Many try to make the Holy Spirit into a non-person or a force. The reason is that if the Holy Spirit is God, then the non-Trinitarian belief does not make sense. However, the Holy Spirit is a person. Acts 5 tells us that the Holy Spirit is God:
3 But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back part of the price of the land for yourself?
4 "While it remained, was it not your own? And after it was sold, was it not in your own control? Why have you conceived this thing in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God."
Peter said, ‘you lied to the Holy Spirit’ and then, ‘you have not lied to men, but to God’.
Why does Peter ask Ananias why he lied to the Holy Spirit and then follow up by saying, “You have not lied to men, but to God”?
The Holy Spirit speaks. Look at the following passages,
Verse 29 then says: Then the Spirit said to Philip, "Go near and overtake this chariot."
19 While Peter thought about the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are seeking you.
20 "Arise therefore, go down and go with them, doubting nothing; for I have sent them."
2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
Can a ‘force’ speak? Can a force say, “go near the chariot”, or “three men are seeking you”, or “separate to Me these men”?
Before he was martyred, one of the early church theologians named Hippolytus wrote around 200 AD:
If then the word was with God and was also God what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two God’s? I shall not speak of two Gods but of one; of two persons however and of a third economy, the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father is indeed one but there are two persons because there is also the son; and there is the third the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the word executes and the son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of the harmony is led back to the one God, for God is one. It is the father who commands and the son who obeys and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding; The Father is above all the son is through all and the Holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit.
Athanasius also wrote a challenge to Serapoin who taught against the Trinity:
“[The Trinity] is a Trinity not merely in name or in a figurative manner of speaking; rather, it is a Trinity in truth and in actual existence. Just as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and is God over all. And neither is the Holy Spirit nonexistent but actually exists and has true being.”
How does the writings of the early church compare to what we believe today?
Is the Holy Spirit equal to God, eternal and uncreated?
The New Testament is filled with references to the uniqueness of the persons of the Godhead while affirming the One God. Those who affirm the deity of Christ and still deny His eternal distinction from the Father have to explain away Trinity-supporting scriptures that contradict the doctrine they have chosen. Some argue that the Son was a thought in the mind of God and that each person of the Godhead is a different mode that God enters to perform a task. However, if God does not change, as the Bible claims, different modes are unbiblical.
Read the following passages:
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.
Malachi 3:6a For I am the LORD, I do not change;
Isaiah 63:16 Doubtless You are our Father, Though Abraham was ignorant of us, And Israel does not acknowledge us. You, O LORD, are our Father; Our Redeemer from Everlasting is Your name.
According to scripture, can God change?
If the scriptures say that Jesus has always been and will always be; The LORD (Jehovah) does not change; and the Father, our Redeemer is everlasting, can we claim that God changes modes and be stand on scripture at the same time?
It is also impossible to explain scripture that reveals more than one ‘mode’ at the same time. We should never have to explain away scripture. Scripture was written as God’s revelation of Himself and His plan. When scripture can’t be explained away, critics of the Trinity deny the reliability of scripture itself. It should always raise a red flag when someone claims to be a Christian but then discredits scripture. If the Trinity is true, we are criticizing God when we criticize the Trinity revealed in scripture. A misunderstanding of God always leads to error. Therefore it is vital that we seek to know God, not make Him fit the ideal that we feel is rational or compliant to our beliefs.
If someone’s doctrine is dependent on the unreliability of scripture, should that be a warning sign?
If the Bible testifies to the deity of Christ and the Trinity and the 1st and 2nd century church agrees with our Bible, yet others claim to have a truth that disagrees with these two, who is to be believed – the two that agree, or the one who claims to have special revelation that is in disagreement?
Throughout the gospels, we see the Father and the Son together. Begin by looking at these two passages:
Mark 15
34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"
Luke 23
46 And when Jesus had cried out with a loud voice, He said, "Father, 'into Your hands I commit My spirit.' " Having said this, He breathed His last.
Jesus cried out to God and called Him ‘Father’. Similar to the Old Testament references we studied earlier, we have God speaking to God. How can Jesus commit His spirit to the Father if He is the Father? Oneness writer and teacher David Bernard quotes Praxeus as a resource. Praxeus taught that God was numerically one in person and the names Father and Son were different offices of that one person, who is God.
If Praxeus claims that the Son and the Father were different offices occupied by the one person, how can this be reconciled with these passages above?
God, in the office of the Son cried out to the office of the Father, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” How did God, while holding the office or residing in the mode of Jesus commit to the Father His spirit?
Oneness doctrine can’t claim that this is a change of office, because it doesn’t explain Jesus’ plea for help on the cross. It also does not explain Jesus’ daily prayer life. Look at Matthew 26:
39 He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."
Throughout Jesus’ ministry, He withdrew to be alone to pray. In John 11, Jesus used prayer to reveal His relationship with the Father to those around Him, but Jesus’ daily prayer life was spent alone with the Father. Luke 5:16 tells us, “Jesus Himself would often slip away to the wilderness and pray.”
What purpose is there in slipping away alone to pray unless it truly is a communion between the Father and the Son?
How can God plead with Himself to find another way of redemption other than the cross unless the Son and the Father are distinct persons?
Jesus testified to this distinction. Look at John 8
16 "And yet if I do judge, My judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent Me."
...
29 "And He who sent Me is with Me. The Father has not left Me alone, for I always do those things that please Him."
How can the phrases “I am not alone”, “The Father has not left me alone”, and “He who sent Me is with Me” be explained if there is only one person in the Godhead?
Next we will examine an even greater example of this unity and distinction. Look at Matthew 22
43 He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call Him 'Lord,' saying:
44 'The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool" '?
45 "If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his Son?"
Here Jesus is referring to the prophecy of Psalm 110:1
The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."
Don’t miss the importance of this passage. The Father said to sit at His right hand ‘till’ I make Your enemies Your footstool. This has not happened. This is the future reign of Christ. This is repeated again in Philippians 2:
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
How does the Son sit at the right hand of the Father to wait for that day if these are on person?
What does the word ‘until’ (or till in the NKJV) imply in these passages?
Has this passage been fulfilled yet?
Look at 1 Corinthians 15
27 For "He has put all things under His feet." But when He says "all things are put under Him," it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted.
28 Now when all things are made subject to Him, then the Son Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.
Why does the Bible take care to point out that the Father is the exception to the promise that all will bow and be subject to the Son?
If the Son is the Father, is this distinction necessary?
Once again we have a distinction between the Father and the Son. Every knee will bow (including His enemies) and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord to the glory of who? The Father. How can Jesus sit at the right hand of the Father and at the same time be the Father unless the Trinity is an accurate view of God? In Revelation 3:21, we are promised that those who overcome will sit with Jesus on His throne as He overcame and sits with the Father on His throne. If Jesus sits with the Father on His throne, how can Praxaeus, Sabellius, and Oneness teachers claim that God only exists in one ‘mode’ at a time? In 190 AD, Hippolytus stated the church’s belief clearly when he said,
God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world....Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality.
Several times in the New Testament we see all three persons mentioned together. Two of the most popular Trinity supporting passages are:
Matthew 5
16 When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.
17 And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
Matthew 28
19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Here is how the historic Christian leaders viewed this truth:
110 AD. Ignatius of Antioch wrote, "Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make disciples of all nations, commanded them to "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," not unto one [person] having three names, nor into three [persons] who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honour." (Letter to the Philadelphians, 2)
Do these passages and the early church agree with the modern doctrine of the Trinity of God?
In Matthew 5 we see the Father, Son and Holy Spirit together and distinct. Matthew 28 commands us to make disciples and baptize them in the name of the Triune God. In Titus we are given the same picture that we have in Matthew. Look at Titus 3:
4 But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared,
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
6 whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior,
The kindness and love of God appeared, we are renewed by the Holy Spirit who is poured out on us through Jesus Christ.
In John 14 we see all three persons of the Triune God referenced together and distinctly from each other. Look at John 14:16-17,21:
16 "And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever --
17 "the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.
...
21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."
How can the Son pray to the Father on our behalf?
How does the Father give another helper (the Holy Spirit of truth) to abide with us forever?
What did Jesus mean by saying that we will be loved by the Father and Jesus will love us?
We are told that the Son will pray to the Father and the Father will send the Helper (Holy Spirit). Then in verse 21 we are told that when we keep His commandments, we will be loved by both the Son and by the Father. Jesus clearly draws a distinction between Himself and the Father. This is future tense. After we have the Holy Spirit on earth, we will still have the love of the Father and Son in heaven. Jesus again reveals an eternal distinction in John 16:
7 "Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you.
8 "And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 "of sin, because they do not believe in Me;
10 "of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more;
If Jesus returns to the Father, sends the Helper who convicts the world of sin and comforts and teaches us and Jesus remains with the Father, how can the Trinity be denied?
If someone sees these clear passages and refutes them by claiming the Bible is in error, are they seeking truth or choosing their desired beliefs over the truth?
In this passage, Jesus promises that He will send the Holy Spirit and who will convict the world of sin. Yet He also makes it clear that He goes to the Father. He does not become the Father, nor does He become the Holy Spirit. The book of 1 John walks us through the Trinity. Look at these verses from chapters 2 and 4:
1 John 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, so that you may not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous.
1 John 4
14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world.
Jesus is our Advocate with the Father. An advocate is a legal representative. An advocate pleads for the one being defended. Here John tells us that when we sin, Jesus pleads on our behalf to the Father. This does not make sense if Jesus is the Father. Throughout this book, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are identified as separate persons and the identified as one. Look at 1 John 5
6 This is He who came by water and blood -- Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.
Does the phrase ‘these three are one’ mean one person or one God?
What does the phrase ‘there are three that bear witness in heaven’ mean in light of the rest of scripture?
Jesus came by water and blood to pay our debt to sin, He continues as our Advocate with the Father and the Holy Spirit continues the work and bears witness to the truth on earth. These three are identified as distinct in their personhood, but verse 7 clearly tells us that the three are one. How then can Jesus say, “I and the Father are one”? Because the Triune God is one God revealed in three persons. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are equal, of one substance, and eternally distinct. Both the Old and New Testaments attest to this as a fact. We can have confidence in scripture’s account of this fact because we have the testimonies of the men who were closest to the apostles who all believed and taught exactly what we have in our modern scripture. God has truly preserved His word. There are no reformers other than those who point back to the truth revealed from the beginning. Polycarp was discipled by John, the apostle Jesus loved. He stated:
“O Lord God almighty...I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever”
Does John’s disciple agree with the scriptures that testify to the deity of Christ and the Triune God?
Does this agree with one person – one God, or three persons – one God?
We hold the doctrine that was preached by the apostles, their disciples and the early church they instructed. With confidence we can hold fast to the scriptures knowing that it truly is unaltered and is God’s revelation. In the Bible we have God’s revelation of Himself and our call to faith and obedience. We are called to have faith, not in a god shaped by the traditions of men, but in the Triune God. One God, three persons, equal and eternally distinct, uncreated and of one substance. One God, three persons.
The anti-Trinitarian view was refuted again and again by the true church. I will close with the exhortation Dionysius made in 262 AD against the Sabellius who popularized the Oneness/Modalistic view. He responded to the argument that Oneness believers use today – that the Trinity equals three gods. He called the argument blasphemy and the idea that the Son is the Father and Father is the Son is also blasphemy:
A.D. Dionysius "Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the Monarchy, the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it, as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. I have heard that some of your catechists and teachers of the divine word take the lead in this tenet. They are, so to speak, diametrically opposed to the opinion of Sabellius. He, in his blasphemy, says that the Son is the Father and vice versa" (Letters of Pope Dionysius to Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria 1:1 ).
If the church called it blasphemy to say that the Son is the Father and the Father is the Son, how can the Oneness believers call their doctrine truth?
Do we believe the scripture and the early church or those who were called blasphemers?
Exchanged Life Outreach
http://www.exchangedlife.com
Permission granted to copy and distribute.