Jehovahs Witnesses/ Early Church on the Trinity

[Josh]

Originally posted 5/6/06:

A friend recently mailed me an article by a Jehovah's Witness which claimed that the doctrine of the Trinity was a third century invention. The article attempted to use quotes from early Church Fathers (2nd Century) to show that they didn't believe in a Trinity.

This was my response. Although the article is not posted, you may find this helpful in regard to the general topic:

In regard to your question, I’m going I’ll make some comments and some recommendations.

The first thing, which I gather full well you already know, is to be really cautious when a Jehovah’s Witness source is stating ‘facts’. Of course this always applies with anyone researching anyone’s arguments, but because of the precedent of JW ‘half-truths’, this is doubly so when critiquing JW works.

Of course, many Christians aren’t forthright in their ‘reporting of the facts’, either. A good argument (or article) presents both sides of the argument well. This article would have you believe that this is a simple, open-shut case, which is the biggest mistruth of all. By presenting little snippets here and there of 200+ years of writings and the development of theology, they hope to have the reader convinced. And yet they never admit how complicated the issue really is.

First off, the doctrine of the Trinity is subtle, complex, and lingering just beyond comprehension in the first place. This bothers uber-fundamentalists of all stripes (not the least of whom are our JWs). It is true that Jesus didn’t just spell it out in a simple formula. What the JWs fail to see is that it appears that Jesus preferred to leave us clues, hints, and tantalizing pieces of the puzzle, and to have the early Church (first and foremost in the writings of the New Testament) put the pieces together- like He was inviting the Church to solve a mystery—an extremely important one. (when I say ‘solve’ I don’t mean completely comprehend, but I mean figure out enough to apprehend the doctrine). Contrary to the author of this article, I think this fits very well in line with what God is like. Almost every key doctrine of Christianity developed slowly, in the shadows, before it saw the clear light of day (think of the evolution of knowledge about the afterlife that we see in Scripture, or the knowledge of the law, or the grace of God, etc…) It’s not surprising to me that the Trinity is not spelled out easily.

That said, as you know, the NT is rife with overt and implied statements as to the deity of Christ. I won’t touch on this here because I suspect this is still an area of expertise for you. But I will say that if you haven’t refreshed your memory banks on this, then I would suggest you do that because I am still finding ‘Trinitarian’ verses and implication in the Bible that I had never seen before. One case in point: the word LORD in the NIV. It’s a somewhat unfortunate translation, because to us it’s just a title, but it’s demonstrably the Greek equivalent of the name of God (Yahweh) in the OT, and carries the same significance when used of Christ a hundred times in the NT.

Anyway, what you’re interested in is the Church fathers. What I’m going to do is make some comments on the butchering of history found in this article, and then send you another article on this same subject (from the Christian Research Institute).

I was highly amused by the first page of the article that you sent me (page 7) in the sections “What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught”. First off, that’s a huge undertaking, yet the author apparently thinks he can sum up that enormous task in two columns of an article. The immense naivety… or worse, insidious, purposeful deception!

I want to note his strategy here. Note when he actually uses quotes for the Fathers (Justin, Irenaeus, Clement, etc..) and when he is not. You will find that most of the parts that are actually quotes are in and of themselves either non-problematic, ambivalent, or just honest attempts to describe a difficult subject.

For instance, Justin Martyr did think Jesus was the Angel of the Lord, but not in the way that JWs do. Justin himself pointed out how the Angel of the Lord was called God in the OT. (Don’t know what your stance on this is, but I also think the Angel of the Lord was Jesus, 'angel' simply meaning messenger or presence).

As to the Church father's quote about Jesus “never doing anything except what the Creator.. willed him to do or say”—need I point out that Jesus himself said this too, and that this concept is no challenge to the doctrine of the Trinity, but is rather just attacking a straw man.

When discussing Irenaeus, he says- he showed that Jesus is not equal to the “One true and only God,” who is “supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other”. The quoted material here, no orthodox Christian would have a problem with—it’s the unqualified statement “he showed that Jesus is not equal” that is the problem. Why not quote Irenaeus free and clear on this, if that’s what he’s arguing? The reason is that JW’s misunderstand the orthodox explanation about how Jesus can be ‘equal’ to God is some aspects and not in others. (this is a common headache for JWs because they often can’t see how something is true in one context and not in another). For instance, Jesus is indeed subordinate to God is some ways and not in others (do you want some verses on this?). It doesn’t mean He’s not God.

This same misunderstanding can be seen is his comments on Clement and in the first part of his comments on Tertullian.

When we do find something in the Fathers that seems flat wrong, such as Tertullian’s second comment- ‘there was a time when the Son was not’, we have to first compare it with Scripture and also realize that in this complicated ‘piecing together of the puzzle’ there was bound to be some dead-ends. I have to confess, that I am a little more tolerant of those who don’t have all their ‘ducks in a row’ with the doctrine of the Trinity than I was before, because I recognize how complicated it all is. That certainly doesn’t mean it’s not important—it’s supremely important in the avoidance of heresy, but I see how easy it is to misunderstand parts of the doctrine.

Note in his Hippolytus quote that he can’t actually quote Hippolytus as saying that God created Jesus, he just implies it. The quote in and of itself doesn’t really spark any red flags.

And in regard to Origen, even though the Church eventually decided on the “one is essence, two in substance’ formula as the most accurate, what we’re really seeing is Origen’s valid attempt to avoid the alterna-heresy stating that God and Jesus are just the same thing in all regards (aka modalism). And “compared with Father, the Son is a very small light” isn’t necessarily heresy (although pushing some bounds), depending on context. Jesus Himself at times says things along these lines. Again, it depends on in what sense is ‘light’ being intended.

As to his ‘summation’ on page 7, I’ll just refer you to the enclosed article for contra on that.

Further recommendations: Read the article, and if you want more on the Fathers, I’d suggest finding (at Pilgrim) A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs by David Bercot, which is a giant compendium of early Church father quotes on a huge variety of topics- from infanticide to gifts of the spirit, you name it. It’s a great resource, albeit sometimes a little selective (ie, he didn’t include some Fathers he considered heretical). Also, I’d just recommend reading the Fathers in their original works.

As to the council of Nicea and Constantine’s role, etc.. I’m just plum out of time for the moment (that’s a huge topic). In order to send this out ASAP, I’ll have to wait on that. (perhaps we could get together?).

I hope this helps. One last summation comment:

Think of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity as sort of a mystery novel: 200+ years of putting the pieces together: many dead ends, some new leaps forward, and always approaching an ever more precise explanation of the relevant Bible passages. The Platonic part of this discussion is not to be feared—its clear even John (Logos) thought that was a good well to draw from within bounds.

The funny thing is that JWs want you to assume that the doctrine of the Trinity only comes about by torturing the text (as opposed to it ‘leaping from a plain reading of the text’), whereas their view that Jesus is a subordinate angel is even less apparent from a plain reading of the text of the Bible. The fact is that neither view comes from the plain reading: the plain, unstudied reading of the bible text leaves us with the initial impression of a mystery or a paradox or conundrum which must be solved by study. IN other words, there is no ‘obvious and exhaustive’ doctrine of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in their relation to God in any one place in the NT, whether on the orthodox side or the JW side. There is a tantalizing mystery of strong and clear statements scattered here and there, compelling us to study further. The reason the Church Fathers wrestled with this for years wasn’t because they were desperately trying to make the text say something different that what it actually said, but because they were really trying to understand it in all its complexity and paradox.

Hope that helps for now.

[christopher]

Hi Josh,

After reading this, I’m not sure exactly how it will pertain to our other discussion on essentials, but since you asked me to, I’ll make a few comments on what you wrote here and try to tie it in if I can.

However, as a disclaimer, not having the original article you are refuting available, it may be difficult for me to catch the full context of what you’re saying in this response (kind of like listening to one side of a phone conversation ).

First off, the doctrine of the Trinity is subtle, complex, and lingering just beyond comprehension in the first place. This bothers uber-fundamentalists of all stripes (not the least of whom are our JWs). It is true that Jesus didn’t just spell it out in a simple formula.

For me, “lingering just beyond comprehension” is an understatement. Personally, I’m absolutely mystified by the nature of the Godhead being “one in essence”, yet revealed in “three eternally distinct Persons”.

In scripture, we find both a oneness of God, and a three-ness to Him. The lines of distinction are not at all clear. And from all of the explanations and formulas I’ve heard (including Nicea), not one of them are helpful in making sense out of it IMO. If God is personal, than what is this business about His “essence” or “nature”? How is it that we call God “Him” and not “Them” if there are 3 persons? For me, it’s a complete mystery, not “just beyond comprehension”. Yet, since I hold scripture to be inspired by God, and scripture seems to support the idea of God as Triune, I accept it.

Just being honest.

What the JWs fail to see is that it appears that Jesus preferred to leave us clues, hints, and tantalizing pieces of the puzzle, and to have the early Church (first and foremost in the writings of the New Testament) put the pieces together- like He was inviting the Church to solve a mystery—an extremely important one. (when I say ‘solve’ I don’t mean completely comprehend, but I mean figure out enough to apprehend the doctrine). Contrary to the author of this article, I think this fits very well in line with what God is like. Almost every key doctrine of Christianity developed slowly, in the shadows, before it saw the clear light of day (think of the evolution of knowledge about the afterlife that we see in Scripture, or the knowledge of the law, or the grace of God, etc…) It’s not surprising to me that the Trinity is not spelled out easily.

Interesting proposition, but where do we get that idea in scripture? And how would we know for sure that is what Jesus was doing? Also, how can we know that the church solved the puzzle correctly? I noticed you used the words “it appears that Jesus…”, and you might be right, but I’m not sure how we would know.

From my standpoint, it seems rather precarious to me for the 4th century church to formulate such a rigid dogmatic position on the Trinity (that would thereby banish and persecute fellow Christians who believed otherwise) based on such an assumption that Jesus left it to the church to unravel and put parameters on the “mystery”.

Also, where do we draw the line? After all, if I’m not mistaken, that’s exactly the same argument the RCC typically uses to say that us Protestants are “anathema” (council of Trent) or “separated brethren” (Vatican II), isn’t it?

That said, as you know, the NT is rife with overt and implied statements as to the deity of Christ. I won’t touch on this here because I suspect this is still an area of expertise for you. But I will say that if you haven’t refreshed your memory banks on this, then I would suggest you do that because I am still finding ‘Trinitarian’ verses and implication in the Bible that I had never seen before. One case in point: the word LORD in the NIV. It’s a somewhat unfortunate translation, because to us it’s just a title, but it’s demonstrably the Greek equivalent of the name of God (Yahweh) in the OT, and carries the same significance when used of Christ a hundred times in the NT.

I have to admit that I have not heard this particular claim before, can you demonstrate that?

I know that the OT uses two different words for God, YHWH and Adonay, the former is unequivocally meaning God (usually depicted by all CAPS), and the latter means simply ‘master’ and is often used to address other people as well (such as Sarah to Abraham, etc.).

Likewise in the Greek NT, I know that there is Theos (God or Deity) and Kurios (Lord). The former is obvious, and the latter is many times translated Lord, but also Sir, master, Mr. etc., it simply carries the meaning of supreme authority, but not necessarily Deity as far as I can see.

Perhaps there is some Aramaic form of the word that was lost in the translation to Greek. Since that was a common tongue among the Jews in Jesus’ day, I can see that being a possibility. However, I have no references for that.

I’ll be very interested in whatever you can bring to light on this.

Anyway, what you’re interested in is the Church fathers. What I’m going to do is make some comments on the butchering of history found in this article, and then send you another article on this same subject (from the Christian Research Institute).

I was highly amused by the first page of the article that you sent me (page 7) in the sections “What the Ante-Nicene Fathers Taught”. First off, that’s a huge undertaking, yet the author apparently thinks he can sum up that enormous task in two columns of an article. The immense naivety… or worse, insidious, purposeful deception!

I have not seen the article, but I couldn’t agree with you more here. The early church fathers were all over the board on many peripheral things (even as we are today).

For instance, Justin Martyr did think Jesus was the Angel of the Lord, but not in the way that JWs do. Justin himself pointed out how the Angel of the Lord was called God in the OT. (Don’t know what your stance on this is, but I also think the Angel of the Lord was Jesus, 'angel' simply meaning messenger or presence).

Agreed. But Theophanies do muddy the waters a bit in this kind of debate, and thus are fodder for those who seek to oppose the Trinity.

As to the Church father's quote about Jesus “never doing anything except what the Creator.. willed him to do or say”—need I point out that Jesus himself said this too, and that this concept is no challenge to the doctrine of the Trinity, but is rather just attacking a straw man.

Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment :

I’m not sure how this would be a straw man argument. IMO, I would have to concede that it is a valid (but not insurmountable) point in someone wanting to argue against the equality of Jesus in relation to God. Jesus Himself demonstrated this in the garden and many other places in the gospels.

I cannot really comment on the rest of what you said about the church fathers at this point because I didn’t see the assertions made by the author of the article you’re refuting. But I did catch this comment:

I have to confess, that I am a little more tolerant of those who don’t have all their ‘ducks in a row’ with the doctrine of the Trinity than I was before, because I recognize how complicated it all is.

That is exactly my point. I also used to be very intolerant of those who didn’t express it correctly, until I discovered the only thing I was really concerned about was belonging to the “orthodox” club.

That certainly doesn’t mean it’s not important—it’s supremely important in the avoidance of heresy, but I see how easy it is to misunderstand parts of the doctrine.

This is the part that I’m still waiting to hear your thoughts on (I know your busy and will get to it eventually).

It’s not entirely clear to me why it’s “supremely important” to know and confess the Nicean formula. I have my theories on why it has historically been asserted as such, but they basically amount to more of a political concern than anything IMO.

The funny thing is that JWs want you to assume that the doctrine of the Trinity only comes about by torturing the text (as opposed to it ‘leaping from a plain reading of the text’), whereas their view that Jesus is a subordinate angel is even less apparent from a plain reading of the text of the Bible.

Agreed. The JW’s have painted themselves into a corner by claiming to be the only valid followers of Jehovah, and the Watchtower the only authoritative church. They have set themselves up to reject truth with such a position as is evidenced by some of the silly positions they cling to (like the one you listed).

The fact is that neither view comes from the plain reading: the plain, unstudied reading of the bible text leaves us with the initial impression of a mystery or a paradox or conundrum which must be solved by study. IN other words, there is no ‘obvious and exhaustive’ doctrine of Jesus and the Holy Spirit in their relation to God in any one place in the NT, whether on the orthodox side or the JW side. There is a tantalizing mystery of strong and clear statements scattered here and there, compelling us to study further. The reason the Church Fathers wrestled with this for years wasn’t because they were desperately trying to make the text say something different that what it actually said, but because they were really trying to understand it in all its complexity and paradox.

And I agree with this as well. However, I don’t think the fact that the church fathers drew a conclusion after years and years of wrestling with the data precludes a right (obligation?) for others to do the same.

The JW’s are not the only ones that have a different view on the nature of God than Nicea. I’ve conversed with more than a few non-Trinitarians on this and I cannot honestly say that all their arguments are altogether vacuous. For example: on the TNP forum, there is a very intelligent old gentleman who goes by Paidion who has demonstrated that he’s very familiar with the Greek, and to a lesser extent, the Hebrew languages. He has a non-Trinitarian view that is much different from Arius. I’ve read his arguments, and although I disagree with him (I think it’s a case of forest vs. trees), they are at least coherent and my impression is that he is not simply stubbornly rebellious of the facts (although I'll admit that’s impossible to discern). If you have time, you might want to read some of those threads where the Trinity has been debated. I think I’ve even debated him on this a little, but I don’t remember for sure.

But that is exactly why I take the position I do about the Trinity doctrine. I’m hard pressed to find one good reason to label someone a “heretic” on a doctrine that, in my opinion, is simply not comprehendible. Only God knows who He is and what He’s really like anyways. The only thing He’s really required of us is to submit to the Lordship of His Son.

I want to close with a few quotes from one of your favorite authors (and fast becoming one of mine), NT Wright, which I believe makes both your point and mine:

Some theologians have brought together Jesus’ resurrection and the early disciples’ recognition of his divinity in a way which seems to me to short-circuit any process that we can reasonably suppose to have been historical. Even if Peter and the rest, two or three days after Jesus’ crucifixion, had somehow become convinced that he was the second person of the Trinity — an idea which takes some imagination — there is no reason to suppose that they would have deduced from this that God ‘must have’ raised him from the dead. Apotheosis along the lines of Hercules, Alexander and the Caesars was of course unknown in Judaism, but even if that was the route they had gone there is no reason to suppose that they would have added resurrection to the mix. No: I believe we must firmly uncouple the historical discussion of Jesus’ resurrection from the historical discussion of the rise of an early, high Christology (in which I also believe); or, at least, we must insist that the only credible line of explanation runs from resurrection to Christology (about which more anon), rather than in the opposite direction.

From: Jesus’ Resurrection and Christian Origins*
www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Jesus_Resurrection.htm

I suggest in short, that the Temple and YHWH’s return to Zion are the keys to gospel Christology. Forget the titles, at least for a moment; forget the pseudo-orthodox attempts to make Jesus of Nazareth conscious of being the second person of the Trinity; forget the arid reductionism that is the mirror-image of that unthinking would-be orthodoxy. Focus instead, if you will, on a young Jewish prophet telling a story about YHWH returning to Zion as judge and redeemer, and then embodying it by riding into the city in tears, by symbolizing the Temple’s destruction, and by celebrating the final Exodus. I propose, as a matter of history, that Jesus of Nazareth was conscious of vocation, a vocation given him by the one he knew as “Father,” to enact in himself what, in Israel’s scriptures, Israel’s God had promised to accomplish. He would be the pillar of cloud for the people of the new Exodus. He would embody in himself the returning and redeeming action of the covenant God.

From: The Historical Jesus and Christian Theology*
www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Historical_Jesus.htm

I say it makes both of our points because:

A) It seems that Wright is saying something similar to what you said about high Christology necessarily coming later based on the historical facts of Jesus and His resurrection.

B) It also seems that Wright makes my point that neither Jesus nor the apostles saw the Trinity doctrine as a “supremely important” point for the church to get right (and thus divide over). In fact, it seems that Wright is suggesting that Jesus didn't even think of Himself as the second person of the trinity during His pre-resurrection life, as we've all been conditioned to suppose that He had.

Anyway, I’ll leave it at that for now, it’s getting late and I’ve been typing for awhile.

I’m thoroughly enjoying the discussion. It’s quite invigorating and sharpening to the mind. Thank you.

Have a blessed Christmas.

[Josh]

The kids are nestled all snug in their beds and Rose is busy filling my stocking with goodies.

I don't have much time, but here are a couple responses:

First off, yeah, maybe transferring the discussion here doesn't make a ton of sense. I was just thinking that over there the subject is more "is the Trinity an essential" whereas here it is more about discussing the Trinity in general. And it sounds like we could do a lot more of that before returning to whether it's essential. But then, you're right, this thread is weird because I was responding to an article that isn't even here to see. (It was a clipping from a Watchtower article now lost).

Anyway, please forgive the strange transition.

First off, and this is all I have time for just yet, I wanted to respond more at length regarding what I wrote about Jesus=Lord=YHWH. What I said there was based on this section from NT Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God (that's hilarious we're both quoting Wright), but should be clarified a bit. Here's the quote:

“It boils down to this: that when the early Christians called Jesus kyrios [translated LORD in English], one of the overtones that word quickly acquired, astonishing and even shocking though this must have been, was that texts in the Greek Bible which used kyrios to translate the divine name YHWH were now used to denote Jesus himself, with a subtlety and theological sophistication that seems to go back to the earliest days of the Christian movement. It is already firmly embedded in some of our earliest evidence, looking in some cases as though even there it was already part of traditional formulations. What caused this particular revolution, and how does it relate to the other redefinitions we’ve been studying? ….

In Philippians 2:10 Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23, a fiercely monotheistic text which declares that to YHWH and YHWH only (the Septuagint of course having kyrios for YHWH) every knee shall bow and every tongue shall swear; and Paul declares that this will come true when every knee and tongue do homage to Jesus. ‘Jesus, Messiah, is kyrios’, they will declare—to the glory of God the father. In 1 Corinthians 8:6 Paul takes the Shema itself, the central Jewish daily prayer and confession of monotheistic faith (‘YHWH our God, YHWH is one’) and gives the two words YHWH (kyrios) and ‘God’ (theos) different referents, so that theos refers to ‘the father, through whom are all things and we to him’ and kyrios refers to ‘Jesus the Messiah, through whom are all things and we through him’. In Colossians 1:15-20 the same differentiation is expressed in alternative language, but with the same import….

What is more, Paul elsewhere takes particular texts which refer to YHWH and uses them, without apology or even much explanation, as texts about Jesus…”

N.T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, page 571.


Wright goes on to give many more examples.

So, I should clarify that I meant not that LORD (kyrios) is always a direct translation of YHWH, but that the Septuagint frequently translated YHWH as kyrios, so that for Paul to call Jesus kyrios is quite a statement of Jesus' identification with YHWH. But it's more than just possible that Paul meant to equate the two words, because of the fact that, as Wright points out, the apostle specifically rewords OT passage referring to YHWH and inserts Jesus into them as if the two terms were interchangable.

Mo' later. Christmas duties are calling! Have a good one.

[christopher]

Wow Josh, that's fascinating. I had not heard that before. Thanks for that little (yet highly significant) tidbit of info.

From the comparison in Philippians and Isaiah, I can definitely see the play on words that Paul is using there to emphasize his high Christology, but do you think that the hundreds of references in the NT of the word kuriois were also intended to use this clever play on words?

The only reason I ask is because the same word is used in a generic sense to indicate human 'masters' as well (Col 3:22, Eph 6:9). This has usually led me to believe that the NT writers used it with the same meaning in mind when referring to Jesus...that He was lord in the sense that He is the king, master, sovereign, etc. This, of course, would not preclude them also thinking of Him as God, but it would denote the emphasis on His Lordship (i.e. He's the boss).

Also, do you think the septuagint translators saw Messiah as being God? It doesn't seem that the conventional wisdom at the time would have equated Messiah with YHWH. Even now, Jews are repulsed, and vehemently oppose, the idea of Messiah being God Himself. They consider it blasphemy to say that Jesus was God as demonstrated in this video clip:

Is Jesus the Messiah?

Anyway, thanks again for the information. I agree with Wright's (and yours) assessment on this, at least in the Pauline quote you gave.

[Josh]

So, I have to say, the interesting thing about what Wright has to offer is that in some ways he bursts certain popular [evangelical]bubbles regarding the Trinity but then offers alternative, but quite different, angles on which to argue for a Trinitarian viewpoint. His thinking on this has affected me a lot.

You're right on the mark to highlight what he's said about contemporary Jewish understanding of the relationship between the Messiah and YHWH (as well as his ideas about Jesus' own self-understanding).

Wright argues that many of the statements Jesus makes that most Christian interpreters have seen as obvious claims to deity are not necessarily proof-texts for doctrines associated with the Trinity. For instance, Wright wouldn't feel very comfortable with a point blank statement like, "Jesus claimed that he was God". In fact, Jesus never does say that point blank.

Still, He did say and do many things which hinted at a profound relationship and identification with the Father ("I and the Father are one", forgiving sins, "before Abraham was, I am" ) It was only after His resurrection and further reflection by the disciples, that a clearer understanding of His deity shines through in more straightforward claims (especially in Paul and John).

Likewise, it took a lot of reflection and logical thinking to construct a clearer teaching on "the Trinity". So, yeah, the specific assertions of Trinitarian thinking might not be essential to salvation, but I would say that, as far as I have studied so far, they are the only responsible beliefs about the relationship between God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity takes into account all the relevant facts and takes Scripture seriously. I have yet to see another formulation that doesn't strain credulity or torture a text. I am curious what Paidion's take is (I'll try and check that out).

but do you think that the hundreds of references in the NT of the word kuriois were also intended to use this clever play on words?

Um, well, I think the NIV thought so. That's why it translates LORD most of the time in caps, to show it as different that Lord in general. I don't know. The NT authors probably did have different meanings they poured into that word (maybe several at once). I mean, another prominent (and shocking) meaning poured into the word was that Jesus was in direct competition with Caesar. Caesar claimed to be be Lord and Son of God. So did Jesus. People are going to have to choose.

I don't think the translators of the Septuagint thought the Messiah would be God. And there are few direct rabbinical quotations that I'm aware of that demonstrate that developed of a belief about the Messiah*.

However, there are numerous OT passages which pretty clearly equate (though not emphatically) the Messiah with God himself.
Just for one example of many, sthere is of course Isaiah 9:6.

This means that it was a surprising twist of revelation, but not one without continuity with the OT.

* I could point you to one or two that might be considered at least "anticipatory" of the belief that Messiah would be God.

[Josh]

I’m absolutely mystified by the nature of the Godhead being “one in essence”, yet revealed in “three eternally distinct Persons”.

One can be "mystified" by this and still assent that it's the only logical conclusion to the evidence, right? I think that's the process the early Church went through.

I think part of the dilemma here is that, from what I gathered when we went out to coffee, you have some doubt about dogmatism on the finer details of the doctrine of the trinity. I'll grant that stuff like subordinationism and who proceeds from who and the like are, though interesting and perhaps logical outgrowths of thinking clearly about the Trinity, are indeed debatable. But, if we just stick with the Biblical basics, we are still left with some clear statements in Scripture:

1. There is one God
2. Who exists as Three Distinct Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Right?

[christopher]

But, if we just stick with the Biblical basics, we are still left with some clear statements in Scripture:

1. There is one God
2. Who exists as Three Distinct Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Right?

IMO, Number 1 is undebatable.

Although I agree with Number 2, it is not a clear "statement" of Scripture (as far as I can tell), it's a deduction. And I can see how honest people reach different conclusions on that.

I have to conclude that God is not too worried about everyone getting Number 2 completely right. ;D

[Josh]

2. Who exists as Three Distinct Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Let me rephrase this then, and tell me whether you think this is accurate according to clear statements in Scripture:

2. The names of three distinct persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are used interchangeably in the New Testament to refer to this one God.

[christopher]

I know what you're saying, but again, I don't recall any passages that refer to them as distinct "persons". I think that is a Nicean deduction to the scriptural data, and I agree with it.

But there are those who don't see it that clearly. For example, some Christians believe that there are only two "persons" of the Godhead, the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Spirit is both of them together. I don't agree with that assessment, but I can see how they reach that conclusion.

For example, John 14 says:

John 14:19-26
19 "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also. 20 At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I 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." 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?" 23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. 24 He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.

25 "These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.
NKJV


Now I see this as a clear Trinitarian passage, but I know people who would say that Jesus' first reference to Him and the Father making their home with the believer in verse 23 conspicuously doesn't mention the Holy Spirit. They would further say that verse 26 says the same as verse 23 but refers to them as the "Helper" and the "Holy Spirit".

There are also those who see the Holy Spirit like the personification of Wisdom we read about in Proverbs. It's really God's wisdom, but it sounds a lot like wisdom is a distinct person (female).

While I don't agree with that interpretation, I can understand why others would see it that way.

[Josh]

I don't recall any passages that refer to them as distinct "persons".

Personal pronouns indicate person-hood unless they are clearly meant to be taken metaphorically, such as Wisdom in the Old Testament, possibly (although I favor viewing the Holy Spirit and Wisdom as synonymous). We have clear references to the personhood of Jesus and the Father and I don't see why the passage you cited shouldn't be considered a "clear reference" even if some have doubts about it. I'm not really convinced by reason or logic that it's not clear.

I'll grant that the Holy Spirit is the most mysterious and subtle part of the Godhead and sure, we must remain careful in too much speculation, but there are other passages in Scripture that indicate Him/Her as a separate/ personal identity than the Father and Son, which I'm sure you're aware of, but here are just a few:

Luke 1:35
The angel answered and said to her, " The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

Luke 12:10
And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him.

Acts 11:15
"As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning.

Acts 15:28
It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

2 Corinthians 13:14
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.

Ok, gotta go for a second....

[Josh]

Well, I guess it all comes down to how clear something has to be considered orthodox.

I wouldn't judge the salvation of someone based solely on whether they question the distinct personhood of the Holy Spirit, but I'm also not sure it's worth taking off my mental list of what is clearly taught in Scripture either

[christopher]

I don't really want to go to the mat for a position I don't believe, but....

None of the verses you quoted contained an actual personal pronoun and therefore, in my mind, do not preclude the alternate possibility I suggested.

I know the one you quoted from Acts 11:15 appears to have one, but it's not in the original language. That sometimes can be the bane of using dynamic translations like the NIV. The actual language follows the literal translations like the KJV, NKJV:

Acts 11:15
5 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
KJV

Acts 11:15
15 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us at the beginning.
NKJV

The "He did" in NIV and NASU are added by the translators based on their theology (isn't it nice to get interpretation along with translation? Maybe we're not smart enough to figure it out by ourselves ).

Anyway, like I said, I'm not going to defend a position I don't hold, and it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me what is considered the orthodox belief on the Trinity.

I'm personally more conserned about teachings like Word of Faith and anti-nomianism than I am with what someone believes about the mysterious aspects of the nature of God.

[Josh]

I'm going to head over to the TNP forum and check out what Paidion and other folks have to say. Perhaps I just need more information on what the hubub is all about.

Thanks for stirring it up!

[Josh]

Josh: That certainly doesn’t mean it’s not important—it’s supremely important in the avoidance of heresy, but I see how easy it is to misunderstand parts of the doctrine.


Chris: This is the part that I’m still waiting to hear your thoughts on (I know your busy and will get to it eventually).

You know, I think William Young has done a much better job than I could as to why the doctrine of the Trinity is "supremely important". Maybe we can ask him sometime how the doctrine of the Trinity might steer us away from heresy

[christopher]

I guess I must have missed that....what did he say?