Tag Archive for: Trinity

What is the Meaning of Life?

Ancient philosophy began when people started thinking about ultimate reality. These early philosophers proposed theories about the ultimate elemental stuff which everything else comes from or is made of. Some of the early theories were earth, air, fire, or water. One ancient philosopher, Democritus, even suggested that everything is made up of tiny particles he called atoms. If Christianity is true, however, and I believe it is, then when the final curtain of reality is pulled back, we won’t find earth, air, fire, water, or atoms. Instead, we’ll find loving relationships between three divine persons. Ultimate reality, from which everything else comes, is a God which exists as a Trinity: three divine persons united in one essence and united in Their loving relationships with Each Other.

I’ve become convinced that chapter 17 in the Gospel of John provides us the clearest window to look inside this trinitarian love. Peering through this window will help us understand the very meaning of life itself. In John 17 Jesus, God the Son, prayed to God the Father like this: “You, Father, are in Me and I in You…. You loved me before the foundation of the world” (John 17:21a, 24b). If God is ultimate reality, and I believe He is, and if He exists as three persons in loving relationships with each other, then love is a key part, if not the key part, of ultimate reality.

Since God existed as a loving fellowship of divine persons, it can seem puzzling why He bothered to create us. Though He didn’t have to, He chose to create us, human beings in His image, to expand this fellowship of love so we could share in the joy and love of the inner life of God. In other words, God created us for loving relationships, to love Him, to love each other, and to be loved back. Jesus continued in John 17, praying, “You [God the Father]. . . have loved them [Jesus’ disciples] as You have loved Me [God the Son]. . . . Father, I desire those You have given Me to be with Me where I am. . . . I made Your name known to them. . . .so the love You have loved Me with may be in them and I may be in them” (John 17:23-26).

Understanding that our very purpose as human beings is to have loving relationships with God and with each other gives us insight about the meaning of life. I’m convinced that the very meaning of life is to enjoy loving relationships with God and with others. All of us eventually recognizes that the most important thing in life is our loving relationships. These relationships change throughout our lives, of course; when we’re younger, our most cherished relationships are usually with our parents, later in life our friends, and then often a spouse. But on our death bed we all acknowledge that the most important part of life was our loving relationships, that they’re the very meaning and purpose of life. We all know this to be true, but Christianity explains why this is the case—because we were created by a God of love to enjoy loving relationships.

This purpose God had in creating us can be seen in the very first human relationship, the marriage of Adam and Eve. They were created in God’s image to reflect the Trinity in the sense that they were separate, unique, individual persons, but they were to come together in love to be united as one (Gen. 2:24). Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the famous German pastor put to death by the Nazis for opposing Hitler, wrote that in Adam and Eve’s union they expressed “the two complementary sides of the matter: that of being an individual and that of being one with the other.”[1]

One of the ways Adam and Eve were to express their love for God was through their obedience to Him. The Bible says loving God and obeying God are closely connected—1 John 5:3 says, “This is what love for God is: to keep His commands.” Some think God’s commands are harsh and authoritative, but such people fail to understand the purpose of His commands. As His creatures it’s true that God has authority over us, but His commands flow not from despotic desire to control us but from a desire that we’d enjoy the greatest thing there is—loving relationships with Him and with others. God’s commands are instructions for the path which best achieves the purpose He created us for—loving relationships. That’s why Jesus said the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others and that all the other commandments rest on this foundation (Matt. 22:36–40).

Unfortunately, Adam and Eve made a terrible choice and disobeyed the only command God gave them. If obeying God is the way we love Him, then disobedience is the opposite of loving God. Concerning the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, John Hare at Yale wrote, “…the basic command is not about the fruit, but is the command to love God that comes out of the experience of being loved by God. Refraining from the fruit is merely a symbol of that response.”[2] Because of Adam and Eve’s disobedience, and because of all of our own evil choices, humanity’s relationship with God has been ruined, and the consequences have been disastrous. Adam and Eve’s choice introduced physical death to the human race, but even worse, our loving relationship with God was broken. The Bible calls this eternal death because it means continuing forever in this state of being relationally separated from God.

Thankfully though, in spite of our evil choices, God still loves us. And because He loves us, He orchestrated a way to fix our broken relationship with Him. One of the divine persons, God the Son, became human and lived the perfect life of loving obedience that we’ve all failed to live. He loved God and loved others perfectly to give us an example to follow. But He went further than that and died on a cross to pay the punishment we all deserve for our evil choices. God promised that anyone who chooses to trust in Jesus and what He did for us on the cross will be forgiven of their evil choices, reconciled back to God, and welcomed into heaven to spend all eternity enjoying loving relationships with God and with others. This is all summed up by the most famous verse in the Bible, John 3:16—”For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.” Jesus explained in John 17 what eternal life is all about; there He said, “This is eternal life: that they may know You, the only true God, and the One You have sent—Jesus Christ” (John 17:3).

God desires that everyone be reconciled back to Him through faith in Christ, but He doesn’t force this decision on anyone. Those who decide not to trust in Christ will continue to be relationally separated from God for all eternity. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 says those who die in this state “will pay the penalty of eternal destruction away from the Lord’s presence.” God lets them choose what they want, but that’s not what He wants. In John 17 Jesus expressed His desire to restore humanity back to the trinitarian fellowship we were created for. He prayed that “the glory which You [God the Father] have given Me [God the Son] I have given to them [Jesus’ disciples], that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me” (John 17:22-23).

Someday God will step into history to make all things right. We often cry out for that day when we see all the evil and suffering around us. But we need to remember that this is going to be a day of judgement where God will punish evil and hold humanity accountable for what we’ve done. For those, however, who’ve embraced His forgiveness through faith in Christ, He has promised that He’ll put an end to the death and suffering which we’ve caused by our evil choices. Revelation 21:4 says that “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.” Sometimes we wonder what God is waiting for. Why doesn’t He do this now? Peter gives us the answer in 2 Peter 3:9—“The Lord does not delay His promise [His coming judgment], as some understand delay, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish but all to come to repentance.” The reason God hasn’t stepped into history to make all things right and judge humanity for our evil is that He’s patiently wanting more people to trust in Christ and through that faith be reconciled back to Him. Why not make that decision to trust in Christ for forgiveness today? If you do, please let me know. I’d be thrilled to know that through this website someone became a Christian and was restored back to a right relationship with the God who loves them.

References:

[1] Creation and Fall: A Theological Exposition of Genesis 1-3, ed. John W. de Gruchy, trans. Douglas Stephen Bax, Dietrich Bonhoeffer Works, vol. 3, Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997, p. 99-100.

[2] God’s Command, Oxford Studies in Theological Studies, Oxford University Press, 2015, page 30

Recommended Resources:

Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism? by Frank Turek DVD, Mp4, and Mp3 

What is God Really Like? A View from the Parables by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)

What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4) 

How Philosophy Can Help Your Theology by Richard Howe (DVD Set, Mp3, and Mp4)  

 

[Adam’s unedited bio from his website: About Adam Lloyd Johnson – Convincing Proof] Adam Lloyd Johnson has served as the president of Convincing Proof Ministries since 2023. Prior to that, Adam was a university campus missionary with Ratio Christi at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He has also taught classes for Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and has spent time living and teaching at Rhineland Theological Seminary in Wölmersen, Germany. Adam received his PhD in Theological Studies with an emphasis in Philosophy of Religion from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2020. Adam grew up in Nebraska and became a Christian as a teenager in 1994. He graduated from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and then worked in the field of actuarial science for ten years in Lincoln, Nebraska. While in his twenties, he went through a crisis of faith: are there good reasons and evidence to believe God exists and that the Bible is really from Him? His search for answers led him to apologetics and propelled him into ministry with a passion to serve others by equipping Christians and encouraging non-Christians to trust in Christ. Adam served as a Southern Baptist pastor for eight years (2009-2017) but stepped down from the pastorate to serve others full-time in the area of apologetics. He’s been married to his wife Kristin since 1996, and they have four children – Caroline, Will, Xander, and Ray. Adam has presented his work at the National Apologetics Conference, the Society of Christian Philosophers, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the International Society of Christian Apologetics, the Canadian Centre for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the American Academy of Religion, and the Evangelical Theological Society. His work has been published in the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Philosophia Christi, the Westminster Theological Journal, the Canadian Journal for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the journal Eleutheria, and the journal Religions. Adam has spoken at numerous churches and conferences in America and around the world – Los Angeles, Chicago, Charlotte, Boston, Orlando, Denver, San Antonio, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. He is the editor and co-author of the book A Debate on God and Morality: What is the Best Account of Objective Moral Values and Duties? published in 2020 by Routledge and co-authored with William Lane Craig, Erik Wielenberg, J. P. Moreland, and others. He is most recently the author of the book Divine Love Theory: How the Trinity is the Source and Foundation of Morality published by Kregel Academic in 2023.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/4n2AwA5

/by

A Trinitarian Moral Argument

[Editor’s Note: The following blog is a scholarly article presented, in full, with only minor formatting edits. It is longer, and more academic, than what we normally publish at Crossexamined.org, but we think you can handle it 😉. Crossexamined does not necessarily endorse every philosophical or theological position represented in blogs and articles like this, but we do try to offer a sample of some of the different orthodox options available within the “big tent” of Christian thought. We welcome your feedback, especially if you see anything that can be improved, or that needs correcting. Thank you! The Editorial Staff at Crossexamined.org]

Both Christians and Muslims affirm the following argument:

  1. There are objective moral truths.
  2. God is the best explanation for objective moral truths.
  3. Therefore, God exists.

However, which understanding of God, the Christian’s or the Muslim’s, is a better explanation for objective morality? In this paper I argue that Christianity’s trinitarian God is a better explanation for objective morality than Islam’s God. As part of this argument, I propose a Trinitarian Metaethical Theory (TMT) which maintains that the ultimate ground of morality is God’s trinitarian nature.

Within Christian theology, it’s important to include the dynamic, loving, inner-trinitarian relationships in our understanding of metaethics. To leave out these relationships, by saying morality is merely based on God’s nature, ignores important aspects of God which help explain how He is the foundation of morality. Including these relationships provides a more complete picture of how God is the source of morality. Thus, my TMT focuses on God’s triunity and shows how loving relationships exist at the deepest level of ultimate reality.

Many others have recognized the importance of adding God’s inner-trinitarian relationships to our metaphysical categories of substance and essence. Thomas McCall argued that God’s inner-trinitarian relationships are essential to the very being of God. He wrote “. . . I am convinced that divine love is essential to God . . . that holy love is of the essence of God. But I think this is accounted for and grounded in the Trinity.”[1] He continued by affirming the following statement by John Zizioulas: “Love is not an emanation or ‘property’ of the substance of God . . . but is constitutive of his substance, i.e., it is that which makes God what He is. . . . Thus love ceases to be a qualifying—i.e. secondary—property of being and becomes the supreme ontological predicate.”[2] Thomas Torrance also proposed elevating the metaphysical importance of the divine relationships. He wrote that the trinitarian persons “. . . who indwell one another in the Love that God is constitutes the Communion of Love or the movement of reciprocal Loving which is identical with the One Being of God.”[3] Eleonore Stump insisted that “. . . since, on the doctrine of the Trinity, the persons of the Trinity are not reducible to something else in the Godhead, then, persons are an irreducible part of the ultimate foundation of reality. . ..”[4]

According to W. Norris Clarke, Josef Ratzinger, before he became Pope Benedict XVI, dared to reproach “St. Thomas himself . . . and call[ed] for a new, explicitly relational conception of the very nature of the person as such, wherein relationality would become an equally primordial aspect of the person as substantiality.”[5] Ratzinger claimed that within trinitarian theology “. . . lies concealed a revolution in man’s view of the world: the undivided sway of thinking in terms of substance is ended; relation is discovered as an equally valid primordial mode of reality. . ..”[6] Clarke himself wrote,

“To be a person is to be with . . ., to be a sharer, a receiver, a lover. Ultimately the reason why all this is so that this is the very nature of the Supreme Being, the Source of all being, as revealed to us in the Christian doctrine of God as three Persons within the unity of one being, so that the very being of God is to be self-communicative love. This dynamism is then echoed in all of us, his creatures, and in a preeminent way in created persons. Thus the Christian revelation of the Trinity is not some abstruse doctrine for theologians alone but has a unique illuminating power as to the meaning of being itself which carries metaphysical vision beyond what was accessible to it unaided.”[7]

Alan Torrance suggested we should “conceive of the intra-divine communion of the Trinity as the ground of all that is.”[8] William Hasker affirmed that “the doctrine of the Trinity is an integral part of the metaphysically necessary ultimate structure of reality.”[9] Millard Erickson described the love between the divine persons as “the attractive force of unselfish concern for another person” and thus the “most powerful binding force in the universe.”[10] This is more than mere sentiment; if God is the ultimate reality, and He exists as three persons in loving relationships with each other, then love is the basic fabric of reality. Clarke said it well when he wrote,

“The highest instance of being is a unity that is not solitary, like Plotinus’s One, but Communion. Here we see in the most striking way how a specifically Christian philosophy can fruitfully shed light on a philosophical problem itself, by drawing on Revelation. The light from Revelation . . . operates as opening up for reflection a new possibility in the nature and meaning of being that we might never have thought of ourselves from our limited human experience, but which, once opened up, is so illuminating that it now shines on its own as an insight into the nature of being and persons that makes many things suddenly fall into place whose depths we could not fathom before. . .. [I]n recent years I have come to realize that the doctrine of the Trinity is a uniquely powerful source of illumination in both the philosophy of being and . . . of the person.[11]

To develop my TMT, I begin with Robert Adams’s model and expand it by incorporating God’s triunity. In the first part of his model, his theory of moral value, Adams argued that God is the ultimate good and other beings are good when they resemble Him. In his model the “. . . part played by God . . . is similar to that of the Form of . . . the Good in Plato’s . . . Republic. God is the supreme Good, and the goodness of other things consists in a sort of resemblance to God.”[12] Thus humans are good when they resemble God in a morally pertinent sense. My TMT extends this theory by proposing that the specific thing being resembled is God’s triunity as found in, and expressed among, the loving relationships between the divine persons. Humans are good when they resemble the love between the trinitarian members. Millard Erickson argued that, since the relationships between the divine persons are

. . . bound by agape, self-sacrificial, giving love . . . the type of relationship that should characterize human persons, particularly believing Christians who have accepted the structure of intratrinitarian relationships as the pattern for their own relationships, . . . would be one of unselfish love and submission to the other, seeking the welfare of the other over one’s own.[13]

In this sense God’s inner-trinitarian relationships provide the ultimate foundation for moral value.

Next, I’ll provide two reasons this trinitarian understanding of God is a better explanation for objective moral value than Islam’s God. First, without the inner-trinitarian relationships, it’s unclear that love, the cornerstone of morality, is a necessary aspect of ultimate reality. Because morality is inextricably tied to personal relationships, it’s more plausible to conceive of love and morality in the context of multiple divine persons than in a context of a single person existing in eternal isolation. Richard Swinburne proclaimed there’s “something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary divine individual.”[14] It’s difficult to even fathom love, kindness, respect, etc. where there’s only one divine person. Erickson wrote that,

Love exists within the Godhead as a binding relationship of each of the persons to each of the others. . .. [T]he attribute of love is more than just another attribute. The statement ‘God is love’ in 1 John is a very basic characterization of God, which . . . is more than merely, ‘God is loving’. . . . In a sense, God being love virtually requires that he be more than one person. Love, to be love, must have both a subject and an object. Thus, if there were not multiplicity in the persons of the Godhead, God could not really be love prior to the creation. . . .[15]

God didn’t need to create other persons in order to be loving, moral, and relational because, being three persons in fellowship, He’s always been these things. Hasker explained that “. . . wholly apart from creation, love and relationship abound within God, in the eternal loving mutuality of the persons of the Trinity. . . .”[16]

If love isn’t a necessary aspect of God, then it’s difficult to see how God could be the foundation of moral value. However, with God’s triunity, it’s more clearly the case that love is part of ultimate reality. If loving relationships are a primordial aspect of God, we can more confidently affirm that love is necessarily good. Consider the following syllogism:

  1. God is the good.
  2. God is necessarily a communion of three divine persons in loving relationships with each other.
  3. Whatever God necessarily is, is part of what constitutes the goodness of God.
  4. Therefore, loving relationships, thus love in general, is necessarily good.

According to premise two, love and relationality aren’t contingent properties of God that only began when He created other beings to love but are part of His essential attributes. McCall explained that,

If the loving relationships . . . among the divine persons are essential to God, the triune God just is essentially loving. . .. If God is Trinity, then God’s own internal life consists in the loving communion shared between . . . the three divine persons, and God is not contingently relational at all but is necessarily so. . .. [T]he love and relationality of God toward the creation are merely contingent. . .. But wholly apart from creation, love and relationship abound within God, in the eternal loving mutuality of the persons of the Trinity. . ..[17]

If these inner-trinitarian relationships were not an essential aspect of God, if love didn’t exist until creation, then love would be contingent. In such a scenario, love, the cornerstone of morality, would be arbitrary because God could’ve created differently such that there was no love. Something that could be otherwise doesn’t seem metaphysically “sturdy” enough to be the foundation of moral value. However, if God is triune, love isn’t something new and contingent that came about in creation but is eternally necessary. In this way God’s inner-trinitarian relationships allow us to affirm that love, the bedrock of morality, is necessarily good.

Second, Christianity’s trinitarian God, as opposed to Islam’s, makes more sense of what we know from human experience, that loving relationships are the most important part of our lives. If God existed before creation as a loving fellowship of persons, it may seem puzzling why He created other persons. Though He didn’t have to, He chose to create human beings in His image to expand this loving fellowship. McCall argued that there’s “. . . no obvious incoherence in maintaining that the triune God who enjoys perfection in the intra-trinitarian life may desire to share that life while not needing to do so to reach fulfillment or perfection.”[18] William Lane Craig explained that existing “. . . alone in the self-sufficiency of His own being, enjoying the timeless fullness of the intra-trinitarian love relationships, God had no need for the creation of finite persons. . .. He did this, not out of any deficit in Himself . . ., but in order that finite temporal creatures might come to share in the joy and blessedness of the inner life of God.”[19]

Understanding this purpose God had for creating humans helps explain why the meaning of our lives is inextricably interwoven with our loving relationships. As Clarke put it, “[t]o be an actualized human person, then, is to be a lover, to live a life of inter-personal self-giving and receiving.”[20] He argued that “. . . no one can reach mature development as a person without the experience of opening oneself, giving oneself to another in self-forgetting love . . . . To be a true self, one must somehow go out of oneself, forget oneself. This apparent paradox is an ancient one and has been noted over and over in the various attempts to work out philosophies of love and friendship down the ages.”[21] While describing the relationships within the Trinity, Clarke explained,

[T]he dynamism of self-communication is part of the very nature of being and so of the person. But the metaphysician would like to probe further . . . into why all this should be the case. I think we now have the answer: the reason why all being, and all persons preeminently, are such is precisely because that is the way the Supreme Being, the Source of all being, actually is, and, since all creatures—and in a special way persons—are participants and hence images of their divine Source, then it follows that all created beings, and more intensely persons, will mirror in some characteristic way the divine mode of being.[22]

Our lives are a reflection of the inner-trinitarian life of God. We were created to image Him by loving others.

Not only our lives but the entire universe, being infused with meaning through God’s intentions for it, is purposefully heading towards the culmination of meaningful love. Clarke summed it up well:

[S]ince all finite goods are good only by participation in the Infinite Good, every finite being tends, as far as its nature allows, towards imitating, becoming a likeness of, the Divine Goodness. In personal beings, endowed with intelligence and will, this universal dynamism towards the Good turns into an innate implicit longing for personal union with the Infinite Good, ‘the natural desire for the Beatific Vision,’ as Aquinas puts it. The whole universe . . .. turns into an immense implicit aspiration towards the Divine.[23]

Understanding God’s triunity helps explain the very meaning of life and existence.

In the second part of Adams’s model, his theory of moral obligation, he argued that our obligations are generated by God’s commands. An important part of his theory is that obligations arise from social relationships, a proposal affirmed by many ethicists. He then argued that a “. . . divine command theory of the nature of moral obligation can be seen as an idealized version of [this because our] relationship with God is in a broad sense . . . a social relationship.”[24] My TMT extends this idea by bringing in God’s triunity. Below, I provide two reasons Christianity’s trinitarian God is a better explanation for moral obligation than Islam’s God.

First, since Christianity’s trinitarian God provides a social context for reality, it’s a more plausible explanation of how and why obligation arises from social relationships. If God exists as divine persons in relationships, then there’s a sense in which ultimate reality is social and thus all reality takes place in a social context. Erickson argued that if the creator consists of three persons in loving relationships, then “. . . the fundamental characteristic of the universe is personal . . . [and] reality is primarily social.”[25] Social relationships aren’t something new that came about when God created other beings; they are a necessary aspect of ultimate reality. Because social relationships are a primordial part of reality, they enjoy the gravitas of a metaphysical necessity as opposed to merely a contingent reality that only came about when God created others.

If social relationships are part of ultimate reality, we shouldn’t be surprised that personal relationships play such a large role in the metaethics of obligation. The obligations that arise in our social relationship with God are but an image of, and flow out of, the social relationships within God. It makes sense that creation would reflect important necessary aspects of the Creator. Hasker noted how God’s trinitarian nature reinforces the importance of social relationships: “For those who find personal relationships to be central to what transpires between God and . . . human[s], . . . the Trinity provides a powerful reinforcement by finding such social relationships in the very being of God.”[26]

If obligation is inherently social, God’s triunity provides a fitting explanation for why there’s a social context to reality in which moral obligation can arise. God’s trinitarian nature provides the social context for reality in general, and then His creation of other persons was merely an extension of that original social context. When He created us, it was a natural carryover from the ultimate reality of divine persons that we, created in His image, would be accountable to Him via a social relationship. Christianity’s trinitarian God provides a better explanation for the social context of moral obligation than Islam’s God. An essentially societal source of morality (God as Trinity) fits the social aspect of our experience of morality better than Islam’s God.

Second, Christianity’s trinitarian God, as opposed to Islam’s, is a better explanation for why God’s commands, which generate our obligations, focus on loving others, which is affirmed by both Christians and Muslims. Along with Duns Scotus, my TMT affirms that God’s commands for us are instructions for the path which best achieves our ultimate purpose—becoming co-lovers with the members of Trinity.[27] While it’s true that God has authority over us, His commands flow not from a despotic desire to control but from a desire that we’d enjoy the greatest thing possible—a loving relationship with Him. John Hare, who champions Scotus’s idea that God’s commands direct us towards our telos of joining the loving communion of the Trinity, explained that in the

. . . Christian scriptures, the central notion is that of God commanding us. . .. [T]he notion of obligation makes most sense against the background of command . . . [however] the Judeo-Christian account adds God’s love to the notion of God’s commands, so that the commands are embedded in a covenant by which God blesses us and we are given a route towards our highest good, which is union with God.[28]

As Clarke described beautifully: “To be a person is to be a dynamic act of existence on the move, towards self-conscious, free sharing and receiving, becoming a lover, and finally a lover totally centered on Infinite being and Goodness itself, the final goal of our journey as embodied spirits towards being-as-communion—the very nature of the Source of all being, and hence of all beings created in its image.”[29]

God’s triunity fits well with the idea that the greatest commandments are to love God and to love others and that all the other commandments rest on this foundation (Deut. 6:4-5, Lev. 19:17-18, Matt. 22:36–40). These are the greatest commandments because they instruct us to resemble God, i.e., the trinitarian members who both love God (the other divine persons) and love others (the other divine persons). Love, the basis of morality, originates from within God’s inner life of three divine persons in perfect, loving fellowship.

Bibliography: 

Adams, Robert Merrihew. Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; repr., 2002.

Clarke, W. Norris. Person and Being. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993.

Craig, William Lane. Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationsihp to Time. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001.

Erickson, Millard J. God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1995.

Hare, John. God and Morality: A Philosophical History. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2009.

Hasker, William. “An Adequate God.” Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists. Edited by John B. Cobb, Jr. and Clark H. Pinnock. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000.

———. Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

McCall, Thomas H. Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology. Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010.

Ratzinger, Josef. Introduction to Christianity. New York: Herder & Herder, 1970.

Scotus, Duns. Duns Scotus On the Will and Morality. Edited by William A. Frank Translated by Allan B. Wolter. 2nd ed. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997.

Stump, Eleonore. “Francis and Dominic: Persons, Patterns, and Trinity.” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 74 (2000): 1–25.

Swinburne, Richard. The Christian God. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.

Torrance, Alan J. Persons in Communion: Trinitarian Description and Human Participation. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996.

Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996.

Zizioulas, John D. Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.

References: 

[1] Thomas H. McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 172.

[2] John D. Zizioulas, Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church (Crestwood, N.Y.: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985), 46.

[3] Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being, Three Persons (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 165.

[4] Eleonore Stump, “Francis and Dominic: Persons, Patterns, and Trinity,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly.74 (2000): 1.

[5] W. Norris Clarke, Person and Being (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1993), 2.

[6] Josef Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity (New York: Herder & Herder, 1970), 132, 137.

[7] Clarke, Person and Being, 112.

[8] Alan J. Torrance, Persons in Communion: Trinitarian Description and Human Participation (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 293.

[9] William Hasker, Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013), 174.

[10] Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books, 1995), 221.

[11] Clarke, Person and Being, 87.

[12] Robert Merrihew Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999; repr., 2002), 7.

[13] Erickson, God in Three Persons, 333.

[14] Richard Swinburne, The Christian God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), 190.

[15] Erickson, God in Three Persons, 221.

[16] William Hasker, “An Adequate God,” in Searching for an Adequate God: A Dialogue between Process and Free Will Theists, ed. John B. Cobb, Jr. and Clark H. Pinnock (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 228.

[17] McCall, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology, 247.

[18] McCall, Which Trinity?, 210.

[19] William Lane Craig, Time and Eternity: Exploring God’s Relationship to Time (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2001), 241.

[20] Clarke, Person and Being, 76.

[21] Clarke, Person and Being, 96.

[22] Clarke, Person and Being, 88.

[23] Clarke, Person and Being, 24.

[24] Adams, Finite and Infinite Goods, 249.

[25] Erickson, God in Three Persons, 220–21.

[26] Hasker, Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God, 211.

[27] Duns Scotus, Duns Scotus On the Will and Morality, ed. William A. Frank, trans. Allan B. Wolter, 2nd ed. (Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1997), 20.

[28] John Hare, God and Morality: A Philosophical History (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishing, 2009), 81.

[29] Clarke, Person and Being, 112–13.

Recommended Resources: 

Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)

The Great Book of Romans by Dr. Frank Turek (Mp4, Mp3, DVD Complete series, STUDENT & INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, COMPLETE Instructor Set)

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

 

[Adam’s unedited bio from his website: About Adam Lloyd Johnson – Convincing Proof] Adam Lloyd Johnson has served as the president of Convincing Proof Ministries since 2023. Prior to that, Adam was a university campus missionary with Ratio Christi at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. He has also taught classes for Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and has spent time living and teaching at Rhineland Theological Seminary in Wölmersen, Germany. Adam received his PhD in Theological Studies with an emphasis in Philosophy of Religion from Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2020. Adam grew up in Nebraska and became a Christian as a teenager in 1994. He graduated from the University of Nebraska–Lincoln and then worked in the field of actuarial science for ten years in Lincoln, Nebraska. While in his twenties, he went through a crisis of faith: are there good reasons and evidence to believe God exists and that the Bible is really from Him? His search for answers led him to apologetics and propelled him into ministry with a passion to serve others by equipping Christians and encouraging non-Christians to trust in Christ. Adam served as a Southern Baptist pastor for eight years (2009-2017) but stepped down from the pastorate to serve others full-time in the area of apologetics. He’s been married to his wife Kristin since 1996, and they have four children – Caroline, Will, Xander, and Ray. Adam has presented his work at the National Apologetics Conference, the Society of Christian Philosophers, the Evangelical Philosophical Society, the International Society of Christian Apologetics, the Canadian Centre for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the American Academy of Religion, and the Evangelical Theological Society. His work has been published in the Journal of the International Society of Christian Apologetics, Philosophia Christi, the Westminster Theological Journal, the Canadian Journal for Scholarship and the Christian Faith, the journal Eleutheria, and the journal Religions. Adam has spoken at numerous churches and conferences in America and around the world – Los Angeles, Chicago, Charlotte, Boston, Orlando, Denver, San Antonio, Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland. He is the editor and co-author of the book A Debate on God and Morality: What is the Best Account of Objective Moral Values and Duties? published in 2020 by Routledge and co-authored with William Lane Craig, Erik Wielenberg, J. P. Moreland, and others. He is most recently the author of the book Divine Love Theory: How the Trinity is the Source and Foundation of Morality published by Kregel Academic in 2023.

 

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/45rRPEB  

/by

Not My Jesus: A List Of Christological Heresies

Jesus Of Nazareth Is the most disputed character in history. Most of the world’s religions incorporate him into their teaching, whether as a morally perfect prophet (Islam), a divine manifestation (Baha’i), or a reincarnated god (Hinduism). Buddhists believe he is a grace-giving demigod or even a Buddha. Christian cults like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormon Church readily incorporate Jesus as a partial divine, more than man but less than the full deity of Father God. Almost all of Judaism rejects Jesus as a false prophet, a mere mortal, and a failed messiah.[1] Meanwhile Atheists and skeptics tend to see Jesus as a liar or a lunatic. Mythicists debate his very existence with skeptical weapons set on eleven.

 

Clearly, Jesus of Nazareth is a contentious character. So we should not be surprised that Christian history has held many theological battles in the theatre of Christology (theology about Jesus). The church has fought hard to answer, “Who is Jesus?” If He is, indeed, “the way the truth and the life” and “salvation is found in no other name” then we should make sure we aren’t dealing with a distorted pseudo-Jesus (John 14:6; Acts 4:12). Theological integrity is a matter of ultimate importance here. Heresies about Jesus (a.k.a., christological heresies) make for an important study because Jesus is the most important person there is.

What is a Heresy?

First, we may ask, what is a heresy? The short answer is, “aberrant teaching.” A heresy is some teaching which departs from core Christian teaching.  But that definition is a little unclear. It doesn’t really help quell the human habit of exaggerated accusations – where people are liable to call most anything heresy, even if it’s just a different option within historic Christianity. Nor does that definition help distinguish between denominational versus heretical disagreements.

Often people throw around the term “heresy” with little concern for the implications of this imposing term. Heresy is a libelous term and shouldn’t be used lightly. For our purposes here, we need to see what really qualifies as heresy. But to do this, we need to know, “what is orthodoxy?”

Orthodoxy (Lat., “right doctrine/teaching”) refers to the established, agreed-upon, and time-tested theology of the historic Christian faith (incl., Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox). A similar concept is orthopraxy (Lat. “right practice”). Sometimes these notions, right-practice and right-teaching, are fused under the parent-term orthodoxy. We’re just looking at teachings about Jesus Christ, what theologians call “Christology.” So, we don’t need to address orthopraxy here.

There is a lot of gray area in the notion of “orthodoxy,” and there are many disputes over particular teachings and whether they count as heresy, such as “open theism,” or “baptismal regeneration.” But we have an imperfect yet reliable way to identify what is probably orthodox and what is probably not.

  1. Does it pass the test of Apostolicity (it is affirmed implicitly or explicitly by the teachings of the prophets and apostles in biblical times)?
  2. Does it pass the test of Scripture/Canonicity (it aligns fairly and completely with the Canon Scripture)?
  3. Does it pass the test of Creedal History (it is affirmed within the history of church creeds and councils)?
  4. Does it pass the test of Catholicity (it has universal or near universal acceptance by the church)?
  5. Does it pass the test of History (it is affirmed within the collective teachings and traditions of the church over it’s history)?
  6. Does it pass the test of the Church Fathers (it is affirmed within the teachings of the Church Fathers)?

These tests are the various ways the church has been checking ideas for theological integrity over the whole course of church history. You can skim any of the Ecumenical Church councils and see each of these criteria in action. These tests aren’t implemented equally by all denominations, nor are these tests collectively used by each Christian faith tradition. But together these tests constitute a good approximation for how to discern orthodoxy. This rubric is imperfect in that some orthodox ideas only satisfy a few of these tests. But this rubric is reliable in that there’s no orthodox idea which fails all of these tests.

Deviations from orthodoxy are called heterodoxy. Not all heterodox teachings would count as heresy because something could lie outside of orthodox teaching, but it’s not important enough, it doesn’t carry enough consequence, or it’s too much of a terminological dispute (just haggling over word choice, without any other significance underneath). For example, it would be heterodox to teach that Jesus’s favorite number was 9, or that all church buildings should be cross shaped, or that women and men have to partake of communion on different days of the week, or that church services will be meeting only on ground that’s been blessed by a saint.

Compared to orthodoxy, the term “heresy” is referring to some teaching or practice which deviates in a contradictory way from orthodoxy. That is, heresy deviates from the established and agreed-upon central teachings in historic Christianity.

What is Historic Christianity?           

By “historic christianity” is meant the church universal over the course of it’s history. That includes, Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox. there is a continuum of development–as the church refines it’s teaching and practices over time. And there are denominational differences between and within these schools of thought. But the changes are not heresy unless (1) they step outside of the agreed-upon theological options vetted across church history (such as the 7 ecumenical councils, Vatican II, the test of Scripture, Apostle’s creed, etc.), and (2) they address a central teaching of the church, such as a creedal statement or a salvation teaching. For example, many of the teachings of the 2nd century Church Father Origen were not considered heresy at the time, but were later deemed heretical. There is grace for him, however, since the collective wisdom of the church had not yet aligned on the finer points of theology which he transgressed. Like the rest of us, Origen was responsible for what he was able to know, not for what he was couldn’t have known at the time.

What then is the orthodox teaching about Jesus Christ?

Getting Christ Right: Orthodox Christology

Orthodoxy: Jesus is revealed in the Bible as the promised and prophesied Messiah, fully God,
fully man, born of a virgin yet eternal and unborn, equal deity with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, sinless and miracle worker, second person of the Trinity, who died by crucifixion, was buried, who rose bodily the third day, into the same but glorified body, having died for the sins of the world, such that faith in Him as God and savior is the only means of salvation, by grace and not by the works of other men, and He will return to judge all people and He reigns forevermore.

Christological Heresies

Ebionism: Originated in the1st-2nd cent. Jesus was only man, not God. *Heresy of the Ebionites.*From the Hebrew word “ebyon,” meaning “poor” which was the name chosen by an early and self-debasing Jewish sect for which this heresy is named. *They focused on Jesus’ teaching, “blessed are the poor in spirit.” *Deny Deity of Christ. *Deny virgin birth. Deny Jesus’ preexistence (before being born on earth). *Condemned in the Council of Nicea in 325AD.

Docetism: Orig., 3rd cent. Jesus was only God, not man *AKA: Illusionism. *From the Greek “Doketai” meaning “to seem.” *Jesus only seemed to be human but was in reality only God. *First mentioned in the early 3rd century but was found in various views including Marcionism and Gnosticism. *Some assert that another person died in Jesus’ place on the cross. *Condemned in the Council of Chalcedon 451.

Adoptionism: Orig., 2nd cent. Jesus was man who became Christ or God by adoption. *AKA: Dynamic Monarchianism. *Jesus was a righteous man who became the Son of God by adoption. *The adoption was at baptism where the Spirit or “Christ” descended on Him. *Some think He became “God” at the Resurrection. *Earliest expression of this view was in the Shepherd of Hermas. *Also affirmed by Theodotus. *Rejected by the church in the 2nd and 8th centuries. *Compatible with Arianism. *Condemned in 325 at the Council of Nicea.

Arianism: Orig., 4th cent. Jesus was a demigod, between God and man. *Jesus was less than God but more than man. *Jesus was created, finite, and could sin. *Similar to ebionism and compatible with adoptionism. *Advanced by 4th Century Bishop Arius. *It took 18 church councils to resolve the issue, most of them elaborating on the Nicene Council. *Condemned in 325 at the Council of Nicea.

Apollinarianism: Orig., 4th cent. Jesus had no human mind. *Jesus lacked a human mind/soul, having instead a divine mind. *Jesus had all the other parts of a human however: spirit, body, and animal soul (the animating force but not the intellect or spirit). *Espoused by Apollinarius in the 4th century. *Condemned in the 4th century, in 381 at the First Council of Constantinople.

*see a review of this article “Not My Jesus, Part 1” by William Lane Craig at Reasonable Faith*

Monophysitism: Orig., 5th cent. Jesus had only one divine nature and no human nature. *AKA: Eutychianism, named after its founder Eutychus. *Jesus had only one nature the divine nature which absorbed and nullified any human nature. *Affirms that Jesus is both divine and human, but not “fully” human. *Slightly different from Apollinarianism. This view asserts that Jesus had one nature, while Apol. asserts Jesus had one soul. *Condemned at the Council of Chalcedon 451.

Nestorianism: Orig., 5th cent. Jesus has two unmixed, unrelated, natures. *Jesus is two distinct natures, and only one, the human nature, was birthed by Mary. *Nestorius (5th cent.) vigorously opposed the phrase “[Mary] Mother of God” (Theotokos), preferring the phrase “Mother of Christ” (Kristotokos). *The human and divine natures are separate and distinct. *Condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431AD.

Monothelitism: Orig.: 7th cent. Jesus lacked a human will. *Originally taught in 633AD in Armenia and Syria by Vigilius and Pope Honorius. *Affirmed Jesus’s human and divine natures, but denied that Jesus had two wills. *Jesus’s divine will meant he would not/could not have conflicted desires. *Condemned in the Third Council of Constantinople, 680-681AD

Mythicism: Orig., 19th cent. Jesus was only a mythical character. *Originally taught by Charles Francois Dupuis (1742-1809). There are two-major variations. Strong mythicism teaches that there was no historical Jesus, a.k.a., Jesus of Nazareth. Weak Mythicism teaches that the “Jesus of faith” is radically different from the Jesus of history who was, instead, either a mere mortal subject to evolving myth and legend or he is an amalgam of characters and events fused together in the course of legendary accrual.

References:

[1] Judaism overwhelmingly rejects Jesus as the Messiah. This majority includes almost all Jewish denominations or sects including Orthodox/Rabbinic, Conservative, Reform, Karaite, Samaritan, Reconstructionist, Secular, Sephardic, and Hasidic Judaism. All broadly unite in the rejection of Jesus as Divine and as Messiah. The exception is Messianic Judaism, sometimes called “Fulfilled” Judaism, which is typically categorized as a Christian denomination instead of a Jewish sect properly. The conventional categories, however, are subject to debate since Messianic Jews, arguably, are an authentic hybrid of Jewish and Christianity identity–truly Jewish and truly Christian–with no theological compromise or revision on either front. This unique and uncompromised status would be in contrast to other alleged “hybrids” like Sikhism (supposedly hybridizing Islam and Hinduism), or Nation of Islam (supposedly Islamic plus Black Theology).

Recommended Resources:

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)      

How to Interpret Your Bible by Dr. Frank Turek DVD Complete Series, INSTRUCTOR Study Guide, and STUDENT Study Guide

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

 

Dr. John D. Ferrer is a speaker and content creator with Crossexamined. He’s also a graduate from the very first class of Crossexamined Instructors Academy. Having earned degrees from Southern Evangelical Seminary (MDiv) and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (ThM, PhD), he’s now active in the pro-life community and in his home church in Pella Iowa. When he’s not helping his wife Hillary Ferrer with her ministry Mama Bear Apologetics, you can usually find John writing, researching, and teaching cultural apologetics.

Originally posted at: https://bit.ly/3TAWiy6

/by

The Most Important Question

,

It wasn’t too long ago we finally finished putting the Christmas decorations away at our house. The process caused me to reminisce about the time we had enjoyed with family and celebrations with our church family both this year and in years past. As each year passes, I am increasingly burdened by the chasm between the secular “Christmas” celebrated by society and the true meaning of Christmas–the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

I ponder the great effort put forth by retail companies (think gifts and décor) and the entertainment industry (movies, concerts, and special events in the name of the “special season”) and can’t help but marvel at the effort to capitalize on the season all while wholly rejecting the reason behind it.

This season, I was reminded of a very important question, arguably the most important question each one of us must answer. All three of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) record Jesus asking his disciples “Who do you say that I am?” Considering the confusion at Christmas and what event it truly marks, I would challenge you to consider your own answer to this question. Who do you say Jesus is?

Jesus’s Two Questions

Jesus and his disciples made their way to an area known as Caesarea Philippi, located north of the Sea of Galilee and near the base of Mount Hermon. It is a beautiful, lush, park-like area that has some of the beginning waters of the Jordan River running through it. Like many places during the time, the name was chosen to honor the current Caesarean and local ruler, Philip the son of Herod the Great.[i]

In addition to the beautiful nature there are ruins of pagan Roman worship. Today one can walk along the side of a hill into which is carved numerous niches that might have held statues of Roman gods and goddesses. There are areas that were once foundations for temples to both one of the Caesars and other gods. There is a particularly looming grotto dedicated to the god Pan (see attached picture). According to a local guide this grotto once involved the sacrifice of infants to the god Pan. This was the physical environment that served as a backdrop to Jesus’ two questions.

This is Matthew’s account of the conversation:

“When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” And they said, “Some say John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But you,” He asked them, “who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answers, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!” And Jesus responded, “Simon son of Jonah, you are blessed because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven…”
– Matthew 16:13-17 (HCSB; see also Mark 8:27-29 and Luke 9:18-20)

The Question of the Populace’s Belief in Jesus’s Identity

Jesus begins by asking them what the general population said about his identity. In general, the response was, somebody good, important, and/or wise. John the Baptist or a prophet, like those through whom God spoke in the Old Testament. Obviously, someone who knew the things of God and seemed to live in his favor. How would you answer Jesus’ first question today? I would suggest the answers would be somewhat similar. While not citing specifically Old Testament prophets, many call him a prophet. Others consider him a good, moral teacher.

The Question of the Disciples’ Belief in Jesus’s Identity

Jesus makes his second question personal. He specifically asks the disciples who they say he is. We are wise to feel the same question pointed directly at us. Who do I (insert your own name) say Jesus is? The disciples couldn’t hide behind the prevailing popular answer. While it is impossible to detect whether there were any pauses in the conversation through the written version, Peter seems to answer without hesitation– “You are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God!” How would you answer that question? Would you hesitate and need to think about your answer?

How the Bible Answers the Questions

Jesus tells Peter he is correct and knows the answer because God revealed it to him. The disciples had heard Jesus’ teaching and witnessed the miracles he performed while following him in his ministry.

The Bible is replete with passages that tell us about the identity of Jesus, God’s Son, sent as our Savior to redeem us from our sin, sin that entered the world through Adam and Eve in the early pages of Genesis. The length of this article allows space to note just a few of the places we are told about Jesus’ identity.

The Testimony of Jesus

Jesus himself tells us He is the Son of God. In the verses discussed above, Jesus tells Peter he is correct when he identifies Jesus as the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. In his High Priestly prayer (John 17), Jesus identifies himself as God’s son (John 17:1) and repeatedly calls God his father (17:1; 17:5; 17:11 etc.). Jesus makes claim to his divinity in the account of the healing of the paralytic (Mark 2:1-12). Friends had lowered the lame man through the roof of a house to gain access to Jesus, believing he could heal him. Jesus begins by telling the man his sins are forgiven (2:5) and then ultimately provides physical healing (2:11b). It is the claim to have the authority to forgive sins that infuriates the religious leaders who acknowledge only God can forgive sins.

The Testimony of John the Baptist

John the Baptist, at the baptism of Jesus, testified, “…He is the Son of God.” (John 1:34). Before John the Baptist was even born, he responded to Jesus’s identity from within his mother’s womb. Luke records Jesus’s mother Mary’s visit to her cousin Elizabeth, who was John’s mother. Both women were pregnant at the time and upon Mary’s arrival, John, within his mother’s womb, “leaped” within Elizabeth when she heard Mary’s voice. (Luke 2:41) Elizabeth told Mary of John’s reaction, asked how it was possible the “mother of my Lord” would visit her (Luke 2:43), and told her all that the Lord had told Mary would be fulfilled. Earlier in chapter 2, Luke recorded the angel’s announcement to Mary that she would become pregnant and have a son. This son “will be called the Son of God.” (Luke 2:35b)

The Testimony of God the Father

God himself specifically identified Jesus as his Son at both his baptism and transfiguration. At his baptism, Mark records that when Jesus came up out of the water, a voice from heaven said, “You are my beloved Son; I take delight in You!” (Mark 1:10-11)

Matthew documents the transfiguration of Jesus in chapter 17. While gathered high on a mountain with Peter, James and John, Jesus was transformed in front of them. Moses and Elijah also appeared. “While he was still speaking suddenly a bright cloud covered them, and a voice from the cloud said: This is My beloved Son. I take delight in Him. Listen to Him!” (Matt 17: 1-5)

Conclusion

While Christmas, and all its trappings that deviate so far from the whole event at the root of the holiday, is in the review mirror of life for another year, Jesus’ question is still in front of us. Who do you say he is? Peter and so much of scripture provide the right answer–Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God. I will argue there is then a follow-up question of equal importance–what are you going to do with that answer?

Are you going to respond to his invitation to repent and follow him? Will you accept the fact that he has stood in your place, taking the just wrath of God as penalty for your sin on your behalf? Will you submit to him and enjoy forever a right relationship with the one and only true God? It is my prayer that you will. If you have questions about becoming a follower of Jesus, please go to Bellator Christi’s main menu and click on the “How to Become a Christian” tab.

References: 

[i] Chad Brand, Charles Draper, and Archie England, eds., Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Nashville, TN.: Holman Bible Publishers, 2003), 248.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek

Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD) 

Reflecting Jesus into a Dark World by Dr. Frank Turek – DVD Complete Series, Video mp4 DOWNLOAD Complete Series, and mp3 audio DOWNLOAD Complete Series

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Michelle Johnson earned a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. She also earned her M.A. in Theological Studies and her M.Div. in Professional Ministries at Liberty University. Michelle graduated from the University of Minnesota with her undergraduate degrees. She and her husband Steve live in Mankato, Minnesota. Michelle and Steve attend Wooddale Church in Eden Prairie where Michelle serves on the Global Partner Care Team. In addition to her love of theology and apologetics, Michelle also has a passion for historical studies, particularly the theology of the Patristics. When she is not spending time reading or writing, Michelle can often be found dreaming of her next travel adventure or enjoying a great cup of coffee. Michelle Johnson serves as the Executive Vice-President and Managing Editor of Bellator Christi Ministries.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3I3EcPB

 

/by

How To Explain the Trinity to Muslims

,

By Sherene Khouri

Islam and Christianity claim to be monotheistic religions. They both believe in one supreme God; however, their concept of the nature of the divine being is different. The Islamic understanding affirms in a strong sense the absolute oneness of God through the doctrine of tawhid (Surah 4:171). Allah is one, and he has no partner, rival, or equal. The Christian understanding, on the other hand, upholds the trinitarian nature of God. “God is one (Deut 6:4), while including in that unity of the Father, who sent his Son; the Son, who is sent: and the Spirit, who is sent by them both.”[i] God is an eternal co-inhering community of equals. While the Qur’an portrays the Trinity in terms of a holy family—Holy God, Holy Mother, and Holy Son (Surah 6:101; 5:116), there is no historical evidence that orthodox Christianity ever described the Trinity in this way. This article discusses the biblical, historical, theological, and philosophical understandings of the Trinity to help Christians explain and discuss the doctrine of the Trinity with their Muslim friends.

The Biblical Explanation

The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible because this doctrine was formulated in the fourth century during the ecumenical council of Nicene. The later formulation, however, does not mean that this doctrine is fabricated or unbiblical. On the contrary, God being trinitarian in nature is a biblical concept that is deeply rooted in Scripture. For example, the concept of God being a father is not a foreign concept to Jews. It was used in the Old Testament (Exodus 15:2 NIV), and Jesus’s teachings emphasized the personal aspect of the fatherhood of God by using the term “abba” to portray his intimate relationship with God. “[W]hen [Jewish] men addressed God as Father,” as Arthur Wainwright explains, “they would use the more formal ‘abuna’ (our father), but one’s own father would be addressed by using the absolute state of the noun, which is ‘abba’.[ii] Jesus used this term to introduce the Father to the Jews and to explain the Father’s relationship to himself.

God, the Father is distinguished from Jesus (God the Son) in the New Testament. This distinction is clear in Jesus’ prayers before the crucifixion. Jesus prayed to the Father and asked him to “glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you … this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). Jesus was not praying to himself, but to another person (the Father), distinguishing himself from the Father. In the same way, the Apostle Paul makes a similar distinction between the Father and the Son, explaining that “there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (Eph 4:6). God the Father is not the mediator, but Jesus is the mediator between God and men.

In addition to Jesus being distinguished from the Father, the Holy Spirit is introduced to the divine Godhead in a way that distinguishes him from the Father and the Son. The Spirit is often described in a personal way, which suggests that he is a person, and can speak to men (1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7). Jesus tells his disciples about the παράκλητος (paráklētos), who is the third person of the Trinity, whom God will send to dwell with believers after the ascension of Christ. He states, “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me” (John 15:26). Jesus, in this verse, distinguishes between the Father, Himself, and the Holy Spirit.

In the Bible, the Holy Spirit is not portrayed as a mere state or power because He acts in his distinct personhood. He grieves (Ephesian 4:30), speaks (Mark 13:11-12), teaches (John 14:26), leads (Rom 8:14), and cries (Gal 4:6). Additionally, the Johannine writings call the Spirit παράκλητος (paraklētos), which means the “one who helps, advocates, or comforts someone on behalf of another.”[iii] A “something/someone” who speaks, leads, teaches, and advocates cannot be a mere state or power. On the contrary, he is the One who gives power; therefore, he is a person.

God is revealed in the Bible as one divine being, yet there are distinctions (persons). He was not revealed as a single divine being, as traditionally had been conceived. God is one being in one sense and three persons in a different sense. He is one God who created the universe in one sense and three persons who share the same essence in a different sense.[iv] There are three persons denominated: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who deserve to be called God, and yet there is but one God. The scene of the baptism depicts a clear picture of God as Trinity. When Jesus was in the water, “the Holy Spirit descended on him in bodily form, like a dove; and a voice came from heaven, ‘You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased’” (Mark 1:10; Luke 3:22; John 1:32). This scene shows that the Christian God is one divine being in three persons.

The prologue of the Gospel of John has the strongest argument for the Trinity. John says in the first verse of the book: “The Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Here is an indication of the divinity of the Word. There is a clue that the Son is distinct from the Father, yet there is fellowship between them. As Wayne Grudem suggests, “the preposition pros (“with”) does not connote merely physical proximity to the Father but an intimacy of fellowship as well.”[v]

Jesus is described as the word and the spirit of God in the Qur’an (Surah 4:171) as well. Most Muslims believe that the word of God is eternal; however, they do not believe that Jesus is eternal with God.

A Historical Explanation

Believing in the trinitarian God does not mean believing in three separate gods but believing in one divine being who is revealed in three persons. Since the doctrine of tawḥid implements numerical meaning, it is hard for Muslims to understand the word Trinity in a non-numerical sense—a metaphysical sense. This is the reason that pushed the Christian Arab apologists to use the word اقنوم  (pl. اقانيم) (Uqnoum, pl. Aqanim) to convey the idea of the Greek word ὑπόστασις (hypostasis). The word Aqanim is never used in the Arabic language, except in the doctrine of the Trinity to covey the idea of the divine persons and illuminate the similarities with the concept of the human person. According to Imad Shehadeh, who is a leading contemporary scholar on the subject of the Trinity in Jordan, “the only benefit from using this word [Uqnoum] in Arabic language is to distance the word ‘person’ from God and substitute it with a foreign and an unknown word that conveys its meaning.”[vi] In other words, dedicating a special terminology to the divine Person indicates a special meaning and illuminates the confusion with the human/physical meaning of the word person. In my opinion, this term should be used in conversation with Muslims to avoid the tritheism confusion that might arise from the human concept of a human being as individual consciousness. The divine Aqanim (persons) are three in a way that does not apply to human persons and cannot be read off from human experience apart from revelation.

A Philosophical Explanation

Muslims believe that Allah is an eternal divine being and the creator of the world. In other words, there was no time before Allah, there was nothing that existed before him, and there was no time in history when Allah did not exist. However, this explanation does not make Allah the greatest conceived being because it does not show the relational nature of Allah before creating the universe. Allah has to be relational in nature because he listens, communicates, and receives worship. This is to say that Allah has a relationship with his creation, he did not create the world and left it to face its own destiny. However, if Allah is truly unipersonal and relational with his creation, what about his relationality before the creation? Who was Allah hearing, seeing, and watching before the creation of the cosmos? To whom was he showing kindness and love? All these divine attributes/names require either otherness in the inner being of Allah or another person/creation external to him. Before creation, there could not have been co-communion, mutual recognition, or altruism in Allah because there is no external differentiation to him or internal diversity in him. This limitation makes Allah dependent on his creation. He needs it in order to be the Hearer (as-Sami’), the Seer (al-Baṣir), the Kind (al-Laṭif), the Watcher (ar-Raqib), and the Loving (al-Wadud.) These attributes were disabled before creation. They were not actualized until Allah created the cosmos.

In Christianity, this problem does not exist because of the doctrine of the Trinity. God lives eternally in an intra-relationship (not alone) within himself, and in an inter-relationship with humanity after creation. The three Aqanim are united by their common divinity or whole generic essence. “The persons are also unified by their joint redemptive purpose and work,” says Cornelius Plantinga, “Their knowledge and love are directed, not only to their creatures but also primordially and archetypally to each other. The Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father. . .  The Trinity is thus a zestful community or divine light, love, joy, mutuality, and verve.”[vii] The divine richness is understood in terms of relationality, with a communion of unity among the three Aqanim. The terms Father and Son are relational terms. One cannot be a parent without having a child and vice versa. Hence, by referring to God as Father, Christians conceive God as being eternally in relation to Himself; this relationship of fatherhood is, in the eternal sense, with the Son.[viii] God is not three separate persons/beings, such as in human person/individual. Instead, He is a unity in diversity.

The belief that God is one divine being and three Aqanim is not self-contradictory because the supposition that “God is either one or three” is logically fallacious. This belief represents the false dichotomy or, what is called, a false dilemma or the black/white fallacy. This fallacy occurs when only two choices are presented yet more exist.[ix] Suggesting that God is either one or three, ignores the option that Christianity presents. The Trinity is a divine, transcendent community of three divine Aqanim: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Theologians tend to be very careful about how to use analogies to explain the Trinity because many of the analogies that were historically used conveyed a form of modalism or tritheism. The following analogy is not meant to be literal, but it is intended to answer the question: “how can God be one and three without any contradiction?” Every man/woman is made as one human being and one person. Beethoven, for instance, is a human being because he belongs to the human race, and he is a unique person because of his musical skills, talents, DNA, personality… etc. His personhood is what makes him unique from Mozart or other musicians. He is a human being in one sense and a unique musician/person in another sense. In other words, he is both without a contradiction. In like manner, Christians believe that the Trinity is not a self-contradictory argument because while God is a divine being, He is also three Aqanim. He is a divine being in one sense because He belongs to the divine realm (not to the human race), and he is three Aqanim—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—in a different sense because He belongs to his own realm Sui generis, where nothing is like him. It would be considered a contradiction if God is one divine being and three persons in the same sense.

Bibliography

Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6. Accessed April 30, 2020, https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2818.htm.

Erickson, Millard. Introducing Christian Doctrine. 3rd ed. MI: Baker Academic, 2015.

Holland, Richard, jr. and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking. Baker Academic, 2017.

McCall, Thomas H. “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective.” In Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity. Edited by Sexton, Jason S. MI: Zondervan, 2014.

Plantinga, Cornelius, jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism.” In Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays. Edited by Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989.

Shehadeh, Imad. Al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness]. Al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009.

Wainwright, Arthur. W. The Trinity in the New Testament. London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975

Footnotes

[i] “Trinity,” s.v. The Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (Baker Academics, 2017).

[ii] Arthur W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament (London, UK: S. P. C. K., 1975), 45.

[iii] “παράκλητος (paraklētos),” s.v. Lexham Theological Wordbook, (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press), 2014.

[iv] Athanasius. Ad Antiochenos 6, accessed April 30, 020,

[v] Millard Erickson, Introducing Christian Doctrine, 3rd ed., (MI: Baker Academic, 2015), 112.

[vi] Imad Shehadeh, al-Ab wa al-Ibn wa al-Roh al-Qudus Ilah wahid … Amin: Dharoret al-Ta’adudiyah fi al-Wahidaniyah al-Ilahiyah [The father and the Son and the Holy Spirit On God …Amin: the Necessity of the multiplicity in the divine oneness], (al-Matin, Lebanon: Dar al-Manhal, 2009), 31. The original Arabic renders as: “الفائدة الوحيدة في استخدام هذه الكلمة في اللغة العربية هي ابعاد كلمة ’الشخص’ عن الله واستبدالها بكلمة اجنبية غير معروفة في معناها.”

[vii] Cornelius Plantinga jr. “Social Trinity and Tritheism,” in Trinity, Incarnation, and Atonement: Philosophical and Theological Essays, ed. Ronald J. Feenstra and Cornelius Plantinga Jr. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989), 31.

[viii] Thomas H. McCall, “Relational Trinity: Creedal Perspective,” in Two views on the Doctrine of the Trinity, Sexton, Jason S. ed., (MI: Zondervan, 2014), 133.

[ix] Richard Holland Jr, and Benjamin K. Forrest. Good Arguments: Making Your Case in Writing and Public Speaking (Baker Academic, 2017), 39.

Recommended resources related to the topic:

Answering Islam by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD Set, Mp4 and Mp3)

Can All Religions Be True? mp3 by Frank Turek

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Sherene Khouri was born into a religiously diverse family in Damascus, Syria. She became a believer when she was 11 years old. Sherene and her husband were missionaries in Saudi Arabia. Their house was open for meetings, and they were involved with the locals until the government knew about their ministry and gave them three days’ notice to leave the country. In 2006, they went back to Syria and started serving the Lord with RZIM International ministry. They traveled around the Middle Eastern region—Turkey, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, and United Arab Emirates. Sherene was also involved in her local church among the youth, young adults, and women’s ministry. In 2013, the civil war broke out in Syria. Sherene and her husband’s car was vandalized 3 times and they had to immigrate to the United States of America. In 2019, Sherene became an American citizen.

Sherene is an assistant professor at Liberty University. She teaches Arabic, Religion, and Research classes. She holds a Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics, an M.A. in Christian Apologetics from Liberty University, and a B.S. in Biblical Studies from Moody Bible Institute. She is also working on a Master of Theology in Global Studies at Liberty University and an M.A in Arabic and Linguistics from PennWest University.

Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3udDybq​

 

/by

The Trinity in the Old Testament

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | iHeartRadio | Blubrry | Email | TuneIn | RSS

It is often assumed that the doctrine of the Trinity – the idea that there is one being of God that is comprised of three eternal and co-equal divine persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) – is something that is revealed only in the New Testament. While it is certainly true that the expression of the Trinity reaches its climax in the New Testament, few people (Christians and non-believers alike) are aware that one can find evidence of divine plurality – and even of there being three divine persons – throughout the Old Testament as well. Listen to this fascinating episode with our guest Jonathan McLatchie and pay attention to how he reveals the Trinity in the Old Testament.

Keep Frank busy by sending your questions to Hello@CrossExamined.org and don’t miss this episode!

Subscribe on iTunes: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast rate and review! Thanks!!!

Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast

Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher

 

/by
No Real Jesus Without The Trinity

No Real Jesus Without The Trinity

,

By Marcia Montenegro

The Trinity may be a rather neglected doctrine in the church today, even seen as secondary by many. In this article, we’ll consider some of the responses from Christians and non-Christians objecting to the importance of the necessary doctrine of the Trinity and evaluate them.

Non-Trinitarians may seem to be Christian, especially in their avowal for a love for Jesus, but if the Trinity issue is raised, they will usually denounce it as a non-issue, pagan, evil, a man-made doctrine, not a Bible teaching, etc. All non-Trinitarians deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

The main question is this: If the Trinity is not true, then where does that leave Jesus?

There are many Christian scholars who have written books on this topic – both on the Trinity and on anti-trinitarian views, giving responses. I have resources listed at the end for those who want to read further.

Objections to the Trinity and Responses

Objection: “Well, nobody really understands the Trinity, so if people don’t adhere to it it’s okay.”

It is true that no one fully understands the Trinity because we are dealing with God’s’ nature. Since God is not created, we as created beings cannot fully grasp the full nature of God. However, he has revealed his attributes in his word, and we can know a lot of things about God.

Since God is uncreated, the Trinity has no counterpart on earth. That is why there is no analogy for it. Most analogies fit modalism (God taking on the roles of three Persons) or tri-theism (three Persons rather than a unity of one), and quickly break down when examined. I do not use an analogy. I say that God is three co-eternal co-equal Persons who are one substance. “Persons,” by the way, does not mean a human person but is the accepted way to describe the three in the Trinity.

Other ways to describe the Trinity:

  • There is one and only one God.
  • God eternally exists in three distinct persons.
  • The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.
  • The Father is not the Son; the Son is not the Father, the Father is not the Spirit, etc.[1]

Objection: “As long as they believe in Jesus, that’s all that matters.”

But who is the Jesus they are believing in?

There are two main heresies on the Trinity:

  • Oneness or Modalism (sometimes called Sabellianism, named after the 3rd century heretic Sabellius) teaches that God is one person (a Unitarian view of God) who manifests as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and/or one God who has 3 roles or “workings” as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
  • Arianism (named after the 3rd/4th-century heretic Arius) teaches that Jesus is a created being and is lesser than God.

The modalist view includes:

  • Jesus is God the Father
  • Jesus is the “flesh” of God
  • The Holy Spirit is part of God/Jesus
  • The Father is the “divine nature,” and Jesus is “the human nature” of God

In contrast, the Bible unequivocally gives this information:

  • Jesus is the Son of God, distinct from the Father; Jesus cannot be the Son of God if he is also God the Father
  • Jesus spoke of his Father in many passages
  • Jesus prayed to the Father
  • Throughout the Gospel of John, Jesus talks about how God sent him (Jesus) to earth
  • The Holy Spirit is given the same attributes of deity as God[2]

Illustration of The Trinity

The Holy Spirit is given personal traits and spoken of as a Person, not as a mere force, power, or energy.[3]

Some Oneness followers will say that when Jesus prayed to God in heaven, it was the human nature praying to the divine nature. But natures don’t pray, individuals pray. Also, it would be deceptive on God’s part to make it appear as though Jesus is praying to someone else when, in fact, he is not.

The Arian Jesus of the non-Trinity, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, the Way, and other cults, is a created being. He has a beginning and is not equal to the Father. This is clearly a false Jesus and is easier to refute than the modalist/Oneness Jesus, which is arguably more deceptive and more difficult to refute.

Arius (250-336) taught that Jesus was a created, finite being, and he was declared a heretic by the Council of Nicea in 325. So it is not the true Jesus if it is a Modalist/Oneness Jesus or the Arian Jesus, and therefore, belief in such a Jesus is fruitless.

Objection: “We aren’t saved by perfect doctrine.”

No, we are not saved by doctrine but by faith, but that faith must be an informed faith. If our doctrine about who Jesus or God is is wrong, then we don’t have faith in the right Jesus. We can have minor things wrong, but not about who Jesus is, because then we have a wrong Jesus, making him non-salvific.

Doctrine merely means “teaching.” The teachings about who God and Jesus are must be true and based on God’s revelation in Scripture. Otherwise, it’s a counterfeit God or Jesus. This is really quite basic. This objection is a straw man.

Just because the word “Jesus” is used by Oneness followers or by Arians does not mean it is the right Jesus. Pay attention to statements of faith because Oneness statements of faith can be quite tricky in their deception. They may say they believe in the “Triune God” without meaning the biblical Trinity.

Modalists can affirm the Apostles’ Creed without belief in the Trinity. They read their own meaning into who Jesus is. An example is the Statement of Beliefs on the website of Dan Dean’s Oneness church (Phillips, Craig & Dean). It gives the Apostles’ Creed as their beliefs, along with other statements. There is no affirmation of the Trinity and no statement clarifying the personhood of the Holy Spirit (because they are a Oneness church[4]).

Who is Jesus if the Trinity is Not True

If there is no Trinity, where does that leave Jesus? Here are the choices:

  1. He is a lower god
  2. He is another god
  3. He is not really the Son of God but is God the Father
  4. He is just a man and has no deity

These points clearly answer the question, “If the Trinity is not true, then where does that leave Jesus?” It leaves Jesus as a false Jesus. This should establish why the Trinity is an essential of the faith and cannot be denied by anyone who calls him/herself a Christian. It is good to point these out to someone who says the doctrine of the Trinity is not essential or primary.

Well-Known Anti-Trinitarians

There are many well-known people who were/are Anti-Trinitarians, dead and alive; below each name is a link or two exposing their anti-Trinitarian beliefs.

  • William Branham (Modalism), a hugely influential figure on erroneous and cultic movements in the church today; there are Branham teachings and followers around the world [5][6]
  • D. Jakes, Modalism [7][8]
  • Phillips, Craig, & Dean (Modalism) [9][10] [11]
  • Roy Masters, Arianism [12][13]
  • Ron Dart, similar to Arianism, still heard on Christian radio [14][15]
  • The Armstrong cults (Worldwide Church of God), polytheism (the Father and Jesus separate gods) [16] [17][18] [19]
  • The Way (formerly The Way International), Arianism [20][21]

A Few Verses on the Trinity (there are many more)

“And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:16, 17

“Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Jesus] has poured forth this which you both see and hear.” Acts 2:33

“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.” (Acts. 10:38)

“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My [Jesus’] name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.” (John 14:26)

“When the Helper comes, whom I [Jesus] 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)

“How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:14)

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” (2 Corinthians 13:14)

Additional Resources on the Trinity

(Selected list, not exhaustive)

  • Arianism [22]
  • Modalism [23]
  • Oneness Pentecostalism [24]
  • What are Sabellianism, Modalism, and Monarchism [25]
  • The Athanasian Creed confessing the Trinity [26]
  • CANA post, Modalism is an Attack on God [27]
  • Why the Trinity Is An Essential Doctrine [28]
  • Jesus Christ Our Creator, A Biblical Defence of the Trinity [29]
  • Oneness Pentecostalism from NAMB (North American Mission Board of the SBC) [30]
  • Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity [31]
  • The Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity [32]
  • Faith Groups that Reject the Trinity [33]

Books on the Trinity

  • A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology: In the Light of Biblical Trinitarianism by Edward Dalcour
  • Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity by Gregory Boyd
  • Jesus Only Churches by E. Calvin Beisner
  • Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses by Robert Bowman

References

[1] Theopedia, https://www.theopedia.com/trinity

[2] The Trinity, CARM

[3] See numbers 3 and 4 on https://carm.org/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit

[4] http://theheartlandchurch.com/beliefs/

[5] https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/branhamismprofile.pdf

[6] http://www.apologeticsindex.org/5870-william-branham

[7] http://www.equip.org/article/concerns-about-the-teachings-of-t-d-jakes/

[8] CANA article on T. D. Jakes’ slippery language on the Trinity http://www.solasisters.com/2012/01/td-jakes-through-glass-blurrily.html

[9] http://hereiblog.com/modalism-revisted-phillips-craig-dean/

[10] https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2013/01/05/blurring-the-dividing-linethe-legacy-of-phillipscraig-and-dean/

[11] https://rootedinchrist.org/2008/01/01/phillips-craig-dean-and-the-united-pentecostal-church-upci-oneness-pentecostals/

[12] Walter Martin exposes Masters’ heretical beliefs in a debate with Masters https://soundcloud.com/steven-j-aronfeld/roy-masters-debates-walter

[13] CANA post on Masters, https://www.facebook.com/FormerNewAger/posts/10153497822822237

[14] http://www.soundwitness.org/evangel/ronald_dart_anti-trinitarian.htm

[15] http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2015/07/heresy-alert.html

[16] https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/armstrongismprofile.pdf

[17] https://www.gotquestions.org/Worldwide-Church-God-Armstrongism.html

[18] https://www.gotquestions.org/Worldwide-Church-God-Armstrongism.html

[19] https://www.watchman.org/articles/cults-alternative-religions/history-of-armstrongism/

[20] https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/wayprofile.pdf

[21] https://carm.org/way-international

[22] Theopedia goo.gl/HjnvyY

[23] Theopedia goo.gl/ATjpBY

[24] goo.gl/SwZtUU

[25] Got Questions (4 articles) goo.gl/dsANZ6

[26] goo.gl/5m5Axy

[27] goo.gl/GtFbKZ

[28] J. Warner Wallace, http://bit.ly/1L8KRAT

[29] Jonathan Safarti, goo.gl/jXebGb

[30] goo.gl/ug2AQL

[31] Robert Bowman, Jr. goo.gl/5QWmtn

[32] Robert Bowman, Jr., goo.gl/ehfzUU

[33] goo.gl/nRECCC

 

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2rJ1frd

/by
True Love Must Be Reciprocated

True Love Must Be Reciprocated

By Brian Chilton

Recently, I was talking to a friend of mine who was infatuated with a person who did not necessarily share the same sentiments. In fact, it was not certain what the other person really desired in their relationship. I will not mention anything more about this situation out of respect for those involved. This situation has caused me to do a lot of thinking about love, what it is, and what it entails. It seems to me that for true love to be genuine it must be reciprocated. That is, it must be accepted by both individuals in the relationship. We can learn a lot about love from God’s triune relationship.

I. Love is reciprocated in the Triune relationship.

When attempting to explain the triune nature of God, Norman Geisler uses the example of the genuine spirit of love to explain this difficult theological concept. Geisler’s illustration is not original to him; rather he took it from Augustine of Hippo. The following is Geisler’s depiction of love in the triune relationship of God:

“Augustine suggested an illustration of how God is both three and one at the same time. The Bible informs us that “God is love” (1 John 4:16). Love involves a lover, a beloved, and a spirit of love between lover and loved. The Father might be likened to the Lover; the Son to the One loved, and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of love. Yet love does not exist unless these three are united as one. This illustration has the advantage of being personal since it involves love, a characteristic that flows only from persons.”[1]

Seeing that God is love (1 Jn. 4:16), the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a demonstration of perfect love in its purest form. Love is not forced. Love is accepted and flows from person to person. There is a lover—one initiating the love, a beloved—the one receiving the love from the lover, and the spirit of love—a mutual received love between both parties. In the case of the triune relationship, this love is mutually given and received by all three members of the Godhead. We can learn a lot about love from God.

II. Love is reciprocated in human relationships.

God is the perfect demonstration of love as we noted in the previous section. The loving example of the Trinity is carried over into healthy loving human relationships. How so? Healthy relationships involve two people who mutually love one another. Let’s consider a hypothetical example of person A (we’ll call Adam) and person B (we’ll call Barbara). Say Adam loves Barbara and expresses his love towards her. Yet, Barbara does not love Adam in return. Adam tries and tries to make Barbara love him, but she does not return his emotions. Is this true love? Absolutely not! Adam’s love is not reciprocated.

Let’s consider another case. Say Barbara loves Adam, but Adam doesn’t return the favor. Barbara manipulates Adam into a relationship. They get married, but Adam never has the feelings for Barbara that she has for him. This relationship is not one based on love, but rather control and manipulation. True love must be reciprocated.

For Adam and Barbara’s love to be genuine, Adam must express his love to Barbara. Barbara must receive his love. Therefore, Barbara will express her love to Adam and her love will also be openly received. This hypothetical relationship notes how that true love requires a lover (one sending the love), a beloved (one receiving love), and a mutual spirit of love between the two.

III. Love is reciprocated in divine/human relationships.

Since genuine love is seen in God’s eternal triune relationship and that true love is reciprocated between two consenting individuals, then it only makes sense that God instill his love upon us not by force, but by reciprocation. That is to say, God freely offers his love to individuals. He doesn’t force his love on an individual. Remember, forced love is not genuine love! God says through his prophet Ezekiel, “Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?… Instead, don’t I take pleasure when he turns from his ways and lives?” (Eze. 18:23).[2] Jesus says that “Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life” (Jn. 3:15). In this case, God is the lover, and human beings are the beloved. But, the love must be reciprocated.

Can individuals seek God on their own? Absolutely not! God’s grace must be extended to them first. This truth is seen in Jesus’s description of the Holy Spirit’s ministry. Jesus notes that the Holy Spirit will “convict the world about sin, righteousness, and judgment: About sin, because they do not believe in me; about righteousness, because I am going to the Father and you will no longer see me; about judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged” (Jn. 16:8-9). In this case, we see that God is the lover, human beings are the beloved, and the Spirit working to produce this love is the Holy Spirit. Forced love is not love, though. God does not force a person to salvation. He freely gives his love and his love must freely be received, otherwise, it is not true love.

Conclusion

When I counsel couples looking to get married, I always tell them that if they want to love one another, they must first know God because God is love. Because God is love and demonstrates perfect love, we should not be surprised to find that love is exuded in human relationships when it mimics God’s love. Theological systems need to also accept this understanding of love. Genuine love must have a lover, a beloved, and the spirit of love. Otherwise, a relationship may exist, but it is not a truly loving relationship.

Notes 

[1] Norman L. Geisler, “Trinity,” Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 733.

[2] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville: Holman, 2017).

 

Brian G. Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently in the Ph.D. program in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian has been in the ministry for over 15 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2ri6wqu

/by