Unitarianism vs Trinitarianism
- Thread starter RLT63
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Sounds to me that you are again relying on a bad translation.
17 For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known
John 1:17-18 Revised Standard Version
That's not the verse I quoted John 6:44-46
Jhn 6:44
No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:45
It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Jhn 6:46
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Nice try. You have to resort to dishonesty to defend your position.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Dishonesty? Your question was about seeing God and theses verses have nothing to do with seeing God.
Jhn 6:46
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
My question, "How had Jesus seen the Father if no man has seen him?"
Biblical Unitarianism, contrary to its name, is not biblical. The problem is their false view of the nature God and the person of Christ. Biblical Unitarians differ from other Unitarians (such as Unitarian Universalists) in their claim that the Bible is the source of truth—a doctrine that Universalists deny. The term Biblical Unitarianism can be traced back to the 1880s as distinctions were being made between Unitarians who held to biblical inspiration and those who did not. Biblical Unitarianism represents the more “conservative” branch of Unitarianism, since it has not jettisoned the Bible as a source of truth.
Many beliefs of Biblical Unitarians are in keeping with orthodox Christian beliefs. However, they depart from orthodoxy on one major point in regards to their doctrine of God. Biblical Unitarians deny the Trinity, teaching that God is one being (hence the word Unitarian in their name). Jesus, according to Biblical Unitarianism, is not the eternal Son of God; rather, He was created by God in the womb of Mary. Jesus was later exalted by God and given authority over creation, making Him like God, but He remains a finite, separate being with a beginning.
In denying the Trinity, Biblical Unitarians also have a false view of the Holy Spirit, whom they consider to be identical to the Father. Since God is “holy” and also a “spirit,” they reason, “Holy Spirit” is simply another name for God the Father.
Biblical Unitarian views of God are unbiblical because Scripture clearly teaches that the Son of God existed prior to all creation (John 1:1–5), that Jesus is truly God (Titus 2:13), and that the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Father (Matthew 28:19).
Denominations that fall under the category of Biblical Unitarianism include the Church of God General Conference (CoGGC) and the Christadelphians.
What is Biblical Unitarianism? | GotQuestions.org
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Wow! What a convoluted way to try to back door trinitarianism.
1st, Jesus is not in John 6:46.
2nd, ‘of God’ is proof that the man in question is NOT God. Reading comprehension 101: objects of sentences (of God) are not subjects of sentences (any man).
3rd, your question implies an invalid premise. Jesus is stated elsewhere to be a man and this verse explicitly says no man (who includes Jesus) has seen God.
4th, your question is invalid because it is inherently contradictory. It boils down to the circular, you can’t have your pudding until you eat your meat. How can you eat your pudding if you don’t eat your meat?
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Who is the mystery man who has seen God if it is not Jesus?
Not an answer.
You see, the harmony in Scripture comes when you realize that Jesus is YHWH.
Much love!
The word Trinity is not used in the Bible, but the doctrine of the tri-unity of God is clearly taught in the New Testament. The Old Testament does not explicitly teach the doctrine, but the concept of the Trinity is hinted at in certain places. We could say that the Old Testament lays a foundation for the later revelation concerning the Trinity.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the Hebrew concept of plurality in unity:
Deuteronomy 6:4 is a verse that seems, at first, to wholly negate the doctrine of the Trinity: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Interestingly, the singular Yahweh is coupled with the plural Elohim in this verse.) The word translated “one” is ehad, which means “one” or “unity”; however, the word is also used in other contexts to suggest a plurality within unity. For example, the word ehad also appears in Genesis 2:24, which considers two persons as one: “[A man] is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one [ehad]” (NLT). Obviously, the husband and wife are distinct persons, but they are called “one”—there is diversity within the unity.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the names for God:
The very fact that God reveals Himself using multiple names in the Old Testament could be a clue pointing to His triune nature. Two of the names show up right away: Elohim in Genesis 1:1, and Yahweh in Genesis 2:4. Some scholars believe the multiple names for God imply a diversity within the Godhead.
One of the Hebrew names for “God” in our Bible, Elohim, is plural in form. The -im suffix is plural, and elohim, when not referring to the One True God, is translated as “gods” (plural) in Scripture. The plural form of a name for the One God could be seen as implying a perfect unity of Persons and is certainly consistent with the New Testament teaching of the Trinity.
Adonai, translated in our Bibles as “Lord,” occurs about 300 times in the Old Testament. This title for God is also plural. One writer comments on the word Adonai, “It is significant that it is almost always in the plural and possessive, meaning ‘my Lords.’ It confirms the idea of a trinity as found also in the name of Elohim” (Stone, Nathan, The Names of God, Moody Publishers, 2010, p. 35).
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the appearances of the Angel of the Lord:
In several places, the Old Testament records encounters with someone called “the Angel of the Lord.” This supernatural presence speaks as if He is God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God. For example, in Genesis 16:10, the Angel of the Lord says to Hagar, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.” Of course, God is the One who blesses Ishmael, but it’s the Angel of the Lord who personally makes the promise to his mother.
The same Angel of the Lord appears to Abraham and assumes the role of God, saying, “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son” (Genesis 22:12, emphasis added ). See also Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1–4; 5:23; 6:11–24; 13:3–22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8. In several passages, those who see the Angel of the Lord fear for their lives because they had “seen the Lord.” It’s clear that the Angel of the Lord was no mere angel. Viewed through the lens of the New Testament teaching of the Trinity, it’s easy to conclude that the Angel of the Lord could be a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in its descriptions of the Spirit of God:
The post-exilic Levites speak of the Spirit of God as being sent by God and speaking for God: “You also gave Your good Spirit to instruct them” (Nehemiah 9:20, NKJV); and “For many years you were patient with them. By your Spirit you warned them through your prophets” (Nehemiah 9:30). Both verses seem to make a distinction between God and another personality called the Spirit of God. See also Isaiah 48:16 and Isaiah 63:10.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in God’s self-references:
Most of the time, God speaks of Himself using singular pronouns (e.g., Exodus 33:19; Hosea 11:9); at other times, He uses plural pronouns:
“Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness’” (Genesis 1:26, emphasis added).
“And the LORD God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil’” (Genesis 3:22, emphasis added).
As sinful humanity was erecting the tower of Babel, God said, “Come, let Us go down and confuse their language” (Genesis 11:7, BSB, emphasis added).
In Isaiah 6:8, God refers to Himself in both singular and plural terms: “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’” (emphasis added).
We could assume that, in each of the above passages, God is simply using the majestic plural to emphasize His power and greatness. Or we could also assume that there’s something more going on—viz., that these statements hint at discrete personalities existing as a unified whole.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in Messianic passages:
In Psalm 110:1, David writes, “The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool’” (NKJV). Here is an example of Yahweh speaking to Adonai and giving Him the place of highest honor in heaven. Jesus pointed to this psalm as proof that the Christ is more than David’s descendant—He is the pre-existent Lord and much greater than David (Matthew 22:41–45).
Another Messianic prophecy is found in Psalm 45:6–7: “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” The psalmist, addressing Elohim, suddenly speaks of “your God” who honors and anoints the Addressee.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the repetition of God’s qualities or His name:
In Isaiah 6:3, the angels surrounding God praise Him as being “holy, holy, holy.” The threefold repetition expresses the intensity and completeness of God’s holiness. Some scholars also infer from the angels’ words an expression of the triune nature of God, as the three Persons of the Godhead are each equal in holiness and majesty.
Similarly, we have a threefold repetition of God’s name in Numbers 6:24–26:
“The Lord bless you
and keep you;
the Lord make his face shine on you
and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn his face toward you
and give you peace.”
The blessing’s appeal to “the Lord . . . the Lord . . . the Lord” is seen by some scholars as providing a glimpse of the Trinity.
In many ways, the Old Testament gives a preview of the New Testament’s fuller revelation, including the doctrine of God as a triune Being. While the Trinity is not clearly seen in the Old Testament, there are certainly indicators of that truth.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the Hebrew concept of plurality in unity:
Deuteronomy 6:4 is a verse that seems, at first, to wholly negate the doctrine of the Trinity: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Interestingly, the singular Yahweh is coupled with the plural Elohim in this verse.) The word translated “one” is ehad, which means “one” or “unity”; however, the word is also used in other contexts to suggest a plurality within unity. For example, the word ehad also appears in Genesis 2:24, which considers two persons as one: “[A man] is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one [ehad]” (NLT). Obviously, the husband and wife are distinct persons, but they are called “one”—there is diversity within the unity.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the names for God:
The very fact that God reveals Himself using multiple names in the Old Testament could be a clue pointing to His triune nature. Two of the names show up right away: Elohim in Genesis 1:1, and Yahweh in Genesis 2:4. Some scholars believe the multiple names for God imply a diversity within the Godhead.
One of the Hebrew names for “God” in our Bible, Elohim, is plural in form. The -im suffix is plural, and elohim, when not referring to the One True God, is translated as “gods” (plural) in Scripture. The plural form of a name for the One God could be seen as implying a perfect unity of Persons and is certainly consistent with the New Testament teaching of the Trinity.
Adonai, translated in our Bibles as “Lord,” occurs about 300 times in the Old Testament. This title for God is also plural. One writer comments on the word Adonai, “It is significant that it is almost always in the plural and possessive, meaning ‘my Lords.’ It confirms the idea of a trinity as found also in the name of Elohim” (Stone, Nathan, The Names of God, Moody Publishers, 2010, p. 35).
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the appearances of the Angel of the Lord:
In several places, the Old Testament records encounters with someone called “the Angel of the Lord.” This supernatural presence speaks as if He is God, identifies Himself with God, and exercises the responsibilities of God. For example, in Genesis 16:10, the Angel of the Lord says to Hagar, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.” Of course, God is the One who blesses Ishmael, but it’s the Angel of the Lord who personally makes the promise to his mother.
The same Angel of the Lord appears to Abraham and assumes the role of God, saying, “Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son” (Genesis 22:12, emphasis added ). See also Exodus 3:2; Judges 2:1–4; 5:23; 6:11–24; 13:3–22; 2 Samuel 24:16; Zechariah 1:12; 3:1; 12:8. In several passages, those who see the Angel of the Lord fear for their lives because they had “seen the Lord.” It’s clear that the Angel of the Lord was no mere angel. Viewed through the lens of the New Testament teaching of the Trinity, it’s easy to conclude that the Angel of the Lord could be a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in its descriptions of the Spirit of God:
The post-exilic Levites speak of the Spirit of God as being sent by God and speaking for God: “You also gave Your good Spirit to instruct them” (Nehemiah 9:20, NKJV); and “For many years you were patient with them. By your Spirit you warned them through your prophets” (Nehemiah 9:30). Both verses seem to make a distinction between God and another personality called the Spirit of God. See also Isaiah 48:16 and Isaiah 63:10.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in God’s self-references:
Most of the time, God speaks of Himself using singular pronouns (e.g., Exodus 33:19; Hosea 11:9); at other times, He uses plural pronouns:
“Then God said, ‘Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness’” (Genesis 1:26, emphasis added).
“And the LORD God said, ‘The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil’” (Genesis 3:22, emphasis added).
As sinful humanity was erecting the tower of Babel, God said, “Come, let Us go down and confuse their language” (Genesis 11:7, BSB, emphasis added).
In Isaiah 6:8, God refers to Himself in both singular and plural terms: “Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, ‘Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?’” (emphasis added).
We could assume that, in each of the above passages, God is simply using the majestic plural to emphasize His power and greatness. Or we could also assume that there’s something more going on—viz., that these statements hint at discrete personalities existing as a unified whole.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in Messianic passages:
In Psalm 110:1, David writes, “The LORD said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool’” (NKJV). Here is an example of Yahweh speaking to Adonai and giving Him the place of highest honor in heaven. Jesus pointed to this psalm as proof that the Christ is more than David’s descendant—He is the pre-existent Lord and much greater than David (Matthew 22:41–45).
Another Messianic prophecy is found in Psalm 45:6–7: “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You love righteousness and hate wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.” The psalmist, addressing Elohim, suddenly speaks of “your God” who honors and anoints the Addressee.
The doctrine of the Trinity finds support in the Old Testament in the repetition of God’s qualities or His name:
In Isaiah 6:3, the angels surrounding God praise Him as being “holy, holy, holy.” The threefold repetition expresses the intensity and completeness of God’s holiness. Some scholars also infer from the angels’ words an expression of the triune nature of God, as the three Persons of the Godhead are each equal in holiness and majesty.
Similarly, we have a threefold repetition of God’s name in Numbers 6:24–26:
“The Lord bless you
and keep you;
the Lord make his face shine on you
and be gracious to you;
the Lord turn his face toward you
and give you peace.”
The blessing’s appeal to “the Lord . . . the Lord . . . the Lord” is seen by some scholars as providing a glimpse of the Trinity.
In many ways, the Old Testament gives a preview of the New Testament’s fuller revelation, including the doctrine of God as a triune Being. While the Trinity is not clearly seen in the Old Testament, there are certainly indicators of that truth.
Tonight’s episode: Moses the trinitarian.
* Next week’s episode: Jesus the trinitarian; with cameo appearances by the unitarian writers of the OT and NT *
Church history is more than sufficient to dispel the notion that the OT writers and NT writers were trinitarians, but not if it isn’t taken into account.
Last edited:
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
SpecUlation. It’s all trinitarianism has. Why does it matter who the mystery man is?
It matters a great deal. He is the only man who has seen the Father.
Jhn 6:46 — Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.
Last edited:
Answering JW Objections to the Deity of Christ
Objection 1: Jesus was created as the Archangel Michael.1
Answering the Objection: Jesus was not the Archangel Michael in the Old Testament. Michael in Daniel 10:13 is called “one of the chief princes”, indicating he is one among a group of chief princes. By contrast, the Greek word used to describe Jesus in John 3:16 (“God s only-begotten son”) is monogenes-literally meaning “unique” or “one of a kind.” Jesus is not a mere “chief prince” but is rather the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16).
Further, Hebrews 2:5 tells us that the world is not (and will not be) in subjection to an angel. This being so, Christ cannot be Michael since He is said to be the ruler of Gods kingdom repeatedly in Scripture (Gen. ruler of Gods kingdom repeatedly in Scripture (Gen. 33; Matt. 2:1-2; 9:35; Rev. 19:16).
Notice also that the Archangel Michael does not have the authority in himself to rebuke Satan (Jude 9). By contrast, Jesus rebuked the Devil on a number of occasions (e.g., Matt. 17:18; Mark 9:25). Since Michael could not rebuke the Devil in his own authority and Jesus could (and did) rebuke the Devil in His own authority, they are obviously not the same person.
Objection 2: Jesus is Gods only begotten son in the sense that He was directly created by the hand of God (John 3:16).2
Answering the Objection: Perhaps no title of Christ has been so misunderstood as “Son of God.” Though the term can refer to “offspring of”, it carries the more important meaning, “of the order of.” The phrase is often used this way in the Old Testament. For example, “sons of the prophets” meant of the “order of prophets” (1 Kings 20:35). “Sons of the singers” meant “of the order of singers” (Neh. 12:28). Likewise, the phrase “Son of God”, in the case of Christ, means “of the order of God”, and represents a claim to undiminished deity.
Ancient Semitics and Orientals used the phrase Son of… to indicate likeness or sameness of nature and equality of being. Hence, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, His Jewish contemporaries fully understood He was making a claim to be God in an unqualified sense (John 5:18; 19:7).
Evidence for Christ’s eternal Sonship is found in the fact that God created the universe through His Son (Heb. 1:2)-implying that Christ was the Son of God prior to the Creation. Moreover, Christ as the Son is explicitly said to have existed “before all things” (Col. 1:17; see especially verses 13-14). As well, Jesus, speaking as the Son of God (John 8:54-56), asserts His eternal preexistence before Abraham (v. 58).
Objection 3: Jesus affirmed that the Father is greater than he is (John 14:28), thereby indicating he is a lesser god.3
Answering the Objection: Jesus in John 14:28 is not speaking about His nature or His essential being (He had earlier said I and the Father are one in this regard-John 10:30), but is rather speaking of His lowly position in the Incarnation. The Athanasian Creed affirms that Christ is “equal to the Father as touching his Godhood and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood.” The Father was seated upon the throne of highest majesty in heaven; the brightness of His glory was uneclipsed as He was surrounded by hosts of holy beings perpetually worshipping Him with uninterrupted praise. Far different was it with His incarnate Son-despised and rejected of men, surrounded by implacable enemies, and soon to be nailed to a criminals cross. It is from this perspective that Jesus could say the Father is “greater” than he is.
Objection 4 : Jesus is the firstborn of creation (Col. 1:15), thereby indicating he is a creature.4
Answering the Objection: The word “firstborn” does not mean “first-created”. The Greek word prototokos means “first in rank, preeminent one, heir”. The word carries the idea of positional preeminence and supremacy. Christ is the “firstborn of creation” in the sense that He is positionally preeminent over creation and is supreme over all things.
Historically, the word firstborn among the ancients referred to the son in the family who was in the preeminent position, regardless of whether or not that son was literally the first son born to the parents. This “firstborn” son would not only be the preeminent one in the family, he would also be the heir to a double portion of the family inheritance.
This meaning of “firstborn” is illustrated in the life of David, who was the youngest (last-born) son of Jesse. Psalm 89:27 says of him: “I also shall make him My first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth”. Though David was the last one born in Jesse’s family, he is called “firstborn” because of the preeminent position God placed him in.
For Colossians 1:15 to mean “first created”, Paul would not have called Christ the “firstborn” (prototokos) but the “first-created” (protoktisis). This latter term is never used of Christ in the New Testament.
Objection 1: Jesus was created as the Archangel Michael.1
Answering the Objection: Jesus was not the Archangel Michael in the Old Testament. Michael in Daniel 10:13 is called “one of the chief princes”, indicating he is one among a group of chief princes. By contrast, the Greek word used to describe Jesus in John 3:16 (“God s only-begotten son”) is monogenes-literally meaning “unique” or “one of a kind.” Jesus is not a mere “chief prince” but is rather the “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16).
Further, Hebrews 2:5 tells us that the world is not (and will not be) in subjection to an angel. This being so, Christ cannot be Michael since He is said to be the ruler of Gods kingdom repeatedly in Scripture (Gen. ruler of Gods kingdom repeatedly in Scripture (Gen. 33; Matt. 2:1-2; 9:35; Rev. 19:16).
Notice also that the Archangel Michael does not have the authority in himself to rebuke Satan (Jude 9). By contrast, Jesus rebuked the Devil on a number of occasions (e.g., Matt. 17:18; Mark 9:25). Since Michael could not rebuke the Devil in his own authority and Jesus could (and did) rebuke the Devil in His own authority, they are obviously not the same person.
Objection 2: Jesus is Gods only begotten son in the sense that He was directly created by the hand of God (John 3:16).2
Answering the Objection: Perhaps no title of Christ has been so misunderstood as “Son of God.” Though the term can refer to “offspring of”, it carries the more important meaning, “of the order of.” The phrase is often used this way in the Old Testament. For example, “sons of the prophets” meant of the “order of prophets” (1 Kings 20:35). “Sons of the singers” meant “of the order of singers” (Neh. 12:28). Likewise, the phrase “Son of God”, in the case of Christ, means “of the order of God”, and represents a claim to undiminished deity.
Ancient Semitics and Orientals used the phrase Son of… to indicate likeness or sameness of nature and equality of being. Hence, when Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, His Jewish contemporaries fully understood He was making a claim to be God in an unqualified sense (John 5:18; 19:7).
Evidence for Christ’s eternal Sonship is found in the fact that God created the universe through His Son (Heb. 1:2)-implying that Christ was the Son of God prior to the Creation. Moreover, Christ as the Son is explicitly said to have existed “before all things” (Col. 1:17; see especially verses 13-14). As well, Jesus, speaking as the Son of God (John 8:54-56), asserts His eternal preexistence before Abraham (v. 58).
Objection 3: Jesus affirmed that the Father is greater than he is (John 14:28), thereby indicating he is a lesser god.3
Answering the Objection: Jesus in John 14:28 is not speaking about His nature or His essential being (He had earlier said I and the Father are one in this regard-John 10:30), but is rather speaking of His lowly position in the Incarnation. The Athanasian Creed affirms that Christ is “equal to the Father as touching his Godhood and inferior to the Father as touching his manhood.” The Father was seated upon the throne of highest majesty in heaven; the brightness of His glory was uneclipsed as He was surrounded by hosts of holy beings perpetually worshipping Him with uninterrupted praise. Far different was it with His incarnate Son-despised and rejected of men, surrounded by implacable enemies, and soon to be nailed to a criminals cross. It is from this perspective that Jesus could say the Father is “greater” than he is.
Objection 4 : Jesus is the firstborn of creation (Col. 1:15), thereby indicating he is a creature.4
Answering the Objection: The word “firstborn” does not mean “first-created”. The Greek word prototokos means “first in rank, preeminent one, heir”. The word carries the idea of positional preeminence and supremacy. Christ is the “firstborn of creation” in the sense that He is positionally preeminent over creation and is supreme over all things.
Historically, the word firstborn among the ancients referred to the son in the family who was in the preeminent position, regardless of whether or not that son was literally the first son born to the parents. This “firstborn” son would not only be the preeminent one in the family, he would also be the heir to a double portion of the family inheritance.
This meaning of “firstborn” is illustrated in the life of David, who was the youngest (last-born) son of Jesse. Psalm 89:27 says of him: “I also shall make him My first-born, the highest of the kings of the earth”. Though David was the last one born in Jesse’s family, he is called “firstborn” because of the preeminent position God placed him in.
For Colossians 1:15 to mean “first created”, Paul would not have called Christ the “firstborn” (prototokos) but the “first-created” (protoktisis). This latter term is never used of Christ in the New Testament.
Objection 5: Since God is the head of Christ (1 Cor. 11:3), Christ cannot be God in the same sense the Father is.5
Answering the Objection: A close examination of 1 Corinthians 11:3 shows it has nothing to do with superiority of one person over another; rather, it has to do with patterns of authority. Notice that Paul in this same verse says the man is the head of the woman, even though men and women are equal in their essential nature. They are both human and both are created in Gods image (Gen. 1:26-28). As well, they are said to be “one” in Christ (Gal. 3:28). These verses, taken with 1 Corinthians 11:3, show that equality of being and social hierarchy is not mutually exclusive. Even though men and women are equal in terms of their nature, nevertheless the man is in authority over the woman.
Likewise, Christ and the Father are equal in their divine being, though Jesus is functionally under the Father’s headship (1 Cor . 11:3). There is no contradiction in affirming both an equality of being and a functional subordination among the persons in the Godhead.
Objection 6: Since Jesus is the “beginning” of God’s creation (Rev. 3:14), it is obvious he is a creature.6
Answering the Objection: Though the word arche in Revelation 3:14 can mean “beginning”, the word is unique and also carries the important active meaning of “one who begins”, “origin”, “source”, “creator”, or “first cause”. Evangelical scholars agree this is the intended meaning in Revelation 3:14. The English word architect is derived from arche. We might say Jesus is the architect of all creation (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2).
It is noteworthy that the only other times arche is used in the Book of Revelation relate to God as “the beginning and the end” (Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:13). Certainly the use of arche with God Almighty does not mean He had a created beginning. Instead, these verses communicate that God is both the beginner and the consummation of creation. He is the first cause of creation; He is its final goal. The word arche is used of Jesus in the same sense in Revelation 3:14.
Objection 7: Since Jesus was “brought forth” to participate in creation (Prov. 8:22-23), he must be a created being.7
Answering the Objection: Proverbs 8:22-23 does not refer to Jesus. Notice that the first nine chapters of Proverbs deal with wisdom personified. A personification is a rhetorical figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities or are represented as possessing human form. In Proverbs 1-9, wisdom is figuratively endowed with human qualities. With this backdrop in mind, it is critical to recognize that there is no indication that Proverbs 8 is to be taken any differently than chapters 1 through 7 and 9.
This being so, if we take Proverbs 8:22 to be speaking literally about Christ, we must also assume that Christ is a woman crying in the streets (1:20-21) who lives with someone named “Prudence” (8:12). Proverbs 1-9 makes no sense if one tries to read Christ into the text. Proverbs 8:22-23 is simply speaking metaphorically of Gods eternal wisdom and how it was “brought forth” (v. 24) to take part in the creation of the universe.
Objection 8: Jesus taught that only the Father is to be worshipped (John 4:23). Christ should be shown only “obeisance”.8
Answering the Objection: In affirming that true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth (John 4:23), Jesus was not saying that He Himself should not be worshiped as well. A fundament al principle of interpreting the Bible correctly is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Every verse should be interpreted against the broader
backdrop of what the entirety of Scripture teaches on a given subject..
It is noteworthy that the same Greek word used for worshiping the Father (proskuneo) is used of worshiping Christ throughout the New Testament. Jesus was worshiped by Thomas (John 20:28), angels (Heb. 1:6), wise men (Matthew 2:11), a leper (Matt. 8:2), a ruler (Matt. 9:18), a blind man (John 9:38), an anonymous woman (Matt. 15:25), Mary Magdalene (Matt. 28:9), and the disciples (Matt. 28:17). In the Book of Revelation, the worship the Father receives Book of Revelation, the worship the Father receives (4:10) is identical to that which Jesus receives (5:11-14).
Notice that Jesus never corrected His followers when they worshiped Him. He considered such worship as appropriate. That Jesus accepted worship says a lot about His true identity, for it is the consistent testimony of Scripture that only God can be worshiped (Exod. 34:14).
Objection 9: The New World Translation renders John 1:1, “The Word was a god”. “Because there is no definite article ‘the’ (ho) it means Christ is only a god, not the God”.9
Answering the Objection: To translate the Greek word for God (theos) as a god simply because it lacks a definite article demonstrates profound theological bias on the part of JWs. Professor Daniel Wallace, whose Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is used as a textbook at seminaries across the country, comments on how absurd the New World Translation would be if JWs consistently translated nouns with no definite articles as having an indefinite article:
It is interesting that the New World Translation renders theos as “a god” on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient basis. [Consistently following this principle] would mean that arche should be a “beginning” (1:1, 2), zoa should be “a life” (1:4), para theou should be “from a god” (1:6), Ioannes should be “a John” (1:6), theon should be “a god” (1:18), etc. Yet none of these other anarthrous [without definite article] nouns is rendered with an indefinite article. One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation.10
Based on his acclaimed expertise in the Greek, Wallace concludes that John 1:1 indicates that “although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical.” Indeed, “the Word had all the attributes and qualities that ‘the God’ (of 1:1b) [that is, the Father] had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person”. Wallace suggests that the “construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.11
Defending the Deity of Christ and the Trinity Against the Jehovah’s Witnesses
Answering the Objection: A close examination of 1 Corinthians 11:3 shows it has nothing to do with superiority of one person over another; rather, it has to do with patterns of authority. Notice that Paul in this same verse says the man is the head of the woman, even though men and women are equal in their essential nature. They are both human and both are created in Gods image (Gen. 1:26-28). As well, they are said to be “one” in Christ (Gal. 3:28). These verses, taken with 1 Corinthians 11:3, show that equality of being and social hierarchy is not mutually exclusive. Even though men and women are equal in terms of their nature, nevertheless the man is in authority over the woman.
Likewise, Christ and the Father are equal in their divine being, though Jesus is functionally under the Father’s headship (1 Cor . 11:3). There is no contradiction in affirming both an equality of being and a functional subordination among the persons in the Godhead.
Objection 6: Since Jesus is the “beginning” of God’s creation (Rev. 3:14), it is obvious he is a creature.6
Answering the Objection: Though the word arche in Revelation 3:14 can mean “beginning”, the word is unique and also carries the important active meaning of “one who begins”, “origin”, “source”, “creator”, or “first cause”. Evangelical scholars agree this is the intended meaning in Revelation 3:14. The English word architect is derived from arche. We might say Jesus is the architect of all creation (John 1:3; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2).
It is noteworthy that the only other times arche is used in the Book of Revelation relate to God as “the beginning and the end” (Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:13). Certainly the use of arche with God Almighty does not mean He had a created beginning. Instead, these verses communicate that God is both the beginner and the consummation of creation. He is the first cause of creation; He is its final goal. The word arche is used of Jesus in the same sense in Revelation 3:14.
Objection 7: Since Jesus was “brought forth” to participate in creation (Prov. 8:22-23), he must be a created being.7
Answering the Objection: Proverbs 8:22-23 does not refer to Jesus. Notice that the first nine chapters of Proverbs deal with wisdom personified. A personification is a rhetorical figure of speech in which inanimate objects or abstractions are endowed with human qualities or are represented as possessing human form. In Proverbs 1-9, wisdom is figuratively endowed with human qualities. With this backdrop in mind, it is critical to recognize that there is no indication that Proverbs 8 is to be taken any differently than chapters 1 through 7 and 9.
This being so, if we take Proverbs 8:22 to be speaking literally about Christ, we must also assume that Christ is a woman crying in the streets (1:20-21) who lives with someone named “Prudence” (8:12). Proverbs 1-9 makes no sense if one tries to read Christ into the text. Proverbs 8:22-23 is simply speaking metaphorically of Gods eternal wisdom and how it was “brought forth” (v. 24) to take part in the creation of the universe.
Objection 8: Jesus taught that only the Father is to be worshipped (John 4:23). Christ should be shown only “obeisance”.8
Answering the Objection: In affirming that true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth (John 4:23), Jesus was not saying that He Himself should not be worshiped as well. A fundament al principle of interpreting the Bible correctly is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Every verse should be interpreted against the broader
backdrop of what the entirety of Scripture teaches on a given subject..
It is noteworthy that the same Greek word used for worshiping the Father (proskuneo) is used of worshiping Christ throughout the New Testament. Jesus was worshiped by Thomas (John 20:28), angels (Heb. 1:6), wise men (Matthew 2:11), a leper (Matt. 8:2), a ruler (Matt. 9:18), a blind man (John 9:38), an anonymous woman (Matt. 15:25), Mary Magdalene (Matt. 28:9), and the disciples (Matt. 28:17). In the Book of Revelation, the worship the Father receives Book of Revelation, the worship the Father receives (4:10) is identical to that which Jesus receives (5:11-14).
Notice that Jesus never corrected His followers when they worshiped Him. He considered such worship as appropriate. That Jesus accepted worship says a lot about His true identity, for it is the consistent testimony of Scripture that only God can be worshiped (Exod. 34:14).
Objection 9: The New World Translation renders John 1:1, “The Word was a god”. “Because there is no definite article ‘the’ (ho) it means Christ is only a god, not the God”.9
Answering the Objection: To translate the Greek word for God (theos) as a god simply because it lacks a definite article demonstrates profound theological bias on the part of JWs. Professor Daniel Wallace, whose Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics is used as a textbook at seminaries across the country, comments on how absurd the New World Translation would be if JWs consistently translated nouns with no definite articles as having an indefinite article:
It is interesting that the New World Translation renders theos as “a god” on the simplistic grounds that it lacks the article. This is surely an insufficient basis. [Consistently following this principle] would mean that arche should be a “beginning” (1:1, 2), zoa should be “a life” (1:4), para theou should be “from a god” (1:6), Ioannes should be “a John” (1:6), theon should be “a god” (1:18), etc. Yet none of these other anarthrous [without definite article] nouns is rendered with an indefinite article. One can only suspect strong theological bias in such a translation.10
Based on his acclaimed expertise in the Greek, Wallace concludes that John 1:1 indicates that “although the person of Christ is not the person of the Father, their essence is identical.” Indeed, “the Word had all the attributes and qualities that ‘the God’ (of 1:1b) [that is, the Father] had. In other words, he shared the essence of the Father, though they differed in person”. Wallace suggests that the “construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.11
Defending the Deity of Christ and the Trinity Against the Jehovah’s Witnesses
Last edited:
Tertullian is a unitarian. For him to become a trinitarian he would have to convert.
Tertullian falls within the transition period of Church history.
Tertullian is a unitarian. For him to become a Jewish monotheist he would have to convert.
Tertullian is a heretic by the standard of trinitarianism and by the standard of Jewish monotheism; not by the standard of unitarianism.
Even so, I recommend his writings to all audiences. Few, outside of academia, will bother to read them. I never heard his name so much as mentioned in a sermon or Sunday School class in my time as a Southern Baptist. No wonder.
You said Origen was a heretic too, but according to who? The Catholic Church? You and I are probably heretics too.
- Status
Similar threads
