(We will have an article out in our next Journal
in a few weeks but have decided in the meantime to post a response to Gwen
Shamblin and her statement of September 15, 2000)
In regard to Gwen Shamblin’s recent statements to her critics concerning her apparent rejection of the doctrine of the Trinity, it appears to me that this is largely an emotional and defensive response on her part. Mrs. Shamblin does not display sufficient understanding of this historic Christian doctrine in her attempt to refute it in this letter. This is demonstrated by these facts: 1) she frequently misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity as something that it is not; 2) she has not examined the biblical evidence closely enough as there are numerous passages which she fails to mention that support the Trinity; 3) she fails to represent the dual nature of Christ; 4) she has a limited, if not incorrect, understanding of the background surrounding the development of this defining doctrine of the Christian faith in the early 4th century; 5) she uses many fallacious arguments in an attempt to support her position. I will provide evidence of these facts in the following paragraphs.
Mrs. Shamblin’s belief regarding the Trinity virtually mirrors that of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Her line of reasoning and many of the verses she uses to defend her position are identical to those of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mrs. Shamblin attests that this likening her to the Jehovah’s Witnesses is faulty since agreeing with one aspect of a false religion does not warrant her meriting the same label. However, she is missing the point in this regard. The reason the Christian community is using the Jehovah’s Witness label for her teachings is because their rejection of the Trinity is one of the main issues which separates this group from orthodoxy. Hence, when anyone adopts a view of God’s nature that is akin to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they are, by default, straying from Christianity. This is therefore a serious matter, not to be taken lightly.
Before demonstrating Mrs. Shamblin’s misrepresentations of the Trinity, it is necessary to give a brief explanation of how the early Church Fathers formulated the definition of the Trinity and what the doctrine means.
The
doctrine of the Trinity is a major distinctive belief of the Christian faith
that separates it from all other religions of the world.
While many others may attempt to imitate it in some form or another, they
are easily identified as counterfeits. Since
we are limited beings we can never hope to fully understand the vast, infinite
nature of God. Our human reasoning
abilities and philosophical speculations may lead us to some concept of a divine
being. While general revelation
(i.e. the world, the universe, that which God has created) demonstrates to us
that there is a powerful and intelligent God who designed everything we see
(Romans 1, Psalm 19), it is only through special revelation found in Scripture
that we learn that God in a triune being. This
is why Christians turn to the Bible to describe and explain God as He is
revealed in His Word. This is
exactly what the theologians of the early church were doing.
They sought to make sense of the data they extracted from Scripture.
What they found were five basic truths that the Bible clearly asserted:
1) that God is one; 2) that the Father is God; 3) that the Son is God; 4)
that the Holy Spirit is God; and 5) that God is three.
However, since these statements seem to be problematic when taken
together, the early church had to find some way of explaining the nature of God.
Their synthesis of this biblical data is what became known as the
“doctrine of the Trinity.” There’s
nothing sacred about the word “Trinity.”
Mrs. Shamblin is absolutely correct in stating that the word does not
appear in the Bible. However, she
uses the word “infallible” in regards to Scripture.
But the word “infallibility” does not appear in the Bible either.
Does this mean infallibility is not a legitimate doctrine?
This type of reasoning on her part is obviously nonsensical.
We
must first come to some understanding of what it is we mean when we say
“God.” Just what is it exactly
that we are referring to when using this term?
And what is God's nature? In
other words, what is it that makes God “God” or what are the necessary
conditions for something or someone to be God?
These “necessary conditions” are those qualities that only God could
have. The Bible itself tells us
what some of these qualities are: eternal existence,
(no beginning and no ending), omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience
(all-knowing), omnipresence (everywhere present), worthy of worship, and capable
of being blasphemed. Anything or
anyone that possesses even one of these qualities must, by necessity, be God.
These qualities are inherent in
the nature of God, and they are not communicable attributes that can be given
from being to another. However,
when Mrs. Shamblin uses the term “deity” in reference to Jesus, she asserts
that Jesus was given certain qualities of deity from His Father, thereby
distinguishing Him as deity. This
is inaccurate and misleading. The
word “deity” is strictly reserved for the Being who has the incommunicable
qualities of God that cannot be transferred.
Since orthodox Christianity has always maintained the authority of Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity must ultimately be established within its pages. Otherwise it should be rejected. In order for Trinitarians to be justified in their belief, some key questions must be asked of the Bible. 1) Does the Bible teach that there is only ONE God who exists from eternity past to eternity future? 2) Does the Bible reveal a distinct person known as the Father who is fully God? 3) Does the Bible reveal a second distinct person known as the Son who is fully God? 4) And finally, does the Bible reveal a third distinct person known as the Holy Spirit who is fully God? If these questions can all be answered in the affirmative, then the doctrine of the Trinity is an undeniable reality, for it is merely a teaching which affirms the truth of the above five questions.
The
famous Nicene Creed states:
We believe in one God the Father All-sovereign, maker of
heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all the
ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance
with the father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our
salvation came down from the heavens, and was made flesh of the Holy Spirit and
the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the
Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sitteth on the right hand of the
father, and cometh again with glory to judge living and dead, of whose kingdom
there shall be no end: And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and the Life-giver, that
proceedeth from the Father, who with Father and Son is worshipped, together and
glorified together, who spake through the prophets...”
(The Nicene Creed)
It
basically affirms that within the nature
of the one God, there exist three
separate but co-eternal persons. These
three persons are, somehow, each fully
God in and of themselves, so that none of them is one-third, or a
"part" of God, nor are they separate gods. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit somehow
all share the nature of eternal existence, thereby necessitating their deity.
Though
this may sound confusing, the question is not so much whether our minds can
fully grasp the doctrine of the Trinity, but rather, is it true?
(For who would deny that we believe many things that cannot be explained? For example, we fully believe that God created the universe
out of nothing. But do we have any
clue as to how He did it?) Given
that the Bible is our ultimate source of authority, reliable, inerrant and
inspired by God, we are left to consider what it has to say regarding the nature
of God and draw conclusions based on that.
Most
non-Trinitarians do not even have a proper understanding of what the Christian
doctrine of the Trinity is. You
will often hear people (even Christians) inadvertently misrepresenting it by
defining it as the belief in three Gods in one or three modes of the same person
who is God. In other words, they claim we are holding to one of the
heresies mentioned above. However,
despite charges to the contrary, Trinitarians do not believe in "three
Gods" (tritheism). Nor do they
believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are merely aspects or
manifestations of one and the same person (Modalism), like a single actor
playing three different parts in a play.
The common illustrations of the parts of an egg or the three states of
water (i.e. gas, liquid, solid which Mrs. Shamblin refers to) are not adequate
analogies of the Trinity since they portray a modalistic
God. (Modalism or Sabellianism was also condemned by the Early Church.)
Frequently people attempt to prove from the Bible that Jesus is not the Father by pointing out verses in which one is talking to the other as proof that they are not one and the same person. This is what the Jehovah’s Witnesses do when they say the following: “Since Jesus prayed to God, asking that God’s will, not his, be done, the two could not be the same person” (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, p. 39). They incorrectly assume that Trinitarians believe that the Father is the Son. This is not the case at all. The faulty logic here is equivalent to saying:
John is a person.
Mary is a person.
All persons are human.
Therefore, John and Mary are the same person.
While
this is an absurd conclusion, this is precisely the same reasoning used by those
who argue that the Son cannot be God because only the Father is God.
In the above syllogism, if we were to replace "John" and
"Mary" with "the Father" and "the Son" and
"human" with the word "God," we can see how the
misrepresentation works. Sadly,
this is the exact same line of reasoning that Mrs. Shamblin is using.
If she were able to distinguish between Trinitarianism and Modalism, she
would not assert the following:
Here are some other
questions that stump people teaching the Trinity: "When the Heavens opened at the baptism of Jesus, did
God say that He was pleased with Himself?" "When Jesus died on the
cross and said it was finished, did God turn away from Himself?" No -
"Jesus cried out in a loud voice, 'Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?' - which
means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" A third question to
ask them is, "Did the Heavens open and Stephen REALLY see Jesus at the
right hand side of God?"
These
questions do not disprove the Trinity. They
only show that Modalism is not Biblical. Likewise,
non-Trinitarians may frequently bring up verses which clearly affirm the unity
of God. This does not disprove the
Trinity either. All it does is to
disproves poly/tritheism. The fact
is, the Trinity cannot be disproved biblically.
Any verse that the non-Trinitarian brings up will actually affirm some
aspect of God’s Triune nature, either His plurality or His unity.
The
Trinity is a doctrine unique to Christianity.
As stated at the outset, no other religion can claim the Christian
concept of the Triune God as its own. Ironically,
this is not the case with our non-Trinitarian critics.
Mormons and the ancient Greeks share the boat among other polytheists.
Jehovah’s Witnesses believe in a uni-personal God just like Muslims and
Jews do today. And Jesus Only Pentecostals and members of the Local Church
are undeniably Modalists. But
orthodox Christianity is set apart with its belief in the Holy Trinity.
Hence, Mrs. Shamblin does not stand alone as she would have us believe.
The original terms used to describe the doctrine of the Trinity are the Greek words ousia and hypostases. These terms, which mean “nature” and “person” respectively, clarified the problem of God being both three and yet one at the same time.[i] Ousia emphasized God’s unity while hypostases emphasized God’s plurality. The reason why the three persons of the Trinity were considered divine is because all three possess the same nature. The “nature” of something is that which makes it what it is. In other words, we call a human being “human” because he possesses the nature of humanness. Though there are many different people with widely varying qualities, there are characteristics inherent in each human being that classifies him or her in the category of “human.” This also applies to God. As human beings belong to the class of “human,” so too the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit belong to the class of “God” since they each possess the nature of God. Had the Early Church said that there are three Gods and one God or three Persons and one Person in the Godhead, that would be a contradiction. But since they concluded that God is three Persons in one nature, there is no inherent contradiction.
This is a glaring distinction missing in Mrs. Shamblin’s treatise. Every single verse she uses to demonstrate the distinction between Father and Son actually demonstrates the fact that two persons with two wills are in question, not that two separate natures are involved.
Another vital missing element in Mrs. Shamblin’s discussion of the Trinity is the dual nature of Christ. Because she lacks sufficient biblical understanding, she has failed to grasp the concept that when Christ came to earth in human form, He also took on the limitations that go along with being human. This is what the kenosis passage in Philippians 2:5-11 is all about.
Oftentimes non-Trinitarians (Gwen Shamblin being one of them) will quote such scriptures as John 14:28 in which Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I.” Or they may reason that Jesus could not possibly be God because He admitted to not knowing things (such as the identity of the woman who touched his garment in the midst of the crowd, or when the end of the world would be which He said that only the Father knows). They will reason, “Jesus Himself even admitted to being inferior to God. How can you say that He was equal to Him?” On the surface, this does, indeed, appear to be a dilemma. However, the Bible is meant to be taken as a whole. We are to read it in its immediate context, seeing how it fits into the broader context. With this in mind and upon closer examination of other passages, we can see how these potentially disturbing passages in no way damage the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity. Orthodox Trinitarianism has always maintained that the person of Jesus Christ is composed of two distinct natures, human and divine. In other words, the second person of the Trinity is not only fully God but also fully human. This is, however, not true of either the Father or the Holy Spirit.
Scriptural support of this assertion is found in John 1:14 and Philippians 2:5-11. Here the apostle Paul tells us that the Son, even though He had the very nature of God (vs. 6), He humbled Himself and voluntarily assumed a lesser position than His Father by taking on human flesh. By doing this He was also taking on the limitations of humanness, such as not knowing everything, not being everywhere at once, and not being all-powerful. Even though at any time He was here on earth He could have exercised these abilities, He chose to abandon this right in order to identify with us. While this sounds like another contradiction, it is not. We often say that “God became man” but we do not mean that the infinite nature of the Son became finite. That would be contradictory. What we mean is that the Second Person of the Trinity (God the Son), who has always had an infinite, divine nature, also took upon Himself a finite, human nature.
This is in an extremely important point. If Christ were not God, then our sins have not been paid for in full. The effects of the Fall were devastating. When Adam and Eve disobeyed God, the ramifications of this act were infinite and created a never-ending ripple effect throughout all of humanity and the entire world. Thus, no single, finite being could ever hope to reverse the consequences of the Fall. Justice would have demanded a sacrifice that matched the sin. But since man is finite, and sin is infinite, no one human being could make a sufficient sacrifice. On the other hand, it was man who deserved to pay the price. So the dilemma is, “Man owed a debt that only God could pay.” Or “Man owed a debt he could not pay. God could pay a debt He did not owe.” Hence, God’s plan for the salvation of man was for the Son to take on with human flesh and die as the sacrifice for our sins. At the cross, the sin of the world was placed upon the shoulders of the God-man, Jesus Christ, as the ultimate sin-offering. God the Father, not being able to look upon sin, at that moment, turned away from Jesus who cried out in agony, “My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?” (Mark 15:34). The payment had been made. God’s justice was satisfied. Man was redeemed. But, as we have seen, this was only because God united with man. If Christ did not possess both an infinite nature and a finite one, the effects of His death would have been limited, and we would still be dead in our sins.
Therefore
Jesus Christ is and must be equal to God the Father in His divine nature
(Colossians 2:9: “All the fullness of deity
dwells in Him bodily”) but “lesser” because of His human nature (John
14:28), or else we are still hopelessly lost.
But the fact that Christ is in willing submission to His Father does not
mean He is inferior to Him. “Inferior”
does not occur at all in the Bible in reference to Jesus, despite the
subordinationist’s assertion that He is.
This can be compared to a man and his father. While the son was a child, he was under his father’s
authority; the father was in a greater position than his son. However the father is not better than his son in the
sense that he is worth more. The
father’s life is no more valuable than his son’s.
While the father has more authority than his son and may be said
to be greater than him in that regard, by nature they are equal, both
being human. In the same way, while
God the Father has more authority than His Son and may be said to be
greater than Him in that regard, they are by nature equal, both being
divine.
If Mrs. Shamblin refuses to believe that Jesus was God, then it logically follows that we cannot be saved by His work on the cross alone. His grace cannot be sufficient for us because only an infinite being could pay the infinite debt that we owe – hence, we are doomed. And this is why her teachings are to be regarded as heretical.
Other examples of Mrs. Shamblin’s misrepresentation of the Trinity are illustrated in the following quotes.
“The Bible teaches us that the Son doesn't even know the day or the hour, but only the Father. ‘No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father’ (Mark 13:32). How could the same ‘being’ keep a secret from part of the Godhead if indeed there is one Head and not two separate beings?”
“With so many references listed, why does a man-made teaching want to make the Father and His only Son one being? This is twisted, and we should rethink this man-made tradition.”
“No scripture says that Jesus is the
Father - but every scripture says that He is the SON of God and the Messiah
(Christ).”
“How could someone state that Jesus and God are equal in all things when Jesus Himself refers to God as ‘HIS God’?”
“Jesus states that He can only do what He sees His Father doing.”
“…would you not want to question a document made up by man that is claiming that Jesus is equal, when He Himself said that he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped (Phil 2:5-11).”
“Jesus stated that the Father was ‘greater than I’ (John 14:28), and when
someone referred to Jesus as ‘good teacher,’ Jesus said, ‘No one is good -
except God alone’ (Luke 18:18).”
“He is not the Father-for verse 2 says, ‘He was WITH God in the beginning.’”
These
quotes illustrate two common problems among those who are ignorant of
Trinitarian theology. The first is
the fact that Trinitarians do not believe that the Father and the Son are the
same person. If we did, we would
not be Trinitarians. And related to
this, we do believe that there is a hierarchy of position within the Godhead so
that the Son is lesser in rank than
His Father, but not in nature. (The
distinction in relationship being that between General and Colonel, instead of
that between Man and Dog.) The
second problem (which will be expounded on later in this article) is the lack of
understanding of the dual nature of Christ.
Jesus had two natures, human and divine. In His human nature, He was obviously lesser than His Father.
Biblical Misrepresentation of the Nature of Christ
Mrs. Shamblin’s ignorance of the biblical evidence surrounding the nature of the Son of God is demonstrated in such ludicrous comments as “Teachers of the Trinity teach that Jesus is Jehovah; they have no scriptures to back this up.” There are actually dozens of verses to indicate that not only is Jesus God, but that He is also Jehovah.
Here are some verses blatantly identifying Jesus as God:
"The
mighty God" (Isaiah 9:6)
"The
Word was God" (John 1:1)
"The
Only-begotten God" (John 1:18)
"My
Lord and My God" (John 20:28)
"the
church of God which He purchased with His own blood"
(Acts 20:28)
"Christ...who
is over all, God blessed forever" (Romans
9:5)
"All
the fullness of deity dwells in Him bodily"
(Colossians 2:9)
"Our
great God and Savior” (Titus
2:13)
“And
He is the radiance of His (God’s) glory and the exact representation of His
nature” (Hebrews 1:3).
"But
of the Son, He says, 'Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever"
(Hebrews 1:8).
"the
righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ"
(2 Peter 1:1)
"in
His Son Jesus Christ. This is the
true God and eternal life” (1
John 5:20).
As anyone can see, there are quite a few more here than just John 1:1 which Mrs. Shamblin is familiar with. One would think that for someone who is so confident in her views, she would at least refer to these verses. However, it seems apparent that she is not even aware of them. This type of shoddy scholarship is inexcusable for someone promoting herself as a teacher of God’s word.
Regarding the identification of Jesus with Jehovah, we can see this in a few examples where a certain title or attribute is applied to God or Jehovah in one verse and then later on is applied to Jesus. As it turns out there are a vast number of parallel attributes and titles that are applied to Jehovah in one passage and then to Jesus in another. Many times there is a reference to Jehovah in the Old Testament which is then later identified as Jesus in the New Testament. This parallelism strongly ties the identity of Christ with that of the Almighty God, Jehovah. For instance, in Psalm 23 we see that Jehovah (the LORD) is the Shepherd. Yet in John 10 Jesus identifies Himself as the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for His sheep. Another excellent example is the function of God as Creator. Genesis 1:1 says that God created the heavens and the earth, and Isaiah 44:24 says that Jehovah alone created the universe. However, if Jesus is not God this is contrary to John 1:3 and Colossians 1:16-18 which say that the Word (Jesus) created all things. Obviously, if Jesus created all things then He Himself cannot be created because He could not have created Himself. Also, since God said He was alone when He created the heavens and the earth, and the Bible clearly says that Jesus created the heavens and the earth, what other conclusion can we come to other than that Jesus is Jehovah God?
In addition to this, Hebrews 1:10 mentions the one who
laid the foundations of the earth and created the heavens.
If we ask the non-Trinitarian whom this passage is in reference to, he
would have to say that it is referring to the Son because verse 8 begins the
passage, “But of the Son He (the Father) says. . .”
But this verse is actually a quote from the Old Testament in Psalm
102:25. If we look at this verse in
context with the previous one, we get some added information as to who it was
who made heaven and earth, “I say, ‘O my God, do not take away in the midst
of my days, Thy years are throughout all generations.
‘Of old Thou didst found the earth; And the heavens are the work of Thy
hands.” How much clearer could it
be? There are many more such
examples which should clearly confirm the doctrine of the deity of Christ, some
of which are listed here:
Title/Attribute
Yahweh
Jesus
Yahweh
Ex. 3:14; Deut. 32:39 John 8:24; John 8:58
Eternal
Ps. 90:2; Is. 43:13 Is. 9:6;
Mic. 5:2
Creator
Gen. 1:1; Ps. 102:25; Is. 44:24
Jn. 1:3; Heb. 1:10
First
& Last Is. 41:4; 44:6; Rev.
1:17-18 Rev. 22:1;18; 2:8
King of Kings &
Lord of Lords
1 Tim. 6:15 Rev. 17:14; Rev. 19:16
Shepherd
Gen. 49:24; Ps. 23:1-3
Jn. 10:14-16,27,28
Husband
Is. 54:5; Hos. 2:16
Mt. 25:1; 2; Co. 11:2
Who was pierced
Zech. 12:10
Jn. 19:32-37
Valued at 30
pieces of silver
Zech. 11:11-13 Mt. 26:14-16;
27:3-10
Every
knee will bow
& tongue confess
Is. 45:23; Rom. 14:10-11
Phil. 2:10-11
Alone
to be
Worshipped Deut: 6:13; Re. 4:10-1 Matt.28:17; Rev. 5:8-14
Misunderstanding of the Dual nature of Christ
The
next problem with Mrs. Shamblin’s view is that she fails to recognize the dual
nature of Christ. The historic
Christian position on this is that Jesus Christ has two distinct natures: one
human and one divine (i.e. of God). Philippians
2:5–11 clearly explains that when Christ came to earth He temporarily
abandoned His divine privileges in order to take on the nature of man. Since the human nature prohibits one from being all-knowing
and all-powerful, Jesus' visitation here on earth was that of a normal man who
received all of His supernatural power from His God and Father in heaven.
According to Philippians, it was as if He put His divine nature on hold
in order that He might fully identify with us.
At any point while He was on earth, He could have unveiled His divinity
and totally exposed His glory, but this would have defeated His purpose in the
incarnation for the sake of our redemption.
Incidentally,
note that Mrs. Shamblin uses the same faulty interpretation of Philippians
2:5-11 that the Jehovah’s Witnesses do. Her
interpretation of verse is particularly problematic.
“Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God
something to be grasped.” Mrs.
Shamblin understands this verse to be saying that Jesus was not trying to be God. However,
if we read the context closer, we can see how ludicrous this interpretation is.
Since Paul is talking about humility here, what point would Paul possibly
be trying to make by saying, “we should be humble just like Jesus and not try
to be God”? How much humility is
involved in not trying to be something you’re not and never have a hope of
being anyway? In fact, the verse
even indicates that Jesus WAS God (because He shared the nature of God).
Hence, a more logical reading would be, “Even though Jesus was God, He
did not regard His equality with God something to be exploited.
But instead, He humbly took the form of a slave by taking on human
form.” Paul’s point would have
been totally lost had Jesus not already been God.
The
fact is, the man Jesus lived out His life as a faithful Jew.
As a humble man He was subject both to His earthly leaders and to His
Father God in heaven. He restricted
His divine qualities such as omniscience and omnipotence and received all of His
supernatural power and knowledge from His Father. And it is in this sense that the Father is greater than
Christ. It does not mean that the
Father is better than the Son, only
that they are serving different roles. This
is similar to a human son obeying the commands of his earthly father.
In one sense, we could say that since the father has more authority than
his son, that he is greater than his son. However,
since both of them share the same nature, neither one’s life is more valuable
than the other. The same is true
with God the Father and God the Son. Therefore,
verses such as John 14:28, “The Father is greater than I,” and verses which
indicate that Jesus didn’t know certain things, must be read in this light.
Mrs. Shamblin demonstrates her ignorance of this
fundamental concept by making such statements as
“How could someone state that Jesus and God are equal in all things when Jesus Himself refers to God as ‘HIS God.’”
“Jesus states that He can only do what He sees His Father doing, and Revelations is clear that Jesus will be sitting at the right-hand side of God. Now think with me: Why would you not want to question a document made up by man that is claiming that Jesus is equal, when He Himself said that he did not consider equality with God something to be grasped (Phil 2:5-11)?”
“Jesus stated that the Father was "greater than I" (John 14:28)”
Historical Misrepresentation
Another issue that Mrs. Shamblin misrepresents is the actual history of the Trinity and it’s development. She frequently makes references to it as a “man-made teaching” that did not exist until the 4th century. “…the man-made teaching of the Trinitarian Creeds that were formed over 300 years past Christ and has been debated every (sic) since by many well-known theologians.” She also says, “The Trinity tradition is based on human teachings which were formed between 325 and 415 AD. These man-made teachings have been debated since its inception. I should not be looked down upon because I continue the debate.”
First of all, while it is true that the doctrine of the Trinity has been debated ever since its inception, it has not been debated among those within the Church! Mrs. Shamblin fails to provide even one example of a “well-known” conservative scholar who has argued against the doctrine of the Trinity. The only examples she would be able to present would be of liberal scholars such as Rudolf Bultmann who denies even the existence of the supernatural. She does not produce one shred of evidence that the Trinitarian dogma has been an in-house debate such as the eschatological theories, eternal security, or covenant vs. dispensational theology. She gives us no example of an orthodox theologian who was skeptical on this issue. The Trinity is a fundamental of the Christian faith and not a secondary issue.
Secondly, Mrs. Shamblin’s above statement illustrates a profound misunderstanding of the significance of creedal formulas as well as the history behind the development of the Trinity. The fact is the Ante-Nicene Fathers (that is, the Christian theologians who existed prior to the definition of the Trinity in 325 A.D.) would never have agree with Mrs. Shamblin’s view of God. While they didn’t have a distinct word describing the triune nature of God, they most certainly believed it. And this is the only purpose the “man-made” doctrine was to serve: to provide a name for a concept that was already accepted. It’s not as though the Trinity arose out of thin air or the wild imaginations of men living in the 4th century. It is solidly based on both biblical and historical evidence.
I have already demonstrated the solid biblical foundation for the Trinity. Now I would like to spend some time demonstrating the solid historical precedence of it. The following are quotes from the Ante-Nicene Fathers, who were well-respected men who were often called to the task of defending the Christian faith against a variety of heretics who came their way (Gnostics, Modalists, Arians, etc.) Each one listed below clearly attests to the deity of Christ. I’ve also included the approximate dates for each one of them along with some commentary of my own. It should be clear after reading this that Mrs. Shamblin’s assertion that the Trinity was simply made up by men at the Council of Nicea in 325 is totally erroneous.
Justin Martyr (c.100 - c.165)
“The Jews, accordingly, being throughout of opinion that it was the Father of the universe who spake to Moses, though He who spake to him was indeed the Son of God, who is called both Angel and Apostle, are justly charged, both by the Spirit of prophecy and by Christ Himself, with knowing neither the Father nor the Son. For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God. And of old He appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets; but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at naught and to suffer, that by dying and rising again might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, ‘I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers’ this signified that they, even though dead, are yet in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself.” -- Justin Martyr, ANF, p. 184.
“Moreover, in the diapsalm of the forty-sixth Psalm, reference is thus made to Christ: ‘God went up with a shout, the Lord with the sound of a trumpet. Sing ye to our God is King of all the earth: sing with understanding. God has ruled over the nations. God sits upon His holy throne. The rulers of the nations, were assembled along with the God of Abraham, for the strong ones of God are greatly exalted on the earth.’ And in the ninety-eighth Psalm, the Holy Spirit reproaches you, and predicts Him whom you do not wish to be king to be King and Lord, both of Samuel, and of Aaron, and of Moses, and, in short, of all the others. And the words of the Psalm are these: ‘The Lord [Yahweh] has reigned, let the nations be angry: [it is] He who sits upon the cherubim, let the earth be shaken. The Lord is great in Zion, and He is high above all the nations. Let them confess Thy great name, for it is fearful and holy, and the honour of the King loves judgment. Thou has prepared equity; judgment and righteousness hast Thou performed in Jacob. Exalt the Lord our God, and worship the footstool of His feet; for He is holy. Moses and Aaron among His priests, and Samuel among those who call upon His name. They called (says the Scripture) on the Lord, and He heard them. In the pillar of the cloud He spake to them; for they kept His testimonies, and the commandment which he gave them. O Lord our God, Thou heardest them: O God, Thou wert propitious to them, and [yet] taking vengeance on all their inventions. Exalt the Lord our God, and worship at His holy hill; for the Lord our God is holy.’” -- Justin Martyr, ANF, p. 213.
[Note: In the previous chapter, Justin
asks, “Who is this King of glory?” He then proceeds here to quote from the
Old Testament from passages which are clearly indicating that Jehovah God is the
King. Yet, Justin says here that
the Psalms are talking about Christ!]
“Moreover, in the book of Exodus we have also perceived that the name of God Himself, which, He says, was not revealed to Abraham or to Jacob, was Jesus, and was declared mysteriously through Moses. Thus it is written: ‘And the Lord spake to Moses, Say to this people, Behold, I send My angel before thy face, to keep thee in the way, to bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. Give heed to Him, and obey Him; do not disobey Him. For He will not draw back from you; for My name is in Him.’ Now understand that He who led your fathers into the land is called this name Jesus, and first called Auses (Oshea). For if you shall understand this, you shall likewise perceive that the name of Him who said to Moses, ‘for My name is in Him,’ was Jesus. For, indeed, He was also called Israel, and Jacob’s name was changed to this also. Now Isaiah shows that those prophets who are sent to publish tidings from God are called His angels and apostles. For Isaiah says in a certain place, ‘Send me.’ And that the prophet whose name was changed, Jesus [Joshua], was strong and great, is manifest to all. If, then, we know that God revealed Himself in so many forms to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, how are we at a loss, and do not believe that, according to the will of the Father of all things, it was possible for Him to be born man of the Virgin, especially after we have such Scriptures, from which it can be plainly perceived that He became so according to the will of the Father?” – Justin Martyr, ANF, p. 236.
[Note: The name of God revealed to Moses
in the book of Exodus is Jesus. 2)
The name of the one who led the Jews to the promised land is Jesus.
3) This God who revealed
Himself to Abraham, Jacob, and Moses was later born of a Virgin.]
“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has been demonstrated fully by what has been said.” -- Justin Martyr, ANF, p. 264.
Irenaeus
(c.130 - c.200)
"What cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that He is
Himself in His own right God and Lord and Eternal King and Only begotten and
Incarnate Word, proclaimed as such by all the Prophets and by the Apostles and
by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small
portion of the truth. The
Scriptures would not have borne witness to these things concerning Him, if, like
everyone else, He were man" [ii]
“Therefore neither
would the Lord, nor the Holy Spirit, nor the apostles, have ever named as God,
definitely and absolutely, him who was not God, unless he were truly God; nor
would they have named any one in his own person Lord, except God the Father
ruling over all, and His Son who has received dominion from His Father over all
creation . . .” Irenaeus, ANF, p.
418
“’Then the LORD [“Jehovah”] rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah fire and brimstone from the LORD out of heaven.’ For it here points out that the Son, who had also been talking with Abraham, received power to judge the Sodomites for their wickedness. And this [text following] does declare the same truth: ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou has loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee.’ For the Spirit designates both [of them] by the name of God – both Him who is anointed, and Him does anoint, that is, the Father.” – Irenaeus, ANF, p. 419.
[Note: Both God the Father and the Son can
have the name ‘God.’]
“For she is the
synagogue of God, which God – that is,
the Son Himself – has gathered by Himself.
Of whom He again speaks: ‘The God of Gods, the Lord hath spoken, and
hath called the earth.’ Who
is meant by God? He of whom He
has said, ‘God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence;’
that is, the Son, who came
manifested to men.” --
Irenaeus, ANF, p. 419.
[Note: This passage taken from Psalm 50 which in that context applies to Jehovah, Irenaeus says refers to the Son.]
“But whatever
things had a beginning, and are liable to dissolution, and are subject to and
stand in need of Him who made them, must necessarily in all respects have a
different term [applied to them], even by those who have but a moderate capacity
for discerning such things; so that He
indeed who made all things can alone, together with His Word, properly be termed
God and Lord: but the things which have been made cannot have this term
applied to them, neither should they justly assume that appellation which
belongs to the Creator.” --
Irenaeus, ANF, p. 422.
[Note: 1) He who made all things and His Word can be called “God and Lord” 2) Anything that has been created (which does not include the Word) cannot properly be called God. Therefore, the Son was not created and is properly called God along with His Father.]
“For I have shown from the Scriptures, that no one of the sons of Adam is as to everything, and absolutely, called God, or named Lord. But that He is Himself in His own right, beyond all men who ever lived, God and Lord, and King Eternal, and the Incarnate Word, proclaimed by all the prophets, the apostles, and by the Spirit Himself, may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the Truth. Now, the Scriptures would not have testified these things of Him, if, like others, He had been a mere man.” – Irenaeus, ANF, p. 449
[Note: No man other than Jesus can rightfully and absolutely be called God, Lord, and King Eternal.]
Clement of Alexandria (150 - c.215)
"For when he says, 'That which was from the beginning,' he touches
upon the generation without beginning of the Son, who is co-existent with the
Father. There was, then, a Word
importing an unbeginning eternity; as also the Word itself, that is, the Son of
God, who being, by equality of substance, one with the Father, is eternal and
uncreate. That He was always the
Word, is signified by saying, 'In the beginning was the Word'" - Clement
of Alexandria, Fragments from Cassiodorus, ANF p. 574.
Tertullian (c.150 - c.212)
“We do indeed believe that there is only one God. . .He was sent by the
Father into a Virgin and was born of her, God and man, Son of Man and Son of
God, and was called by the name Jesus Christ.”[iii]
“And we, in like manner, hold that the Word, and Reason, and Power, by which we have said God made all, have said God made all, have spirit as their proper and essential substratum, in which the Word has inbeing to give forth utterances, and reason abides to dispose and arrange, and power is over all to execute. We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun – there is no division of substance with God, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled. The material matrix remains entire and unimpaired, though you derive from it any number of shoots possessed of its qualities; so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of existence – in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the original source, but went forth. This ray of God, then, as it was always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united.” (Tertullian, ANF, vol. 3, pp. 34-35).
[Note: According to Tertullian, the Son is directly generated (not created) from the Father, just like a human child is generated from his parents. Therefore, they share the same substance of deity, just like we share the same substance of humanity with our parents. The Son is also said to only be second in position, not in nature.]
“If the number of the Trinity also offends you, as if it were not connected in the simple Unity, I ask you how it is possible for a Being who is merely and absolutely One and Singular, to speak in plural phrase, saying, ‘Let us make man in our image, and after our own likeness;’ whereas He ought to have said, ‘Let me make man in my own image, and after my own likeness,’ as being a unique and singular Being? In the following passage, however, ‘Behold the man is become as one of us,’ He is either deceiving or amusing us in speaking plurally, if He is One only and singular. Or was it to the angels that He spoke, as the Jews interpret the passage, because these also acknowledge not the Son? Or was it because He was at once the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, that He spoke to Himself in plural terms, making Himself plural on that very account? Nay, it was because He had already His Son close at His side, as a second Person, His own Word, and a third Person also, the Spirit in the Word, that He purposely adopted the plural phrase, ‘Let us make;’ and, ‘in our image;’ and, ‘become as one of us.’ For with whom did He make man? and to whom did He make him like? (The answer must be), the Son on the one hand, who was one day to put on human nature; and the Spirit on the other, who was to sanctify man. With these did He then speak, in the Unity of the Trinity, as with His ministers and witnesses. In the following text also He distinguishes among the Persons: ‘So God created man in His own image; in the image of God created He him.’” (Tertullian, ANF, vol. 3, pp. 606-07).
[Note: Tertullian is arguing against the notion that God is “merely and absolutely One and Singular.” The Being of which he is speaking is plural. And three distinct persons make up this one being.]
“Now if He too is God, according to John, (who says,) ‘The Word was God,’ then you have two Beings-One that commands that the thing be made, and the Other that executes the order and creates. In what sense, however, you ought to understand Him to another, I have already explained, on the ground of Personality, not of Substance-in the way of distinction, not of division. But although I must everywhere hold one only substance in three coherent and inseparable (Persons), yet I am bound to acknowledge, from the necessity of the case, that He who issues a command is different from Him who executes it.” (Tertullian, ANF, vol. 3. P. 607).
“Well then, you reply, if He was God who spoke, and He was also God who created, at this rate, one God spoke and another created; (and thus) two Gods are declared If you are so venturesome and harsh, reflect a while; and that you may think the better and more deliberately, listen to the psalm in which Two are described as God; ‘Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; the sceptre of Thy kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore, God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee or made Thee His Christ.’ Now, since He here speaks to God, and affirms that God is anointed by God, He must have affirmed that Two are God, by reason of the sceptre’s royal power.” (Tertullian, ANF, vol. 3, p. 607).
“Accordingly, Isaiah also says to the Person of Christ: ‘The Sabaeans, men of stature, shall pass over to Thee; and they shall follow after Thee, bound in fetters; and they shall worship Thee, because God is in Thee: for Thou art our God, yet we knew it not; Thou art the God of Israel.’ For here too, by saying, ‘God is in Thee, and ‘Thou art God,’ he sets forth Two who were God: (in the former expression in Thee, he means) in Christ, and (in the other he means) the Holy Ghost. That is a still grander statement which you will find expressly made in the Gospel: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ There was One ‘who was,’ and there was another ‘with whom’ He was.” (Tertullian, ANF, vol. 3, p. 607).
“But I find in Scripture the name LORD [or “Jehovah’] also applied to them Both: ‘The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on my right hand.’ And Isaiah says this: ‘Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?’ Now he would most certainly have said Thine Arm, if he had not wished us to understand that the Father is Lord, and the Son also is Lord. A much more ancient testimony we have also is Genesis: ‘Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.’ Now, either deny that this is Scripture; or else (let me ask) what sort of man you are, that you do not think words ought to be taken and understood in the sense in which they are written, especially when they are not expressed in allegories and parables, but in determinate and simple declarations?” (Tertullian, ANF, vol. 3, p. 607).
“Fore we, who by the grace of God possess an insight into both the times and the occasions of the Sacred writings, especially we who are followers of the Paraclete, not of human teachers, do indeed definitely declare that Two beings are God, the Father and the Son, and, with the addition of the Holy Spirit, even Three, according to the principle of the divine economy, which introduces number, in order that the Father may not, as you perversely infer, be Himself believed to have been born and to have suffered, which it is not lawful to believe, forasmuch as it has not been so handed down. That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement which at no time proceeds out of our mouth: not as if it were untrue that the Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and each is God; but because in earlier times Two were actually spoken of as God, and two as Lord, that when Christ should come He might be both acknowledged as God and designated as Lord, being the Son of Him who is both God and Lord.” (Tertullian, ANF, vol. 3, p. 608).
[Note:
Tertullian is clearly saying that three separate beings should be
declared “God.” He argues that
they could not be considered two Gods, however.
Also, not only does Tertullian acknowledge that the Father, the Son and
the Holy Spirit should be considered the same God, he is also suggesting that
the Holy Spirit is a Person just like the other two.]
Origen (c.185 - 254)
“The holy Apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, treated with the
utmost clarity of certain matters which they believed to be of absolute
necessity to all believers. . .The specific points which are clearly handed down
through the apostolic preaching [are] these: First, that there is one God who
created and arranged all things. . .Secondly, that Jesus Christ Himself, who
came, was born of the Father before all creatures. . .Although He was God, He
took flesh; and having been made man, He remained what He was, God. . .For we do
not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the substance of God
was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from
non-existent substances, that is, from a substance outside Himself, so that
there were a time when He did not exist.”[iv]
“For through
Wisdom, which is Christ, God has power over all things, not only by the
authority of a ruler, but also by the voluntary obedience of subjects.
And that you may understand that the
omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same, as God and the Lord are
one and the same with the Father, listen to the manner in which John speaks in
the Apocalypse: ‘Thus saith the Lord God, which is, and which was, and which
is to come, the Almighty.’ For
who else was ‘He which is to come’ than Christ?
And as no one ought to be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the
Saviour is also God; so also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no
one ought to be offended that the Son of God is also called omnipotent.”
(Origen, ANF, p. 250).
“From all which we
learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that
saving baptism was not complete except by
the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, i.e., by the naming of
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the
Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit.”
(Origen, ANF, p. 252).
“Let no one indeed
suppose that we, from having said that the Holy Spirit is conferred upon the
saints alone, but that the benefits or operations of the Father and of the Son
extend to good and bad, to just and unjust, by so doing give a preference to the
Holy Spirit over the Father and the Son, or assert that His dignity is greater,
which certainly would be a very illogical conclusion.
For it is the peculiarity of His grace and operations that we have been
describing. Moreover, nothing
in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity
alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His
mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification, as it is written
in the Psalm . . .” (Origen,
ANF p. 254-55).
Hippolytus
(d. 236)
Only His Word is from
Himself, and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God.
For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from
mankind, rendering the old man new.” (Hippolytus,
Refutation of All Heresies, 10.33).