Yesterday’s post on Athanasius and the Arian heresy got me started thinking again about something that has been on my mind a lot lately—the Trinity. In particular, I was thinking about a statement made by someone in one of the large apostate denominations attempting to remove “sexist” language from our understanding of the Trinity. The proposal was to refer to the members of the Godhead as “Creator,” “Redeemer,” and “Sustainer.” While I immediately rejected the discarding of “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit,” I saw no problem with “Creator,” “Redeemer,” and “Sustainer.” At least they weren’t calling God “Mother.” However, since then I have been prompted to consider the nature of the Trinity more carefully (thanks, Jonathan), and I have concluded that these designations lack the necessary precision for describing the individual persons of the Godhead. I present the following propositions:

1a. The Father alone is not the creator—

1b. The Father is not only the creator—

2a. The Son alone is not the redeemer—

2b. The Son is not only the redeemer—

3a. The Spirit alone is not the sustainer—

3b. The Spirit is not only the sustainer—

The persons of the Trinity are inseparably bound together in all things. They do nothing independently of the others. Therefore, they cannot be described in terms of individual roles, but only by their names—the names given in Scripture.

In my reading of Willam Gurnall’s The Christian in Complete Armour, I came across the following statement:

“. . . [Satan] stands under thy closet-window, and hears what thou sayest to God in secret, all the while studying how he may commence a suit against thee from thy duty.”

Is that true? Can Satan read our thoughts? I tend to think not, but I don’t recall any Scripture that answers this question. Satan is not omniscient, but what does he know?

Yes, that is the same title as Dan Phillips used. Since he said a lot of what I was thinking (and a lot more), I thought I might as well use it. Dan correctly states that Spiderman 3 contains a lot of good moral principles, but horrible theology. Dan’s objections begin where mine did, with this statement from the movie: “First, you must do the hardest thing. You must forgive yourself.” I've previously written on this subject here. Read Dan’s article, in which he concludes: “Spider-Man 3 is a fun, expertly-done movie. It contains a nice bit of moralizing. It preaches an appalling sermon.”

I only have two things to add to what has already been said.

First, assuming we buy the psychoskubalon of self-forgiveness (as though such a thing as a sin against self exists), it is not hard to forgive ourselves. What could be more self-indulgent? and what is more definitive of human nature than self-indulgence? Letting ourselves off the hook for our sins is as natural as breathing.

Second, in answer to the objection, “Well, you know, it's not a Christian movie. You can't expect them to get it right,” I reply, “You're right. In fact, I should expect them to get it wrong; and when they do, I should be prepared to say so.” You see, whenever anyone, whether Christian, Roman Catholic, Jew, Muslim, or atheist opens his mouth on anything touching on God, theology, or spirituality, he is obligated to get it right. God will accept nothing less. There is only one God, one Way, one Truth, one Life. God makes no allowance for false theology, even due to ignorance.

“But it's just a movie. It's just entertainment. No one came to hear a sermon.” But they did hear a sermon — a moralistic, man-centered sermon. A sermon that leads away from Christ, even while promoting moral character. That is damning, and it needs an answer.

This does not mean you can't go see Spiderman 3 and enjoy it for the entertaining (though mediocre) work of ignorant men that it is. Just be prepared to answer those who praise the good moral of the story with the true Gospel.

The long list of email addresses in the header of this email tells me that I am not special. However, I am in some good company.

A Reconsideration of the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures

In Divine Truth or Human Tradition the author critically examines the viewpoints and Scripture expositions of prominent evangelical scholars and apologists—including popular author and debater Dr. James R. White (author of The Forgotten Trinity), John MacArthur (President of The Master’s Seminary), Robert Bowman Jr. (author of Why You Should Believe in the Trinity), Robert Morey (author of The Trinity, Evidence and Issues), R. C. Sproul, and others…

According to what has long been considered mainstream Christian “orthodoxy,” the doctrine of the Trinity (the idea that the true God of the Bible is—in the ultimate sense—a mysterious being made up of three co-equal and co-eternal persons) is not only central to the Christian faith, but absolutely necessary for one to accept in order to be counted as a true Christian and be saved. Such a demand on a Christian’s faith has come across as strange and perplexing to many, especially so in light of the fact pointed out by one respected Trinitarian:

“[The Trinity] is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom [that is, a given, a self-evident truth] of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church.” (Millard J. Erickson, God in Three Persons, p. 11. Emphasis added)

Understandably, this fact has raised questions in the minds of Christians and truth-seekers alike ever since the doctrine was first decreed as mandatory to confess in the late 4th century. Many Christians have wondered: How can a doctrine that is not clearly or explicitly taught in the Bible be considered mandatory to accept in order to be a true practitioner of the Christian faith? Since it is not taught by Scripture in a straightforward way, is it possible that the doctrine of the Trinity is not an authentic representation of God’s nature and of the original apostolic faith? Were the councils correct in decreeing that it is obligatory for Christians to accept the concept of the Trinity in order to be saved? Or, does such a pronouncement go beyond the original apostolic doctrine? Few Evangelical Christians have been willing to explore these issues in depth. Most are familiar with the arguments commonly advanced to defend the idea. But how many are familiar with alternative (yet scripturally harmonious) ways to understand the classic “proof-texts”? Surprisingly—as research has revealed—Trinitarians themselves provide most of the alternative answers.

Table of Contents
Introduction
1 The True God—the “Trinity” or “the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”?
2 “God the Son…” or the Son of the Living God?
3 The Father-Son Relationship

As you can see, it's a blurb for a new book by Patrick Navas, who sent this email, debunking “the Roman Catholic-Protestant Doctrine of the Trinity.” I really get tired of this one. The unbeliever who sent me this email evidently did not bother to read what I believe about the Triune God of the Bible, or he thinks his new book is so brilliant that it will cause me to repent of my latent Roman Catholicism and join the Modalists.

Sorry, it won’t. I know that makes me an idolater and an unbeliever, but that’s OK. You see, I don’t think of you as a brother, either. You don’t believe in the God of the Bible. Your god is no better than Allah or the Jedi’s “force.” The God of the Bible is clearly triune. If you have actually read the authors listed above, as you imply you have, and still persist in your unbelief, there is really nothing I can say to change that. You can read this if you like, if you’re not too stiff-necked.

Do I seem harsh? Well, it’s like this: you’re not an ignorant heathen who has no clue of God. You’ve read the Bible and Christian theology enough to think you’re qualified to write a book on theology. That means you have been presented with the Gospel. You have read the Scripture which, by itself with no explanation, displays the Trinity in glorious color. You have read theologians who have explained it clearly. Yet you reject the God of Scripture and manufacture one that is more acceptable to you.

I pray that God will take your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. I pray that you will not die in your rebellion but will humble yourself before God and acknowledge him as he is.

I would be remiss at this point if I did not answer a question I have been asked since my post on the Trinity: Must one believe in the Trinity to be saved?

Yes—and no.

It is entirely possible that a person could learn of their sinful condition and their helplessness to measure up to the demands of God who is holy and can tolerate no sin in his sight. They could hear of the Savior who bore those sins in their place so they could be presented to God pure and spotless. God could give them faith and regenerate their hearts and save them, and they might have no clue about the Trinity. In fact, I am sure that happens all the time. Remember in Acts 19, Paul met some disciples in Ephesus and asked if they had received the Holy Spirit when they believed. Their answer? “We haven’t even heard if their is a Holy Spirit!”

However, when a person is born again, he becomes a new creation. He becomes open and accepting to God’s Word. He begins to read it and, when he encounters the Trinitarian teachings of Scripture, he believes them. It may take some time and teaching, but when he is presented with the truth, he believes it. It is in his new nature to do so.

As time goes by, even a mature believer may have some doubts about this and other Scriptural doctrines. He may need to revisit the subject and search the Scriptures anew to reinforce what he has already known. But he will never reject outright the God of Scripture.

So no, one need not know of God’s triune nature to be saved; and one certainly does not need to understand the Trinity to be saved (thank God!); but anyone who flatly rejects it must be assumed unsaved.

The title of this post combined with today’s date (January 17) should be a pretty good indication that my resolution has nothing to do with procrastination. I really have never made serious New Year’s Resolutions, unless you consider “never turn down free [pizza, chocolate, etc.]” to be serious. New Year’s resolutions are virtually always broken, usually very early in the year, and most honest people will have to admit that their resolutions were made with the expectation that they would fall by the wayside before the year’s end. That doesn’t mean that it is foolish to make resolutions, but that is why I have never been in the habit of making them.

My resolution is to be content.

It isn’t that I am generally discontent—there are many people who are much more ungrateful and discontent than I am—but that I know I am not perfectly satisfied at all times with the gifts God has given me. It is also not that contentment should be difficult for me so that I should need to make any extra effort to be content. I am not persecuted or impoverished. I do not suffer unbearably. While I am in no way wealthy by American standards, I live in luxury that a large part of the world’s population can only dream of. I have no reason to be discontent.

Still, it sometimes is not enough. If only I had that, I would be happier. If this was better, I would be more comfortable. I have enough, but more always looks better. I may not be a whining complainer, but I certainly do not measure up to Scripture’s definition of contentment:

Not that I speak in respect of want: for I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. (Philippians 4:11)

But godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out. And having food and raiment let us be therewith content. (1 Timothy 6:6-8)

Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee. (Hebrews 13:5)

If the apostle Paul could be content, why can’t I?

Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more; in labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons more frequent, in deaths oft. Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? If I must needs glory, I will glory of the things which concern mine infirmities. (2 Corinthians 11:23-30)

God help me to be content.

Are Christians under law, or grace?

I assume most believers will answer, "Grace." I hope so, anyway. Here is what I really want to know:

What do you mean by that? Do you even know, or are you just repeating a slogan?

Thirsty minds want to know.

I was thirty years old before I actually encountered anyone who called themselves Christians and denied the Trinity. I had heard that such people existed, but outside the Jehovah’s Witnesses, I didn’t know who they were. Then, when we moved to this small town in North Dakota, we met a character who had recently left the same church that we began attending. He was a self-styled teacher with a very overpowering personality who had managed to gather a small group of very committed disciples and formed his own “church,” renting a church building in a neighboring town. A few years ago, this little cult built its own facility just a few blocks up the street from our house.

This post is, in a nutshell, what I told one of them when I had the occasion to discuss it, along with a few comments to Trinitarians who explain it badly.

There is one true God, eternally existent in three persons.

There is only one God. In no sense are there three.

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4, and quoted again by Jesus in Mark 12:29). “[H]ath not one God created us?” (Malachi 2:10) God is always spoken of as singular. God is always “he,” never “they.” He reigns over the kingdom of God, not the kingdom of the gods. In Luke 18, Jesus is addressed as “Good Master.” His reply: “Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God” [bold type added].

God is three distinct persons. In no sense are they one. All three exist simultaneously and eternally.

The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
The Father is never the Son or the Holy Spirit.
The Son is never the Father or the Holy Spirit.
The Holy Spirit is never the Father or the Son.

The Trinity is revealed in Scripture from the very beginning. In Genesis 1:2, “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.” Farther along in verse 26 we find God talking to himself: “Let us make man in our image” [bold type added]. Who was God talking to? Why the plural pronouns? Four thousand years later, John the Apostle wrote of Christ: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1-3) The Son was present in the beginning, and participated in creation.

“Then cometh Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples, Sit ye here, while I go and pray yonder. And he took with him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful and very heavy. … And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt. … He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if this cup may not pass away from me, except I drink it, thy will be done.” (Matthew 26:36,39,42) Who was Jesus praying to? Was he putting on an act, going through the motions of prayer in order to set an example for his disciples, as some have said? If so, what does that tell us about him? If true, it tells us that God is an actor, a deceiver, a manipulator who plays with our minds like faith-healers and “revival” preachers. No, Jesus, being God, is incapable of any kind of deceit. He was praying to his Father, as one distinct person to another.

The Trinity is probably most clearly demonstrated at Jesus’ baptism: “And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased” (Matthew 3:16-17). Jesus was in the Jordan, the Holy Spirit descended upon him, and the Father spoke from Heaven—three distinct persons in three distinct places—simultaneously.

God does not appear at different times and places in different roles or modes. His triunity may not be compared to the way in which we fill different positions yet remain one person, as one man may be a son, husband, father, grandfather, employer or employee, etc., all at once. That is the Modalist heresy.

God also cannot be described as many Trinitarians have attempted to describe him:

The Trinity is not like an egg—yolk, white, shell.
The Trinity is not like an apple—skin, flesh, seeds.
The Trinity is not like water—liquid, solid, vapor.
The Trinity is not like time—past, present, future.
The Trinity is not like space—height, depth, width.

The Trinity is not any other metaphor you’ve thought of. I know, some of you can’t stand not having an explanation for everything. You are very creative and imaginative and love thinking these things up. Well, stop it! You almost persuade me to become a modalist. The Bible tells us quite clearly that God is triune. It does not even begin to tell us how that is so.

There has been a lot written lately on the subject of “Lordship Salvation”. For quite some time now, Jonathan Moorhead has been antagonizing challenging a few of his readers who hold to what they call “Free Grace” theology. More recently, Pulpit Magazine has been posting articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, more to come…) by John MacArthur, Bible teacher on Grace to You and author of The Gospel According to Jesus. In a corresponding series, Phil Johnson is writing How I got drawn into the Lordship debate (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, more to come…), chronicling his journey to his involvement in The Gospel According to Jesus and his present position at Grace to You. Nathan Busenitz has offered his input (1, 2, 3) as well at Pulpit Magazine.

Today, Nathan Casebolt has written Why Lordship Salvation Matters. Nathan’s introduction to the Lordship debate was very similar to my own. Before the publication of The Gospel According to Jesus, I had no idea that anyone could hold to such an absurd theology as so-called “Free Grace”. The Ryrie Study Bible was a hot item at the time, and the first study Bible I had ever seen, but I didn’t have one (I had been warned of his Calvinist tendencies – something I have never bothered to investigate – and wanted no part of that damnable heresy). Only recently have I realized how widespread this unbiblical nonsense is. Perhaps you are under the impression that there is a separation between Jesus as Savior and Jesus as Lord. If so, I encourage you to read the posts I have linked, and get a copy of The Gospel According to Jesus.

Finally, a word about terminology. John MacArthur has said that he doesn’t like the term “Lordship Salvation”, and I agree. It is a name given to Biblical Soteriology by its opponents, and implies, not accidentally, legalism. Yet Dr. MacArthur uses the term because it has become commonly understood and won’t go away. I suggest that we need a good term for the opposite (wrong) view. The “no-Lordship” moniker given by Biblical theologians is clumsy, in my opinion. “Free Grace” is the title preferred by its advocates, but that doesn’t fit. “Feckless Grace” would be more like it, if they want to maintain the “FG” abbreviation and the word “grace”. It’s a little rough, though, don’t you think? I suggest “Lordless Salvation”. Of course, that’s not entirely accurate, since someone must be lord – if not Jesus, then self. But I think it’s close enough. It’s certainly as appropriate as “Lordship Salvation”. If it catches on, it may be my only original contribution to… well, anything.

These are just a few quick observations on truth. Feel free to add to the list or expand on any of them.

1. No one is entitled to his own opinion.*

2. Everyone is obligated to seek, find, and believe the truth.

3. Truth is knowable.

4. Truth matters. Some truth matters more than other truth, but all truth is important. No error is benign.

5. Honest people may disagree, but no more than one of them can be right about any one proposition in a given context. When there is disagreement, someone, maybe everyone, is wrong.

6. True is true and false is false; right is right and wrong is wrong. Unless you are talking about clothing sizes, don’t give me any of that “this is what’s right for me” skubalon.

7. On babies and bathwater: I don’t need to give my respect to men of dubious character or qualification “because they make a valuable contribution to the conversation.” I can throw out their baby with their bathwater because that same baby can be found in cleaner water elsewhere.

8. You are all entitled to disagree with me. However, you must be willing to say I am wrong, not simply that we see these things differently.

From Albert Mohler's blog:

"I have friends who I am quite sure are Christians who do not believe in the bodily resurrection," says the Right Reverend N. T. Wright, Bishop of Durham. . . .

"Marcus Borg really does not believe Jesus Christ was bodily raised from the dead. But I know Marcus well: he loves Jesus and believes in him passionately. The philosophical and cultural world he has lived in has made it very, very difficult for him to believe in the bodily resurrection.

"I actually think that's a major problem and it affects most of whatever else he does, and I think that it means he has all sorts of flaws as a teacher, but I don't want to say he isn't a Christian.

"I do think, however, that churches that lose their grip on the bodily resurrection are in deep trouble and that for healthy Christian life individually and corporately, belief in the bodily resurrection is foundational."

. . . Bishop Wright does affirm the bodily resurrection of Christ. Indeed, he has published one of the most significant treatises on the resurrection of our times. Nevertheless, if he is genuinely to defend the resurrection of Christ against its denial, and if he is to affirm the faith as handed down by the Apostles, he must defend the resurrection of Jesus Christ as essential, and not merely as foundational.

read full article

What is the difference between essential and foundational? Having a background in construction, and having built houses, I can testify to the essential nature of a foundation. Houses that don't have solid foundations don't stand over time.

Furthermore, even without my knowledge of construction, I can read Jesus' illustration in Matthew 7 of the difference between a foundation of rock and one of sand, and it is apparent that Jesus considered a foundation to be essential.

Dr. Mohler is correct to say that the bodily resurrection of Christ is essential; but he is incorrect to distinguish between essential and foundational. Wright's definition of foundational is deficient.

Nathan Casebolt, a sharp fellow from Montana, student at the Master's Seminary, and a newlywed to boot, has also written an astute post on this subject. In fact, he writes such consistently good material that I'm blogrolling him. Call it a wedding present.