The Doctrine of the Trinity, Part 3 of 3

Posted by Michael Bunker
editor@lazarusunbound.com

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7)

 

September 22, 2003 – We have progressed through this study on the Trinity of God, in a way that might seem backwards to some.  Rather than defend the doctrine in the usual way, with doctrinal statements and copious footnotes, we hoped to begin our defense FIRST by proving that the Trinity has to be true from every other level of truth and experience.  We examined the “always wasness” of the persons of the Trinity, and we examined in depth the agencies that the Godhead performs on our behalf today.  We hold that the Trinity doctrine is true, not just because historical scholarship says it is true, or because it is patently Biblical, or because it has been the orthodox belief of God’s true church throughout antiquity; we believe that the Trinity doctrine is TRUE TRUTH in that it is both true and rational.  It explains our reality as personal man, and it gives glory to our God, confounds the wicked, and humbles the prideful.

 

Now that we have explained the reality of this great doctrine in a way that we pray glorifies God and humbles men, it is time to put forth our doctrinal defense of the Trinity, so that those who still hold out objections will be fully silenced in the face of God’s awesome truth.

 

WHY A STUDY OF THIS DOCTRINE IS CRITICAL!

 

A Biblical study of the Doctrine of the Trinity exposes almost all of those who are participants in, or recruiters for, the last day’s cults.  The list of anti-christian cults who have made a religion out of attacking the Tri-Une nature of our Creator is long and getting longer day by day:

 

1.     Muslims

2.     Modern Jews

3.     Most “Messianic Jewish” cults, like the HRM (Hebrew Roots Movement)

4.     The Jehovah’s Witnesses

5.     The Mormons

6.     The UPC (United Pentacostal Church) and “Oneness Pentacostals”

7.     Most Seventh Day Adventists

8.     Arians (Unitarians, The Way International, etc.)

 

All of these groups (using flawed reasoning, flawed theology and a flawed grasp of history) are now taunting true and orthodox Christians and what they call their “foolish belief in a mystical three-part creator”.  Their job is made easier by the ignorance and laziness of most people who claim to be Christians.  The very fact that this battle has been fought (and won) for over 1600 years means that there are truly millions of pages of properly studied and drafted apologetics on the Doctrine of the Trinity.  There are entire libraries of solid books written by giants of the faith from every generation of the Christian era, which solidly examine and prove this critical doctrine.  The truth of the nature of our thrice Holy God has been adequately defended by God’s true church for all time.  But still the wolves make headway.  They feed off of ignorance, intellectual entropy and laziness.

 

The well-proven fact that modern Anti-trinitarians misrepresent the facts of history in order to taint any truly biblical study of the matter only goes to prove their dishonesty and their willingness to twist the truth in order to sway the reader to their particular point of view.  The modern heretical views and arguments are deceptive, changeable and based on numerous flawed notions.  It is critical to understand the devices used to deceive the reader (or hearer) so that the MOTIVES of the accuser can be ascertained.  This is important to understand.  Once a “theologian” or teacher can be shown to have purposely lied, to have twisted the truth or obfuscated in order to prove a point that he evidently knows is either not true, or is biblically questionable, we should reject that teacher entirely, because his motives are poisoned, and he bears the marks of the wolf.

 

We will examine many of these failed arguments so that the reader can determine which position is derived from a study founded on pure motives, and which position is derived by carefully sculpting “facts” in order to draw away, deceive and destroy the Lord’s flock.

 

So let us examine two of the most used arguments against the Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity

 

I.                  THE WORD “TRINITY” IS NOT IN THE BIBLE

 

This is usually the first argument of the anti-trinitarian.  It is also the most obviously dishonest and self-serving of the anti-trinitarian claims.  For us, it is the most easily disassembled argument, and it should show the deceivers in their true light as agents of confusion and deception.

 

FACT:  Technically there are NO English words in the Bible.

 

The Bible was written in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.  Not one single English word existed in the original copies.  However, the translation that we use, the King James Bible, does not have the word TRINITY plainly in it.  Why is that?  Because the DOCTRINE of the Trinity is a DOCTRINE!  Surprised?  A doctrine is something taught as a body of principles, a dogma, a system of belief proclaimed by a particular group or sect.  Christians teach the Doctrine of the Trinity as a DOCTRINE and not as a word.  Why do deceivers look for a doctrine by searching for a word?  Here are some other DOCTRINES that, according to the anti-trinitarions, must not be true, because the words cannot be found in the Bible:

 

1.     The Doctrine of the Ascension of Christ – The word “ascension” is not found anywhere in the Bible.

2.     The Doctrine of the Incarnation – The word “incarnation” is not found in the Bible.

3.     The words Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience cannot be found in the Bible, so anti-trinitarians must necessarily deny these attributes of God too.

 

Because the word “ascencion” is not in the Bible, does that mean that Christ did not ascend into heaven?  According to John 3:13, John 6:22, John 20:17, Acts 2:34, Ephesians 4:8-10, Jesus clearly ascended into heaven.  Oftentimes, men and women of God have utilized the fullness and beauty of their language to explain Biblical concepts and doctrines to those who desire to learn.  Here we see where the anti-trinitarians are being dishonest in their accusations, and immediately we should suspect that their motives might not be pure.

 

SO, WHERE DO WE GET “TRINITY”?

 

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” (1 John 5:7)

 

Webster’s Dictionary defines “Trinity” as:  “a group of THREE in UNITY”.

 

UNITY is defined as: “The state of being united into a whole”.

 

Now, these are Webster’s definitions not those of the Bible or mine in particular, but clearly using the accepted definitions in the English language of English words, we see that “these three are one” is the very dictionary  definition of “Trinity”.  More than that, the term Trinity came about because of the description by the early Church of the very nature of our God.  They believed that “TRI-UNE”, meant THREE are ONE.  Now this word “TRI-UNE” or “THREE are ONE” is a word for word literal translation of what the Bible says about the nature of God, so the early church spoke of the TRI-UNITY of God, which is the basis for the word TRINITY.  We will get into some of the other deceptions of anti-trinitarians, but you can now see how dishonest they really are.  The Bible says, “These Tri are Une”, which is to say Trinity.  So the Trinity is clearly in the Bible, and the anti-trinitarians KNOW that it is there.  If they did not know that it is in the Bible, then why would they have it taken out of most of the modern versions?

 

When a group or groups starts an attack with a blatantly deceptive lie, then we know that they cannot have truth as their motive.  They cannot have in mind serving your best interests, when they begin their story with a lie.  It is possible to reject the heretics out of hand at this point, but we will proceed.

 

II.               1 John 5:7 SHOULDN’T BE IN THE BIBLE

 

Once we have shown by the plain text of scripture that our enemies are liars, their next step is to change the Bible so that it does not say what they don’t want it to say.  The scoffers who have not yet bought adulterated Bibles (like the NIV, which has removed this verse) will point at 1 John 5:7 and say, “That verse was added by the translators and shouldn’t be in the Bible”.  Many of these groups, like the modern Judaizers and the Hebrew Roots Movement will claim that the King James Bible is an “Easter tainted, Catholic Bible”.  The “Oneness Pentacostals”, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the HRM, and the modern Arians all fall into this category.  It is not my intent right now to go into a defense of the King James Bible.  Abler men and women than me have already done that successfully, however, it is our intention to defend the Word of God, so that we can examine the basis of this faulty accusation.

 

WHY 1 John 5:7-8 BELONGS IN YOUR BIBLE

 

Remember that it is the way of heretics and cultists to throw 20 or so objections against a particular doctrine out there, hoping any one of them will stick.  These people operate with a standard that is completely opposite of a right, honest and Biblical standard.  If a heretic gives me 20 reasons that he has rejected the Trinity, and I quickly disprove the first 19, showing that most of them were not intellectually honest objections in the first place, rather they were attempts to deceive, the heretic will STILL hold on to all hope, in that his 20th reason has not yet been adequately handled.  This is to say that it is not our job to refute every vain mental concoction of every heretic.  It will suffice that we prove our doctrine in most cases.

 

1 John 5:7-8, commonly called (because of the controversy) the “Johannine Comma”, is the most attacked and hated verse in the entire Bible.  MOST of the new Bible versions, with the exception of the NKJV do not have 1 John 5:7 in them.  Anti-trinitarians like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Unitarians reject the inclusion of 1 John 5:7 in the Bible, because they claim it is an erroneous addition, diabolically added to the scriptures in the 4th and 5th centuries by evil (but anonymous) men.  Let us examine this theory, and as each of the objections falls, take note how the anti-trinitarians gnash their teeth.

 

SEVEN TESTS OF NEW TESTAMENT CRITICISM

 

While translation tricksters like Westcott and Hort, were traveling the world examining “new and better” manuscripts, a man named John W. Burgon, Dean of Chichester and professer at Oxford took the time to examine the same manuscripts.  Burgon found that the texts used by most of the “new translations” were spurious at best.  Burgon set down we he called the “Seven Tests of Truth for NT Criticism”.  Unlike Westcott and Hort, Burgon did not have a pre-existing bias against the Word of God.  The test of canonicity for most liberal translators like Westcott and Hort was two-fold;  if the manuscript was recently found, and looked old – it must be better!   The modern condition of nominal Christianity in its perversity and liberality are testimonies to Mr. Westcott and Mr. Hort. We will examine 1 John 5:7 in light of the Burgon seven tests of canonicity, to determine whether or not this important scripture should be in our Bible.  Remember, in the first two sections of this study, we have not even examined this principle proof text.  We have proven the Doctrine sufficiently without it.  The Doctrine of the Trinity is true even without a single Bible verse.  But we believe that the entire Bible supports our position, and that is what we intend to prove.

 

1)     Antiquity, or Primitiveness

2)     Consent of Witnesses or Number

3)     Variety of evidence, or Catholicity (universal acceptance)

4)     Respectability of Witnesses, or Weight

5)     Continuity, or Unbroken Tradition

6)     Evidence of the entire passage, or Context

7)     Internal considerations, or Reasonableness

 

ANTIQUITY

 

Just because a manuscript is old, does not mean that it is good.  Some of the worst heresies ever to face the church existed in the first century, confronted Paul, and are even mentioned in the Bible.  The fact that a manuscript is old, does not ALONE give it weight, and because of this fact, most of the “latest, but newest” manuscripts to be found should be rejected.  Heresies grew as the church grew, and some of the most heinous heresies sprouted up as tares in the Lord’s field along with the wheat.  What Burgon looked for was not the earliest DOCUMENT, but the earliest READING – that way, the value or weight of the witnesses of the document could bear on the canonicity of it.  Here are some sources that prove the Antiquity of this verse:

 

1)     200 a.d.  Tertullian quotes the verse

2)     250 a.d.  Cyprian quotes the verse

3)     350 a.d.  Priscillian cites the verse

4)     415 a.d.  Council of Carthage cites the verse in defending against the errors of the Arians.

5)     500 a.d.  Cassiodorus cites the verse

6)     750 a.d.  Wianburgensis cites the verse

7)     800 a.d.  Jerome’s Vulgate contains the verse

8)     1200-1400 a.d.  All the Waldensian Bibles have the verse

 

It is clear that from the earliest times, the verse has been extant and utilized by God’s servants.  Burgon points out that the manuscripts used by many of these early Fathers, were likely quite older than the ones now used by “textual critics” – but the critics, it seems, are not after truth.  Instead, they desire to subvert faith.  The Antiquity of the verse is solid.

 

CONSENT OF THE WITNESSES

 

This is not a basic “majority rule” test.  The test is not on who can produce the most witnesses, because the Bible that we are testing states that MOST will reject it and attack it.  But, there are at least 25 (according to Burgon) verifiable early witnesses to the presence of this scripture in the readings of the earliest church, that fact alone, added to the rest of the tests, tends towards its universal acceptance.

 

VARIETY OF THE EVIDENCE

 

Burgon says, “Speaking generally, the consistent testimony of two, four, six, or more witnesses, coming to us from widely sundered regions is weightier by far than the same number of witnesses proceeding from the same locality, between whom there probably exists some sort of sympathy, and possibly some degree of collusion.”  The witnesses to this text, include those in Asia Minor, Southern Europe, North Africa and in Italy.

 

CONTINUITY

 

The Biblical reading of 1 John 5:7 in the above texts appears consistently from 200 a.d. to 1500 a.d., before the texts that later formed the KJV were compiled.

 

RESPECTABILITY OF THE WITNESSES

 

Burgon says, “Respectability is of course a relative term, but its use and applicability to this department of science will be generally understood and admitted by scholars, although they may not be altogether agreed as to their authorities.”  Tertullian, Cyprian, Athanasius, the Waldensians and others included and accepted this text, and most of these are accepted as respectable authorities by most objective readers.  The Waldensians, in particular, have a history which exists entirely outside of the Catholic Church, and therefore their acceptance of this text lends credence to our argument that there was no “late tampering” or adding to the text of 1st John.

 

CONTEXT

 

This test does not so much examine the applicability of the verse within it’s biblical surroundings, but asks whether the witnesses accepted the accuracy and soundness of the entire context of the document they were examining, or if the document or section of scripture was under doubt or was considered corrupted.  Burgon states, “As regards the precise form of language employed, it will be found also a salutary safeguard against error in every instance, to inspect with severe critical exactness the entire context of the passage in dispute.  If in certain Codexes that context shall prove to be confessedly in a very corrupt state, then it becomes self-evident that those Codexes can only be admitted as witnesses with considerable suspicion and reserve.”  The witnesses in question exhibit their trust that this section of scripture is authentic.

 

INTERNAL CONSIDERATIONS

 

John uniquely referred to his Savior as “The Word”.  If this verse was mysteriously added (as is alleged) by the Catholic Church in order to prove the Trinity, then why would it not use the Roman verbage (The Father, The SON and the Holy Spirit)?  This word usage is particularly Johannine, and therefore this fact must be considered along with the rest of the evidence.  Greek grammar also mandates the inclusion of 1 John 5:7, because without it, the masculine “witnesses” in verse 7, which are defined in terms of 3 neuter nouns (Spirit, Water, Blood), which is horrible Greek syntax.

 

So in every case case, we see that the King James Bible inclusion of 1 John 5:7 is correct.  So why would anti-trinitarians twist and lie to support their own position?  Because they are grievous wolves who have desired to feast on God’s precious flock.

 

ARIUS AND THE ARIAN CONSPIRACY

 

Although anti-trinitarianism existed among the Jews during the first century, and is exhibited by those Pharisees and Scribes who attacked Jesus, the rise of Anti-trinitarianism as a serious religious cult, began at the time of Arius.

 

Arius was a Roman living in the 4th century who proposed that

 

a) Jesus was more God than humans, but less God than God

b) the Trinity was a fabrication, and

c) Jesus and God were two completely separate entities.

 

Every theology that denies Christ’s deity is properly called Arianism, but Arius cannot be truthfully considered the fountainhead of all of these different belief systems.  Arius believed that God could never touch or deal with anything that is not absolutely perfect.  Since only God is perfect, that means that God can in no way interact with the world of created things.  So, according to Arius, God created Jesus so that Jesus could create the world, the kosmos and all created things.  In this understanding, Jesus is “close to God” in that He is a higher created being, but He is not actually God.  So Arians will admit that Jesus is “the creator” of the heavens and the earth, while still slyly denying His deity.  What Arius never addressed, I guess, was the conflict in his thesis.  If God was too Godly to touch anything that was not Him, and therefore He cannot have created the heavens and the earth… then how does adding one created intermediary solve the problem?  According to this theory God is too Holy to create the earth, but NOT too Holy to create Jesus?  Adding one degree of separation does not solve the conflict.  What is evident is that Arianism is one more attempt to demote Christ and confuse God’s sheep.

 

The early church, rightfully declared that Arius was a heretic and excommunicated him in 325 a.d.   Some time after that, Arius began a campaign to be re-accepted into the church, and to clean up his spotted name.  This attempt was ultimately unsuccessful, although Arianism survives and thrives in the cults of America today.

 

The following is quoted from “A Letter to Serapion, Concerning the Death of Arius”.

 

“I was not at Constantinople when he died, but Macarius the Presbyter was, and I heard the account of it from him. Arius had been invited by the Emperor Constantine, through the interest of Eusebius and his fellows; and when he entered the presence the Emperor enquired of him, whether he held the Faith of the Catholic Church? And he declared upon oath that he held the right Faith, and gave in an account of his Faith in writing, suppressing the points for which he had been cast out of the Church by the Bishop Alexander, and speciously alleging expressions out of the Scriptures. When therefore he swore that he did not profess the opinions for which Alexander had excommunicated him, [the Emperor] dismissed him, saying, `If thy Faith be right, thou hast done well to swear; but if thy Faith be impious, and thou hast sworn, God judge of thee according to thy oath.' When he thus came forth from the presence of the Emperor, Eusebius and his fellows, with their accustomed violence, desired to bring him into the Church. But Alexander, the Bishop of Constantinople of blessed memory, resisted them, saying that the inventor of the heresy ought not to be admitted to communion; whereupon Eusebius and his fellows threatened, declaring, `As we have caused him to be invited by the Emperor, in opposition to your wishes, so to-morrow, though it be contrary to your desire, Arius shall have communion with us in this Church.' It was the Sabbath when they said this.  When the Bishop Alexander heard this, he was greatly distressed, and entering into the church, he stretched forth his hands unto God, and bewailed himself; and casting himself upon his face in the chancel, he prayed, lying upon the pavement. Macarius also was present, and prayed with him, and heard his words. And he besought these two things, saying, `If Arius is brought to communion to-morrow, let me Thy servant depart, and destroy not the pious with the impious; but if Thou wilt spare Thy Church (and I know that Thou wilt spare), look upon the words of Eusebius and his fellows, and give not thine inheritance to destruction and reproach, and take off Arius, lest if he enter into the Church, the heresy also may seem to enter with him, and henceforward impiety be accounted for piety.' When the Bishop had thus prayed, he retired in great anxiety; and a wonderful and extraordinary circumstance took place. While Eusebius and his fellows threatened, the Bishop prayed; but Arius, who had great confidence in Eusebius and his fellows, and talked very wildly, urged by the necessities of nature withdrew, and suddenly, in the language of Scripture, `falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst,' and immediately expired as he lay, and was deprived both of communion and of his life together.”

 

Acts 1:18 tells us that Judas, who denied and treasonously betrayed Christ died in a similar manner.  Let that be a lesson to those who would demote our Lord, although I am certain that the eternal state of Judas and Arius will be far more horrible than was the manner of their deaths.

 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

 

So let us state for you the truth of the Doctrine of the Trinity.  I will use for your edification, the London Baptist Confession of Faith from 1689 along with scripture proofs:

 

Of God and of the Holy Trinity

 

The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; who is immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, every way infinite, most holy, most wise, most free, most absolute; working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will for his own glory; most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him, and withal most just and terrible in his judgments, hating all sin, and who will by no means clear the guilty.  (1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Deuteronomy 6:4; Jeremiah 10:10; Isaiah 48:12; Exodus 3:14; John 4:24; 1 Timothy 1:17; Deuteronomy 4:15, 16; Malachi 3:6; 1 Kings 8:27; Jeremiah 23:23; Psalms 90:2; Genesis 17:1; Isaiah 6:3; Psalms 115:3; Isaiah 46:10; Proverbs 16:4; Romans 11:36; Exodus 34:6, 7; Hebrews 11:6; Nehemiah 9:32, 33; Psalms 5:5, 6; Exodus 34:7; Nahum 1:2, 3)

 

God, having all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself, is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creature which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things, and he hath most sovereign dominion over all creatures, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth; in his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain; he is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands; to him is due from angels and men, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience, as creatures they owe unto the Creator, and whatever he is further pleased to require of them.  (John 5:26; Psalms 148:13; Psalms 119:68; Job 22:2, 3; Romans 11:34-36; Daniel 4:25, 34, 35; Hebrews 4:13; Ezekiel 11:5; Acts 15:18; Psalms 145:17; Revelation 5:12-14)

 

In this divine and infinite Being there are three subsistences, the Father, the Word or Son, and Holy Spirit, of one substance, power, and eternity, each having the whole divine essence, yet the essence undivided: the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son; all infinite, without beginning, therefore but one God, who is not to be divided in nature and being, but distinguished by several peculiar relative properties and personal relations; which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him.  (1 John 5:7; Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; Exodus 3:14; John 14:11; 1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:14,18; John 15:26; Galatians 4:6)

 

We are convinced, not by witty inventions or cunningly devised fables, but by the fullness of God’s Word and by the ample proofs available in all that God has created, that God exists eternally in Tri-Unity, and that the Trinity of God is a wonderful, beautiful, reasonable mystery, and that God has given us evidences so numerous of His wonderful nature, that to deny this Doctrine is alone sufficient to cause the denier to be fundamentally NON-Christian.

 

We have reached the end of this examination of God’s beautiful and unchangeable character.  We are left with plentiful benefits and wondrous blessings for having rightly consulted God and His Word in our endeavor.

 

God exists.  He is and He has spoken to us.  Let us all be more diligent in heeding the fullness of His message to us.

 

I remain your servant in Christ Jesus,

 

Michael Bunker