How to defend the trinity

[musicman]

I was just reading this latest Lee Strobel book "The Case For The Real Jesus".  In an interview with Daniel B. Wallace, PH.D, I learned how scholars go about protecting the trinity hypothesis from those who might or might not be able to read.  When stroble quoted an atheist scholar who implied that the edition (or change) of I John 5:7-8 might be the only KJ scripture to affirm the trinity Wallace came back with: 

"... that's just such a stupid comment, I can hardly believe it.  The Council of Constantinople in AD 381 and Chalcedon in AD 451 emerged with explicit statements affirming the Trinity.  Obviously, they didn't need this later, inauthentic passage to see it." 

He goes on to say:

"The Bible clearly contatins these four truths: the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and there's only one God", "And that's the Trinity".

Can somebody tell me why the oppinions of those councils would even matter?  This is the only subject of the interview where Wallace provides no evidence as far as I'm concerned.   

By the way, I was imagining Wallace stamping his foot on the floor throwing a tantrum as he made the statements above.

[SixFour]

I was just reading this latest Lee Strobel book "The Case For The Real Jesus".  In an interview with Daniel B. Wallace, PH.D, I learned how scholars go about protecting the trinity hypothesis from those who might or might not be able to read.  When stroble quoted an atheist scholar who implied that the edition (or change) of I John 5:7-8 might be the only KJ scripture to affirm the trinity Wallace came back with: 

"... that's just such a stupid comment, I can hardly believe it.  The Council of Constantinople in AD 381 and Chalcedon in AD 451 emerged with explicit statements affirming the Trinity.  Obviously, they didn't need this later, inauthentic passage to see it." 

He goes on to say:

"The Bible clearly contatins these four truths: the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and there's only one God", "And that's the Trinity".

Can somebody tell me why the oppinions of those councils would even matter?  This is the only subject of the interview where Wallace provides no evidence as far as I'm concerned.   

By the way, I was imagining Wallace stamping his foot on the floor throwing a tantrum as he made the statements above.

And also raising a shaking a fist in the air to bring home the point!

Me myself, I had often times past questioned the "trinity" in my mind, but I went along with it because that's what I was always taught. It is so great to be free from such things.

[dawnnnny]

When I finally started questioning the Trinity doctrine, I was told that its a mystery, just accept it and move on. 
Nice advice huh?
As far as the "councils" go, it sounds like this Wallace guy is putting more authority on them than the Word of God.
That song from Fiddler on the Roof - TRADITION - keeps going through my mind.

[YellowStone]

Hi Dawn,

That was the old line I was always given. "If you can't understand it, then God has not given ot to you to understand" and they would shake their heads as if I were a lost cause. But you should have seen them squirm when I said to them: "but surely God has given it to you to explain, or are you only pretending?"  Never did get an honest answer using that line.

Musicman, I would love to hear Lee Strobel's take on the Trinity. The only book that I have read of his, is: "Case for a Creator" and I loved it.

Love in Christ,
Darren

[musicman]

Darren,
I'm sure Strobel's take on the trinity would be the same as every person that he has questioned through his interviews.  The "Case For a Creator" was a much better book than his last two because he stayed away from theological issues.  In his Case for Christ he asked one scholar to explain how a loving God could send so many to hell.  If I were bent on making money with such books, I would stay completely away from these doctrines because I know they are false, but are believed by most who would buy the book.  This is an amazing witness for the fact that intelligence has nothing to do with spiritual understanding.

[YellowStone]

Sorry for not responding sooner music man, I have been way to busy.

So are you saying that he went for the trinity, hook line and sinker, that is a pity. I have no problem with those who put God, Christ and the Counselor (spirit) together to make three, yet to make a doctrine of it is ridiculous and is totally irrelevant. My take on all of this foolishness has always been the, same; if those who profess to have a higher level of understanding than me: How can they know? If it is not taught, then it is not worth learning. If Lee, went down that road, then I guess God led him down there for a reason.

Thanks for your response.

Love in Christ,
Darren

[javajoe]

I am relatively new to this forum, so I guess I'm still questioning the whole trinity doctrine, not convinced either way.  I know Scripture teaches that the Father is God, Jesus is God ("the word was God" in 1 John), and even Jesus is called the might God and the FATHER in Isaiah.

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God,410 The everlasting Father,The Prince of Peace.
(Isaiah 9:6)
.


Ray teaches that Jesus is God, different from the Father in the sense the Jesus is subject to Father, but nevertheless God.

I don' ever see the Spirit of God being referred to as God himself though.

So what is the fuss about?  What is the danger of believing in the Trinity, or maybe the Twinity?  If you believe Jesus is your savior, and the savior of the whole world why even divide on such a thing?

[Kat]

Hi Joe,

I thought I would bring this email here, it answers a lot of the trinity questions.

http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,4463.0.html ----------

Dear Andrew:  I will make a few COMMENTS in your email....

> Sir,
> You said yourself you are no theologian I am not one either, but I am bought
> by the blood of Jesus Christ. You take verses out of context, which is to
> say, you use the verse that suits what you have to say.

COMMENT:  Excuse me!  Does not everyone use the Scriptures from the\
Bible to SUPPORT WHAT THEY BELIEVE.  I don't know of any Scriptures
which do NOT support what I believe, and so ALL the Scriptures that I use,
"suits what I say."

Like saying that
> Jesus and the Father and not One, this is untrue.

COMMENT:  You statement is grossly FALSE! Where have I ever said that
the Father and His Son are not ONE?  Where? I believe it would be conservative
for me to say that I have cited John 10:30--"I and My Father are ONE," more than
any other writer out of the 800,000,000 sites on the International Web. Would you
like to try and prove me wrong on that point?

Jesus may have come out of
> the Father, but John 1:18 says "No one has ever seen God, but God the One
> and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made Him known." This verse shows
> that God the Father and Jesus are both God, does it not?

COMMENT: Andrew, Andrew, you are arguing with yourself. I had a whole
Bible Conference last weekend in Nashville wherein I made these same statements
over and over concerning the fact that Jesus ONLY has revealed Who God His
Father is.  You not only do not know what the Bible teaches concerning the nature
of Jesus and His Father and THEIR Holy Spirit, but you ridicule me, and you don't even know what I teach.

If Jesus is not
> apart of God then He was a crazed lunatic and we live for nothing.

COMMENT:  Actually Christianity does not stand or fall over whether
God consists of THREE PERSONS or not.  You just said yourself that Jesus
is "a part of God," in your sentence above. No, actually Jesus is not "a part of
God," Jesus IS GOD. Jesus has all the character traits and attributes of power
and knowledge and love and wisdom, and therefore IS GOD. But He is not His
Own Father, and neither is the Holy Spirit, His sister, brother, son, mother, or
any other such unscriptural nonsense. Jesus is a Son and His God is a Father.
And there are no other "family" relationships in the title "God." The Holy
Spirit is the Spirit OF Jesus and OF His Father. It is in fact, what makes THEM
TWAIN, ONE.

And in
> the same why does Genesis 1:26 say "Then God said, "Let US make man in our
> image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the
> birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the
> creatures that move along the ground." And if we, as ones who believe that
> we are made in God's image,

COMMENT:  But we are not YET made in God's Spiritual Image. The
Hebrew is akin to the Greek aorist tense (indefinite--past, present, and future).
God did not so "loved" the world, but "God thus LOVES the world, that He gave
His only begotten Son, that whosoever believES [not believED--it is a continuing
action through all generations, not just the past]....'  We are to "BE" conformed
the image of God's Son (Rom. 8:29, etc.).

believe we have a mind, body and spirit. Would
> not God also have 3 parts, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

COMMENT:  NONSENSE!  Nowhere but in trinitarian theology do we find such
unscriptural nonsense. Where in Scripture do we find that man is described as "MIND,
body and spirit?" Where.  Made is made of two components and two only (Read my Part C
on Hell--"The Origin of Everlasting Torment" regarding how God made made and of
what he now consists), []] God formed man of the DUST OF THE GROUND --a BODY,
and [2] He BREATHED into his nostrils the "BREATH [ruach--SPIRIT] of life. Those
are the ONLY two components of man mentioned in the Scriptures. When God put those
two (not three) components together, then the MAN became a "LIVING SOUL." Man IS A LIVING SOUL. And when he dies HE IS A DEAD SOUL. That's it! God never "put"a third component of a soul into the man. He IS a soul when he is alive. This has totally nothing
to do with the pagan doctrine of a "triune god."

And what is more do
> you claim that the Apostles were wrong becuase they believed in the Triune
> being of God.

COMMENT:  Don't pull such double-talk on me. No, I have never accused the
Apostles of being "wrong" about their doctrinal believes, and NO, the Apostles
decidedly did NOT believe in a pagan triune god.

And another final point in Matthew 3:16-17 says "As soon as
> Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was
> opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on
> him. And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I
> am well pleased." As yu see in this passage we Have Jesus, God the Son, The
> Dove/Spirit of God, God the Holy Spirit, and God the Father all present. I
> welcome you to explain these verses away,

COMMENT:  There is nothing to "explain away."  The Spirit of God is
NOT A PERSON, and a dove is NOT A PERSON. So where in the world
do you get a "third triune PERSON out of a dove?"

One more time:  Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit OF God
His Father. That is why He is "the Son of the FATHER," and not "the Son of the
Holy Spirit."  Am I going to fast for you? Do you have an answer for this one point
alone which totally demolishes the "Holy Spirit is a separate person from Jesus and His
Father and therefore God is a triune of three separate people). You don't have an answer
for why Jesus is not "the Son of the Holy Spirit," DO YOU?  Did you know Andrew that
every little school boy in the street knows that whoever "conceives" a child is the FATHER
of that child when it is born. Why is it that you and most of Christendom does not know this
simple biological and Scriptural truth. How can ONE PERSON of your "trinity" conceive
a child, and then when it is born it is the SON OF A DIFFERENT PERSON of your trinity?
Oh, forget it: you are not interested in the Truths of God or the honesty of His Word.
Sincerely,
Ray

but please if you do and decide
> not to believe in a Triune God, please do not call yourself a Christian, it
> gives true Christians a bad name.
> But now go ahead write me back and try and rip apart a faith that not even
> the Gates of Hell can stop(By the Way, You don't look like the Gates of
> Hell)
>
> Looking forward to your response,
> Andrew