Trinity vs. Oneness

[charisenexcelcis]

I have to say...I'm fairly confident that you are good enough as a hermeneutic and theologian to recognize that when there is only one verse upon which to base a doctrine (baptism in the triune name), one has to be VERY certain about that verse. I believe that the vast majority of the time you yourself would not take a dogmatic stand on such a doctrine (one having only one verse of support), since the scriptural evidence is so thin. What's more, if there is ANY legitmate reason to question whether the verse itself is even original, I'm positive that in 100% of cases aside from this one, you would not take such a verse as the sole basis of any doctrine. So, either you have to say that baptism in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is not a doctrine about which one can be dogmatic, or you have to admit to being intellectually dishonest. I really think the evidence makes the matter that simple.

So, let's look at one of these "allusions":For those things which the prophets announced, saying, "Until He come for whom it is reserved, and He shall be the expectation of the Gentiles," have been fulfilled in the Gospel, [our Lord saying,] "Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Notice that it says "in the Gospel". Also notice that he includes the commandment to go and teach all nations. Now, when someone quotes something casually, they tend to shorten and simplify what was said. But in this case the formula is fully there. Now if the formula was not in Matthew, why would the casual quotation lengthen it from "In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ" to "In the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"?
Let's look at another: He said to them, "Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Notice again that we have the full quote, ascribed to Jesus, without any shortening or simplification.
Now there are five sources with ten quotations all earlier than the timeframe that you set.
So, let's consider what manuscript disagree. You say there are two. Two out of how many? Two out of thousands. I have not been able to locate two, but the one that I have located is Shem Tov's Matthew Hebrew Gospel, a translation of the gospel of Matthew into Hebrew.
This issue is complicated because there are no manuscripts of Matthew before the 4th century that have the 27th and 28th chapters. I am curious what two manuscripts you are refering to.
If the New Testament was unitarian in doctrine, you would be correct in saying that it is one verse, however, since the New Testament is trinitarian in doctrine, the formula is supported by those many trinitarian passages.
Now let's look at the passages in Acts:
You have four references to the baptismal formula, two to Jesus Christ and two to the Lord Jesus. None of them are quotations during the actual act of baptism.
Finally, there is the wording of the Matthew passage itself. The grammar clearly indicates that it is refering to three people. If it were refering to one it would say, "In the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit." Kind of like me saying, "I'm going to do a barrel roll, a back flip, and a belly flop. You understand because of the construction that these are going to be done in fairly quick order as one gymnastic routine. Now if I say, "I am here in the name of the lawyer and of the accountant and of the bank president" that I am refering to three persons because of the "of the" constructions before each name.
Now history is pretty clear that the trinitarian formula was the immediate standard of the church, so now we have the two possible scenarios.
The Oneness scenario:
1. That either Jesus never said what is recorded in Matt. 28:19 or that the cryptic singular refered to one person, that person being "the Lord Jesus Christ," in spite of the grammar.
2. That the apostles baptized in a establish formula of the Lord Jesus Christ. That the references to baptizing in the name of Jesus Christ actually meant the Lord Jesus Christ. That the references to baptizing in the name of the Lord Jesus actually meant the Lord Jesus Christ.
3. That immediately after the death of the apostles, the entire church turned from the oneness formula to the trinitarian formula.
4. That if Jesus didn't say this, Matthew 28:19 was added later.
5. That every other trinitarian statement in the New Testament is based upon this same misuderstanding as what we see in Matthew 28:19

The trinitarian scenario.
1. That Jesus commanded that we baptize in the Trinitarian formula.
2. That this is consistant with the other Trinitarian statements in the NT.
3. That either the apostles or the writer of Acts (Luke) were not concerned about the exact wording of the formula.
4. That as the Gospel of Matthew circulated in the early church, the trinitarian formula became the standard.

 

[distinctiveministry]

The first example you cite is Eusebius, written after the council of Nicaea. Interestingly, in every pre-Nicaean quote of Matthew 28:19 Eusebius quotes the verse as "in my name". Only AFTER THE COUNCIL settled the matter of Trinitarian doctrine does he quote it in the manner you identified. Either you're being deceptive or you didn't adequately research that one.

The second quotation you share is such a short fragment of whatever source you used that I cannot identify who wrote it or when. It's useless as a point in this discussion until you identify the source.

You then say that I said there are two manuscripts that disagree with the traditional reading. When did I ever say there were two? Oh, right. I didn't. And you act like you are pretty much directly quoting me there. That's deceptive.

After that, you yourself point out the lack of manuscript evidence for Matthew 27 and 28 until around the time that, conveinently, councils laid out as dogma that God is a trinity. Why you don't find it troubling that you rely on one verse with no early manuscript attestation as the sole basis of a crucial doctrine is strange to me. You assert that the whole of the NT is trinitarian, but this very idea is exactly what is being debated in this thread and clearly it is possible to have a vital understanding of the NT without coming to trinitarian conclusions.

You point out that there are four references to "baptism" and "name" in Acts, and that each time only one name is given, Jesus the Christ. The fact that none of them are quotations from the actual act of baptism means little, since the instruction given to the baptismal candidates at the time of the events recorded AND to the recipient of the book of Acts is only to baptize in Jesus' name. There is REAL evidence in Acts of baptism in Jesus name, and NO evidence of baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You discount it because you can't face the truth.

Finally you return to the Matthew passage itself, and give an analogy to support your position. Yet your analogy cannot wash away so easily the fact that the version of Matthew you favor isn't adequately supported either scripturally or historically prior to the advent of official dogma concerning the trinity.

You are plainly refusing to deal with facts that undermine your continued reliance upon Matthew 28:19 as a cornerstone for an otherwise unsustainable doctrine. The trinitarian baptismal formula has NO DIRECT EVIDENCE in scripture other than Matthew 28:19, while other possibilities have multiple instances of DIRECT scriptural evidence. Continue to be in denial as you like, but I think others who read this will be able to see how weak your position is.

 

[distinctiveministry]

Also, David, the "Oneness Scenario" you present is a straw man argument and you know it. You distort true Oneness beliefs or intentionally use the points of those who make weak arguments in order to knock down what others can be led to believe is true Oneness doctrine. That's a shame.

 

[Consumed]

Simply because the apostles don't take the time to construct a full-blown doctrine of the Trinity

they seem to have had a good revelation that "its all about Jesus" and not so much the doctrines of man. nether did Paul nor Peter go into such depth with the subject, this supports the above statement quoted

 

[charisenexcelcis]

The first example you cite is Eusebius, written after the council of Nicaea. Interestingly, in every pre-Nicaean quote of Matthew 28:19 Eusebius quotes the verse as "in my name". Only AFTER THE COUNCIL settled the matter of Trinitarian doctrine does he quote it in the manner you identified. Either you're being deceptive or you didn't adequately research that one.

The second quotation you share is such a short fragment of whatever source you used that I cannot identify who wrote it or when. It's useless as a point in this discussion until you identify the source.
First was Ignatius of Antioch (107-112). The second was Iranaeus (130-200)

You then say that I said there are two manuscripts that disagree with the traditional reading. When did I ever say there were two? Oh, right. I didn't. And you act like you are pretty much directly quoting me there. That's deceptive.
You said: " Furthermore, there are at least two KNOWN examples of textual alterations in the NT where the trinitarian formula was later ADDED by editors of the text."

After that, you yourself point out the lack of manuscript evidence for Matthew 27 and 28 until around the time that, conveinently, councils laid out as dogma that God is a trinity. Why you don't find it troubling that you rely on one verse with no early manuscript attestation as the sole basis of a crucial doctrine is strange to me. You assert that the whole of the NT is trinitarian, but this very idea is exactly what is being debated in this thread and clearly it is possible to have a vital understanding of the NT without coming to trinitarian conclusions.
If you want to call into question the crucifiction and resurrection story of Matthew. You would throw out the baby with the bathwater. There are no varients to speak of regarding the passage involved. Do you reject the entire last two chapters? If not, how would you differentiate that particular part?

You point out that there are four references to "baptism" and "name" in Acts, and that each time only one name is given, Jesus the Christ. The fact that none of them are quotations from the actual act of baptism means little, since the instruction given to the baptismal candidates at the time of the events recorded AND to the recipient of the book of Acts is only to baptize in Jesus' name. There is REAL evidence in Acts of baptism in Jesus name, and NO evidence of baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You discount it because you can't face the truth.
Actually, twice is Lord Jesus and twice is Jesus Christ. I don't discount it. I myself said that there does not appear to be a standard formula in Acts, but that when Matthew was circulated, that became the standard.

Finally you return to the Matthew passage itself, and give an analogy to support your position. Yet your analogy cannot wash away so easily the fact that the version of Matthew you favor isn't adequately supported either scripturally or historically prior to the advent of official dogma concerning the trinity.
There is no other version of Matthew 28:19. There is no textual variations of it. You can't just pick and choose. Do you accept that the story of the death and resurrection in Matthew 27 and 28 are valid? If so, you must also accept that the Matthew 28:19 verse is authentic.

You are plainly refusing to deal with facts that undermine your continued reliance upon Matthew 28:19 as a cornerstone for an otherwise unsustainable doctrine. The trinitarian baptismal formula has NO DIRECT EVIDENCE in scripture other than Matthew 28:19, while other possibilities have multiple instances of DIRECT scriptural evidence. Continue to be in denial as you like, but I think others who read this will be able to see how weak your position is.

I have shown that the trinity is taught by every NT writer save one. I have shown that what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 is grammatically refering to three persons. I have shown that there are 5 early authors who give 10 references to the Matthew passage. I have not claimed that the apostles originally used the formula, only that when Matthew was circulated, the words of our Lord became the standard formula.

You have failed to even look up the five writers. You have failed to produce a single manuscript of the NT that has any variation on Matthew's trinitarian formula. You have failed to deal with the simplist grammatical rules of Greek or English as applied to Matthew 28:19. You have failed to explain how the indirect references in Acts would override the word for word instructions of our Lord. You have attempted to decieve by trying to discount direct quotations simply because Matthew name isn't mention. You have claimed two sources and then accused me of deception when I asked you to name your two sources. You have attempted to present yourself as an authority on textual criticism when you do not know even the basics.

Your dogma needs better development. I would suggest that you begin with a simple book on Greek grammar and a simple book on the history of Christianity. I would also suggest that you become more widely read in your theology. Finally, I would suggest a comprehensive study of the New Testament, without accompanying guides.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

Also, David, the "Oneness Scenario" you present is a straw man argument and you know it. You distort true Oneness beliefs or intentionally use the points of those who make weak arguments in order to knock down what others can be led to believe is true Oneness doctrine. That's a shame.

The only weakness of the trinitarian view is the one that I noted, that the indirect references in Acts are not trinitarian.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Well stated.

Jesus Christ as God and the Trinity Was Not Invented Until the Fourth Century?

I have shown that the trinity is taught by every NT writer save one. I have shown that what Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 is grammatically refering to three persons. I have shown that there are 5 early authors who give 10 references to the Matthew passage. I have not claimed that the apostles originally used the formula, only that when Matthew was circulated, the words of our Lord became the standard formula.

You have failed to even look up the five writers. You have failed to produce a single manuscript of the NT that has any variation on Matthew's trinitarian formula. You have failed to deal with the simplist grammatical rules of Greek or English as applied to Matthew 28:19. You have failed to explain how the indirect references in Acts would override the word for word instructions of our Lord. You have attempted to decieve by trying to discount direct quotations simply because Matthew name isn't mention. You have claimed two sources and then accused me of deception when I asked you to name your two sources. You have attempted to present yourself as an authority on textual criticism when you do not know even the basics.

Your dogma needs better development. I would suggest that you begin with a simple book on Greek grammar and a simple book on the history of Christianity. I would also suggest that you become more widely read in your theology. Finally, I would suggest a comprehensive study of the New Testament, without accompanying guides.

 

[distinctiveministry]

David, the two known examples of textual alteration are 1 John 5:7-8 and 2 Cor 13:14. They demonstrate that some were willing to alter the original text in order to support, or as they would have put it, no doubt, "clarify" the doctrine of the trinity.

 

[distinctiveministry]

David, you have not SHOWN that every writer of the NT supports a trinitarian doctrine save one, you've just claimed it. Likewise, you have not SHOWN that 5 early writers in 10 examples support the Matthew text as we now have it, you've just claimed it.

I have studied koine Greek in a academic setting, thank you, and got good marks in all of my classes. Ditto for Christian history, which aside from studying in college, is my favorite reading for personal study and leisure.

Now here for the last time is my case against the traditional reading of Matthew 28:19

1. Patristic quotations of this verse prior to the Council of Nicaea read "in my name"
2. Scriptural examples of baptism uniformly document baptism done only in Jesus' name.
3. No other place in scripture prescribes, commands, or documents a trinitarian baptism.
4. As you noted, we have no manuscripts that testify to your reading of Matthew prior to Nicaea.
5. Scripture clearly teaches that baptism is the picture of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, which would explain why it is done in His name.
6. Without clear evidence that Matthew even belongs in the text, there is no reason to discuss either the Greek or the English grammar.

Any point taken alone probably proves nothing, even though each point is independently consequential. Taken together, however, it is clear that one would take Matthew 28 as the sole basis for baptism in the name of the trinity only because one has a preconceived bias that this is how it should be. Which is what you have, a preconceived bias and dogma that you feel required to defend no matter WHAT evidence exists to the contrary. Be honest, David, if you didn't have a dogma to defend, the evidence against basing any doctrine on such a tenuous verse would lead YOU to suggest it shouldn't happen. Good theology and good hermeneutics cannot accept trinitarian baptism without a preconceived dogma, at which point it is no longer good anyway.

 

[VW]

David, the two known examples of textual alteration are 1 John 5:7-8 and 2 Cor 13:14. They demonstrate that some were willing to alter the original text in order to support, or as they would have put it, no doubt, "clarify" the doctrine of the trinity.

I have searched to see who or what may have altered the texts above, and I cannot find them. I read the NASB, recognized by many scholars as the most accurate translation from the original languages, and while I can see some trouble for the oneness view from the 2nd Cor passage, I wonder why the passage in 1st John would be troublesome.

Could you clarify why you believe these texts have been altered? And what significance 1st John 5:7&8 has in this discussion?

Thank you.

 

[distinctiveministry]

I have searched to see who or what may have altered the texts above, and I cannot find them. I read the NASB, recognized by many scholars as the most accurate translation from the original languages, and while I can see some trouble for the oneness view from the 2nd Cor passage, I wonder why the passage in 1st John would be troublesome.

Could you clarify why you believe these texts have been altered? And what significance 1st John 5:7&8 has in this discussion?

Thank you.

Check out the footnotes in your Bible for both texts or look up 1 John 5:7-8 in the KJV. The best and earliest Greek manuscripts do not have the version of 1 John 5:7-8 found in the KJV (and, accordingly, the Byzantine Majority texts). To David's credit, he doesn't try to use either of these verses to support the trinitarian view, as he understands the problem with them. I was just clarifying what I had said before about there being two clearly altered texts because he understood me to mean two manuscripts where Matthew 28 was altered, not two examples of editing other texts that clearly tried to make the text more trinitarian than it originally was.

The discussion we are having is the result of there being no early (pre-Nicaean) manuscripts of Matthew 28. Manuscripts (which all post-date the Nicaean Creed which officially "dogmatized" the trinity) of Matthew 28 say "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", but I'm agruing that because there is NO OTHER scriptural evidence for trinitarian baptism and several pre-Nicaean quotations of Mattew 28 from church fathers which read only "in my (Jesus') name", that Matthew 28 is inadmissable in the debate about trinitarian vs oneness, and also that baptism in the trinity name is not something one can take a dogmatic stand on. David favors the reading you see in your Bible on the basis that (according to him and most Christians) it doesn't contradict the rest of scripture and there is little manuscript evidence for the "in my name" reading.

Ultimately I believe that David's prior belief in the Trinity is causing him to defend a verse that, given the evidence presented, he wouldn't accept in other circumstances.

 

[forerunner]

I have searched to see who or what may have altered the texts above, and I cannot find them. I read the NASB, recognized by many scholars as the most accurate translation from the original languages, and while I can see some trouble for the oneness view from the 2nd Cor passage, I wonder why the passage in 1st John would be troublesome.

Could you clarify why you believe these texts have been altered? And what significance 1st John 5:7&8 has in this discussion?

Thank you.

I agree 1st john 5:7-8 actually support Oneness as Trintarian claim the One God is three separate persons while Oneness claim the Father, word, and Holy Spirit are all one, which is exactly what is stated in 1st John 5 the 3 are 1.

As far as 2nd Corinthians 13:14 I see no reason for that to sway my understanding of the God-head either.

And as far as Matthew 28:19 goes, whether Jesus said baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, or if He said baptize in my name it doesn't really matter because it all the same the name of the Father, Son, and holy Spirit is the singular name of Jesus Christ Himself.

 

[distinctiveministry]

I do want to say here that I owe David an apology for calling him deceptive. He was not misquoting me or making up things from thin air, but only misunderstood something I had written that was not clear. David, I'm sorry.

 

[distinctiveministry]

There may be something else here that is unclear...
I am separating the issues of baptism in the Trinitarian name and trinitarian vs oneness beliefs.

With regard to baptism, Matthew 28:19 is the only scriptural support for baptism in the triune name. The only one. Because there are questions about how reliable our reading is, and because it is the only verse in all of the NT to join the trinity and baptism, I'm trying to make the argument that David and others cannot be dogmatic about baptizing in the triune manner. One verse is almost never a good basis for dogma, and one verse with at least legitimate questions about it just simply never is. If you want to continue to believe that triune name baptism is the correct way, David, that's your perrogative. I just think you can't be dogmatic about it.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Well sure distinctive, why not pick and choose from the smorgasboard of heresy and truth to arrive at what feels good to you, after all it's a free country.

The Triunity (Trinity) of God in The Old Testament

 

[phil36]

An interesting article from Bible.org. part of a series of articles.

Within the One True God Exists a Plurality of Persons

In light of the strong declarations the Bible makes on monotheism, this is a perplexing assertion. However, the Bible is just as plain on this point. There is most definitely only One God, however, there is also a plurality, a “threeness” about God that the Bible expresses, which we cannot define in human terms in light of His one-ness. First, there are plural terms and names applied to God. The most prevalent in the Bible is the Hebrew Elohim. The Cults have invented all sorts of spurious reasons why the Bible might use such a plural term to describe the One God, but a few words from that old saint John Gill should put them to rest:

“Now Moses might have made use of other names of God, in his account of the creation; as his name Jehovah, by which he made himself known to him, and to the people of Israel; or Eloah, the singular of Elohim, which is used by him (Deut. 32:15-16) and in the book of Job so frequently; so that it was not want of singular names of God, nor the barrenness of the Hebrew language which obliged him to use a plural word; it was no doubt of choice, and with design . . .” (Body of Divinity, vol. 1, pp. 187-88).

Other plural terms used for God in the Old Testament include panim (equivalent to the Greek prosopa, for “faces,” “persons,” or “presence,”) which is found in Exodus 33:14-15, Psalm 27:8-9, and Deuteronomy 4:37; the literal Hebrew for Maker in Job 35:10, Psalm 149:2, and Isaiah 54:5, is the plural, Makers; for creator in Ecclesiastes 12:1, the literal Hebrew is Creators. God also is described with plural pronouns, as in “. . . Let us make man in our image.” (Gen 1:25), see also Genesis 11:6-8 and Isaiah 6:8. Finally, in Isaiah 48:16-17 is a statement that, read in the light of the New Testament, is as plain a statement of the Trinity as anywhere in the Bible, as the Lord GOD (Adonai Jehovah) the Spirit, and the Redeemer are mentioned in the same context as separate persons.

Of course, there are many Scriptures in the New Testament which speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the same context, and with an obvious view to distinction between them. In John chapters 14-16, there are repeated references to this distinction. The most striking is the Baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:16-17, where we hear the Father’s voice, see the Spirit descend in the form of a dove, and see also the Son standing there in the water.

The Father is God

This should go without saying, but for those modalists who reject the permanence of the first person of the Trinity, we say (a) Jesus is repeatedly called the Son of God, therefore God is a Father, and the Father is God. (b) There is no Scripture that even hints that the Father ever ceases to be a separate person. (c) There are many Scriptures which establish that there is a distinction between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The problem here, as pointed out decisively by Gregory A. Boyd in his book, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity, is that when people approach Scripture with a preconceived idea (such as the false doctrine that there is no distinction between Father and Son), they find things in the Bible which are not there!

Another difficulty (prominent among Arian-type cults--those who deny that Jesus is God) is that many people misunderstand the relationship of the Father to Jesus Christ. The reason for the confusion among some is that they concentrate on statements made by and about Jesus during His period of humiliation on earth. The eternal relationship between Father and Son is one between equals (John 17:1-5, see how He talks to the Father, and Heb 1:1-14, where the Father orders the angels to worship Him. Such statements as “. . . my Father is greater than I.” (John 14:28) must be understood in the light of Jesus’ purpose in His earthly ministry. In Hebrews, after beginning by expounding on the exalted and absolute divinity of the Son (1:1-14) the apostle states, “but we see Jesus, who was made a little lower (or, for a little while lower) than the angels for the suffering of death . . .” (see also Phil. 2:5-11). Jesus came to earth to accomplish eternal redemption. His essential Godhood was veiled, hidden, in flesh. But, as our next point states:

[U]Jesus Christ is God[/U]

He is not just the Son of God, but He is God the Son. This is the foundation doctrine of Christianity--Jesus Himself said “. . . If you believe not that I AM he, you shall die in your sins.” (John 8:24) (Note: the word “he” is not in the original.) This is not just a speculative, philosophical teaching--unless God redeems us Himself, we cannot be redeemed (see Psa 49:7, 15)! First, we know He is God because He is called God. (John 1:1) Indeed, in John 20: 28, where Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and my God , . . .” the literal Greek rendering is “. . .the Lord of me, and the God of me.” Hebrews 1:4-14 is a most remarkable Scripture passage, as Old Testament prophets are quoted to show (1) God calls Christ His Son, (b) He tells angels to worship Christ, an honor belonging to Jehovah alone (Isa 42:8), (c) He calls the Son, God. He declares that the kingdom of Christ is eternal.

The next reason we know that the Son is eternal God Himself, is that He is worshipped. Isaiah 42:8, Exodus 20:3, and many other Old Testament passages forbid the worship of anyone but Jehovah God Himself--yet we see in many passage that Christ is worshipped (examples--Phil. 2:9-10, Acts 7:59-60, Rev. 5:6-14, which is worship in heaven itself.

Another reason we know He is God is that the works of God are ascribed to Him. Creation (John 1:3, Heb 1:2) Preservation of the universe (Col. 1:17, Heb 1:2-3), the sending of the Spirit of God (John 16:7) the forgiveness of sins (Acts 5:30-31) and the giving of eternal life (John 17:2-3) are just a few examples of the divine works He did.

He demonstrated His power over nature, over disease, demon powers, even over death, and on two occasions, he let the veil of His humanity up a bit. On the mount of Transfiguration, He allowed the disciples with Him to see His Glorious being as it really was, and when the soldiers came to get Him in the Garden, He knocked them to the ground by saying . . . “I AM.” (The word he, which follows “I AM” in most translations is not in the original) (John 18:4-6). Truly He did the works of God.

Yet another reason we know that The Son is God is He possesses divine attributes. The Bible says He has Self existence (John 5:26), Eternity (John 1:2), Omniscience (John 1:48), Omnipresence (Matt 18:20--note that He was on earth, and in the flesh, and used the present tense, showing that He had this attribute even in His earthly ministry), Immutability (Heb 13:8), Sovereignty (Matt 11:27), and Omnipotence (Matt 28:18-20). There is a strong statement of the absolute Deity of Messiah in Jeremiah 23:5-6:

“. . . Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the Earth. In His days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby He shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.”

Here we have Jehovah God clearly speaking, and just as plainly speaking of Messiah, and the Name He gives Messiah is Jehovah-Tsidkenu-- the sovereign Jehovah calls the Messiah Jehovah!

The Holy Spirit is God

(Many of the notes for this part of the lesson come from the excellent book The Holy Spirit by A.W. Pink.)

Included in this statement is the assumption that the Holy Spirit is a Person, not a force, influence, etc. Many cults and sects deny His personality. He is turned into some kind of “divine electricity,” a sort of impersonal force for God and good in the world. This, of course, goes along with their denial of the Trinity. However, when we look at the Bible, we find that He has personal qualities ascribed to Him by Scripture--such as understanding and knowledge (1 Cor 2:10-11), will (1 Cor 12:11), love (Rom 15:30), and grief (Eph 4:30). Furthermore, He can be lied to (Acts 5:3); He can be tempted, put to the test (Acts 5:9). We also see personal actions ascribed to Him by Scripture: He speaks (1 Tim 4:1; Rev 2:7); He teaches (Luke 12:12; John 14:26); He commands (Acts 13:2); and, He intercedes (Rom 8:26).

The Bible applies personal characterizations to Him--He is called Comforter (John 14:16), Witness (Heb 10:15, Rom 8:16), Justifier and Sanctifier (1 Cor 6:11).

Finally, in many places in Scripture, personal pronouns are used of Him (John 14:26; John 16:7). Not only is the Holy Spirit a person, but the Holy Spirit is God, just as the Father is God, and the Son is God, in some way One True God, but also in a way unfathomable to our human minds, a separate person within the Trinity.

In the Bible, the Holy Spirit is called God (Acts 5:3-5; 1 Cor 3:16--Compare with 2 Cor 6:16). The Holy Spirit is also called Jehovah--It was Jehovah who spoke by the prophets (Luke 1:68-70) yet Peter says it was the Holy Spirit (2 Pet 1:20, also compare 2 Sam 23:2-3 with Acts 1:16). It was Jehovah that Israel rebelled against in the wilderness (Psa 78:4, 17-18), but Isaiah says it was the Holy Spirit (Isa 63:10). In Deuteronomy 32:12, Jehovah led Israel, but in Isaiah 63:14, It says the Holy Spirit led them. Jehovah commissioned Isaiah the prophet (Isa 6:6-8), but Paul says (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) that it was the Holy Spirit who commissioned the prophet (Acts 28:25-26).

Throughout the Scriptures, the Holy Spirit demonstrates the attributes of God in His actions, major and minor holiness (Rom 1:4; cf. Ex 15:11), Eternality (Heb 9:14), Omnipresence (Psa 139:7), Omniscience (1Cor 2:10-11) Omnipotence ( Luke 1:35; Mic. 3:8; Isa 40:28), and Sovereignty (Matt 4:1--He led Jesus!) (John 3:8; 1 Cor 12:11; Acts 13:2-4; 20:28). Finally, the Holy Spirit does the works of God.: He performed the works of Creation (Job 26:13; 33:4; Gen 1:2), Providence (Isa 40:13-15; Acts 16:6-7), Inspiration ( 2 Pet 1:20-21), Anointing the Savior (Isa 61:1; John 3:34), and Raising the Savior ( Rom 8:11).

The doctrine of the Trinity reveals to us a God that is vastly different from the “gods” of the pagans, but also very different from the traditional God of modern day Judaism, Islam, and of the Arian and Sabellian cults that flourish today. (The historic term for antitrinitarian monotheism is “Monarchian.” Whatever else the similarities between them and Christianity, at least two things are is missing from Monarchian religions--relationship and redemption.

1. Relationship--The austere, alone, “god” that these groups worship is really incapable of relationship. He has no peer to relate to, and there is no way he can relate to mankind except as judge, benefactor, or object of worship. The Triune God, on the other hand, has experienced fellowship within Himself eternally--relationship comes naturally to Him. Through the God-man, Christ Jesus, mankind actually enters in to fellowship and relationship with the Almighty God. The Father is our Father; Christ is our adopted Brother, and the Spirit is our Comforter. We are loved, we walk in fellowship with God, who is the expert in true fellowship.

2. Redemption--The Monarchian religions have no way to accomplish bona fide (real) redemption. Their god forgives or offers mercy arbitrarily, he bypasses judgment simply because he wants to, or because he has agreed to, based on a certain set of conditions. Sin is really not dealt with in this way--there is no payment for it, their god just disregards it. There is no justice in this type of system. In Biblical Christianity, however, every sin is paid for (see Chapter 6 ), because an infinite Being, the God-man, died as a substitute for sinners. All those who become His by faith partake in His price of redemption. Those who do not become His pay their own penalty--eternally. The mystery of the Cross (see Chapter 5) is that God (The Father) poured out His wrath on God (The Son), yet there is only one God. It is a paradox to our minds, but it is the only way redemption could be carried out with justice. Every wrong that has ever been done by anyone against God or people is avenged, justice is settled, and the accounts of the universe are balanced. No Trinity--no redemption.

Christian, we worship a Triune God. We cannot understand it; we marvel at it; there is no explanation for it--but it is the Truth. Anything less is not Christianity.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

David, the two known examples of textual alteration are 1 John 5:7-8 and 2 Cor 13:14. They demonstrate that some were willing to alter the original text in order to support, or as they would have put it, no doubt, "clarify" the doctrine of the trinity.

I understand. However, I am using neither of these in my response. I can come up with at least twenty five trinitarian passages if you would like me to.

 

[distinctiveministry]

I know the passages; I just disagree as to the best interpretation in light of the whole of scripture.

When I responded to VW about those passages I acknowledged that you are not using them and explained that I only brought them up to clarify an earlier comment about which there was some confusion.

 

[charisenexcelcis]

There may be something else here that is unclear...
I am separating the issues of baptism in the Trinitarian name and trinitarian vs oneness beliefs.

With regard to baptism, Matthew 28:19 is the only scriptural support for baptism in the triune name. The only one. Because there are questions about how reliable our reading is, and because it is the only verse in all of the NT to join the trinity and baptism, I'm trying to make the argument that David and others cannot be dogmatic about baptizing in the triune manner. One verse is almost never a good basis for dogma, and one verse with at least legitimate questions about it just simply never is. If you want to continue to believe that triune name baptism is the correct way, David, that's your perrogative. I just think you can't be dogmatic about it.

Are you then saying that you are a trinitarian who baptizes in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ?
1. The Book of Acts, while not giving support to a Trinitarian formula, shows that there was not a set formula at all.
2. A command said once by Jesus which is in agreement with the theology of the whole is sufficient for obedience. Luke 21:28 says that when we begin to see the signs of the end, we are to lift up our heads, to be hopeful. This command is never repeated anywhere. Yet it agrees with the theology of the rest of the New Testament.
3. There is no question about the reliability of Matthew 28:19, no matter how vehemently you assert it.

I would be much more reluctant to set aside a command of Christ, but that is your perrogative.

 

[distinctiveministry]

Are you then saying that you are a trinitarian who baptizes in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ?
1. The Book of Acts, while not giving support to a Trinitarian formula, shows that there was not a set formula at all.
2. A command said once by Jesus which is in agreement with the theology of the whole is sufficient for obedience. Luke 21:28 says that when we begin to see the signs of the end, we are to lift up our heads, to be hopeful. This command is never repeated anywhere. Yet it agrees with the theology of the rest of the New Testament.
3. There is no question about the reliability of Matthew 28:19, no matter how vehemently you assert it.

I would be much more reluctant to set aside a command of Christ, but that is your perrogative.

Obviously I'm not a trinitarian at all, as this whole thread has made clear.
1. If the book of Acts shows that there was no set formula, why do you insist on triune name baptism?
2. Okay, only Luke records it, that's fine. I don't know of anyone who is trying to make dogmatic theology out of that verse, however, so the difference is significant.
3. I'm not the only one who asserts it, and you'll find that easily enough if you just look. Whether there is question about the reliability of the verse is not a matter you or I decide, it is a matter of evidence-based fact. I do not need to assert that Matthew 28:19 is altered, only demonstrate that it is reasonable to believe it very well may have been. On that basis alone (and it isn't up for argument, it IS fact) we should be able to agree that you cannot be dogmatic about the baptismal formula. Because of your preconceived ideas you are refusing to submit to the facts, which anyone can see and I think you do, too. You are, in this case, not practicing honest theology, but doggedly defending a position you WANT to be true.

I don't set aside a command of Christ. I reasonably believe that Christ never commanded it, and you yourself acknowledge that there was no set formula. How, then, can I be condemned for baptizing in Christ's name but not that of the trinity?