This view is counter to Trinitarian doctrine which confirms three distinct but not separate persons of the same substance. The early church continually affirmed that tritheism was a heresy.

In the 17th century, the Anglican Church revived tritheism, and Mormons still hold to the view today (although they have more of a polytheistic view in the final analysis).

Modalism
Modalism is likely the most common error when it comes to Trinitarian constructs. Modalism takes several forms, but the basic concept is that One God has expressed Himself in three "modes" throughout history. In the Old Testament we saw "the Father", who, in the Gospels became "the Son", and, after His death, resurrection, and ascension, expressed Himself as the Holy Spirit. These modes were distinct and never simultaneous. Also known as Sabellianism for one its early supporters, Sabellius, the view held some popularity in the 2nd century because of the difficulties of understanding the Trinitarian doctrine. The view was also dubbed, "Patripassianism" - from the Latin words patris for "father", and passus for "to suffer" - because the idea was that the Father came to suffer as the Son.

Modalism is not Trinitarian doctrine. It is currently rejected officially by all but the Oneness Pentecostals. However, it is a common mistake brought about by our standard teachings on the Trinity. For instance, how many of us have not heard the parallel of "water, ice, steam" to the Trinity? However, since these cannot coexist, it lends itself to the heresy of modalism.

Dynamic Monarchianism
Dynamic Monarchianism is the view that Jesus was not in His nature God. It is the view that God existed in Jesus, just as God exists in all of us – but that God existed in Jesus in a particularly powerful way. Jesus was God because God inhabited Him. This view is also called "Socianism" because of its adherent, Socinus, and Psilanthropism (psilo - merely, anthropos - man). The original view said that Christ was born a man, but that at His baptism He became the Christ, and at His death He was adopted by the Father as His Son. (Thus, it is also referred to as "Adoptionism".) This view holds that Jesus was the logos and was homoousis (of the same essence) with the Father, but in the same sense as a man’s reason is homoousios to himself.

Docetism
Oddly enough, we haven't seem much of this around today. This view denied that Jesus was human. It held that He was simply a vision, that He appeared to be human, but in fact was only Divine.

And on and on
These are the primary ones, but the list goes on and on. Ebionism, Gnosticism, Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism (the monophysite heresy), many views have come in to either deny the deity or the humanity of Christ. In each view there are shades, variations. All were rejected as heresy by the Church. Despite this, you might even recognize some of them in the views of some today.

The Doctrine of the Trinity

One of the biggest distinctives between orthodox Christianity and anything else you might care to examine is the basic doctrine of the Trinity. Odd accusations are tossed out like "You're believing in a doctrine that is not part of Scripture" or "That doctrine was invented in the 4th century."

This post, then, is primarily a homework assignment for my readers. It is a listing of a host of references that help form the biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity. They come (as they must) from both the Old and New Testaments. I don't place it here for debate or dialog. I simply want to provide a reference source.

Once you see this (partial) list you will understand why I didn't put every text down and let you read it while I explain it. You can be good Bereans (Hey, it's Sunday! What better to do than spend the afternoon in God's Word?) and look it up for yourself -- it is a massive list. (Funny thing - not one piece of it comes from Augustine or Constantine. How odd!)

General Scriptures regarding the Trinity
Gen. 1:26; Gen. 3:22; Isa. 6:3,8; Isa. 11:2,3; Isa. 42:1; Isa. 48:16; Isa. 61:1-3; Isa. 63:9,10; Matt. 1:18,20 ; Matt. 3:11,16; Matt. 12:18,28; Matt. 28:19; Mark 1:8; Luke 1:35; Luke 3:16,22; Luke 4:1,14,18; John 1:32,33; John 3:34,35; John 7:39; John 14:16,17,26; John 15:26; John 16:7,13-15; John 20:22; Acts 1:2,4,5; Acts 2:33; Acts 10:36-38; Rom. 1:3,4; Rom. 8:9-11,26,27; 1 Cor. 2:10,11; 1 Cor. 6:19; 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Cor. 12:3-6; 2 Cor. 1:21,22; 2 Cor. 3:17; 2 Cor. 5:5; 2 Cor. 13:14 ; Gal. 4:4,6; Phil. 1:19; Col. 2:2; 2 Thess. 2:13,14,16; 1 Tim. 3:16; Titus 3:4-6; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 5:6,7; Rev. 4:8

So ... is Jesus God? First, look at some of the facets of the unique nature of God:
JEHOVAH (YHWH)
CREATOR
ETERNAL
HOLY
IMMUTABLE
OMNIPOTENT
OMNIPRESENT
OMNISCIENT
RIGHTEOUS
SELF-EXISTENT
SAVIOR
SOVEREIGN
THE FIRST AND THE LAST
ALONE WORTHY OF WORSHIP

(I certainly hope I don't have to produce Scripture to prove any of the above.)

Now, what does Scripture say about Jesus Christ as God?

YHWH
Compare Isa. 40:3; Matt. 3:3
Compare Psa. 24:7,10; 1 Cor. 2:8; James 2:1
Compare Psa. 97:9; John 3:31
Compare Psa. 110:1; Matt. 22:42-45
Compare Isa. 40:10,11; Heb. 13:20
Compare Prov. 16:4; Col. 1:16
Compare Joel 2:32; 1 Cor. 1:2

YHWH-tsidkenu (Jehovah our righteousness)
Compare Jer. 23:5,6; 1 Cor. 1:30

YHWH OF HOSTS
Compare Isa. 6:1-3; John 12:41; Isa. 8:13,14; 1 Peter 2:8

LORD OF THE SABBATH
Compare Gen. 2:3; Matt. 12:8

EQUAL WITH THE FATHER
Compare Prov. 30:4; Matt. 11:27
John 10:30,38; 12:45; 14:7-10, 16; 15:26; 17:10

CREATOR
John 1:3,10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16,17; Heb. 1:2,10; Rev. 3:14
Compare Psa. 102:24-27; Heb. 1:8,10-12
Compare Isa. 40:28; John 1:3; Col. 1:16

ETERNAL
Psa. 102:24-27; Prov. 8:22-25; Isa. 9:6; Micah 5:2; Mark 12:36,37; John 1:1,2,4,15; 6:62; 8:23,58; 12:41; 17:5,24,25; Eph. 3:21; 4:10; Col. 1:17; 2 Tim. 1:9; Heb. 1:10-12; 6:20; 7:16,24,25; 13:8; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 John 1:1,2; 2:13,14; Rev. 1:8,11,17,18; 5:13,14

HOLY
Compare 1 Sam. 2:2; Acts 3:14
Psa. 45:7; 89:19; Isa. 11:4,5; 32:1; 42:21; 49:7; 50:5; 53:9; 59:17; Jer. 23:5; Zech. 9:9; Mark 1:24; Luke 1:35; 4:34; 23:40,41,47; John 5:30; 7:18; 8:46; 14:30; 16:10; Acts 3:14; 4:27,30; 13:28,35; 2 Cor. 4:4; 5:21; Heb. 1:9; 4:15; 7:26-28; 9:14; 1 Peter 1:19; 2:22; 1 John 2:29; 3:5; Rev. 3:7

IMMUTABLE
Heb. 13:8

OMNIPOTENT
Psa. 45:3-5; 110:3; Isa. 9:6; 40:10; 50:2,4; 63:1; Matt. 8:3,16,27; 10:1; 12:13,28,29; 28:18; Mark 3:27; 6:7; Luke 5:17; 9:1; 11:20-22; John 2:19; 5:21,28,29; 10:17,18,28; 17:1,2; Phil. 3:20,21; Col. 1:17; 2 Thess. 1:9; 1 Tim. 6:16; Heb. 1:3; 7:25; 2 Peter 1:16; Rev. 1:8; 3:7; 5:12

OMNIPRESENT
Matt. 18:20; 28:20; John 3:13; Eph. 1:23

OMNISCIENT
Prov. 8:1-16; Isa. 11:2,3; 50:4; Matt. 9:4; 11:27; 12:25; 13:54; 22:18; 24:25; 26:46; Mark 2:8; 5:30; 14:13-15,42; Luke 2:40,47,52; 5:22; 6:8; 9:46-48; 22:10-13; John 1:48; 2:24,25; 3:32; 4:16-19,28,29; 5:30,42; 6:64; 8:16; 13:1,2,10,11; 16:30,32; 17:1; 18:4; 21:17; Acts 1:24; Col. 2:3; Rev. 2:18,23; 5:5,12

PREEXISTENT
Gen. 1:26; Psa. 102:25-27; Prov. 8:22-36; John 1:1-3; 6:62; 8:56-58; 17:5; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 8:6; Phil. 2:5-7; Col. 1:15-17; Heb. 1:1,2,8-12; 2:9,14-16; 4:8; Rev. 4:11

SAVIOR
Compare Hos. 1:7; Titus 2:13
Gen. 12:3; 49:18; 2 Sam. 23:6,7; Job 33:23,24; Psa. 14:7; 72:4,12-14,17; 80:17; 89:19; Isa. 8:14; 28:16; 32:2; 40:10,11; 42:6,7; 49:6,8,9; 50:2,8,9; 53:10,11; 59:16,17,20; 61:1-3; 62:11; 63:1,5,8,9; Jer. 23:5,6; 33:15,16; Ezek. 34:23; Hag. 2:7; Zech. 4:7; 9:9; Mal. 4:2; Matt. 1:21; 9:12,13; 15:24; 18:11-13; Luke 1:68-77; 2:11,31,32,34; 5:31,32; 9:56; 15:1-10; 19:10; John 1:9,29; 3:16,17; 4:14,42; 5:26,33,34,40; 6:27,32,33,35,37,39,51,53-58,68; 7:37-39; 8:12; 9:5,39; 10:7,9-11,14-16,27,28; 11:25-27; 12:47; 14:6,19; 16:33; 17:2,3; Acts 3:26; 4:12; 5:31; 13:23,38,39,47; 15:11; 16:31; Rom. 3:24-26; 4:25; 5:1,6,8-11,15,17-19,21; 6:23; 8:2; 10:9,11; 15:7,9; 1 Cor. 1:30; 3:11; 6:11; 10:3,4; 15:17,57; 2 Cor. 5:18,19,21; Galatians 1:3,4; 2:20; 4:7; Eph. 1:10,11; 2:7,13-18,20; 4:8; 5:2,14,23,25,26; Phil. 3:20; Col. 1:12-14,27,28; 2:8,10; 3:3,4,11; 1 Thess. 1:10; 5:9,10; 2 Thess. 1:12; 1 Tim. 1:1,15; 2 Tim. 1:1,9,10,12; 2:10; 3:15; Titus 1:4; 2:13,14; Heb. 2:3,17; 5:9; 7:22,25; 13:10,20; 1 Peter 1:3,18,19; 2:4-7,25; 3:18,21; 5:10; 2 Peter 1:3,11; 2:20; 1 John 3:5,8; 4:9,10,14; 5:11-13,20; Jude 1:1; Rev. 2:7; 3:18; 5:5-14; 7:10; 14:4; 21:27; 22:1,2

SOVEREIGN
Rom. 9:5
Compare Daniel 10:17; Rev. 1:5; 17:14

THE FIRST AND THE LAST
Compare Isa. 44:6; Rev. 1:17; Isa. 48:12-16; Rev. 22:13

PRESERVER OF ALL THINGS
Compare Neh. 9:6; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3

WORSHIP
Josh. 5:14,15; Psa. 45:11,17; 72:15; Matt. 2:2,11; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 21:9; 28:9,16,17; Mark 3:11; 5:6,7; 11:9,10; Luke 4:41; 5:8; 23:42; 24:52; John 5:23; 9:38; 12:13; Acts 1:24; 7:59,60; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 12:8,9; Phil. 2:10,11; 1 Tim. 1:12; Heb. 1:6; 2 Peter 3:18; Rev. 5:8,9,12-14; 7:10

Okay, now for some Scripture on the Holy Spirit as part of the Trinity.

The character of the Holy Spirit coincides with the character of God.

ETERNAL
Rom. 8:11; Heb. 9:14

OMNIPRESENT
Psa. 139:7

OMNISCIENT
1 Cor. 2:10-11

CREATOR
Job 26:13; 33:4; Psa. 104:28-30

Peter equates the Holy Spirit with God:

But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God." - Acts 5:3-4

Now, of course, the problem with the Spirit is that detractors will say, "Well, of course the Spirit has all the characteristics of deity -- it is simply the Spirit of God. We are saying it is not a person." So proving the deity of the Spirit becomes moot. What needs to be shown is the distinction between God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.

Distinctions:
Gen. 1:2; 6:3; Neh. 9:20; Psa. 51:11; 104:29; Isa. 48:16; 63:10; Jer. 31:33; Ezek. 36:27; Hag. 2:5

The real problem, of course, is the relational terms used of the Holy Spirit that don't make sense if 1) there is some distinction between God and the Holy Spirit (as indicated in the above verses) and 2) if the Holy Spirit is simply God's "force". A force, for instance, may be resisted, but it is not grieved. A force does not impart wisdom. A force doesn't impart fellowship. The Holy Spirit is referred to as a "person", an entity that feels and acts. Further, He is sent by the Father and the Son. This makes Him a distinct person, not a force.

Another consideration on the general topic is the 3-fold references to God. It occurs multiple times in Scripture - Matt. 3:16-17; 28:19; Acts 7:55; 10:38; Rom. 15:16, 30; 2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 4:6; 1 Peter 1:2; 1 John 4:2. These passages hold both distinction between each character as well as unity. Further, if Christ is distinct from God, then the Holy Spirit must, in the same way, be distinct from God. So the Holy Spirit must be distinct from the Father rather than merely an emanation of His force.

Oh, and I don't plan to offer a quiz on this homework assignment ... but others might question you on it, so you might want to be prepared.

My Trinity Question

As indicated way back in this post, even though the question was settled some 1600 years ago, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity continues to surface and face argument. It is not uncommon to hear people say, "The Trinity is not found or taught in the Bible" or "The Trinity is an antichrist doctrine cooked up in the church of Rome." They'll tell you it is tritheism, borrowed from pagan beliefs, an invention of the Roman Catholic Church. They are not dealing with the facts.

There is one question (at least one) that I have never had answered from the anti-Trinitarians. Most don't even try. It comes from one of the clearest expressions of the Deity of Christ as well as His "difference" with God -- John 1.

¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was in the beginning with God. ³ All things were made through Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made (John 1:1-3).

First, the easy stuff. What can we see without doing any real work?

We can see that "the Word" is an enigma. This "Word" is both God and with God. This Word, then, has both the same nature as God and yet a distinction from God.

We can see that this Word is the Creator. This is really problematic to those who claim that Jesus was a created being, because John goes out of his way to say this as categorically as he can. "All things were made through Him." No, that's not sufficient. Let's see it another way. "Without Him was not any thing made." Yeah, that says it again in reverse. But wait ... there's more. One might think that "any thing" refers to "any thing but him, of course." But John is equally clear as to what "any thing" refers: "Any thing that was made." Well, let's see ... what was made? That would be all Creation. That would exclude God. Anything but God was "made." So if "the Word" made everything that was made (which would include everything except God), then "the Word" cannot be a created being, else He would have made Himself -- an absolute impossibility.

So the "sticky" question ... who is "the Word"? Well, John doesn't leave us in the dark about that, either.

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth (John 1:14).

That leaves little room for guessing. "The Word" is "the only Son from the Father," who, as John goes on to explain, is Jesus.

Putting it together, we have Jesus (prior to becoming flesh) who is both the same nature as God and yet distinct from God who is also the Creator of all that exists. (If you still trip over "But ... God exists", perhaps it's a good time to review.) This seems to be an insurmountable question to me. To the modalist -- those who hold that God has operated in different modes, starting as YHWH and now as Jesus (including the "Jesus Only" crowd) -- you have a problem. John presents a distinction between God and the Word. To the Arians -- those who hold that Jesus was a created being -- and the Socinians -- those who teach that Jesus was a deified man -- you have a problem. John presents Him as the Creator of all things that were created. How did He make Himself? To the monophysite -- those that hold that Jesus only had one nature ... a divine one -- you have a problem. John clearly states that He became flesh. To the tritheist -- those who hold that there are three distinct gods (Yes, there are those who actually argue that.) -- you have a problem. John clearly says that Jesus was God -- a unity.

Now, admittedly this passage does not address the third person of the Trinity, but I have yet to have a valid answer from an anti-Trinitarian that explains this passage. The worst, the ones that don't even try, are the ones that claim that Jesus was a created being. How is it even remotely possible that this created being created Himself?

So the next time you hear "The Trinity is not found or taught in the Bible," keep in mind this passage and try to figure out for yourself how it is possible that such a claim could stand on its own for long.

"Moderate" Christians

Recently I asked if it was possible to deny the Trinity and be a Christian. I still don't know the answer to that one. Now I have a new question. Is it possible to be a moderate or liberal Christian? Okay, so that's not a sincere question. Of course, it is. Real Christians can be wrong about all sorts of things and still be Christians. (If you didn't chuckle at that, you probably missed the fact that it was intended for humor.)

But I still wonder about the difference and what causes it. According to John C. Danforth, a former Republican senator from Missouri, the primary difference between the conservative Christian and the moderate or liberal Christian is this: "The only absolute standard of behavior is the commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves."

This standard leads to some other conclusions. It's okay to allow the death of a person in a persistently vegetative state. It's loving to save people's lives through embryonic stem cell research. It's divisive to bring God into the public square. It's wrong to do anything that would make a homosexual feel humiliated. It's wrong to bring faith into affairs of a diverse State because the government never shares the same concerns as our faith. Senator Danforth says, "For us, religion should be inclusive, and it should seek to bridge the differences that separate people."

So, the primary difference between the conservative Christian and the rest is that the rest are concerned with love, and the conservative Christian is not. Insisting that life is important and should be protected rather than ended is not loving. Believing that human life, regardless of its stage, is precious and shouldn't be routinely destroyed, even for the purpose of saving others is not loving. Those who believe that biblical marriage is important, that "gay marriage" is an oxymoron, and that the best they can do for the acting homosexual is diminish their capacity to act that way are not loving. We who believe that what we believe is for the benefit of all and should, therefore, make it public are not loving. And if you are one who believes that God made laws in the best interest of His creation, and we are acting in the best interest of other people if we encourage the passage of such laws in our society are not loving.

"Experience unites; doctrine divides." This is true. But wasn't it Jesus who said, "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you" (John 15:18-19). Ironically, Jesus says this immediately following His command to love one another (John 15:17). Jesus also said, "Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's enemies will be the members of his household" (Matt 10:34-36). Yes, we are to be people known for our love, especially for one another. Love, however, doesn't mean what many people seem to think. And the truth is that truth in general and Christianity in particular will not be inclusive; it excludes by its very nature those who are outside the truth. We need to be careful about our aims, intentions, and definitions.

Trinitarian Orthodoxy

Centuries ago the debate was ended. Several Trinitarian formulas were laid down, the anti-Trinitarian heretics were answered, and the question was over. God is one, and God is three. There are fine points, specific wording, and lots of Scripture. In today's world, however, tradition is valueless, history is meaningless, and orthodoxy is irrelevant. The objections to the doctrine are back in force.

Here's the question I have ... and I mean it's a question. I've argued with myself back and forth and can't come up with a clear answer. This is my question: Is it possible to deny the Trinity and be a Christian?

I worded that carefully. I don't mean that it's required to believe in the Trinity to be saved. When the Philippian jailer asked, "What must I do to be saved?", Paul didn't offer a Trinitarian formula. But Christ said, "My sheep know My voice", and He told His disciples that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all truth. So I don't ask if it's possible not to believe in the Trinity and be saved; I ask if it's possible to deny the Trinity and be saved. Is it possible that a believer, joined to Christ, indwelt by the Spirit, could be presented with the biblical doctrine of the Trinity and deny it. Okay, let's back it up even a little more. Is it possible to continue to deny it and be saved? (I understand change comes slowly sometimes.)

I'm torn on the question. It's not offered as a tenet of faith without which you cannot be saved. No such thing. And it's not like Christians aren't wrong on other things. We're all wrong at times. We're all slow to come to "all truth". Indeed, I don't think any of us ever actually arrive. So I lean toward "Yes, it's possible to deny the Trinity and be saved."

On the other hand, we're not talking about fine points here. We're talking about the nature of God. If one is wrong on the fundamental nature of God, can they be worshiping the same God? A Jehovah's Witness that denies the deity of Christ is not worshiping the same Christ that a Trinitarian is, and Paul said, "No one can say, 'Jesus is Lord,' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3). This use of the term "Lord" references "Yah" or YHWH, so Paul said that when you have the Holy Spirit, you will call Jesus "Lord God". A Mormon believes that Jesus was the brother of Satan. This is not the same Jesus of Hebrews which claims that Jesus was not in the same class as angelic beings (Heb. 1). Or, easier yet, a follower of Islam believes in Jesus, but this Jesus is a prophet, not the Son of God Himself. This is not the same Jesus of the Bible. So I lean toward "No, it's not possible to deny the Trinity and be saved."

I'm torn on the question. I can see arguments in either direction. It concerns me in these days when fundamental Trinitarian Orthodoxy is being assaulted again. Is it under assault by well-meaning Christians? Or is it under assault by folks who are deceived into believing they are Christians but are not? Now, mind you, it doesn't matter to me. I know the truth regarding the Trinity. And whether or not those assaulting it are Christians doesn't change it. What matters is if it is not possible to deny the Trinity and be saved, there are people who believe themselves to be saved who are not, and it is for them that I am concerned. Now, if only I could settle the question in my mind.