Unitarianism vs Trinitarianism

[RLT63]

Answering JW Objections to the Trinity

Having answered JW objections to the deity of Christ, and having made a positive presentation of the doctrine, one can then proceed to answer JW objections against the doctrine of the Trinity:

Objection 1: The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible.

Answering the Objection: Though the word Trinity is not in the Bible, the concept is clearly derived from Scripture (see “Positive Presentation of the Trinity” below). The same is true of many other theological terms, including Bible and theocracy. One can also point out to JWs that the word Jehovah does not appear as such in any legitimate Hebrew or Greek manuscript s of the Bible. The word was originally formed by superstitious Jewish scribes who joined the consonant s YHWH (which is a biblical word) with the vowels from Adonai. The result was Yahowah, or Jehovah. The point is that if you reject the doctrine of the Trinity because the word does not appear in the Bible, then by that same logic the doctrine of Jehovah must be considered false since this term does not appear in the Bible.

Objection 2: The doctrine of the Trinity is derived from paganism.

Answering the Objection: The Babylonians and Assyrians believed in triads of gods who headed up a pantheon of many other gods. These triads constituted three separate gods (polytheism), which is utterly different from the doctrine of the Trinity, which maintains that there is only one God (monotheism) with three persons within the one Godhead.

It is interesting to note that pagans taught the concept of a great flood that killed much of humankind. The pagans also taught the idea of a messiah-like figure named Tammuz who was resurrected. Hence, if JWs were consistent, they would have to reject the flood, the Messiah, and his resurrection as pagan doctrines. The point is, simply because pagans spoke of a concept remotely resembling something found in Scripture does not mean the concept was stolen from pagans.

Objection 3: God is not a God of confusion (1 Cor. 14:33), and hence the confusing doctrine of the Trinity cannot be true.12

Answering the Objection: First Corinthians 14:33 is speaking not about confusing doctrine but confusing practices. Paul is dealing with the proper exercise of spiritual gifts. His point is that because God is not a God of confusion, the Corinthians should make every effort to end the confusion in their church services resulting from too many people speaking in tongues resulting from too many people speaking in tongues and giving prophecies at the same time (see vv.27-30). Contextually, the verse has nothing to do with the Trinity.



Positive Presentation of the Trinity
After answering JW objections to the doctrine of the Trinity, it is important to make a positive presentation of the doctrine. The doctrine of the Trinity is based on three lines of evidence: (1) evidence that there is only one true God; (2) evidence that there are three persons who are God; and (3) evidence that indicates three-in-oneness within the Godhead.

1. There Is One God. The fact that there is only one true God is the consistent testimony of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation. God positively affirmed through Isaiah the prophet: “I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God” (Isa. 44:6). God also said, “I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me” (46:9; see also John 5:44; 17:3; Rom. 3:29-30; 16:27; 1 Cor. 8:4; Gal. 3:20; Eph. 4:6; 1 Tim. 2:5; and Jas. 2:19).
2. There Are Three Persons Who Are Called God:

• The Father Is God: Peter refers to the saints who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father (1 Peter 1:2).
• Jesus Is God: The Father said of the Son, ‘Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever…”(Heb.1:8; see also Isa.9:6; Matt. 1:23; Titus 2:13; Phil. 2:6).
• The Holy Spirit Is God: In Acts 5:3-4, we are told that lying to the Holy Spirit is equivalent to lying to God (see also 1 Cor. 6:11; Ps.139:7-10).

Moreover, each of the three persons on different occasions is seen to possess the attributes of deity:

• Omnipresent: Father (Matthew 19:26), Son (Matt. 28:18), and Holy Spirit (Ps. 139:7).
• Omniscient: Father (Rom. 11:33), Son (Matt. 9:4), and Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10).
• Omnipotent: Father (1 Peter 1:5), Son (Matt. 28:18), and Holy Spirit (Rom. 15:19).
• Holy: Father (Rev. 15:4), Son (Acts 3:14), and Holy Spirit (John 16:7-14).
• Eternal: Father (Ps. 90:2), Son (Mic.5:2; John 1:2; Rev. 1:8,17), and Holy Spirit (Heb. 9:14).

1. There Is Three-in-Oneness in the Godhead. Matthew 28:19 reads: “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” (italics added). The word name is singular in the Greek, indicating one God, but three distinct persons within the Godhead are indicated by the three definite articles: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (see also 2 Cor. 13:14).

You will likely encounter further objections from JWs on these doctrines. As well, various other Bible verses may be cited to “prove” the Trinity is a false doctrine. My book, Reasoning from the Scriptures with Jehovah’s Witnesses , can help you with these, as well as provide plenteous information on the personality and deity of the Holy Spirit, which should further equip you to argue in favor of the Trinity with a JW.



Ron Rhodes (Th.D., Dallas Theological Seminary) is the president of Reasoning from the Scriptures Ministries. He is the author of numerous books, including Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah’s Witnesses (Harvest House).

 

[Matthias]

You said Origen was a heretic too, but according to who? The Catholic Church? You and I are probably heretics too.

I dread reading Origen. Your link which mentioned his view on the Demiurge brings back Tertullian’s writing against the Valentinians, who loved the Demiurge. Nevertheless, for those who are interested in the history of trinitarianism, Origen is a “must read”. Trinitarianism wouldn’t exist in Church history without his contributions.

To the question of who is a heretic: Everyone is someone’s heretic.

The only “someone” whose opinion on that score matters to me is someone who is himself a Jewish monotheist - the Nazarene.

The alternative set before us is plain: His God or another.

 

[marks]

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 "Royal 'we'" is something that man does.

We could assume that He is speaking in the sloppy and inaccurate ways of men, or we could assume He is speaking with truth and integrity.

Which should we suppose of a Holy God?

Much love!

 

[Matthias]

You said Origen was a heretic too, but according to who?

Do you think Origen is a heretic?

Do you think Origen isn’t a heretic?

Are you unsure whether Origen is or isn’t a heretic?

 

[RLT63]

Do you think Origen is a heretic?

Do you think Origen isn’t a heretic?

Are you unsure whether Origen is or isn’t a heretic?

The things that I read about Origen somewhere in the distant past (and vaguely remember) seem not to be true. I would have to read more of his writings before making such a judgement.

 

[RLT63]

Do you think Origen is a heretic?

Do you think Origen isn’t a heretic?

Are you unsure whether Origen is or isn’t a heretic?

You seem to be going through an identity crisis with your avatar.

 

[Matthias]

The things that I read about Origen somewhere in the distant past (and vaguely remember) seem not to be true. I would have to read more of his writings before making such a judgement.

That’s a wise answer.

I, of course, have no idea what you read about him or which of his writings that you’ve read.

I presume you were required to read him in school. I was. Of all of the Ante Nicene Fathers I had to read, Origen was easily my least favorite.

The Catholics did well in identifying him as a heretic. [Most Protestants don’t know what he wrote and don’t care.] What they did to his body was unconscionable.

 

[Matthias]

You seem to be going through an identity crisis with your avatar.

I’m making a point - King David - to someone who unwisely takes me for a fool. It’s temporary. (The avatar. We’ll see about the condition of the unwise person.)

 

[RLT63]

That’s a wise answer.

I, of course, have no idea what you read about him or which of his writings that you’ve read.

I presume you were required to read him in school. I was. Of all of the Ante Nicene Fathers I had to read, Origen was easily my least favorite.

The Catholics did well in identifying him as a heretic. [Most Protestants don’t know what he wrote and don’t care.] What they did to his body was unconscionable.

My college education in Biblical Studies was from a conservative Baptist seminary by correspondence. We didn't read Origen. I remembered him from anti JW literature that I read a long time ago

 

[Matthias]

My college education in Biblical Studies was from a conservative Baptist seminary by correspondence. We didn't read Origen. I remembered him from anti JW literature that I read a long time ago

Did you read other Ante Nicene Fathers, or was your education concentrated in other areas?

 

[RLT63]

Did you read other Ante Nicene Fathers, or was your education concentrated in other areas?

It was all Bible. No Church Fathers. And it didn't help me much with youth ministry, except with Sunday school.

 

[Matthias]

It was all Bible.

No Church Fathers

Church history was a point of some emphasis in mine, but I don’t think that comes as a new revelation to you. I obtained a BTh degree, which was the extent of my interest in formal theological education. The reading at that level of education isn’t particularly intense. We hit the high spots in the early Church Fathers and moved on. I would call it a survey. I’ve done more reading of them on my own than I ever did in school.

 

[RLT63]

Church history was a point of some emphasis in mine, but I don’t think that comes as a new revelation to you. I obtained a BTh degree, which was the extent of my interest in formal theological education. The reading at that level of education isn’t particularly intense. We hit the high spots in the early Church Fathers and moved on. I would call it a survey. I’ve done more reading of them on my own than I ever did in school.

I had to do a commentary on the book of Joshua. The courses I took helped with Sunday school. They appointed someone as administrator over Sunday school at my Church and he wanted a copy of whatever book we were using. I gave him a Bible

 

[Matthias]

I had to do a commentary on the book of Joshua. The courses I took helped with Sunday school.

That’s a good thing.

They appointed someone as administrator over Sunday school at my Church and he wanted a copy of whatever book we were using. I gave him a Bible

That’s an awesome thing! Well done.

 

[Wrangler]

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.

What you are referring to is not in dispute; Jesus is OF GOD. This proves he is NOT God.

If Jesus were God the text would say so. It wouldn't say he is OF GOD.

 

[RLT63]

What you are referring to is not in dispute; Jesus is OF GOD. This proves he is NOT God.

If Jesus were God the text would say so. It wouldn't say he is OF GOD.

Now you've changed your answer three times. First you said it wasn't about seeing God then you said Jesus was not in the verse. Post #64 and #67

 

[Matthias]

“Like Irenaeus, Tertullian taught that there is a Trinity for the purpose of revelation only. After all has been accomplished, the distinction between the persons will cease.”

(J.L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1, p. 94)

A position expressly prohibited by the (later) doctrine of the Trinity.

 

[Wrangler]

Now you've changed your answer three times. First you said it wasn't about seeing God then you said Jesus was not in the verse. Post #64 and #67

LOL In post #67, I gave for reasons to oppose trinitarianism. Sometimes I focus on one answer or another, never claiming to give a comprehensive answer. Scripture says explicitly that Jesus is the son of god. That's good enough for me. It does not say he is God. Why is that not good enough for you?

 

[Wrangler]

Answering JW Objections to the Trinity

Is it true that the only denomination that rejects the trinity is JW?

 

[Wrangler]

Objection 1: The word “Trinity” is not in the Bible.

Strawman. To be clear, when I write that the trinity is not found anywhere in Scripture, I mean that neither the word nor the concept of the trinity is explicitly in the Bible. To avoid the inevitable Appeal to Strawman, there simply is no verse that reads something like The nature of God is a trinity - consisting of the Father, Son & Holy Spirit who are co-equal, co-substantial and co-eternal - and if you do not believe this, you cannot be saved but are damned to hell forever.