Ministry Bear: trinity

Here is the latest edition. I am very excited and encouraged right now, because Josephine is really forcing me to understand the Word better in order to respond to her claims. I learned some really cool things writing this response. I hope you do too!

Josephine,

As usual, I will try to respond to your email one chunk at a time to avoid confusion. So, here is my response to the following email:

Thank you for your awesome, polite, and in-depth reply! I REALLY appreciate it! I do plan to call Jeff, but as I told him, it is long distance for me and I am currently attempting to get this service on my phone so that I do not have to worry about a huge charge(as I know Jeff and I most likely will talk for a while). Question: why is Jeff so important to contact verses you? You actually seem more open-minded in attempting to explain why and what you believe.

It really doesn’t matter if you contact Jeff verses me, I was just curious, because he had mentioned he was hoping you’d call him. I’m sorry if you got the impression that Jeff is not “open-minded in attempting to explain why and what we believe.” We are ministry partners, and work side-by-side all the time, and both take the same approach. In fact, I learned a lot of the way I go about it from Jeff.

I appreciate your insight in regards to my question. As I told Jeff, I am not asking questions to simply argue or prove this doctrine wrong...I am simply trying to understand the beliefs of many mainstream Christians. I too, was a "mainstream Christian' and consider myself to have been raised within the Baptist faith. However, I attended numerous churches in order to gain an open-minded perspective. I did not consider myself to be solely baptist, as I believed that the church I attended was not important(the important part for me was a love for the congregation and pastor).

Oddly, I never realized the church I attended and was baptized into taught the trinity. I always considered them to be one in purpose and will...but never did fathom Jesus being the literal God over the earth(even though I believed he helped with creation as it states within the bible). Even though you stated that the Trinity did not originate with the Catholics.....rather was created by Jesus....I have a hard time believing this. I assumed this would be the reply Jeff gave me as he also told me I was wrong about the history.

It’s interesting that you were not questioned on your belief in who God is when you were baptized. Also, Christians are not baptized into any church (different from Mormonism). We are commanded to be baptized after placing our faith in Christ to publicly show that we have done so. I also never said, nor believe, that Jesus “created” the Trinity. I believe, and will show you with Scripture later on, that the Triune God of the Bible has eternally existed, and will continue to exist that way forever and ever.

You provided verses for me, as I have pondered upon these as well. Even though these verses present a "trinitarian" doctrine in a sense, they still are not straight forward about the concern that Jesus is literally God. They simply state the ONE aspect, which can be interpreted differently as I am sure you are aware of. Being that I do not know every verse word for word I decided to copy and paste the verses you provided in an attempt to interpret their meaning.

John 1:1"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
Keep reading...1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. A CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEM.... AND HIS SON....???

I’m glad you brought this up. The problem I have with, and what frustrates me as a Christian, is that you are not attacking my beliefs. You are attacking Modalism, a doctrine I completely disagree with. Christians do not teach Modalism, and never have. Modalism teaches that The Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and The Holy Ghost are three different modes, or aspects of One God. It’s almost as if God puts on a different mask, and can only be at one place at a time. One minute He is The Father, and then the next minute He is The Son. I am not at all saying that. I am saying that God is ONE Being, with THREE distinct personages; The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit.

Therefore, in regards to your comment about 1 John 1:3 (not John 1:3 as you stated), absolutely there is a clear distinction between The Father and The Son. What really bothers we here, is that you briefly mention John 1:1 and then try to use 1 John 1:3, to disprove something I do not believe, nor does the Bible teach; but, in so doing, you have completely failed to justify John 1:1 with what you believe. I have yet to have a Mormon being able to justify this verse. You agree that this verse is talking about Christ, but you cannot justify that:
1) Christ was in the beginning, because you believe that Christ was created after the beginning.
2) Christ (the Word) was God. I just need a clear explanation for that portion of the verse. Please hear me on this. How can you justify, “and the Word was God?”

Also, if you do keep reading John 1, verse 2 states, “The same was in the beginning with God.” Again, Christ (the Word) was God in the BEGINNING. If Christ was God in the beginning, how then was he created? And if you continue to read, verse 3 states, “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” This, again, is contrary to what you believe, as I have mentioned before that you believe Christ created, “all other things.” This verse is very powerful. How do you justify that Christ created, “all other things,” when John 1:3 clearly states that without Christ, “was not any thing made that was made?”

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth...AGAIN, WHY DO PEOPLE OVERLOOK "AND".....and meaning to state two separte ideas...or in this case individuals....

I’m also glad that you brought up this verse, as it is the next one I would take you to. To answer your question, I certainly do not overlook the word “and.” I also agree that it is referring to two separate individuals, or personages. I have no problem with that. Again, you are using this verse to attack Modalism, but again, you also fail to justify the connection between John 1:1 and John 1:14. Remember that in verse 1, “the Word was God,” and here in verse 14, it picks back up and says that, “the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” Christ, being God, became flesh on this earth. This is so plain here in this chapter. Please, please justify this with your beliefs.

John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. SIMPLY STATES " I AM HE....He being the savior of the world...the messiah, the only begotten son....If you read before this verse 14-18"

Please don’t take this the wrong way, but you are making this very easy on me, only because you are a step ahead of me each time bringing up verses that I would next use. Now, the problem with you using this verse, is that you do not know what it says in the Greek. I know I explained this to you two emails ago, but you sent me this before I had sent it. Nonetheless, I will explain again for clarity. In this verse Jesus says, “if ye believe not that I am he.” If you read this verse in the original Greek, it says, “if ye believe not that ego aimi.” The “he” is not there. You see, “ego aimi,” literally means “I AM.” If you look at Exodus chapter 3, when God appears to Moses in the burning bush, Moses’ question to God was, “whom shall I say sent me (Exodus 3:13)?” In verse 14, God replies to Moses by saying, tell them, “I AM hath sent me unto you.” Does this sound familiar? In the Greek Septuagint, it is the same words, “ego aimi,” “I AM.” I completely agree with John 8:24. Please also note that it is the same language used in John 8:28, which states, “Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.” Again, it says, “then shall ye know that ego aimi.” Notice how “he” is bracketed. It is like that in both verses 24 and 28. In some Bibles the word “he” is just italicized in those verses, much like it is the JST version. The reason for that is because the word “he” is not in the original language, like I have just shown you. The problem for you, is that Christ is not just claiming to be, “the savior of the world….the messiah, the only begotten son.” He is also claiming to be, “I AM,” the name of God! How do you justify this?

14 Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.

15 Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.

16 And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. NOT ALONE? So does this mean He is NOT all rolled into one...?

Again, I have do not problem with this. You are attacking Modalism.

17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. TWO SEPARATE PEOPLE?

18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. WOW!

Absolutely two separate people. Again: One Being and Three distinct Personages.

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am...again am....the messiah, the savior....

This verse is even better for me that John 8:24, 28, because it doesn’t include the word “he.” Again, “Before Abraham was, ego aimi.” He is not JUST, “the messiah, the savior,” but ALSO, “I AM!” Please see what I am showing you. The original Greek completely shuts down what you are trying to say. As I have also mentioned before, please continue to read John 8 through chapter 10. In John 8:29, the Jews pick up stones to stone Jesus, but he disappears. In John chapter 9, Jesus heals the blind man, and then in John chapter 10, He talks about being the sheep gate. In verse 31, the Jews again pick up stones to stone Jesus. In verse 32 He asks them, “Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?” And there response in verse 33 is, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.” One way in Old Testament Law to be stoned on the spot, is to claim to be God. The Jews tried to stone Christ, because he claimed to be God. I earnestly beg you to see this. This is so crucial!

Colossians 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

By simply reading these verses, the ONLY one that mentions appearence is the last one....and even then it states Godhead, which can be interpreted to mean that Jesus was the embodiment of God being that He was perfect and sent by Him...

I’m beginning to feel like you saw my list of verses I use, and are just using one after another. I love Colossians 2:9, and have no problem with it. In fact, it helps my case. The word for “Godhead” in the Greek, is “theotes.” This word literally means, “deity,” or, “the state of being God.” The root word of theotes, is, theos. In the Greek, theos, is the word used for God. The case ending for theotes, is es, which is a genitive case of description. It is used to describe the state of something, or indicate possession. In other words, it is indicating that Christ contains the fullness of the state of God.

I agree with you that verses can be interpreted differently, as anything can, and that is an issue with me. You see, the problem is that interpretations are completely subjective. This is a point I always try to press with Mormons. The question is not how do you interpret the verse, or how did Joseph Smith, Jr., Jeff Durbin, or Luke Pierson interpret the verse. The question is, what does that verse say? What I am trying to show you, is that if you look at what these verses say in the original language, it is very difficult to deviate from its meaning, or what the author intended. What does the text say, plain and simple. What I keep hearing from you, is that you have to say, “well this verse could be interpreted this way, therefore, my view is correct, and yours is confusing.” The Bible, in its original form, is the sole objective truth that we have and need to test the claims of anyone, whether it be Joseph Smith, Jr., Jeff Durbin, Luke Pierson, or Barrack Obama.

My concern pertains to the numerous verses that CLEARLY state they are separate "physically"....there is no interpretation needed for these verses as they state the very nature or what apostles saw....or simply defined them as being TWO SEPARATE PEOPLE...
1 Cor. 8: 6
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (NOTICING "AND" again....stating them as separate...)

Again, I agree, One Being and Three distinct Personages. You are focusing on the word, “and” to try and disprove Modalism, but at the same time you are missing the whole point of this verse. This verse is describing God, who is The Father and The Lord Jesus Christ. Notice how it says, “the Father, of whom are all things,” and, “one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things.” How do, “all things” come by The Father and by The Lord Jesus Christ if they are not the same Being. Can, “all things” come to be by two separate entities? I think not. How do you justify this?

1 Tim. 2: 5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; (ONE God...AND one mediator BETWEEN GOD AND MAN....JESUS!)

I agree. There is ONE God. You don’t believe this, do you? Don’t you believe in the “plurality of gods?” Christ came to earth in the flesh as God the Son, to act as our ONLY Mediator between us and God. I absolutely agree. This also proves that there is no need for a modern day prophet. There is ONLY ONE Mediator, Christ Jesus; NOT Christ Jesus AND a modern day prophet.

John 14: 10
10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. (again He emphasized, not of Himself.....)

I have no problem with this verse. I’m not really sure how you are using this verse to say that God is not Triune in Nature. Jesus came to do the will of the Father. Ok, He and the Father are separate personages. They are still the same God though.

John 8: 28
28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do anothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things.
FATHER TAUGHT HIM? OR Did He teach Himself?

Ok, you are still missing Christ’s claim to being God here with, “ego aimi;” "I Am.” Of course He did not teach Himself. He is NOT the Father. Once again, Modalism.

John 14: 28
28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (ASK YOURSELF: WHY WOULD JESUS CONTINUE TO EMPHASIZE THE FATHER IF HE WANTED THEM TO BELIEVE HE WAS THE FATHER?)

A better question to ask, is, “Why would Jesus want them to believe He is the Father?” You are again attacking Modalism. Jesus emphasized the Father, because He is NOT the Father, and He was doing the will of the Father.

VISUAL VERSES:(simple ability to read is all that is needed)
Heb. 1: 3
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; (SO DID JESUS SIT BESIDE HIMSELF?)

Modalism, Modalism, Modalism. Of course He didn’t sit beside Himself. Again, however, you overlooking the point of this verse to try and disprove something the Bible doesn’t teach. Before we dive into the Greek, please note that from Hebrews 1:1,2, we can deduce that Christ is being compared to God in verse 3. The Greek word here for, “brightness,” is, “apaugasma,” which literally means, “reflected brightness.” Christ is a reflection of the Glory of God. Also, the Greek word for, “express image,” is, “charakter,” which literally means, “stamp, engraving, mark, or the exact expression of any person or thing.” The Greek word for, “person,” here, is, “hypostasis,” which literally means, “substance, real being, or nature of a person or thing.” Do you see that? Christ is the, “exact expression” of the, “substance”, or, “nature” of God! This is why it is so important to understand what the original language said. How do you explain this verse if Christ is NOT God?

Now, if you will keep reading in this chapter, you will find two more verses that you will have a very hard time with. In fact, I have not yet had a Mormon be able to explain the following verses to me:

“But unto the Son [he saith], Thy throne, O God, [is] for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness [is] the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, [even] thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” Hebrews 1:8-9

Please note that from Hebrews 1:5 we can see that in these verses God is speaking to the Son, as the Father. Therefore, you can also see here that He is calling the Son, “ O God,” in verse 8, and “God, thy God,” in verse 9. This is very plain and simple: Christ is being referred to as God! Please explain this to me. Again, I’ve never heard an explanation from a Mormon Worldview.

Acts 7: 55-56
55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, (THERE MUST BE SOMETHING WE SHOULD GAIN BY "RIGHTHAND")
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

I am so glad you brought this verse up, and you make a great point here (See, I’m not just dismissing your points!). At first glance this verse seems really strange, but if you dig into it, there is a very clear and definitive answer. Just for clarity, Acts 7 is talking about the stoning of Stephen. Please read the whole chapter, and then answer this question: When did the Jews decide they wanted to kill Stephen? It’s in Acts7:57, immediately after he claims to see, “the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God.” You will notice how in verse 54 they were angry with him, but they didn’t try to kill him. By saying this, Stephen was claiming Christ was the Messiah. You see, Stephen was mentioning Christ in reference to Psalm 110, which says:

“1The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. 2The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies. 3Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth. 4The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek. 5The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath. 6He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill the places with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries. 7He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.”

The Jews would have been very familiar with this Psalm. They knew exactly what Stephen meant. This Psalm was traditionally sang looking forward to their much anticipated and awaited Messiah. I already showed how the Jews wanted to kill Christ because of His claim to be God (John 10:33). They did not believe he was who he claimed to be, and that’s why they put Him to death. So, when Stephen mentions Christ in light of their beloved Psalm, as being the Messiah, they too, put him to death. Please also read Daniel chapter 7 in reference to this. I hope you understand what I have just shown you.

Acts 1: 9-11
9 And when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up; and a cloud received him out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.(So if God IS Jesus....Does God Himself have a body of flesh? Many Christians would say He does not...but it is clear this is how He will return)

To answer your question, in Heaven, God does NOT have a body of flesh and bones (John 4:24, 1 Timothy 3:16, Luke 24:39), like Mormonism teaches. This is why Jesus had to become flesh to dwell among us (John 1:14) as God the Son. So, if Jesus where to manifest Himself here on earth, yes he would appear in flesh.

AGAIN, my pupose is to only show you a few verses pertaining to this subject. How does one attempt to read them and interpret them to mean they are the same? Where can those type of conclusions be drawn? I attempt to not overlook verses and pick and choose, but rather to attempt to understand it ALL and then conclude. I believe the verses used to support the trinity are not straightforward and can be interpreted to mean both. But see, this only testifies to me the confusion that arises among doctrine and although some profess that these concerns aren't important....I would disagree being that in order to pray and develop a relationship with God, we must be able to fathom Him and His son....to believe that they are the same almost sounds schziophrenic...being that God spoke numerous times...proclaiming, "THIS IS MY BELOVED SON, HEAR HIM...or I'm welll pleased" There was a purpose for this exclamation from heaven....and I assure that to believe Jesus simply said it would almost seem deceiving....of Him. Wouldn't a God who is simple, clear, and honest teach this priciple with clarity and understanding verses confusion as He is not the author of confusion.....

I appreciate your attempt to show verses pertaining to the subject, and to be honest, you did a very good job of doing so. It is great that you are trying not to pick and choose, but to look at the entire Bible, exactly what I am trying to do. You also have to very careful to try and understand the context of each verse that you provide. The biggest problem I see, is that you keep trying to “interpret” each verse. Like I said earlier, and I think I have shown you why, it’s crucial to understand what and why the text said in the original language. That should eliminate any interpreting and confusion. I absolutely agree that in order to understand God and His Son better, we must pray, but more importantly, we must understand what His Word says, because this is how He has revealed Himself to us. And again, prayer is subjective, but His Word is the Objective Truth (John 17:17). Hebrews 4:12 says:

“For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”

Another issue I have, is that you keep trying to put God in a box. In other words, you try to define God by earthly terms; by human wisdom. Although I agree that God is clear, honest, and not an author of confusion, I do not believe that He is “simple.” That is not a Biblical view of God. Isaiah 55:8,9 says:

“For my thoughts [are] not your thoughts, neither [are] your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”

God is not at all “simple,” but is very complex. How could one be the author and creator of the universe and be simple? Or know the thoughts and intents of your heart at all times (Job 21:27, Psalm 139:23, Isaiah 66:18)? I think the whole idea of a Triune God would seem a lot less confusing to you, if you start by considering what Scripture says about God’s Deity, and then formulate your belief. What you have done, is formulated your belief, and are now trying to make Scripture fit it. That’s where the confusion comes from. I think I have shown you that I can sit down, open up the Bible and see what it says about God’s Deity, and have no confusion at all.

The problem I have with most anti-Mormons is that they present verses to me all day long, but when I attempt to understand and reply with mine...I receive no answer or reply. Why do you think that is? Do you think people are not willing to change a belief even when supported by biblical evidence? Do you think people are not willing to be taught something new or different.....?

The reason you receive no answers back from “anti-Mormons” is because they don’t know what they are talking about. Most likely they have thrown some sound-bite verses at you trying to make you look bad, but when it comes down to it, they have no deeper knowledge of the text. They probably also do not have the dedication to take the time and respond, as I have done and will continue to do. I don’t necessarily think it’s because they don’t want to learn anything new. I am constantly studying Mormon theology, because I too want to test truth by what the Bible says. I am also always studying the Word to try and understand it better. I have doctrinal views (outside of who God is and how do we come to know him) that are even now changing, because I have dug into Scripture and discovered that what I thought was accurate, was not.

If you are interested in the numerous verses pertaining to this topic:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

If I may say, please be careful when using Wikipedia. I use it occasionally, but only when I know the sources are legit. The thing with Wikipedia is that anybody can post information on there, and it is not always reliable. Also, please know that all the verses I have responded to you with, I have researched on my own, to earnestly seek the truth. And I am not accusing of you doing this, but I will not just paste something I found on the internet, just for the sake of answering somebody, without completely understanding it.

P.S. If you google this topic you will find numerous Chrsitians who are confused and concerned about this doctrine....as they too, see the inconsistencies...

I’m sure there are tons of people who claim to be Christians that are confused on the issue. Unfortunately there are way too many people who speak out against Mormonism, but really don’t understand what or why they believe. That doesn’t, however, prove that it is confusing, or doesn’t exist. I talk to Mormons all the time with varying views on Mormon Doctrine, but I won’t use that to disprove Mormonism. Again, that is completely subjective. I will only use the Bible as the Objective Truth. That is my presupposition. Everything goes back to the Word of God!

In the Name of Christ,

Luke Pierson

Thursday, August 20, 2009

A Greek Study on the Deity of Jesus Christ: titus two thirteen

Friday, May 22, 2009

Scene Four

Thursday, May 14, 2009

Latter Day Saints Investigation: Atlanta

Stephen the Levite - RnA

Total Pageviews

Feedjit

Donate to Apologia

Ministry Bear Links

About Me

Search This Blog

Blog Archive

My Peeps

The Daily Spurgeon