Posted on 02/27/2003 6:58:37 AM PST by xzins
JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES: OBJECTIONS TO THE TRINITY
(Based on the Watchtower publication: SYBT and other standard arguments used by JWs)
OBJECTION #1: THE WORD TRINITY
The SYBT says that the word, "Trinity" is not in the Bible."
RESPONSE: Also see the Oneness Objections to the Doctrine of the Trinity. As mentioned above In point of fact, virtually all anti-Trinitarian groups make this same objection.
To assume: what is not stated must not be true is an argument from silence. Further, to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is not true because the exact word "Trinity" is absent from the Bible is self-refuting. For if that kind of reasoning were true, it would then follow, that Watchtower doctrine could not be true, for in the original Hebrew and Greek text Watchtower terms like, “theocracy,” (which they claim their under), "Jehovah," (Note: "Jehovah" is an Eng. transliteration. Orig. Heb. had no vowels only consonants: YHWH) are not contained in Scripture either. It also does not follow that because a particular word is not contained in Scripture that we cannot use that word to communicate a truth of God.
What is not at all considered is that even terms like, "Bible," (a Lat. term) or "self-existent," are not mentioned in Scripture and both are biblical truths, which all JWs agree upon. If we were only limited to strict biblical words, then, we would have to, when teaching out of the New Testament, use only Koine Greek words that the New Testament authors utilized! Employing unbiblical words does not violate the rules of sola-Scriptura, which says Scripture alone is the sole infallible regula fidei ("rule of faith") for the church, as long as the unbiblical words are wholly consistent with Scripture. Holding firm to the regula fidei the early church would use unbiblical words to explain and define the biblical data revealed within the pages of the Holy Writ.
In other words, “Trinity” is merely a precise doctrinal word that defines the biblical revelation that is so overwhelmingly found in Scripture: God the Father sent God the Son; the Eternal Word, in which He became flesh (cf. John 1:1; 6:37-40; 17:5). After which God the Son died in the place of the believer whereby His death provides full atonement for the sins of His people (cf. Matt. 1:21; Rom. 8:32), and God the Father and God the Son sent the God the Holy Spirit to empower the church, and dwell with believers:
“When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me” (John 15:26; emphasis added).
Again, this point must be understood: We cannot confuse biblical data with doctrinal words that merely define that data. The doctrine of the “Trinity” was derived from the Scriptural data. Biblical scholar Benjamin B. Warfield explains the difference:
Precisely what the New Testament is, is the documentation of the religion of the incarnate Son and the outpoured Spirit, that is to say, of the religion of the Trinity, and what we mean by the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing but the formulation in exact language of the conception of God presupposed in the religion of the incarnate Son and out poured Spirit. (Benjamin B. Warfield, Biblical Doctrines (Carlisle: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1929, 146.)
Thus the Tri-Unity of God is based on biblical data. The formulation of doctrinal words, however, came later when Christians, developed the precise term "Trinity" that simply defined the biblical data, because of the heresies that denied the biblical data in some way or other. As with the doctrinal terms like "Substitutionary Atonement," "Incarnation" or even the term "Gospel." All these terms came later after the apostolic age, which the church used to define the revelation or data that is clearly contained in Scripture.
Moreover, salvation is completely dependent on the Tri-Unity of God (i.e., soteriological Trinity). Example: The Covenant of Redemption, that is, all that the Father gives to Christ will come and He will raise them up at the last day (cf. John. 6:37ff). That Jesus is the Mediator between God (the Father) and man (cf. 1 Tim. 2:5) can only be true if Jesus is God and is a distinct Person from the one He is mediating for. Again, this point must be understood: we cannot confuse the Scriptural data of the Trinity with the doctrinal word, "Trinity" that defines the biblical data.
OBJECTION # 2: CHURCH FATHERS
The SYBT booklet asserts that the early (Anti-Nicene; before the Council of Nicene; A.D. 325) church Fathers did NOT believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.
The JWs booklet quotes from the Anti-Nicene church Fathers: Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 160); Irenaeus (c. A.D. 180); Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 195); Hippolytus (c. A.D. 205); Tertullian (c. A.D. 213); and Origen (c. A.D. 225). However when we refer to actual statements contained in many works (e.g., The Anti-Nicene Fathers, found at most city libraries and seminaries) clear is the fact: the SYBT booklet grossly misquotes or misrepresents what they said and believe. Not surprising is that the SYBT does not provide the addresses of the citations; for obvious reasons.
Response: This an argument from ignorance. They all, unequivocally, believed in the full Deity of Christ (the quotes below are from the Ante-Nicene Fathers [hereafter ANF], (ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson; 1885-1887; reprint, 10 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994).
Ignatius bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 105). The SYBT does not quote him, however, Ignatius was an early church Father that was a disciple of the Apostle John.
God Himself was manifested in human form for the renewal of eternal life (1:58).
Continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ, our God (1:68).
I pray for your happiness forever in our God, Jesus Christ (1:96).
Justin Martyr (A.D. 150). The SYBT booklet says that Justin called Jesus "a created angel" (p. 7). Justin did call Christ an angel, however only in the sense that He came as a messenger, to the people of the Old Testament (e.g., the angel of the LORD who spoke to Moses and claimed to be the "I AM"; cf. Exod. 3:14ff; see ANF, 1. 223). The English word "angel" has the denotative meaning, in both Hebrew and Greek, as simply "messenger."
Jesus certainly was active in the Old Testament as a "messenger," and that is what Justin meant. John 1:18 says: "No man has ever seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him." Jesus in the Old Testament interacted with the people of God (e.g., angle of the LORD; the Rock that accompanied the Israelites, see 1 Cor. 10:4).
Never once did Justin say or infer that Christ was created only the converse is asserted: Jesus Christ was the Eternal God. But again the quotes in the SYBT booklet are without addresses. Let us read what Justin really said:
He deserves to be worshipped as God and as Christ (1:229).
For Christ is King, Priest, God, Lord, Angel and man (1:221).
The Father of the universe has a Son. And He, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God (1:184).
David predicted that He would be born from the womb before the sun and moon, according to the Father's will, He made Him known, being Christ, as God, strong and to be worshipped (1:237).
Next, the SYBT cites Irenaeus bishop of Lyons (c. A.D. 185), as saying that Jesus was inferior and not equal with the Father. However Irenaeus clearly believed and defined the full Deity of Christ:
I have shown from the Scriptures that none of the sons of Adam are, absolutely and as to everything, called God, or named Lord, But Jesus is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God, Lord, King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word… (1:449).
Thus He indicates in clear terms that He is God, and that His advent was in Bethlehem… God, then, was made man, and the Lord Himself save us (1:451).
He is God for the name Emmanuel indicates this (1:452).
Christ Himself, therefore, together with the Father, is the God of the living, who spoke to Moses, and who was also manifested to the fathers (1:467).
He was man, and He was God. This was so that since as man He suffered for us, so as God He might have compassion on us (1:545).
Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 195) who is cited as saying that Jesus, was not equal to the Father. But read what he actually said:
He is God in the form of man… the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father's right hand. And with the form of God, He is God (2:210).
The Word itself, that is, the Son of God, is one wit the Father by equality of substance. He is eternal and uncreated (2:574).
Hippolytus (c. 203) is cited as believing that prehuman Jesus was created. But notice what this great Christian apologist really stood for and believed:
Having been made man, He is still God for ever. For to this effect, John also had said, 'Who is and who was, and who is to come--the Almighty.' And he has appropriately called Christ the 'Almighty' (5:225)
They killed the Son of their Benefactor, for He is co-eternal with the Father (5:220)
For, as the Only-Begotten Word of God, being God of God, He emptied Himself, according to the Scriptures… (5:167)
The Logos alone of this One is from God Himself. For that reason also, He is God. Being of the substance of God. In contrast, the world was made from nothing. Therefore, it is not God (5:151).
Therefore, a man… is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God--who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject (Himself excepted)--and the Holy Spirit; and that these are three [Persons] (5:226).
"Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." By this, He showed that whoever omits any one of these three, fails in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, and the Spirit manifested (5:228).
Tertullian Carthage (c. A.D. 213) is cited next as saying, "there was a time that the Son was not" ( 7). However, what Tertullian meant (in his argument against the modalism of Praxeas) was that he believed the Word was the Eternal God but yet distinct in His Person from God the Father, and that the Word took on the title "Son" which was a common belief among many church Fathers (esp. the apologists).
That Tertullian said that Jesus was created or came to be (in terms of His existence as a Person) is completely and diabolically distorting what Tertullian meant. In fact, it was Tertullian, that first coined the word "Trinity" (Lat. trinitas, the cognate of Gk. triados). Odd that the SYBT booklet would even cite this church Father. Tertullian taught:
For the very church itself--properly and principally--the Spirit Himself, in whom is the Trinity [trinitas], of the One Divinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (4:99; emphasis added; cf. Against Praxeas).
This opens the ears of Christ our God (3:715; cf. ibid.).
Surely I might venture to claim the very Word also as being of the Creator's [Father] substance (3:356; cf. ibid.).
Now, if He too is God, for according to John, 'The Word was God,' then you have two Beings-- One who commands that the thing to be made, and the other who creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to be another. I have already explained: on the ground of personality, not of substance. And in the way of distinction, not of division. I must everywhere hold only one substance, in three coherent and inseparable [persons] (3. 607; cf. ibid.).
It should be noted as well that in the East, as early as A.D. 180, church apologist Theophilus bishop of Antioch first uses the term “Trinity” to describe God:
In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity [triados] of God, and His Word, and His wisdom (Theophilus To Autolycus 2.15, in ANF, vol. 3).
Origen (c. 228) was also cited by SYBT as denying that Jesus was God. However, Origen contradicts these Watchtower assertions:
The Word that was in the beginning with God (who is also very God) may come to us (4:449).
The Son is not different from the Father in substance (9:336).
Saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all. That is, it is made complete by naming the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In this, we join the name of the Holy Spirit to the Unbegotten God (the Father) and to His Only-Begotten Son (4:252).
My web space could never hold the libraries of quotations and apologetic works of church Fathers teaching and defending the Deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. To the church Fathers, teaching, and defending the Deity of Christ and the Trinity was extremely important to them. Many of them spilled their own blood defending these doctrines. Why? Because in Trinity is how God revealed Himself to man: FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT.
The SYBT ends this page entitled: "What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught" by this:
"Thus, the testimony of the Bible and of history makes clear that the Trinity was unknown throughout Biblical times and for several centuries thereafter" (p. 7).
Unknown?
OBJECTION #3: PAGAN ORIGINS
The book also asserts, as do most anti-Trinitarians, that the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from pagan sources.
Response: This is a fallacy of false cause (misrepresents the cause). The Trinity is an utterly unique Christian doctrine. Pagans worshipped and believed in many gods (as with the Mormons) hence, the references in SYBT to the so-called parallelisms of the pagans were to THREE separate gods NOT one God in existing in three distinct Persons.
OBJECTION #4: THE CHURCH FELL INTO TOTAL APOSTASY
JWs assert that the Early Christian church fell into Complete Apostasy after the death of the Apostles.
Response: This is an argument from ignorance. When did so-called apostasy happen? What year? In point of fact, there is not a shred of anything that would indicate or even infer that the entire Christian church fell into apostasy. The verses that they use say that only "some" will fall away or that "many" will abandon the faith but never once does Scripture say that ALL will apostatize.
To assert this notion is an "easy-out" for JWs that say that: The original Christian Church did not teach Jesus was God. Both Mormons and JWs maintain this idea of a total apostasy only to avoid the truth that the early Christians taught what Christians believe today: THERE EXIST ONE TRUE GOD and JESUS IS THE ETERNAL GOD DISTINCT FROM HIS FATHER.
If the early Christian church apostatized, why do we read in Revelation 2:1, that the Ephesus church was commended by God for not tolerating wicked men and testing those who claimed to be apostles but were false. And we read of six other functioning Christian churches. The point is this: the Apostle John wrote Revelation, in or around A.D. 90! That is sixty years after Christ!
So, did the entire Christian church fall after that? How could this happen? What does that say about the condition of the early Christians? Where they so spiritually bankrupt that they suddenly fell to paganism? Or suddenly just quit believing? What does that say about God? Could He not hold His own church together? Where is the evidence for this?
That the whole Christian church is even able to fall-away is notion that is sharply refuted by the apostles and Jesus Christ Himself:
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God… And Jesus answered and said unto him… "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:16-18; KJV).
"All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me. 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, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age" (Matt. 28:18-20; emphasis added).
Jesus promised that He would never leave His church, nor would the gates of hell come against her. Likewise, the apostle Paul explains:
…to him [Jesus] be the glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, for ever and ever! Amen (Eph. 3:21).
In contrast to the assertions made by the JWs, that His teachings were somehow lost, Jesus made a clear promise that His teachings would indeed last.
"You did not choose me, but I choose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit -- fruit that will last" John 15:16; emphasis added)
As seen above, the church Fathers from Ignatius, to the great defender of the Trinity, Athanasius, and after, believed and taught that: JESUS CHRIST WAS THE ETERNAL GOD CREATOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.
Think about it, if there were no true Christians until the JWs emerged (1870), then, would it not follow that we would find distinctive Watchtower theology somewhere in church history? We have records of virtually every teaching that was prorogated from the first century. Where in church history though were the teachings of the JWs? And of course the Mormons (who make the same church fell in total apostasy claim) have the same problem: where was distinctive LDS doctrine before Joseph Smith (1830)?
Historically, we do have records of virtually every promulgated theology. However we do not have ANY historical record of distinctive Watchtower theology. Hence, are we to believe that for over 1800 years Jehovah did not have a witness until Charles Taze Russell (JW's founder) came on the scene? The only teaching that even resembles Watchtower theology (esp. Jesus as a created being) was Arianism.1 Accordingly, the Christian church roundly and sharply condemned Arianism because it denied Jesus Christ as eternal God, as the JWs teach.
OBJECTION #5: THE TRINITY IS THREE GODS
Most JWs grossly misrepresent the doctrine of the Trinity by asserting that the Trinity is three separate Gods.
Response: Again, this a typical straw man argument. The doctrine of the Trinity is not three Gods. The doctrine of three Gods is tritheism, not Trinitarianism. Three Gods is how Mormons view the Godhead. The foundation of the Trinity is pure ontological monotheism: ONE GOD. One Being revealed in three distinct Persons, coexistent, coequal, and coeternal.
OBJECTION #6: THE TRINITY IS ILLOGICAL
The SYBT says that the Trinity is, "Beyond the grasp of human reason" (4). And that God is, "Not a God of confusion" (ibid.). From that line of thought, JWs will argue that Trinity cannot be true, it too confusing.
Response: For something to be illogical, it would have to contradict reason. The doctrine of the Trinity does not contradict reason. The Trinity is not 1 person in 3 persons or 1 God in 3 Gods. It does not follow that because something is not completely explicable that it cannot exist or cannot be true. For example, many of the formulations in physical science, not contrary to reason, and may be apprehended (though it may not be comprehended) by the human mind.2
Does anyone completely understand how light travels? Does it travel as a wave, corpuscular or quantum phenomenon? Yet, we believe in the reality of light, even though we cannot totally comprehend it.
The Trinity may not be totally comprehendible but we can surely apprehend how God has revealed Himself to us through Scripture: There is ONE TRUE GOD; the Father is God the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. And the three are clearly differentiated. One God revealed in three distinct Persons. We cannot simply put God in easy-to-understand categories to gratify our feeble minds. We are called to worship God how He revealed Himself to us in His Word, anything less, is not worshipping, or honoring the true God.
The JWs reject the Trinity and hence they reject God. God is tri-personal He is not a unipersonal God as taught by the JWs. They are without excuse:
"Do you not know? Have you not heard? The LORD is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth." (Isa. 40:28).
Notes
1, Early in the fourth century, Arius of Alexandria, postulated his teaching that Jesus was a different substance ( heteroousios) than that of the Father. He used some of the same argumentation that the JWs use today. And of course, Arianism was completely refuted as heresy at the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325).
2, Example taken from: Robert M. Bowman, Jr., Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses (Baker House Books, Grand Rapids Michigan), 17.
copyright:
Back to the top
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
||||
gee amazing we agree on something on the religious forum..
" intra-group discussion" discussions are best held on freep mail..I ~thought~ the purpose was discussion..I would be kinnda interested in how the mormons see this doctrine and how Jews see it in light of their belief..but this thread is sealed..
My point is that this thread is such as to make the group-specific label void. People in here are baiting Mormons and JWs. The entire thesis laid out is non "group specific," it is exactly confrontational.
Other than that, are you a trinitarian?
I am a Catholic -- we were Trinitarian when Trinitarian wasn't cool. ;-)
SD
We agree on many things. We just don't usually focus on them
I do have to disagree somewhat. I think that if people coudl behave, certain closed threads could be beneficial. For instance, if Catholics want to discuss what we gave up for Lent, ther is no need for a thread of that nature to turn into the usual mess.
Ditto if you Calvinists want to talk about something internal. But it does require people to act civilized.
SD
Then you see where we're driving. Good.
It is perfectly rational for trinitarians to discuss objections to trinitarianism. It would be a common discussion in seminary, catechism, etc. There's nothing confrontational about that.
Likewise, the title is not confrontational. If it said, "All Non-Trinitarians are going to hell" then I'd consider that confrontational.
However, if within the conversation someone voiced a common trinitarian belief that non-trinitarians are going to hell, then that would not void the thread group-specific nature. In fact, they could even slam other groups, imho, and that would be common conversation that you'd find in any seminary class, sunday school class, sermon, or group discussion.
We are in a free speech zone provided there is no threatening or seditious language.
Woody...you are perfectly free to go start a non group-specific thread that does invite everyone to a free for all. Nothing is stopping you.
Variety is the spice of life.
My overall position is that nothing short of vulgarity or inciting violence/treason should be pulled. Leave the moderators alone and let's police ourselves, by gentle persuasion up to and including shunning.
Now, unless you are purposely parodying the exact type of threads that people should not post, my only response is to not respond any further.
I feel this is an abuse of the idea of denominational specific threads. But, you will do what you must.
SD
Did you ever hear " give them an inch and they will take a mile"? Soon every other thread will be closed..and it will move to complete seperation..
There are a ton of "RC Forums " out there where you could all agree to such a discussion without the threat of interference..I just see this as a slippery slope
I have found a decent Christian forum..each topic is seperate ..so it would be possible to more or less have an inside discussion..or Ange has a seperate form that you all could use
A seperation could allow ANY group to proselitize without comment from the mainstream church.
I believe the religious forum should be allowed to die if this idea comes into usage..it will be nothing but a chat room...
BTW if you really want a private conversation you could try the SBR no one goes there willingly:>)
As defined by Pastor xzins.
it is free HERE only if you are a Trinitarian...
You have some real control issues xzins
From the Catholic perspective? No.
St. Athanasius, a Catholic bishop whom the above creed is traditionally ascribed to (though he may not have in fact written it), fought this very heresy that you describe.
As a Catholic, I have a HUGE grin on my face about now...
I agree, he is clearly not Trinitarian. OP and I exercised him about this 12 months ago. I think the kicker for me in this recent exchange was where he delcared that Jesus will be absorbed back into the Godhead. I shudder to think what that means, but I think it is clear that his belief is offensive to this scripture:
First off, as a courtesy i am posting to ftD as well as you guys, after all, we are talking about his statements.
The issue that Woody raises was also raised on the other thread that Jean hyperlinked to us. i chose to ignore the statement, because it was simply a distraction from the main point that ftD and i were arguing about at that time. The central point to ftD's argument was the citation from Psalm 2:7 that is made in Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, and Hebrews 5:5. The only problem with the citations is that the context of all three is the Ressurection, not the incarnation
As i recall, what had gotten that started was an issue of the Nestle/Aland-UBS Greek text which has only begotten God in John 1:18, compared to the TR which has only begotten Son of God. Of course, we all know that --for those of you who don't have it, go to crosswalk.com and download the free BST fonts so you can read this-- monogenh;ß -only begotten- does not always mean only created. ftD was concerned that by removal of the word son, that the Jehovah's Witnesses and others could denigrate the deity of Christ. Of course a cursery walk through Isaiah 42:8, 43:10-11, 44:6, 44:8, 45:5-7, 45:18, 45:21-22, 46:9, 48:11-12, and so on, demonstrate that this is a false claim. i have in the past, used these verses to confound Jehovah's Witnesses on their "unique" understanding of John 1:1.
As for what ever ftD was trying to say concerning God being "all in all", i haven't a clue, and did not persue the issue.
I believe in God the Father Almighty... and in His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ... I believe in the Holy Spirit....
But...but....but that word is not in the Bible!!?!
;-)
I promise no matter what you say I will not bother you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.