Archive for the ‘Trinity’ Category

Voddie Baucham’s Response to T. D. Jakes Controversial Participation in The Elephant Room

Posted: August 16, 2012 in Trinity
Tags: , , , , , ,
0
Many believers do not know about the controversy over T. D. Jakes invitation to the Elephant Room by James MacDonald. The controversy concerns Jakes’ belief in modalism and the prosperity gospel. Voddie Baucham is the African American pastor of Grace Family Baptist Church who was invited to also participate in Elephant Room 2 but declined. His response is very helpful.
A firestorm erupted over the recent “Elephant Room 2.”  The controversy centers around the decision to invite Bishop T.D. Jakes to participate in the event.  The central questions in the debate are 1) whether or not Bishop Jakes holds to the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, 2) whether it was appropriate to invite (and feature) him without first having clarified his position on this cardinal doctrine, and 3) whether he cleared up the matter.

I was scheduled to speak at Harvest Bible Chapel on the weekend following ER2 which raised significant questions about my stance on the matter.  While I do not consider it my responsibility to comment on every controversy, I do recognize my duty to clarify matters with which I am involved directly, and/or those that impact the congregation I am called to shepherd.  Hence, my explanation now.

My Invitation to ER2

In October of 2011, I was invited to participate in The Elephant Room 2.  The invitation followed Mark Dever’s decision to pull out.  James MacDonald called me and asked me to take his place.  He also informed me of the controversy at that time surrounding the invitation to Jakes and Dever’s decision to pull out, and that Crawford Loritts had agreed to fill in.  I knew James MacDonald only indirectly, and I had only recently heard of the Elephant Room.

Initially, it sounded like a very good idea to “pin Jakes down” on the Trinity.  My area of emphasis in my theological training is Evangelism/Apologetics.  Moreover, I addressed Jakes’s modalism in my first book in 2004, so I am well aware of the issues in question, and believed I could make a contribution.  Also,  to my delight, James indicated that Jakes had abandoned Oneness Pentecostalism, rejected Modalism, and, he believed, Jakes would make that clear at ER2.

I called my fellow elders to make them aware of the invitation (we usually meet monthly to review and consider invitations, but this was an urgent matter, and MacDonald had asked for a decision by the next day).  We agreed that I should 1) find out more about the Elephant Room (specifically, was this an apologetics forum, or a forum that would assume Jakes’s orthodoxy), and 2) find out why Dever had backed out.

After investigating the matter, I decided to decline the invitation.  My decision was based on four major areas of concern (Note: I voiced these four concerns to James MacDonald during our phone conversation the next day):

  1. T.D. Jakes has a history of holding to, teaching, and associating with modalism, and ER2 was a forum wherein he would be assumed to be a “brother”.I was already on record concerning Bishop Jakes’s modalism (see:  The Ever Loving Truth, LifeWay, 2004), and I have kept up with the matter.  Jakes had never repudiated Oneness Pentecostalism.  Nor had he come out with an unambiguous, credal/confessional statement on the doctrine of the Trinity.  There was absolutely no basis for me to assume that Jakes was suddenly orthodox, and therefore, no basis for me to welcome him as a brother.
  2. The “Word of Faith” gospel he preaches is heterodox and harmful.Even if Jakes had come out with a statement on the doctrine of the Trinity, it would not have done anything to change the fact that he preaches “another gospel.” (Gal 1:8–9)  Having studied the “Word of Faith” movement, and seen the devastation it leaves in its wake, I was disinclined to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the man who has been this country’s most popular purveyor of this heresy in the past two decades (Note:  James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll had both preached against the Word of Faith movement and called it heresy, so I did not believe I was informing James of anything he did not know already).
  3. Jakes’s influence in the Dallas Metroplex has been negative, at best.My wife is from Dallas, and my in-laws still live there (her parents and five siblings).  I have preached in Dallas on many occasions, and at numerous churches, and have many acquaintances in the city.  I know firsthand what kind of influence T.D. Jakes has had on the evangelical community, and broader Christian witness there.  Suffice to say that he has not brought greater gospel clarity and fidelity.  He has, however, brought a charismatic, theatrical, excessive, “Word of Faith” flavor to the city that permeates many churches (especially black churches).
  4. Bishop Jakes is an example of the worst the black church has to offer.One of the goals of ER2 was to address the issue of “racial” unity.  Thus, Bishop Jakes was there (at least in part) as a representative of the “black church.”  In light of the aforementioned issues, I was disinclined to participate in such an event.  You see, Jakes was an invited guest; an invited ‘black’ guest.  If he were mistreated, he had the race card; if he was accepted, he had entree into a new audience.  It was a win-win for Jakes, and a lose-lose for evangelicalism.  Obviously, he was not going to spout unadulterated modalism.  Nor was he going to repudiate his roots (remember, this is his “heritage,” both ethnically and theologically).  He had a perfect opportunity to find a middle ground and show “humility” in an environment that would be portrayed as “hostile” even though hostility was forbidden in light of the unwritten rules surrounding his blackness.   Thus, his opponents had to choose between outright defeat and pyrrhic victory.Moreover, I rejected the invitation because I did not want to give even the appearance of tokenism.  The participants in the Elephant Room (and ER2), though they disagree methodologically on how we “get there,” are all virtually identical in their general profile.  They are all successful mega-church pastors who have leveraged innovative and/or controversial methodologies to grow their churches, media empires, and/or pare-church ministries.  I, on the other hand, am a pastor serving at a church with less than five hundred members; I’m not on television or radio; and my books aren’t best sellers.  I don’t fit the profile!  Whether MacDonald meant to or not, he was painting a picture of tokenism.  If he meant it, I didn’t want to be used, and if he didn’t mean it, I didn’t want to be the source of misunderstanding.

While Pastor MacDonald said he “respected” my decision, he made it clear that he did not agree with me.  We agreed to disagree and he moved on.  At this time, I made two important decisions.  First, I decided not to get involved in the public furor over ER2.  I had spoken my piece to James, and saw no advantage in getting involved any further.  There were others who were making many of the same points, and I did not want to pile on (James White, Phil Johnson, Thabiti Anyabwile, Anthony Carter, and others were pressing the issue, and bringing the pertinent points to light).  I do not regret this decision.  My second decision, however, is another story altogether. My second decision was to move forward with the scheduled Men’s Conference.  That was unwise.

The Men’s Conference

I was naive to think that there would be no fallout if I decided to go forward with the Men’s Conference.  The Men’s Conference was scheduled to take place two days after ER2.  Once my worst fears were realized at ER2 (i.e., Jakes equivocated on modalism, was not even challenged on WOF gospel, etc. see here for a detailed analysis), there was no way for me to 1) keep silent on this growing controversy, and 2) attend the Men’s Conference, without giving tacit approval to ER2.  The decision to go public was inevitable.  The only question was how.

I have a regular practice of posting notices of upcoming events in my monthly newsletter, and on my Facebook fan page.  These have been invaluable tools that keep people apprised of when I’m coming to their area (or the area of friends and family whom they’d like to invite to one of our events), how they can pray for me, and what kind of doors the Lord is opening for the ministry.

As per my practice, I posted a link to the Men’s Conference and asked, “Any fan page members planning to attend…”  As you can imagine, there were more than a few questions about my position on ER2, my relationship with James MacDonald and Harvest Bible Chapel, and a whole host of other things.  I answered those questions as honestly as I could.  I made it clear that I opposed the decision to invite Bishop Jakes; pointed out what I saw as his masterful ‘dodge’ on the trinitarian question (and subsequent affirmation of modalist language), and gave a brief explanation of my reasoning for keeping this prior commitment (see here for a recap).

This did not go over well with James MacDonald.  Upon my arrival at the church the next day, he and I sat down (along with my assistant and several members of his staff) and had a candid conversation about my decision to answer questions in a public forum.  Ultimately, we agreed that it was not a good idea for me to speak at the conference.  We  prayed, shook hands, embraced, and ended the meeting as brothers.  James also insisted on paying the agreed honorarium (Added 1/31/12).  MacDonald had already made arrangements for a replacement speaker.  My assistant and I were escorted to a waiting car and taken back to the airport.

Looking Back

Looking back on the incident, I realize that I put myself in an untenable position.  As I see it, I had three choices once ER2 went down the way it did.  I could remain silent indefinitely, which would have given tacit approval of Jakes, etc..  I could have held my comments until after the Men’s Conference, which would have been deceptive to James MacDonald, HBC, and those who showed up to hear me.  Or I could answer the questions honestly ahead of time leaving no doubt as to both my decision to honor my commitment to the Men’s Conference, and my disapproval of ER2.  Obviously, I chose the latter.

In hindsight, I should have canceled the event when I declined the ER2 invitation.  But remember, there were many ‘moving parts’ at that time.  There were private, internal discussions within The Gospel Coalition.  There was public pressure from all corners of the evangelical community, and there were private conversations (I’ve already alluded to my own discussion, and that of Mark Dever, but there were others).  There was also a possibility that Jakes had truly repented, and these guys (specifically MacDonald, Driscoll, and Jack Graham) were privy to things the rest of us simply didn’t, or couldn’t know at the time.

Looking Ahead

As I look ahead, I think two things are very important.  First, I believe T.D. Jakes is wrong on the doctrine of the Trinity, and wrong on the gospel.  I am also involved directly in a matter (the ER2 controversy) that has brought discussion of those facts to light.  Consequently, my mandate to “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9) obligates me to be on record in the matter.  I have done that.

Second, the racial overtones of this matter have gotten out of hand (see here, for example), and must be addressed.  The ER2 controversy is now pitting black evangelicals against white evangelicals, and against each other with T.D. Jakes as the centerpiece.  This is an opportunity to pull back the curtain on the awkward racial dynamic in evangelical circles.  Race is a convenient ‘dodge’ for those with weak arguments, and an inconvenient truth for those who harbor prejudice.  Beyond that, it is an absolutely confusing subject for myriad evangelicals who simply love Christ, love his church, and want desperately not to offend their brothers and sisters in the Lord by using “black” when they should have used “African American,” or vice versa!

The irony is that this issue is most pronounced when heterodoxy is in play.  For example, when a white evangelical disagrees with a solid, Reformed, black pastor on a technical theological issue, there is rarely a charge of racism.  However, let that black brother be part of a heterodox or heretical group (i.e., Oneness Pentecostalism, Word of Faith, Black Liberation Theology, etc.), and suddenly the white brother who makes the argument against him faces charges of racism!  Why?  Partly because of… RACISM!

You see, some of this boils down to what has sometimes been called, “the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.”  Asking black people to adopt orthodox theology (when Lord knows they don’t have access to the same schools, books, opportunities, and, in the minds of some… lack sufficient intelligence) is asking them to negate their blackness.  While, on the other hand, the solid, Reformed, well-educated black pastor is NOT REALLY BLACK.  Therefore, he’s fair game.  Irony of Ironies… that is racist!  And that’s what has to be dragged out of the shadows.

I’m not angry with James MacDonald.  He’s my brother, and I love him.  We disagree.  We both understand that.  Ironically, that’s what The Elephant Room is supposedly all about.  Brothers should be able to disagree with one another and still be brothers.  There’s just one problem:  Embracing Jakes while rejecting others because we question his history of modalism and Word of Faith teaching… that’s the real “Elephant in the Room”?

Using the Trinity in Witnessing to a JW

Posted: September 11, 2009 in Trinity
Tags: , ,
0

Here is how, Dustin Conner, one of our former students at Piedmont Baptist College witnessed to a JW.

I met Marie through my girlfriend, Jill, at Wake Forest University. They lived on the same hall together. Marie grew up in a home with a mother and sister who were Jehovah’s Witnesses, a father who was a “technical” Methodist, and a brother who was a strong Baptist believer. Marie was caught in a tug of war and was emotionally broken when she started school at Wake.

She found comfort and acceptance in a local Kingdom Hall and began being discipled by a JW couple. Jill and several other Christian girls had talked to her about her family problems and her seeking faith through Kingdom Hall, and when I heard her story, I wanted to talk with her. I did a little research on JWs and found that they heavily deny the deity of Christ. To them, He is the special created son of God.

At supper one night, I asked Marie what name of God she and other JWs use during prayer. She said primarily “Jehovah and I told her that we refer to the Lord as Father, God, Jesus, etc depending on what we’re saying or praying. As soon as I connected Jesus with being God, Marie corrected me by telling me that Jesus was not God. So trying to be smart about it in front of others in a restaurant, I told her that my Bible said differently and maybe we could talk about it some time.

So after that night I spent a few months researching and learning about JW doctrine. I met with a Kingdom Hall elder of 35 years to simply learn what they believed. He gave his explanation of who Christ really was and I gave what I saw in the Bible. His New World Translation of the Bible is very biased and was written to specifically misinterpret Scripture regarding the deity of Christ. This is primarily how Marie began to completely deny the deity of Christ. She was taught by Kingdom Hall that there is only one God who was not Trinitarian and Jesus was Michael the son of God the archangel who was born and became the savior of mankind.  Their “Bible” said so and she bought into it.

After I felt confident enough through my research, I approached her and asked if we could talk. We first talked about her relationship problems with her family, and then I asked her what her biggest problem in her search for authentic faith was. She told me that the deity of Christ and the whole concept of the Trinity was her biggest hurdle in accepting true Christianity. When she told me that she was really still searching for the truth, I opened her Bible (NWT) and showed her how the mistranslated NWT still had a Trinitarian God. The biggest argument is in Revelation.

I took her to Rev. 1:8. The NWT says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega says Jehovah God.” Here, Jehovah God = alpha and omega. Next I turned to Rev 21.5-7, where the One seated on the throne is again called Alpha and Omega and also called the beginning and the end. Verse 7 connects God to the One who just spoke. So now Jehovah God = Alpha & Omega and Beginning & the End. Now it gets interesting. I turned to Revelation 22:13 (still in the NWT). Here we have the One referring to Himself as, “the Alpha & Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” If Jehovah was already proven to be the Alpha & Omega and the Beginning & the End, then according to 22:13, Jehovah must also be the first and the last. The next part is what caught Marie’s eye and also baffled the 35 year JW veteran. I turned to Rev. 1:17. “And when I saw him, I fell as dead at his feet. And he laid his right hand upon me and said: ‘Do not be fearful. I am the First and the Last’.” I stopped there and asked her who this first and last was. She answered that we just saw in 22:13 that Alpha & Omega, Jehovah God was the first and the last and now we see him here again in 1:17. The JW elder and his wife also agreed that the first and the last was Jehovah based upon what we just read in 22:13. I then asked Marie to read the next verse. “And the living one; and I became dead, but, look! I am living forever and ever…” I then asked her like I asked the other couple, “Please tell me when Jehovah God died.” According to 1:17-18, the first and the last “became dead” but is now alive. If Jehovah is the same first and the last of 22:13 then He had to die at some point. Here, Marie got quiet and she said that she’d never seen that before. The elder and his wife sat with no answer (until they tried to make up a few that contradicted what they already told me). Marie made a profession of faith about 2 months later while she was at home and she began attending a Baptist church with Jill and me. I just simply let the Word of God speak about the Trinity louder than me, and it worked for one Jehovah’s Witness.

While witnessing to her, I found that just simply caring and listening went further than trying to correct or debate. Dr. White, use whatever of this you want. I know it’s very long, but I wanted you to have the full story. I did use a few more passages that spoke of the Father and Son being equal, but the Revelation track was my strongest point that a Jehovah’s Witness has yet to answer for me. I hope it helps.

Dustin Conner

The Economic Trinity, Part Four

Posted: April 11, 2009 in Trinity
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
0

Not only does the Trinity have a ministry to each other in the ontological or social Trinity, but to us. The relationship of the Trinity with God’s creation is called opera as extra or the outer works or the economic Trinity. Once again there is a difference in roles in the Trinity.

God the Father’s official ministries are creation (Genesis 1:1), preservation (Matthew 5:45), and government (Psalm 103:19).

God the Son’s official ministries are revealing the Father (John 14:9), and redeeming sinners (1st Peter 1:2).

God the Spirit’s official ministries are inspiring Scripture (2nd Peter 1:21), regenerating sinners (John 3:5), and sanctifying believers (Galatians 5:16).

These are not hard and fast ministries because all three persons are one God. There is a generic oneness in all humans. We all share a common humanity, but this humanity is very different among each of us. Some have blue eyes and others brown. Some have an I.Q. of 150 and others 95. But in the Trinity there is a numerical oneness. Each person is equally Deity with no differences in that essence or nature. Each person is equally holy, omnipotent, etc. So there is shared cooperation among the persons in these ministries. Shedd explains: “The operation, consequently, while peculiar to a person, is at the same time, essential; that is, is wrought by that one Divine essence which is also alike in the other persons. An official personal act cannot, therefore, be the exclusive act of the person in the since that the others have no participation in it.”

God the Father sanctifies (John 17:17) even though this is the official ministry of the Holy Spirit.

God the Son preserves (Colossians 1:17) even though this is the official ministry of the Father.

God the Spirit creates (Genesis 1:2) even though this is the official ministry of the Father. The three persons of the Trinity are not unionized so that they can never do a service that is not their official task. They do not have three separate, incontrovertible Job Descriptions. Still the three persons of the Trinity have different official roles.

The problem today is that radical feminists reinterpret subordinationism to include the subordinationism of the essence of Jesus as well as His role to the Father. The radical feminists therefore reject subordinationism in roles in the Trinity so they can claim that women are not subordinate to men in leadership roles at home and the church. Consequently women can be ordained as pastors and deacons.

An example of this logic is the following: Subordinationism is “a doctrine which assigns an inferiority of being, status, or role to the Son or the Holy Spirit within the Trinity. Condemned by numerous church councils, this doctrine has continued in one form or another throughout the history of the church” (Richard and Catherine Kroeger, EDT, p. 1058). My response to this statement: Church councils have condemned subordinationism of being not functions in the Trinity.

Clearly the three persons have different roles in the Godhead. Subordinationism is the doctrine that teaches that there are different roles in the Trinity. A. H. Strong states, “Priority is not necessarily superiority….We frankly recognize an eternal subordination of Christ to the Father, but we maintain at the same time that this subordination is a subordination of order, office, and operation, not a subordination of essence” (page 342 in Strong’s Systematic Theology).

This issue was debated on October 9th, 2008 at the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. The debate topic was “Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?” The Complimentarians or advocates of hierarchy or subordination of roles in the Trinity and among men and women were Wayne Grudem (Phoenix Seminary) and Bruce Ware (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary). The egalitarian proponents or equality of roles in the Trinity and among men and women in the home and church were Tom McCall (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) and Keith Yandell (University of Wisconsin-Madison).

Grudem in the debate stated that the very names of “Father” and “Son” suggest authority and submission. Grudem in his book Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth argues, “If the Father also submitted to the authority of the Son, it would destroy the Trinity, because there would be no Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, but only Person A, Person A, and Person A.” The view would equal Sabellianism or Modalism which teaches that there is only one person who manifests himself as a different person at a time.

The following is Grudem’s opening comment in the debate. This statement is worth reading as well as each Scripture reference to the submission of the Son to the Father which spans eternity past and future.

I. Scripture indicates the authority of the Father and the submission of the Son to the Father’s authority from before the foundation of the world until the eternal state.

A. Authority and submission prior to creation (Eph 1:3-5; Rom 8:29; 2 Tim 1:9; Eph 1:9-11; 3:9-11)
B. Authority and submission indicated by the eternal names “Father” and “Son” (John 1:14; 17:24; Heb 9:14)
C. Authority and submission in the process of creation (John 1:1; Heb 1:1-2; 1 Cor 8:6)
D. Authority and submission prior to Christ’s earthly ministry (John 3:16-17; Gal 4:4; 1 John 4:9-10)
E. Authority and submission in Christ’s earthly ministry (John 6:38; 8:28-29; 15:9-10)
F. Authority and submission after Christ’s ascension into heaven

     1. In Christ’s ministry as Great High Priest (Heb 7:23-25; Rom 8:34)
     2. In his pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:32-33)
     3. In his receiving revelation from the Father and giving it to the church (Rev 1:1)
     4. In his sitting at God’s right hand—a position of authority second to that of the Father himself (Acts 2:32-33; Eph 1:20-22; Heb 1:3;      Pss 110:1; 45:9; Rev 2:26; et al)
G. Authority and submission after the final judgment (1 Cor 15:26-28)

H. Conclusion: The consistent, uniform testimony of Scripture is that the Father, by virtue of being Father, eternally has authority to plan, initiate, command, and send, authority that the Son and Holy Spirit do not have. The Son, by virtue of being Son, eternally submits joyfully and with great delight to the authority of his Father. It is only in a sinful world deeply marred by hostility toward authority, and overly focused on status and power, that cannot see that submission to the authority of the Father is the great glory of the Son. Authority, and submission to authority, are a wonderful part of the great glory of the Father and the Son, and this will be their glory for all eternity. “Do Relations of Authority and Submission Exist Eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?” Absolutely, undeniably, gloriously, yes.

The impact of Jesus’ submission to His Father as presented by Grudem should overwhelm us with humility and submission in our differing roles. We should submit to our governmental officials (1 Peter 2:13), to our employers (1 Peter 2:18), to our leaders in the home (1 Peter 3:1-6), to our parents (Ephesians 6:1) and to one another (1 Peter 5:5a). It is our fallenness, pride, and rebellion that make submission so difficult. Peter identified the problem and solution in 1 Peter 5:5b: “be clothed with humility: for God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble.”

The “Social Trinity”, Part Three

Posted: April 11, 2009 in Trinity
Tags: , , , , ,
1

Theologians discuss the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity. The ontological Trinity focuses on the relationship the Trinity has within the Triune God totally apart from the creation. The economic Trinity shows the relationship between the Trinity and people. In this post we will talk about the onotological Trinity.

A. H. Strong calls the ontological Trinity the “Social Trinity.” Ryrie refers to this relationship between the persons of Trinity the opera as intra or the inner works of the Trinity. Does Scripture speak of the relationship within the Trinity? In John 17:24, Jesus prayed to the Father concerning the love that God the Father had for the Son before the foundation of the world. This is possible because “God is love” (1st John 4:8). There are three practical benefits from the ontological Trinity.

The first practical benefit is love for one another as the three persons of the Trinity enables us to love each other.

Tim Keller argues because God is love there has to be three persons (or at least more than one person) in the Trinity. Love demands an object with whom there can be a loving relationship (The Reason for God, 216). No one loves in isolation. This proves Sabellianism or Modalism wrong for one manifestation cannot love another manifestation. Only persons can love. Just as the persons of the Trinity loved each other in eternity past before there were people to love so we love one another in the family of God. We can love because God’s love has been poured into our hearts at salvation (Romans 5:5). Husbands can love their wives because we possess the love that God possesses by which He has loved each person of the Trinity.

No Christian mate should ever say about his/her Christian mate, “I just cannot love my husband or wife any longer.” We can love each other because of the example and provision of the Trinity.

Another practical benefit of the Trinity is subordination to our leaders.

Paul clearly states in 1st Corinthians 11:3, that the differences in the roles of each person in the Trinity does not mean inferiority in the persons of the Trinity. “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

The Father is officially first (1st Corinthians 11:3), the Son second (John 14:28) and the Spirit third (John 15:26). God the Father is seen to be the leader of Trinity when it is said that God the Father sent the Son (John 20:21). It is never said that the Son sent the Father. God the Father also “gave His only begotten Son” (John 3:16).

God the Father eternally gives life to God the Son (John 5:26). It is never said that the Son gives life to the Father. This is called “eternal generation” in the language of classic orthodoxy. God the Father and the Son sent God the Spirit (John 15:26). It is never said that the Spirit sent the Father or Son. This is called “procession.” Dr. Walter Yoho defines “procession” as the exclusive work of the Spirit (in this work the Spirit receives the entire divine nature, necessarily and eternally, from both the Father and the Son) as found in John 15:26.

Paul uses the Trinity practically in 1st Corinthians 11 where women in the church at Corinth were not submitting to male leadership. Just as Christ is subordinate to the Headship of the Father so should women be subordinate to male leadership in the church. Submission does not mean inferiority just a different role. A lineman on a college football team may be superior to the quarterback in I.Q. but the quarterback still calls the plays. Someone on the team has to be the leader.

A third pratical benefit of the Trinity is unity.

In 1st Corinthians 12:4-6, Paul practically employed the Trinity to promote unity in regard to the abuse of spiritual gifts that had divided the church. The Trinity is the perfect example of unity. Never has there been a disagreement among the persons of the Trinity. Never has one person of the Trinity stomped off mad. The “Social Trinity” is a model for believers to love one another, to be submissive to one another in the God assigned roles in the home and church, and to be united together in a local church.

The Trinity, Three Biblical Statements, Part Two

Posted: April 10, 2009 in Trinity
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
1

The Trinity can be summarized in three statements supported by Scripture. Any belief or movement or person who alters one of these Scriptural views is unsound Biblically. These three Biblical summaries refute Modalism, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormonism.

God is Three Persons

This Biblical summary refutes modalism or the belief that God is one person manifested in three modes. Sabellius, an African bishop, in the third century taught modalism. In the Old Testament God was manifested as the Father, in the Gospels, as Jesus, and today as the Holy Spirit, according to modalism.

One Pentecostalism denies the three persons of the Trinity and is modalistic. David K. Bernard represents this heresy in his The Oneness of God: The Oneness position is “the doctrine that God is absolutely one in numerical value, that Jesus is the one God, and that God is not a plurality of persons….The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three manifestations of the one God” (pages 321-322; 142-143).

T. D. Jakes, who grew up in Oneness Pentecostalism, on his website’s doctrinal statement, makes a similar modalistic statement about God: “There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.”

In contrast to this aberrant view on the Trinity, the Scriptures teach that the Son is not the Father. In John 17:24, Jesus is praying to the Father who therefore must be distinct from the Son. In 1 John 2:1, Jesus is the advocate with Father, not synonymous with Him. The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father in John 14:26. In John 16:7, Jesus says He will send the Holy Spirit, consequently the Holy Spirit cannot be the Father nor the Son. Not only are there three persons in the Trinity but each person in the Trinity is fully God.

Each Person of the Trinity is Fully God

The Jehovah Witnesses, in the book Should You Believe in the Trinity?, make a clear denial of the deity of Christ: “The entire testimony of the entire Bible is that Jesus is not Almighty God” (page 28).

The entire testimony of Scripture, however, is that each person of the Trinity is equally God. God the Father is fully God (Ephesians 4:4-6), as well as God the Son (Colossians 1:19) and the God the Spirit (Acts 5:1-4). While God is three persons and each person of the Trinity is Deity, there are not three gods. There is one God.

There is One God

Tritheism is “the perversion of the doctrine of the Trinity, propounding the theory that there are three Gods, distinct in essence, not one God in three personal subsistences” (Alan Cairns. Dictionary of Theological Terms, Belfast and Greenville: Ambassador –Emerald International, 1988, 417). Mormonism is an example of tritheism.

Rex Lee, president of Brigham Young University wrote the three persons of the Trinity are not one being but are “separate individuals” and the also that the Father has a physical body “of flesh and bone” (What Do Mormons Believe, Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1992, 21).

The oneness or unity of God was the emphasis of the Old Testament while the threeness of God is the emphasis of the New Testament: Matthew 3:16-17; 28:19-20; the Trinity is found eight times in Ephesians (1:3-14; 1:17; 2:18; 2:22; 3:4-5; 14-17; 4:4-6; 5:18-20).
Is the threeness of the Trinity in the Old Testament? Yes. In Isaiah 63:7-10 are the three persons of the Trinity.

The New Testament, however, will emphasize the three persons of the Trinity because of progressive revelation and because Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, came to earth.

The emphasis on the oneness or unity of God begins with the first verse in God’s Word which declares “In the beginning God [not gods] created the heavens and the earth.” “God” or Elohim is a plural of majesty not number (Charles Ryrie, Basic Theology, page 207). Deuteronomy 6:4 demands God’s Old Testament people to “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the LORD is one” which was repeated by Christ in Mark 12:29. To worship any other God is idolatry (Exodus 20:3).

The reason for the emphasis on the oneness or unity of God in the Old Testament in Deuteronomy 6:4 was Israel’s propensity for idolatry or the worship of many gods. Even in the context of Deuteronomy 6 was this weakness made clear. After Israel is commanded to worship God who is one, God commands in 6:14, “You shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which are round about you; (For the LORD your God is a jealous God among you) lest the anger of the LORD your God be kindled against you, and destroy you from off the face of the earth.”

These three summary statements on the Trinity represent orthodox Christianity. Arius, a pastor in Alexandria, said Christ was similar to the Father but not the same in the early 300s. One pastor in particular battled Arianism. Athanasius, almost singlehandedly battled for the truth of the Trinity in the fourth century and was exiled five times for 17 years for his relentless stand. Largely because of the influence of Athanasius the Council of Nicea met in 325 A.D. with 318 Christian Leaders and declared Jesus “of one substance with the Father.” We should not take this great doctrinal truth for granted but teach and preach it even in the face of growing anti-trinitarian views.

The Trinity, Part One

Posted: April 10, 2009 in Trinity
Tags: , , , ,
1

James Dobson in his book Marriage Under Fire illustrates the difference between husbands and wives.

The most eye-opening encounter between us occurred on our first Valentine’s Day together, six months after we were married. It was something of a disaster. I had gone to the USC library that morning and spent eight or ten hours pouring over dusty books and journals. I had forgotten that it was February 14.

What was worse, I was oblivious to the preparations that were going on at home. Shirley had cooked a wonderful dinner, baked a pink heart shaped cake with ‘Happy Valentine’s Day’ written on the top, placed several red candles on the table, wrapped a small gift she had bought for me, and written a little love note on a greeting card. The stage was set. She would meet me at the front door with a kiss and a hug. But there I sat on the other side of Los Angeles, blissfully unaware of the storm gathering overhead.

About 8 P.M., I got hungry and ordered a hamburger at the University Grill. After eating, I moseyed out to where my Volkswagen was parked and headed toward home. Then I made a terrible mistake that I would regret for many moons: I stopped by to see my parents, who lived near the freeway. Mom greeted me warmly and served up a great slice of apple pie. That sealed my doom.

When I finally put my key in the lock at 10:00, I knew instantly that something was horribly wrong (I’m very perceptive about subtleties like that). The apartment was dark and all was deathly quiet. There on the table was a coagulated dinner still sitting in our best dishes and bowls. Half-burned candles stood cold and dark in their silver-plated holders. It appeared that I forgotten something important. But what? Then I noticed the red and white decorations on the table. Oh no! I thought.

So there I stood in the semidarkness of our little living room, feeling like a creep. I didn’t even have a Valentine’s Day card, much less a thoughtful gift, for Shirley. No romantic thoughts had crossed my mind all day. I couldn’t even pretend to want the dried-up food that sat before me. After a brief flurry of words and a few tears, Shirley went to bed and pulled the covers up around her ears. I would have given a thousand dollars for a true, plausible explanation for my thoughtlessness. But there just wasn’t one. It didn’t help to tell her, ‘I stopped by my mom’s house for a piece of great apple pie. It was wonderful. You should’ve been there.”

Fortunately, Shirley is not only a romantic lady, but she is a forgiving one, too. We talked about my insensitivity later that night and came to an understanding. Once I understood how my wife differed from me—especially regarding romantic things—I began to get with the program.

This story painfully reminds us men that we differ not only physically from our wives but emotionally. There is another painful uniqueness, at least to some in our culture, between men and women; the variance in roles. Paul in 1st Corinthians 11:3 used the Trinity to illustrate that the differences in our roles as husbands and wives does not mean inferiority of personhood: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is man; and the head of Christ is God.”

The Trinity is three persons and one nature of Deity according to Deuteronomy 6:4: “The Lord our God is one.” Yet the three persons have different roles. God the Father is the leader. Marriage is two persons, whom God declares to be “one” (Genesis 2:24): “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.” This is the same word “one” in Deuteronomy 6:4. The two persons (husbands and wives) like the three persons in the Trinity have different roles. The husband is the leader in the home (Ephesians 5:22-24) and the man is to be the leader in the church (1 Timothy 2:11-3:12). In the next three posts I will discuss the Biblical summary of the Trinity, the Ontological Trinity, and the Economic Trinity.