Responding to Socinianism (e.g. Christadelphians)

The view briefly stated:¹

“Christadelphians claim that the doctrine of the Trinity is false; that God is one only; that Jesus Christ is His Son born 1900 years ago, before which he had no corporeal existence; and that the Holy Spirit (rend. Ghost in many Bibles) is the power of God …. to believe in what most churches teach concerning the Godhead is to believe an impossibility, a contradiction” (G. E. Mansfield, ed. “The Godhead Explained,” in Herald of the Coming Age 35:1 [May 1989]: 2-3).

Arguments Considered:²

“Jesus is not eternal and did not exist prior to his conception and birth because he is ‘the only begotten’ Son of God (John 1:14; 3:16).” The word monogenēs is a combination of monos (“only”) and genos (“offspring” or “kind”). The fact that all humans are God’s offspring (Acts 17:29) shows that Jesus is not the only one of these. Seeing that genos also means “kind” (cf. Matt. 13:47; 17:21), monogenēs actually refers to “unique; only one of a kind.” The emphasis is on “unique” rather than begetting. In fact, the term gennaō (“beget”) is not even part of this word, thus the English “only begotten” is a potentially misleading translation. Note that in Heb. 11:17 Isaac is called the monogenēs of Abraham. Since Abraham begat more than eight offspring (Gen. 16:15; 25:1-6), this cannot mean that Isaac was the only one “begotten” of Abraham. However, it does mean that Isaac was the only son of promise and thus the only one of his kind.

“Jesus must have had a beginning in time because God says concerning him, ‘Thou art My Son, Today I have begotten Thee’ (Psa. 2:7).” In the biblical record this messianic psalm is not applied to Christ’s birth or supposed creation or the beginning of a Father-Son relationship but rather to Christ’s resurrection and exaltation (Acts 13:30-34; Heb. 1:5; 5:5). The crucified Christ was metaphorically “begotten” or brought forth from the tomb, declaring him to be the Son of God (cf. Rom. 1:4).

“Since a father always precedes a son in time, and Jesus is the Son of God, it must be the case that God the Father is antecedent to Jesus and that Jesus therefore had his origin out of the Father.” A futile attempt is being made here to explain God with human, biological terms and concepts. Certainly God communicates spiritual truths by means of words and ideas we can relate to and understand, but defining deity is not always as simplistic as some make it out to be. In Acts 13:33 the word “begotten” is used in a sense other than biological procreation (i.e. Jesus was ‘brought forth’ from the tomb). In 1 Cor. 4:15-17 Paul argues that he is a “father” of many because he had “begotten” them (through the gospel), and that Timothy is also his “son.” A literal (physical) interpretation cannot be forced on these words. One would have to affirm the nonsensical notion that Paul never converted anyone older than himself if a father always precedes a son in time. The Father-Son relationship within the Godhead is relevant only to Christ's incarnation (cf. Luke 1:31-35) but does not alter what the Bible says concerning his pre-existence and eternality.

“In John 1:1-14 the Logos was not actually the pre-incarnate Jesus but was simply God’s thought, purpose, and promise of Jesus to be generated in the future (cf. Jer. 1:5; Isa. 45:1).” One problem with this interpretation is the numerous masculine personal pronouns used with reference to the Logos: “he,” “him,” “his” (vv. 2-18). If it is asserted that the Logos is merely personified, this would seem very misleading since the same pronouns are used with reference to the Logos both before and after he “became flesh.” An added difficulty is the numerous other references to Christ’s pre-existence (e.g. John 1:15, 30; 3:13, 31; 6:62; 8:58; 13:3; et al.). The examples of Jeremiah (Jer. 1:5) and Cyrus (Isa. 45:1) are not equivalent to the accounts of Jesus. Both of these examples are one-time statements made about these men, whereas the numerous references to Christ’s pre-existence are mostly claims he made about himself.

“When John the Baptist said of Jesus, ‘he was before me’ (John 1:15), this means rank not time.” John did not say, “he is…” but rather “he was…” = a reference to time. Moreover, every other occurrence of the word prōtos in John’s Gospel is a reference to time, not rank (1:41; 5:4; 8:7; 19:32; 20:4, 8).

Further Observation:

     The pre-existence of Jesus is clearly affirmed in the New Testament: John 1:1-3, 30; 3:13, 31; 6:62; 8:23, 58; 13:3; 17:5; Phil. 2:6-7; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:10; etc. The repeated and cumulative nature of these biblical statements cannot reasonably be ignored or explained away.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Socinianism, denying the triune Godhead and the deity and pre-existence of Christ, is a view that maintains Jesus did not exist until he was conceived by the virgin Mary. This theological concept is named after the 16th-century Italian theologian Fausto Sozzini (Lat. Faustus Socinus) and was popularized in Poland. Modern-day proponents of this view include the Unitarian Church of Transylvania (also Poland and England), the Christadelphians, and the Church of God General Conference.
    ² Unless otherwise noted, scripture references are from the NKJV.

Related Posts: The Triune Godhead, Responding to Anti-Trinitarian Arguments, Deity of Christ

Image credit: http://www.artcyclopedia.org/art/murillo-seville.jpg

Responding to Arianism (e.g. Jehovah’s Witnesses)

The view briefly stated:¹

“Jesus had an existence in heaven before coming to the earth. But was it as one of the persons in an almighty, eternal triune Godhead? No, for the Bible plainly states that in his pre-human existence, Jesus was a created spirit being, just as angels were spirit beings created by God. Neither the angels nor Jesus had existed before their creation …. to worship God on his terms means to reject the Trinity doctrine” (Watchtower, “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” [1989]: 14, 31).

Arguments Considered:

“Jesus is not God because Colossians 1:15 states that he is ‘the first-born of all creation,’ i.e. the first one to have been created by Jehovah.” To conclude that the term “firstborn” here has reference to the first to have been created is to ignore the biblical usage of the term. The Greek word is prototokos, which signifies priority or superiority (cf. Ex. 4:22; Deut. 21:15-17). The future tense of Psalm 89:27 shows that “firstborn” is a title of preeminence, not a reference to origin (applied here to David, the youngest son of Jesse). Ephraim is called the “firstborn” (Jer. 31:9), even though he was the youngest brother (Gen. 48:14). In Colossians 1:15 Christ is called “firstborn” because he is superior or preeminent to all created things (cf. Rom. 8:29). Why? “Because by him all things were created …” (v. 16). If Jesus had been created, yet he created all created things, he would have created himself! Further, Paul goes on to say that Jesus is “the firstborn [prototokos] from the dead” (v. 18b), not that he is the first to have ever risen from the dead (cf. Matt. 11:5; John 11:44) but “that in all things He may have the preeminence” (v. 18c; cf. Rom. 6:9).

“Jesus is a created being, not God, because Revelation 3:14 refers to him as “the beginning of the creation by God” (New World Translation).” This verse is mistranslated in the NWT. The instrumental “by God” is not the original wording of the text, rather the genitive “of God.” The term translated “beginning” is the Greek word archē, meaning “origin” or “first cause.” This passage actually says that Christ was the moving cause of God’s creation, which parallels John 1:3 and Col. 1:16. In Rev. 21:6 God is described as “the beginning [archē] and the end.”

“John 1:1 should be translated, ‘the Word was a god.’ When the Greek word theos appears with a definite article (‘the’), it should be rendered ‘the God’ or ‘God.’ Since there is no indefinite article (‘a’) in Greek, in the absence of the definite article, theos should be translated ‘a god.’” This is not a legitimate rule for the use of the article in the Greek NT.² Of the 282 occurrences of the anarthrous theos (without the article), the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is 94% unfaithful to their own rule. In the first chapter of John alone, theos appears five times without an article (vv. 1, 6, 12, 13, 18), yet the NWT translators render it “God” in every instance except in v. 1, where it clearly refers to Christ! Further, if the Bible teaches that there is only one God (Deut. 6:4) and if Jesus is “a god” (i.e. an additional one), the advocates of this view are advocating polytheism.³

“Jesus can’t be God or equal with God because he is inferior to God (John 14:28).” A fundamental error undergirding this and similar arguments is the false assumption that a subordinate role is equivalent to an inferior nature. All Christians have been directed to submit to one another (Gal. 5:13; Eph. 5:21; 1 Pet. 5:5) yet remain equal in essence or worth (Gal. 3:28). Despite this equality, however, different functions have been allocated to the various believers, e.g. wives submit to husbands (Eph. 5:22), members submit to leaders (Heb. 13:17), etc. There is a clear distinction between substance (equality) and function (subordination). The contrast within the Godhead is functional, not one of nature or essence. When the one we know as Jesus “became flesh,” he took on an inferior role and could thus say, for instance, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). The word “greater” refers to position, whereas the word “better” would be applicable to nature (cf. Heb. 1:4). All passages dealing with Christ’s subordination (1 Cor. 11:3; etc.) refer to his role in the flesh but do not detract from his divine essence. Moreover, his temptations, visibility, subjection to death, etc., merely relate to his subordinate role that began when he took on human flesh. The descriptive expression, “the Son of God,” signifies both subordination (of position) and equality (of nature). See John 5:17-18; 10:17-33; etc.

“Jesus cannot be God because he referred to the Father as ‘the only true God’ (John 17:3).” This statement, like all other scriptural affirmations of divine exclusiveness, is in contrast to the false gods of polytheism and has nothing to do with Jesus allegedly denying anything about himself. If there is no Savior besides Almighty God (Isa. 43:11), would the deniers of Christ’s deity dismiss Jesus as Savior? (Eph. 5:23; Phil. 3:20; 2 Tim. 1:10; etc.). If Jesus is the “one Lord” (Eph. 4:4; Jude 4), does this mean the Father cannot be Lord? (Matt. 11:25; Luke 1:32; Acts 1:25; 2:20, 25, 39; 4:24). These exclusive statements merely eliminate those outside, not within, the Godhead.

Further Observations:

     Jesus is called “My Lord and my God” in John 20:28. The designations “Lord” and “God” are translated from the Greek words kurios and theos, and whenever these words are used together in the NT, they are equivalent to the Hebrew terms Yahweh (“Jehovah”) and elohim (“God”) (Mark 12:29-30; Luke 1:68; 10:27; Acts 3:22; cf. Ex. 20:7) and always refer to the Supreme Deity (Acts 2:39; 4:24; 7:37). Moreover, the designation “the Alpha and the Omega” is a clear reference to God that is equally applied to Jesus (Rev. 1:8, 17-18; 22:12-13, 16; cf. Isa. 44:6).

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Arianism is the view that Jesus the Son was created by God the Father and is therefore inferior in essence to God the Father. Arius of Alexandria (ca. 250-336) is the first on record to have espoused and promoted this view (thus “Arianism”). In modern times a form of this doctrine is held by religious groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and various Unitarian sects.

     ² In the Greek NT, word order is used for emphasis and the article distinguishes the subject from the predicate nominative. The only legitimate rendering of kai theos ēn ho logos in John 1:1 is, “and the Word was God.” The emphatic position of theos stresses essence or quality, and the absence of the article avoids the conclusion that the Word is the Person of God [the Father]; the word order shows that the Word has all the divine attributes of God. If the order and/or employment of the article were different, ho logos ēn ho theos (“the Word was the God”) = Sabellianism (Jesus is the Father); or ho logos ēn theos (“the Word was a god”) = Arianism.
    ³ The typical Jehovah’s Witness response is to point out Jesus’ words in John 10:34-35, where human judges are called “gods.” But this is the Lord’s response to antagonistic unbelievers, in stark contrast to passages like 1:1 and 20:28. Jesus is quoting Psa. 82:6, where the plural elohim (Hebrew) and the corresponding plural theoi (Greek) essentially refers to “mighty ones.” Nowhere in the New Testament is the plural theoi ever applied to God the Father or Jesus Christ. Moreover, Jesus’ customary approach when responding to his enemies was indirect and ambiguous (cf. 8:3-9, 21-29; 9:39-41; 10:1-6, 24; 18:19-21, 33-34; 19:9; also Matt. 12:1-8; 13:10-15; 21:23-27). In John 10:30-39 Jesus does not deny their inference but simply quotes scripture to show their inconsistency; he does not give in to their devious request to “tell us plainly” (v. 24). Neither John 1:1-3, nor 20:28, nor comparable passages, equate to the dispute in John 10.

Related Posts: The Triune Godhead, Responding to Anti-Trinitarian Arguments, Deity of Christ

Image credit: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/Cima_da_Conegliano,_God_the_Father.jpg

Responding to Sabellianism (e.g. United Pentecostals)

The view briefly stated:¹

“The Scriptures teach that the Godhead is comprised of one person (Jesus Christ) – not three, and that all who teach otherwise are false teachers and will be lost in hell” (Billy Lewis, Lipe-Lewis Debate [Winona, MS: Choate, 1984]: ii).

Arguments Considered:

“John 10:30 shows that Jesus is the Father.” Jesus himself explains his oneness with the Father. In John 17:11, 21, 22 he prayed to his Father on behalf of his disciples, asking “that they may be one as we are …. that they may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one is us … that they may be one just as we are one.”² Jesus never said that he was the same person as his Father but rather expressed his oneness (unity) with the Father; they are one in purpose (Eph. 3:10-11), teaching (2 John 9-11), words and work (John 14:10-11; 5:36), nature (Col. 2:9), love (John 15:10), et al.

“Passages like John 8:19; 14:9; 15:23 show that Jesus is the Father.” Jesus stated in Mark 9:37, “Whoever receives one of these little children in my name receives me; and whoever receives me, receives not me but him who sent me.” If this statement and similar ones teach that Jesus is the same person as his Father, it also teaches that one of these little children is the same person as Jesus. To receive a child is to receive Christ; to receive Christ is to receive the Father – but they are not all one and the same person! If any other man had said, “If you’ve seen me, you’ve seen my father,” we would clearly understand that he is referring to similarities of traits rather than identity. John 1:18, “No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.” John 14:24, 28 = Jesus is clearly not the Father. John 14:7; 15:23, “my Father also” = plurality, distinction. John 15:24, “both me and my Father.”

“John 14:10, 11 show that Jesus is the Father.” Jesus being “in” the Father and the Father “in” him does not make them one and the same person. John 14:20, “I am in my Father, and you [disciples] in me, and I in you” (cf. 1 John 3:24; 4:12-13). John 17:21, “that they all may be one, as you, Father, are in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us …”

“Colossians 2:9 shows that Jesus is the only Person of the Godhead.” This passage clearly does not limit the entire Godhead to the physical body of Jesus. Otherwise no part of God could be outside of Christ, thus God was no longer omnipresent if limited to a physical body, and the events at Jesus’ baptism would be impossible to explain (Matt. 3:13-17). Eph. 3:19, “that you [Christians] may be filled with all the fullness of God” (cf. 4:13).

“Jesus is prophetically called ‘Mighty God’ and ‘Everlasting Father’ in Isaiah 9:6.” The term “father” is employed here as an anthropomorphic metaphor, signifying a progenitor, authority figure, and caregiver (cf. 2 Kgs. 2:12; Job 29:16; Isa. 22:21; 1 Cor. 4:15), which is descriptive of Jesus’ earthly role in relation to God’s children (Isaiah 8:18; Heb. 2:13; 12:2). As deity Jesus is both mighty and eternal (cf. Micah 5:2), but the later New Testament distinction between God the Father and the Son of God is relevant only to the incarnation (cf. Luke 1:35) and the corresponding messianic scheme (cf. Isaiah 53:4, 6, 10).

“Baptism is valid only if it is administered in the name of Jesus alone as a verbal formula.” There is a difference in baptizing in Jesus’ name and in using the name of Jesus as a verbal baptismal formula. The apostles preached “in the name of Jesus” (Acts 4:2, 17-18; 9:27, 29; etc.), but this involved more than merely saying his name. They preached by his authority (Matt. 28:18-20). All that we do must be done “in the name of” (i.e. by the authority of) Jesus (Col. 3:17; cf. 2 Thess. 3:6; Acts 4:7, 10). To baptize “in the name of Jesus” is to baptize according to his authority. Jesus has been given “all authority,” and he commanded to baptize “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:18-19). When the early disciples baptized in the name of (by the authority of) Jesus, they did just that. If one insists on a specific verbal formula, what exactly is to be said: “Jesus Christ” (Acts 2:38), “Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16), “Lord” (Acts 10:48), “Father, Son, Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19), or nothing at all (Acts 8:38; 16:15, 33; 18:3)?

Further Observations:

     In John 5:31 Jesus said, “If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.” Jesus had the Father as an additional witness (v. 37). In John 8:13 the Pharisees made the following charge against Jesus: “You bear witness of yourself, your witness is not true.” The Lord replied (vv. 16-18): “And yet if I do judge, my judgment is true; for I am not alone, but I am with the Father who sent me. It is written in your law that the testimony of two men is true. I am One who bears witness of myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness of me.” If the Sabellian (“Oneness”) view is correct, then Jesus was alone in his testimony, and according to the Law (Deut. 17:6; 19:15; John 5:31; 8:17) his testimony was invalid. John 16:32, “I am not alone, because the Father is with me.”

     John 14:23, “We [Christ and the Father] will come to him and make Our home with him.” The pronouns “we” and “our” show plurality. If someone says this has reference to Christ’s divine and human natures, was Jesus therefore saying that both his divine and human natures will indwell those who keep his word? A human being has a human nature whether he is obedient or not.

     If no one has seen God the Father at any time (1 John 4:12), yet Jesus has been seen (John 1:14), how can Jesus be the Father? If the Father knows the day of Christ’s return, but Christ does not know (Mark 13:32), how can Christ be the Father? Since Eph. 4:4-6 shows a distinction between one Spirit, one Lord, and one God/Father, how can they all be one and the same Person? Are the one body, one hope, one faith, and one baptism all the same?

     If the Father and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, does the Holy Spirit make intercession with himself (Rom. 8:26-27)? If Jesus is both the Father and the Holy Spirit, does he divide himself into three parts (John 15:26)? Out of whose hand did Jesus (the Lamb) take the scroll (Rev. 5:1, 7)? If Jesus is the only Person of the Godhead, the following scriptures are confusing and misleading: Gen. 1:26; Matt. 28:19; John 14:23-26; 15:24-26; 16:32; 17:1ff.; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 4:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:2; et al.

     What about 2 John 9, “both the Father and the Son”? If this refers to divine and human natures, how is abiding in Christ’s doctrine a requirement for having a human nature? All human beings have a human nature regardless of whether or not they abide in Christ’s doctrine. This verse clearly shows a distinction between Christ and the Father, who both share the nature of God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not the same Person: Matt. 3:16-17; Luke 1:35; John 14:26; 15:26; 2 Cor. 13:14; Eph. 2:18; 4:4-6; 1 Pet. 1:2; Jude 20-21; Rev. 1:4-5.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ Although sometimes attributed to Theodotus of Byzantium (ca. 190), the first on record to have promoted the view that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all the same Person is Sabellius of Libya (ca. 215-220), thus “Sabellianism.” He denied the concept of the triune Godhead and maintained that the designations Father, Son, and Holy Spirit merely denote different capacities or manifestations of the same divine being. The 16th-century Spanish Reformer Michael Servetus reaffirmed this teaching (resulting in his execution by Calvinists in Geneva), as did the 18th-century Swedish philosopher Emanuel Swedenborg. In more recent times this view has been espoused by the United Pentecostal Church and various other so-called “Oneness Pentecostals” or “Jesus-Only Pentecostals.”
     ² Scripture quotations are from the New King James Version. Emphasis added in italics.

Related Posts: The Triune Godhead, Responding to Anti-Trinitarian Arguments, The Lord is the Spirit

Image credit: http://www.factofun.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Jesus-christ.jpg