|
In the early 1870s, under the guidance and leadership of Charles Taze Russell, the foundation for a new religious movement known as Jehovah’s Witnesses was laid. Today, there are approximately 3.5 million members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses church. They are an ardent missionary movement that has challenged many traditional teachings of Christendom. They have sought to call into question Christian doctrine concerning the person of Jesus Christ, the Trinity and the end times. The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the centralized government and printing arm of the Jehovah’s Witnesses movement, produces millions of publications each year to promote and defend their religious convictions. One such publication, entitled “Should You Believe in the Trinity?” explores the traditional Christian position on the Trinity and then systematically presents preferential evidence that ultimately questions the validity of the doctrine and concludes “to worship God on his terms means to reject the Trinity doctrine” (Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania [WT]).
At first glance, the publication can be convincing. Watch Tower appeals to biblical passages that clearly show Christ’s subordination to the Father (Col 1:15; Rev 3:14). They argue that the fourth century councils that established the Trinitarian doctrine deviated from true Christianity. They suggest that Babylonian, Egyptian, Greek and other ancient mythologies influenced the doctrine. They also appeal to biblical warnings of apostasy as prophecies of the development of this doctrine (2 Pt 2:1; 1 Jn 4:1-3; Jude 3, 4). Their argument is persuasive and pervasive. It is also wrong. They have twisted biblical and historical interpretation in order to actively subvert a truly biblical doctrine. Although careful study by any layperson should reveal the deception inherent throughout the document, many Christians still undoubtedly struggle to defend the Trinitarian doctrine against the subversive propagandizing of the Jehovah’s Witnesses church. As such, the purpose of this document is to present the Christian doctrine of Trinity, specifically refuting the historical objections raised by Jehovah’s Witnesses and reasserting that Jesus Christ is God.
The doctrine of the Trinity harmonizes four scriptural truths: (1) YHWH is God, (2) Jesus Christ is God, (3) the Holy Spirit is God, and (4) there is only one God. The doctrine, therefore, declares that God exists in Trinity as God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit. All three are equal, uncreated and infinite. Yet, they subsist in the one divine essence that is God. This declaration of the Trinitarian doctrine is clearly affirmed in the Athanasian Creed, which appeared in Southern Gaul around the year 500 AD:
Now, the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the divine Being. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy Spirit, but the Godhead of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit is all one, their glory equal, their majesty co-eternal (Bray 209).
It is, as Jehovah’s Witnesses point out, a central doctrine of the Christian faith.
Evangelicals and Catholics regard the exact nature of the trinity as a divine mystery. Yet, this being said, the trinity has its reasonable explanations. Hank Schaefer, for instance, in an essay entitled “We believe in one God,” presents one interesting explanation of the Trinity doctrine, based upon work by metaphysicist, Norris Clarke. Arguing that the state of being in itself must be relational and self-communicative to provide definition to self, Schaefer concludes that, by existing in trinity, God is “meeting His need for relation within Himself”:
To be a person, then, is to be a bi-polar being that is at once present in itself, actively possessing itself by its self-consciousness (its substantial pole), and also actively oriented toward others, toward active loving self-communication to others (its relational pole).
In such a view, it becomes apparent that the Trinitarian view presents a truly personal and supreme God who does not require anything outside His Being. God is self-sufficient. In a non-Trinitarian view, God would be missing an important aspect of Being; that is, the relational aspect wherein a person receives definition from another. In God, this definition comes from the relationship of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to each other.
God is an infinite being. Humans are finite beings. The pursuit of theological truth often neglects these two simple truths. Yet, they are fundamental to a balanced and proper view of the God who revealed himself to humanity through the Holy Scriptures. Only through God’s transcendent revelation, as imputed by the Holy Spirit into the finite minds of the prophets and scribes, does the Church today appropriately claim to possess the words of God. That believers can even boast that “all scripture is inspired by God” (2 Tim 3:16) is a resounding testimony to the God who loves us so much that He is willing to sufficiently reveal the mysteries of His infinite existence and purposes to a finite creature. The key, however, is that His revelation is sufficient not exhaustive. The Holy Scriptures testify that our God has not revealed all His mysteries to humanity:
For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways, says 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 (Isa 55:8-9).
Moreover, as pious Christians, we are thankful that God is indeed beyond humanity’s comprehension. For it is the incomprehensibility of our God to the finite mind that confirms His eternal glory and greatness are not the imaginations of men. It is with prudence and care then that we humbly endeavour to contemplate the mysteries of our God and the nature of His existence (Rom 11:33-34; cf. Job 38:1 - 40:2, 40:6 - 41:34; Isa 40, specifically 40:25).
The Trinity doctrine is one of God’s mysteries. God has revealed the eternal truths that bring definition to this doctrine. He has chosen, however, not to reveal how these truths function in His Being. Pope John Paul II, and in similar style, the numerous theologians quoted by the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the section “How Is the Trinity Explained?” correctly “speak of ‘the inscrutable mystery of God the Trinity’” (WT). Evangelicals and Catholics are not confused; we are simply human. Our finite mind cannot grasp the infinite mystery. In considering the Trinity, therefore, Christians are “content to let God know some things which we cannot know” (Tan).
In an attempt to refute the Trinitarian doctrine, the Jehovah’s Witnesses attack the language of the doctrine. They point out that the word “Trinity,” in its Greek or Latin form, is not present in the Bible nor does it appear in the writings of early church Fathers until approximately 180 AD. Though they are partly correct in this determination, they manipulate the truth by claiming that the Apostles and the early church did not teach or believe the biblical principles of the Trinitarian doctrine. John Calvin, in a response to individuals who would demand that we confine our words to those found in Scripture, states:
If they call it a foreign term, because it cannot be pointed out in Scripture in so many syllables, they certainly impose an unjust law … [for] when it has been proved that the Church was impelled by strongest necessity, to use the words Trinity and Person, will not he who still inveighs against the novelty of terms be deservedly suspected of taking offence at the light of truth (Calvin 111).
Scriptural truth must always be reaffirmed, in every age, in the vernacular of the masses. To deny Christians of this ability is to reject the dynamic nature of Scripture and, more importantly, to confine God to only those moments in history when humanity expressed themselves in the languages of the Bible. As such, any attempt to reject the Trinitarian doctrine on terminological grounds is ludicrous.
While questioning the terminology of the Trinity, the Jehovah’s Witnesses subtly rewrite history. Misusing quotations from numerous evangelical and Catholic sources, Jehovah’s Witnesses piece together a narrative that suggests the early church did not believe in the three-in-one. In Creeds, Councils and Christ, Gerald Bray notes that early church creeds and the statements of the councils were in fact a reaffirmation of biblical teaching not an apostatizing of it. Within the early church, there arose a need to define, systematize and canonize Scriptural truth in order to preserve apostolic tradition in the face of heresy. The Church moved from an “age of revelation” to an “age of defence and confirmation of the gospel” (49).
It was not until 325 AD that a clearly formulated expression of the doctrine concerning the nature and form of Godhead was deemed necessary. In this process of formulating the Trinity doctrine, Jehovah’s Witnesses argue that Greek philosophical thought exerted a great influence on the early church. Certainly, the Greek philosophers and early church fathers shared the common Greek language. Furthermore, the Greek philosophers and early church theologians had intimate contact with each other. The Bible already declares as much. The Apostle Paul appealed to the Greek poet and Stoic, Aratus and possibly to Epimenides to relate truth about God (Acts 17:28). Yet, the historical record shows Christians applied new meaning to Greek ideas. In his examination of the writings of two Platonists who wrote during the early church period, Celsus and Porphyry, Gerald Bray notices that “it looks strongly as if Platonism was refashioned to meet the challenge of Christianity, not the other way round” (89). The early church, rather than allowing Greek philosophical thought to change church doctrine, fought vigorously to maintain its biblically rooted principles. In fact, most of the heresies that challenged the divinity of Christ, the humanity of Christ or the Trinity doctrine, were based upon Aristotelian or Platonic views. Platonism influenced Origen, Tertullian and Arius; each proposed that the subordination of the Son is not only in role but also in essence. As such, by the sixth century, the church considered their writings as heretical. The primary connection, therefore, between Greek thought and the development of early church doctrine lies only in the usage of a common language that the church adapted to explain biblical principles.
Conversely, in suggesting that the Christian trinity is rooted in Platonic ideas, the Jehovah’s Witnesses are actually making an accusation that is true of their own theology. Arius, an ordained presbyter in Alexandria from 311-318 AD, can be regarded as a proponent of the theological position the Jehovah’s Witnesses have adopted concerning the nature of Jesus Christ. A student of Aristotelian and Origenist philosophies, Arius associated Christ with the Divine Logos, subordinate to the Father and substantively different from the Father. He furthered these arguments by stating that the Son, begotten of the Father, must have had, by necessity, a beginning to his existence. There was a time when the Son was not. Subsequently, “Arius proceeded to weld this Platonic view of the Word onto the biblical understanding of Jesus Christ” (Frend 494). Arius appealed to a variety of proof-texts to support his position, including Proverbs 8:22, Matthew 3:17, John 8:42, 14:28, 20:17, 1 Corinthians 11:3, 15:28, Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14. In 318 AD, however, the Alexandrian school brought Arius before a council of one hundred bishops to face charges of heresy. The bishops gave Arius the opportunity to defend his position but, in the end, were not persuaded and recognized that Arian views contradicted Scripture. Arius was condemned and exiled. Despite his falling out with the Alexandrian school, he still found support with Emperor Constantine. As Jehovah’s Witnesses noted in the section “How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?” Greek paganism influenced Constantine’s religious views. Constantine, therefore, was sympathetic to the Arian view that presented Jesus Christ as a sort of divine hero along the lines of Jason the Argonaut or Hercules:
The sanction of Arian views by the emperor threatened to turn Christianity into a philosophy mixed with pagan thought. Arians believed in a single supreme God who made contact with the world through lower creatures such as the Son and the Spirit. The Son was a suffering divine hero who was to be worshiped, very much like the hero gods of the Greeks. Since that view was so similar to paganism, Arianism made the monotheism of Christianity acceptable to many who were adopting the religion of the emperor (Douglas, Comfort, and Mitchell).
Arians, therefore, under the protection of the Emperor, came to prominence in the early church period after the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD until shortly before the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. At the latter council, however, the bishops reaffirmed the Nicaean creed and again denounced the Arian heresy.
In addition, the contention that politics played a secularizing role in the development of early church doctrine is also false. As noted, Arius was condemned before the Council of Nicaea by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in 318 AD and without imperial influences. It is clear then that at least the Alexandrian school opposed Arian views before the Council of Nicaea. And, while Constantine’s initial support of Athanasius at the Council of Nicaea was crucial, Constantine ultimately desired to make conciliatory compromises with the Arians. Shortly after the Council of Nicaea, Constantine ordered Athanasius to restore Arius as a priest in Alexandria but Athanasius refused and was exiled. Consequently, it was Athanasius, a relentless defender of the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, who was “at odds with the state for nearly half a century” (Bray 125). It is ironic then that the Jehovah’s Witnesses should view Constantine so negatively when, in fact, had he really exerted as much control as they suggest, the early church would have eventually affirmed an Arian view. The historical evidence clearly shows then that “during the formative period of the Church’s doctrine it cannot be claimed that the state exercised a decisive influence on its development” (Bray 139).
Christians believe that the Trinity doctrine is humanity’s best attempt to explain the central truths of the divinity of Father, Son and Spirit in unity. Had the doctrine never been as clearly formulated as it was in the sixth century and later, Christians would still hold to these truths. The doctrine does not create the truths; it merely declares that they are scriptural. The Trinity doctrine, as it development clearly shows, was formulated as a polemic against heresy.
The Christian Faith, evangelical or Catholic, hinges on the deity of Christ. It is our belief that only God could have overcome our sinful nature and only God could make atonement for the whole human race. Jehovah’s Witnesses question whether this is too high a price. Evangelicals, on the other hand, believe that only God, made man, could have offered a perfect, unblemished sacrifice for the atonement of sins. In addition, only God could have offered a sacrifice that was efficacious.
As Walter A. Elwell and Robert W. Yarbrough point out in the book Encountering the New Testament, “it is surprising to some people that it was the humanity of Jesus that was first called into question rather than his deity” (112). The divinity of Christ is affirmed in the Bible by His divine names, by His works (upholding all things, Col 1:17; creation, Col 1:16; Jn 1:3; forgiving sins, Mt 9:2; and future judgment, Jn 5:27), by His divine attributes (eternality, Jn 17:5; omnipresence, Mt 18:20, 28:20; omnipotence, Heb 1:3; omniscience, Mt 9:4), and by explicit declarations (Jn 1:1; 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8). Moreover, there are at least three instances where Jesus Christ declares His divinity in discussion with the Pharisees (Jn 5:18-19, 8:58-59, 10:30-39).[2] In each instance, the Pharisees recognize Jesus’ claim to equality with God and, therefore, attempt to kill him, stone him and arrest him, respectively. This anger would only make sense if Jesus had made a claim to deity.
Jesus also taught the people “as one having authority, and not as their scribes” (Mt 7:29). The people and the Pharisees recognized this difference. The Scriptures, on other hand, declared that God required the servants of the Lord to acknowledge God in the words they spoke and the actions they performed (i.e. “thus saith the Lord”). Even Moses, the mediator of the Law, did not simply declare what was, what is and what shall be. Yet, in contrast, Jesus taught as if He had the authority within Himself to declare and interpret the Word of God and perform the miraculous; that is, He taught as if He was God. For instance, in Matthew 5, Jesus boldly reinterprets the Law, saying, “You have heard that it was said . . . But I say to you” (Mt 5:21-22, 27-28, 31-32, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44).
Perhaps the most convincing arguments for the deity of Christ, however, are those occasions when New Testament writers apply to Jesus passages from the Old Testament that speak of God. John’s Gospel testifies that it was Jesus Christ whom Isaiah saw in the Temple vision (Isa 6:1, 3, 10 cf. John 12:37-41). This interpretation could only be true if Jesus is God. In addition, the Apostle Paul applies Psalm 68:18 to Jesus Christ, which in the Old Testament context is clearly attributed to God. In Romans 9:33-10:13, the Apostle Paul cites Isaiah 8:14-15, 28:16, 45:23 and Joel 2:32. All these Old Testament passages refer to God or the Lord of Hosts and yet, Paul interprets them christologically. In doing so, Paul attributes the title Lord of Hosts to Jesus Christ and proves that the Greek kyrios can be used interchangeably with the Hebrew adonai and can be used to address either God the Father and God the Son (see Rom 10:13n). Jesus Christ is the Messiah and the Lord who spoke to the Lord of David (Ps 110:1); “there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mortals by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12; cf. Isa 43:11). The Scriptures clearly affirm Jesus is God.
In the words of Bruce Metzger, “it is manifestly impossible to attempt to refute in one brief article even a fraction of the distortions of Biblical interpretation perpetrated in the voluminous writings of this sect” (69). In the same way, this essay also fails to answer all the doctrinal errors of the Trinity doctrine. I have failed to discuss the person of the Holy Spirit,[3] the erroneous translations and the wealth of additional information that supports the Trinity doctrine. Nonetheless, the information contained herein, the appendices and the bibliography should provide a starting point for any Christian that must provide an answer for their beliefs.
It is of the utmost importance that Christians remain vigilant in the defence of the Gospel message as presented in the Holy Scriptures. The Apostle Peter instructed the early church that we have received our Faith from our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (2 Pt 1:1) and we must beware of the “false teachers among [us], who will bring in destructive opinions . . . [and] deny the Master who bought them” (2 Pt 2:1). The Jehovah’s Witnesses have revealed themselves to be such teachers. So let us warn them, call them to repentance and if they still deny our Master and God, Jesus Christ, reject them (2 Tim 2:25). Yet, let us, as Christians, not become puffed up; let us heed the warnings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who rightly expose the sins of our Church. Our Church must recognize the need for constant confession so that we might carry on the Great Commission and strive for holiness (1 Pt 1:16). Jesus Christ called the early church to make disciples (Mt 28:19-20) not mere believers, “even the demons believe” (Jas 2:19). The Church should live by the words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy:
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work (2 Tim 3:16-17).
As Christians, then, let us take up the call and provide an answer to our critics (1 Pt 3:15-16).
|
Preincarnate |
Divine Nature |
Human Nature |
Union of Natures |
Character |
|
Existed Eternally Before Creation “In the beginning” (Jn 1:1; 1 Jn 1:1) “with God” (Jn 1:1-2) “before the world existed” (Jn 17:5) “the Word became flesh” (implies preexistence Jn 1:14) Participated in Creation “’Let us make humankind’” (Gen 1:26) The “master worker” (Prov 8:30) “the firstborn of all creation” (Col 1:15) “all things have been created through him” (Col 1:16; Jn 1:3,10; 1 Cor 8:6) “all things have been created . . . for him” (Col 1:16) “in him all things hold together” (Col 1:17) Old Testament Manifestations As “YHWH” To Abraham (Gen 18) In judgment (Gen 19) In promise (Hos 1:7) As the “Angel of the Lord” To Hagar (Gen 16) To Abraham (Gen 22) To Jacob (Gen 31) To Moses (Ex 3:2) To Israel (Ex 14:19) To Balaam (Num 22:22) To Gideon (Judg 6) Seen by Isaiah (Isa 6:5, cf. Jn 12:41) Seen by David (Ps 45, 110) |
Divine Attributes Eternal (Jn 1:1, 8:58, 17:5) Omnipresent (Mt 28:20; Eph 1:23) Omniscient (Jn 16:30, 21:17) Omnipotent (Jn 5:19) Immutable (Heb 1:12, 13:8) Divine Offices Creator (Jn 1:3; Col 1:16) Sustainer (Col 1:17) Divine Prerogatives Forgives Sin (Mt 9:2; Lk 7:47) Raises the Dead (Jn 5:25, 11:25) Executes Judgment (Jn 5:22) Divine Names Alpha and Omega (Rev 22:13) I AM (Jn 8:58) Emmanuel (Mt 1:23) Holy One of God (Lk 4:34) Messiah (Mt 16:16; Mk 14:61-62) lord of the sabbath (Mt 12:8) Lord (Mt 7:21; Lk 1:43; Rom 10:12) Son of God (Jn 10:36) God (Jn 1:1; 2 Pt 1:1) Divine Relations Conceived of the Holy Spirit (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35) Express Image of God (Col 1:15; Heb 1:3) One with the Father (Jn 10:31) Sender of the Holy Spirit (Jn 15:26) Accepted Divine Worship (Mt 12:33, 28:9, 17; Jn 20:28-29) Claimed Divinity (Jn 8:12-59, 10:24-42, 12:44-50) Active in His Resurrection (Jn 2:19) |
Human Birth (Mt 1:18-2:11; Lk 1:30-38) Human Development (Lk 2:50, 52) Human Elements Body (Mt 26:12; Jn 2:21) Reason and Will (Mt 26:38; Mk 2:8) Human Names Jesus (Mt 1:21) Son of Man (Mt 8:20, 11:18) Son of Abraham (Mt 1:1) Son of David (Mt 21:9; Mk 10:47-48) Man (Jn 1:30, 4:9, 10:38) Possessed the Sinless Infirmities of Humanity Weariness (Jn 4:6) Hunger (Mt 4:2, 21:18) Thirst (Jn 19:28) Temptation (Mt 4; Heb 2:18) |
Theanthropic The person of Christ is theanthropic; he has two natures. The divine and the human in one—Hypostatic Union, constituting one personal substance of two natures. His natures cannot be separated. |
Absolutely Holy, Sinless Created holy (Lk 1:35) Sinless (1 Pt 2:22) Holy One of God (Lk 4:34) Possesses Genuine Love Sacrificial (Jn 15:13) “the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge” (Eph 3:19) Humble (Phil 2:5-8) Meek (Mt 11:29) Unceasing Prayer Life (Mt 14:23; Lk 6:12) |
Note. Adapted from Charts of Christian Theology & Doctrine (59).
|
Names and Titles |
Divine Nature |
Personality |
Works |
Gifts |
|
Titles Spirit (Jn 1:32; Rom 8:26-27) Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19; Lk 11:13) Holy Spirit of God (Eph 4:30) Spirit of the Lord (Acts 5:9) Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:11) Spirit of Christ (Rom 8:9; 1 Pt 1:11) Advocate (Jn 14:16, 26) Lord (2 Cor 3:17-18) Holy One (1 Jn 2:20) God (Acts 5:4; cf. Acts 5:3) Descriptive Names eternal Spirit (Heb 9:14) Spirit of glory (1 Pt 4:14) Spirit of holiness (Rom 1:4) Spirit of grace (Heb 10:29) Spirit of truth (Jn 14:17, 15:26) Spirit of wisdom (Isa 11:2) Spirit of understanding (Isa 11:2) Spirit of counsel (Isa 11:2) Spirit of might (Isa 11:2) Spirit of knowledge (Isa 11:2) Spirit of the fear of the Lord (Isa 11:2) |
Divine Attributes Eternal (Heb 9:14) Omnipresent (Ps 139:7) Omniscient (Jn 14:26; 16:13; 1 Cor 2:10) Divine Offices Agent of Creation (Gen 1:2; Job 33:4; Ps 104:30) “gives life” (Jn 6:63; 2 Cor 3:6) Agent of Salvation (see Works) Divine Relations Conceived Jesus Christ (Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35) Sent by the Son (Jn 15:26, 16:7) Sent by the Father (Jn 14:26) Active in the Resurrection of Christ (Rom 8:11) |
Mind, Knowledge and Reason (see Descriptive Names) “the mind of the Spirit” (Rom 8:27) “the Spirit searches everything” (1 Cor 2:10-11) “as the Spirit chooses” (1 Cor 12:11) Emotion and Feeling “do not grieve the Holy Spirit” (Eph 4:30; cf. Isa 63:10; Mt 12:31-32; Mk 3:28-29; Lk 12:10; Acts 7:51) “seemed good to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:28) Speaks, Hears and Inspires “the Holy Spirit testifies” (Acts 20:23; cf. Jn 16:13; Heb 10:15) “will speak whatever he hears” (Jn 16:13; cf. Mk 13:11; Acts 28:25-26; Heb 3:7-11) “men and women moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pt 1:21; cf. 1 Pt 1:10-12) “inspired by the Holy Spirit” (1 Th 1:6) Sends and Appoints (Acts 13:2, 4; 20:28) |
Agent of Salvation and Faith Convicting (Jn 16:7-8) Regeneration (Titus 3:5) Indwelling (Jn 14:17; 1 Cor 3:16[4]) Baptizing (Mt 3:11; Mk 1:8; Lk 3:16) Sealing (2 Cor 1:22; Eph 1:13) Filling (Eph 5:18) Guiding (Gal 5:16, 25) Empowering (Rom 8:13; Gal 5:17-18) Teaching (Jn 14:26, 16:13; 1 Jn 2:20, 27) Intercessor (Rom 8:26-27) Source of Spiritual Gifts (1 Cor. 12:4-11; see Gifts) Inspired the Word of God (1 Pt 1:10-12; 2 Pt 1:21) Active in Creation (Gen 1:2; Job 33:4) |
Romans 12:6-8 prophecy ministering teaching exhortation generosity diligence cheerfulness 1 Corinthians 12:8-10 utterance of wisdom utterance of knowledge faith gifts of healing working of miracles prophecy discernment of spirits various kinds of tongues interpretation of tongues 1 Corinthians 12:28-30 apostles prophets teachers deeds of power (miracles) gifts of healing forms of assistance forms of leadership various kinds of tongues Ephesians 4:11 apostles prophets evangelists pastors and teachers |
Note. Adapted from Charts of Christian Theology & Doctrine (66-73).
In study, I use the New Oxford Annotated Study Bible. This is an Ecumenical New Revised Standard Version that is the culmination of biblical translation beginning with the King James Version, published in 1611. As it is an Ecumenical Bible, it includes the Old Testament Apocryphal Books. The translation committee features leading scholars, each recognized as authorities in the area of their contributions:
The Revised Standard Version Bible Committee is a continuing body, comprising about thirty members, both men and women. Ecumenical in representation, it includes scholars affiliated with various Protestant denominations, as well as several Roman Catholic members, an Eastern Orthodox member, and a Jewish member who serves in the Old Testament section (Oxford X).
The committee rejected the use of “Jehovah” to render the Tetragrammaton and “returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version” (Oxford XIII) for two reasons: “(1) The word “Jehovah” does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew. (2) The use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom the true God had to be distinguished, began to be discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church” (Oxford XIII).
Personally, I find the use of an Ecumenical Study Bible to be extremely advantageous. I can trust that the scholarship is the greatest collectively available to the Christian Church. Moreover, I can also be certain that the manuscripts with greatest textual authority have been utilized and the most accurate translations confirmed. This Bible represents the “best in the English Bible as it has been known and used through the years” (Oxford XIII).
The Scripture quotations contained herein, therefore, are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., and are used by permission. All rights reserved.
Bray, Gerald. Creeds, Councils and Christ. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1984.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
Elwell, Walter A. and Robert W. Yarbrough. Encountering the New Testament: A Historical and Theological Survey. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1998.
Enns, Paul. The Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago: Moody Press, 1996.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House Company, 1998.
Frend, W.H. C. The Rise of Christianity. London, England: Darton, Longman and Todd Ltd., 1984.
Henry, Jerry M. “Trinity.” Holman Bible Dictionary. Ed. Trent C. Butler et al. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1991. 1372-1374.
House, H. Wayne. Charts of Christian Theology and Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.
“Jesus Christ.” Holman Bible Dictionary. Ed. Trent C. Butler et al. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1991. 775-777.
Metzger, Bruce M. “The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal.” Theology Today 10 (April 1953).
Michaels, J. Ramsey. “Jesus Christ, Life and Ministry Of.” Holman Bible Dictionary. Ed. Trent C. Butler et al. Nashville: Holman Bible Publishers, 1991. 777-788.
Packer, J.I. Concise Theology: A Guide to Historic Christian Beliefs. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1993.
Tan, Paul Lee. Encyclopedia of 7,700 Illustrations. Garland, Texas: Bible Communications, Inc., 1996.
The New Oxford Annotated Bible (New Revised Standard Version).
Logos Scholar’s Library: Logos Library System 2.1d [cd-rom]. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1995-1998.
Schaefer, Hank. “We Believe in One God” [online]. Available from Internet: <URL: http://www.glasscity.net/users/hank/god.trinity.html>.
“Should You Believe in the Trinity?” [online]. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, 1989. Available from Internet: <URL: http://www.watchtower.org/library/ti/toc.htm>.
[1] The arguments for the divinity of Christ are extensive. Every evangelical book, paper and encyclopedia consulted for this essay provided differing scriptural support. I have decided to combine conventional arguments with arguments not considered by the Jehovah's Witnesses tract, "Should You Believe In the Trinity?" For further information, see Appendix II.
[2] In their attack on the Trinity, Jehovah's Witnesses argue for alternate translations or interpretations for almost all the passages I have used in this paragraph. Biblical scholarship, however, provides little support for the erroneous translations and interpretations. Bruce Metzger, one of the most respected Bible translators and scholars, provides an excellent discussion of these problems in his essay "Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal." Refer to my bibliography for details.
[3] See Appendix III: The Person of the Holy Spirit.
[4] Compare this verse with 1 Corinthians 6:19. In 1 Cor 3:16, believers are "God's temple." In 1 Cor 6:19, believers are the "temple of the Holy Spirit." This connection would strongly suggest that God and the Holy Spirit are one, yet, at the same time, the separate designations show two persons.