Doctrine of the Trinity
Why didn’t the apostles plainly state doctrine such as
the Trinity? In epistles, we only get a snapshot of doctrine. The apostles spent
most of their energy planting and building churches and discipling leaders.
Their primary method of teaching doctrine was personal instruction. If you look
at the epistles of the New Testament, you see that their primary purpose was to
address issues that arise in the church and to affirm doctrine that was
challenged. Epistles were written when something needed to be addressed and the
church planter could not be there in person. The epistles and the entire Bible
affirm the Trinity as we will see, but we must keep in mind that the doctrinal
foundation was laid by the apostles in person. Therefore, the issues addressed
are not intended to re-lay the foundation, but to affirm and remind the churches
what has already been taught. We can also tell a lot about the doctrine the
apostles taught in the church by the beliefs of those who were been taught by
them. Most of these quotes were used earlier in ‘What the Early Church
Believed’, but I feel the need to repeat these quotes along with scripture.
Why don’t the epistles give more specifics into the
doctrines that the apostles are addressing?
In this last part, I will break it up into three main
sections: the Deity of Christ, the three Persons of the Trinity and the doctrine
of the Trinity from both the Old and New Testaments.
Deity of Christ
The Bible testifies to the fact that Jesus was God in the flesh. Many
critics argue that the 3rd century church added this doctrine. It is also argued
that scripture was altered to reflect this doctrine as well. Because of this, I
am going to finish this study in a slightly different fashion. I will present
the biblical evidence and include pre-3rd century writings that
confirm that what we see today is what was accepted as scripture from the
beginning. These writers are all respected church leaders and have never been
classified as teachers of heresy.
Jesus the Creator
The early church affirmed Jesus Christ’s active role in creation. To
review, look again at these two quotes from Barnabas who served with the apostle
Paul and Iranaeus who was taught by the disciples of the Apostle John:
74 AD in The Letter of Barnabas,
he says,
“And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul,
he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the
world, 'Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,' understand how
it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men” (Letter of Barnabas 5).
Iranaeus 190 AD
"For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the
Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to
whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let us make man after our image and
likeness'".( Against Heresies, 4:10)
The Church fathers affirmed the deity of Christ, the
personhood of Christ, His being of the same substance as the Father and also His
active role in creation. The Bible also affirms Jesus’ active role in
creation. There are so many scriptures that testify to the deity of Christ that
I had difficulty deciding which to exclude. Let’s begin with Hebrews 1.
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at various
times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets,
2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has
appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
…
5 For to which of the angels did He ever say: "You are My
Son, Today I have begotten You"? And again: "I will be to Him a
Father, And He shall be to Me a Son"?
…
8 But to the Son He says: "Your throne, O God, is forever
and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your Kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than
Your companions."
10 And: "You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation
of the earth, And the heavens are the work of Your hands.
11 They will perish, but You remain; And they will all grow
old like a garment;
This is a powerful testimony to the deity of Jesus Christ.
‘To the Son’ God says, “Your throne, O God is forever and ever…”.
Still speaking to the Son, God says in verse 9, “Therefore God, Your God has
anointed You…”. The Son is called LORD by God and credited with the creation
as the works of His hands.
Why does the Father say to the Son in verse 8, “Your
throne O God is forever”?
Does Hebrews’ claim that through the Son God made the
worlds agree with the early church?
The New World Translation Bible published by the
Jehovah’s Witness’ translates Hebrews 1:1-2 this way:
1 God, who long ago spoke on many
occasions and in many ways to our forefathers by means of the prophets,
2 has at the end of these days spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed
heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things.
Does this agree with the early church fathers?
Whose witness is most credible, those taught by the
apostles who declare that Jesus is God and created the world, or those who claim
to restore the church 2,000 years later and disagree with the Bible and the 1st
century church?
Hebrews 1 agrees with 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 nothing
was made that was made.
…
10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world
did not know Him.
11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him.
12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to
become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
This also agrees with Colossians 1:
15 He is the image of the
invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth,
visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers.
All things were created through Him and for Him.
17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist.
Does John and Colossians agree with the early church
beliefs that creation came through Jesus Christ?
The Watchtower Bible (New World Translation) translates
this passage as follows:
John 1:1 In [the] beginning the Word was, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was a god.
…
10 He was in the world, and the world came into existence through him, but the
world did not know him.
Remarkably, they deny Jesus’ equality with God in verse 1
and they remove His credit in creation in Hebrews and Colossians, but in John
1:10 the NWT includes the phrase, “the world came into existence through
him”. I have heard many Jehovah Witnesses explain around this verse, but I am
surprised that it was left unaltered since it is inconsistent with the other
alteration intended to deny His role. In John 1:1 the word ‘a’ is
inconsistent with the Greek, but alters the affirmation that Jesus is God. In
Colossians 1, the word ‘other’ is inserted in brackets. Brackets are
included to acknowledge the word is not in the Greek but the word is necessary
to understand the passage – at least in Watchtower doctrine. Colossians in the
NWT says, by him, all [other] things were created; he is before all [other]
things, etc. The intent is that Jesus was created first, then all other things
were created by him.
Is this consistent with the beliefs of the early church?
How did the early church respond to those who claimed that
Jesus was a created being?
The NWT is inconsistent in Jesus’ role in creation. In
passages some passages there is a concerted effort to deny that Jesus is the
Creator. In other passages such as John 1 and Colossians 1, it credits Jesus
with creation only after denying the deity of Christ. In Colossians, it inserts
the word other to imply that Jesus was created, then all other things were
created through Him. Even John 1:10 affirms that the world was created through
Him after denying that He is God. However, this is in direct conflict with the
rest of scripture. Take a look at these passages:
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God
created the heavens and the earth.
Isaiah 40
28 Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting
God, the LORD, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Neither faints nor is
weary. His understanding is unsearchable.
Isaiah 45
18 For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is
God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not
create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: "I am the LORD, and there
is no other.
How can Jesus be the creator of the world in John 1:10 if
God says He created the world in the rest of scripture?
NWT says in Colossians 1:
16 because by means of him all [other] things
were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the
things invisible, no matter whether they are thrones or lordships or
governments or authorities. All [other] things have been created through him
and for him.
This passage is about Jesus who is the image of the
invisible God. Then the passage goes on to that all [other] things were created
through him and for him. This would disagree with both the Old and New
Testaments. Look at these two passages:
Isaiah 43
7 Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for
My glory; I have formed him, yes, I have made him."
Revelation 4
11 "You are worthy, O Lord, To receive glory and honor
and power; For You created all things, And by Your will they exist and were
created."
NWT translates it this way:
11 "You are worthy, Jehovah, even our God, to receive the glory and the
honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will
they existed and were created."
Whose were we created to glorify?
According to Revelation, whose glory is due because He
created all things?
Why wasn’t [other] included in this passage?
Is it inconsistent to declare Jesus as the creator who
receives glory in Colossians and Jehovah in Isaiah and Revelation?
Either Jesus is God and equally worthy, or He is not and
not worthy. Which understanding is consistent with the entire scripture and the
early church?
Critics of the Trinity argue that the term ‘firstborn
over all creation’ proves that Jesus was created. Just the opposite is true.
First, if we look at the passage in its complete context, this phrase follows up
by saying that Jesus created all things, in heaven and on earth. Then the Bible
makes sure that we do not miss the point; all things, visible and invisible,
thrones, dominions, principalities and powers – they were all created through
the Son and for Him. Through Him all things consists and He was before
everything. How can the Creator of all things Himself be created? The Son
established all power and dominion. This would include His own dominion.
The only confusion in this passage comes from a
misunderstanding of the term ‘firstborn’. Firstborn is a position of
authority; it does not mean that he was the first created thing. In the Old
Testament, God said, “For I am a Father to Israel, And Ephraim is My
firstborn” (Jeremiah 31:9). Israel was not the first nation, nor was Ephraim
the first born son of Jacob. He was the second born son of Joseph who was the
son of Jacob (whose name was changed to Israel). However, God appointed him to
have the honor of rights of being the firstborn son. This is a position of
authority and leadership. Jacob was credited as firstborn when God rejected Esau
who should have been firstborn. Jesus is counted as the firstborn over the first
man, Adam. 1 Corinthians 15 explains:
21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the
resurrection of the dead.
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made
alive.
23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits,
afterward those who are Christ's at His coming.
…
47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second
Man is the Lord from heaven.
It is important to note that the word ‘Lord’ used in
verse 47 comes from the Greek word ‘Kurios’. This is the same word used to
refer to the Lord God elsewhere in scripture. One example is Matthew 22:
37 Jesus said to him, " 'You shall love the
LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your
mind.'
In the context of scripture, Jesus is called the firstborn
and the Man who satisfied the penalty of the first man Adam. Adam should have
been the firstborn and have this position of authority, but because he chose
sin, Jesus became the second Adam for the purpose of fulfilling that role. To
avoid causing confusion about the word ‘man’, the Bible explains that the
second Man was the Lord from heaven.
What picture is God painting with the term, ‘firstborn
over all creation’?
Did God use this symbol in the Old Testament to foretell of
the redemption of Christ?
Clearly, the Bible affirms not only that the Son was
present at creation, but that it was through Jesus Christ that creation appeared
and continues to exist.
According to the Oneness doctrine, Jesus did not pre-exist.
How then could He have been the Creator? Let’s let Bernard explain:
How could this be, seeing that the
Son did not come into existence until a point in time much later than creation?
To paraphrase John Miller... God used the Sonship to make the world. That is, he
hinged everything on the future arrival of Christ.
So, even though God knew man would
sin, he also knew that through the Son of God man could be restored and fulfill
God's original purpose. It is apparent, then, that when God created man he had
the future arrival of the Son in mind. It is in this sense that God created the
worlds through the Son or by using the Son, for without the Son, Gods whole
purpose in creating man would have failed." (The Oneness of God, p.151) .
Bernard claims that the Son was an idea in the mind of God
and the world was created with the forethought of Jesus’ redemption. Since
creation would fail without redemption, this equates the Sonship with creation.
Should we have to explain away plain truth in order to
discover hidden truth?
Do the apostles writings and the early church writings
agree with Bernard?
This does not sound at all like scripture’s account.
David’s vision of Jesus was not a thought in the mind of God. David said,
Psalm 110:1 A Psalm of David. The
LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your
footstool."
2 The LORD shall send the rod of Your strength out of Zion.
Rule in the midst of Your enemies!
Psalm 16
9 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoices; My flesh
also will rest in hope.
10 For You will not leave my soul in Sheol, Nor will You allow
Your Holy One to see corruption.
Is God telling His idea of Christ to sit at right hand
until I make Your enemies Your footstool?
David did not see the thought in the mind of God. The
apostles identified both of these as Jesus. In Acts, the apostles explain that
David foresaw Christ. When you compare that to the Bible’s account of
creation, we see that it wasn’t a thought, but ‘He’ was actually active in
creation. John said in verse 1:1 that ‘He’ was the word and was God and in
verse 2 he states, ‘He was in the beginning with God’. Oneness doctrine
stretches this beyond any reasonable interpretation of scripture.
Can Jesus be God and with God if there is no distinction
other than a thought?
Also consider that all three are given credit for creation.
Genesis 1:
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on
the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the
waters.
The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of God. Also in
Malachi 2:10a the Bible says, “Have we not all one Father? Has not one God
created us?” The Father is credited for creation. In Hebrews 1 we were also
told that the Father created the world through the Son. We are not told that the
Father created the world with the Son in mind. ‘Through Him He made the
worlds’ is unmistakable terminology. If the early church fathers dating back
to the apostles believed this doctrine of Christ and the Bible teaches it, where
does this doctrine come from?
Bernard also states an argument that is frequently echoed
by others.
“We cannot confine God to three or any other
number of specific roles and titles. Neither can we sharply divide him because
he is one. Even his titles and roles overlap.” (Oneness of God page 143).
If we can’t confine God to three, why can we confine Him
to one? The problem here isn’t numbers. The issue is, how has God revealed
Himself? God reveals Himself in scripture as One God in three persons. In the
next section we will go into the scriptural evidence for this argument. The
problem with the Trinity debate is that those who oppose the Trinity also define
the doctrine. Often you hear them define the Trinity as three persons = three
gods. The next line of reasoning is, ‘How can God be three persons?’ Then
the doctrine of the Trinity is attacked on human terms and not according to
divine revelation. For example, Bernard states,
“If the Son was present in the beginning who
was his mother? If the Son be a Spirit being, who was his Spirit mother?”
This is a meaningless question. Because there is no mother
mentioned, there can’t be a son? What about the Father’s mother? God is not
a man. God did not procreate to father the Son. Using the same line of
reasoning, we should be arguing the Father’s existence at creation and the
Holy Spirit’s existence. How can God be a father if there is no son?
If someone is using human definitions how can this confuse
the revelation God has made about Himself?
Does having difficulty understanding God discredit diving
truth?
An uncreated God does not need a beginning. Even after the
incarnation of Jesus, Oneness doctrine cannot separate the difference between
human terminology and scriptural doctrine. The early church believed and taught:
One God, three persons of one substance. Not three persons, three substances,
and three Gods. Because it is a hard doctrine to fully comprehend does not
disprove the doctrine. We can’t fully comprehend a God without beginning, yet
we don’t argue that it isn’t biblical. The Trinity is a biblically based
doctrine that has a solid foundation. The roots of the Oneness doctrine stands
on shaky ground. Basilides was a Gnostic who taught in 130 AD:
The unborn and unnamed Father sent his first
begotten mind. And this they call the Christ.
Does Bernard’s view of the Son align closer with the
Gnostics, or the early church?
Bernard also claims that Irenaeus taught this doctrine,
when in fact, Irenaeus quoted this doctrine for the purpose of refuting it. He
quoted this doctrine as heresy and credits its invention to Marcion, Valentinus,
Carpocrates, Simon the Magician or Basilides. They each taught it.
Bernard also quotes Emanuel Swedenborg as a ‘religious
writer who expressed a good understanding of the Oneness of God’. However,
Swedenborg was an occultist. He was a medium who was a proclaimed clairvoyant.
He used occult practices to communicate with spirits. He claimed that the Lord
appeared to him and gave this revelation:
“Instead of a trinity of persons, there is
understood a trinity of person. The Lord’s divine is the father, the divine
human the son, and the proceeding divine is the Holy Spirit.”
Which has more credibility, the early church who quote the
apostles and affirm the Trinity, or those who quote Gnostics and occultists to
refute the Trinity?
The Oneness doctrine is not derived from scripture, but
from Arianism, Gnosticism and spiritualists. I realize that most people would
not knowingly side with these groups, however, if the foundation is unbiblical,
the church and doctrine built on it cannot stand. I write this with the full
knowledge that it is controversial to some people. However, the Bible tells us
that open rebuke is better than secret love. Pointing out an error is usually
not popular, but it is a necessity. The doctrine of Jesus Christ (His deity,
atonement, and teaching) is the foundation of Christianity. Some people will
choose traditionally held beliefs over historic Christianity based on truth.
Some will respond. The Bible gives instructions as to how to handle rebuke:
Proverbs 13:18 Poverty and shame
will come to him who disdains correction, But he who regards a rebuke will be
honored.
15:32 He who disdains instruction
despises his own soul, But he who heeds rebuke gets understanding.
There are many, many other modern movements that find their
roots in the heresies that threatened the early church. The Mormons (or Latter
Day Saints), Unitarians, New Age variants and more other doctrines than I can
name here which all find roots in the heresies. This is just a brief look. We
can look at what the heretics believed and see if our doctrines are related. We
can also look at the early church beliefs and see if our churches are rooted in
historic Christianity. Iranaeus clearly stated the church’s belief:
For with Him were always present the Word and
Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously,
He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let us make man after our
image and likeness'. (Against Heresies, 4:10)
Exchanged Life Outreach
http://www.exchangedlife.com
Permission granted to copy and distribute.