Matt Slick,
I just read your response to my criticism. Why didn’t you send me an
e-mail that you posted it. I had to go find it myself. Actually, I thought you
meant you were going to criticize my book. If I had known it was my response to
your trinity paper, I would have been more serious. I was just having fun with
it. To me, the trinity is a silly and unbiblical teaching. However, after
reading your response, I see that you have misunderstood my intentions on a
number of points. Allow me to clarify these points.
Therefore, we conclude that the fullness mentioned is speaking about the fullness of deity; that is, that Jesus is divine in nature as well as human in nature, not that all of God's essence, totality, nature, existence, etc., was confined to the space of Christ's body.
All I was trying to point out with Col 2:9 was that
Trinitarians use that Scripture to prove the trinity. So to them, it has more
meaning then Jesus being just divine. Even Jehovah’s Witnesses believe Jesus is
divine. Your explanation here, says nothing about Jesus being the same divine
being as Almighty God. Also, according to the Commentary Critical and
Explanatory on the Whole Bible, by Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset and David
Brown says: “of the Godhead--The Greek (theotes) means the ESSENCE and NATURE of
the Godhead, not merely the divine perfections and attributes of Divinity
(Greek, "theiotes"). He, as man, was not merely God-like, but in the
fullest sense, God. ” But exactly what “God” is this commentary referring to?
Are we talking about the word “God” that is attached to the persons Father, Son
and Holy Spirit that are not the totality of the Godhead or are we
talking about the “God” that is the totality of the Godhead? This
commentary also seems to disagree with you. If theotes means essence and
nature, then the scripture is saying the full essence and nature dwell in
Christ, the opposite of what you have said.
Some examples of Trinitarian use of Colossians:
Jesus is the "fullness of the Godhead, bodily"
for in Him we have Father, Son and Holy Ghost!(all the properties of God) - http://www.jesusnameinc.com/trig.html
So it could be truly said that in Christ
"dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." The Father is
dwelling in the Son (John 14:10). Jehovah is embodied in the flesh of His
Messiah, the Christ. - http://mikeblume.com/drysd18a.htm
The Son of God is eternally the complete God
(Heb. 1:8). In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col. 2:9);
hence, the entire Godhead resides within Him. - http://www.triunegod.org/heresies/
Here "dwells" refers to the indwelling of the totality of the attributes and powers of the Godhead living permanently in Christ (cf. 1:19). - http://www.gracenotes.info/colossians/col018.html
It is theotes which occurs in Colossians 2:9. Here
Paul declares that "all the fullness of the Godhead" dwells in Christ
"bodily." The phrase "fullness of the Godhead" is an
especially emphatic one. It means everything without exception which goes to
make up the Godhead, the totality of all that enters into the conception of
Godhood. All this, says Paul, dwells in Christ "bodily," that is
after such a fashion as to be manifested in connection with a bodily organism.
- http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/view.cgi?number=T3857
In this last paragraph, he has demonstrated
that he does not understand the concept of the Trinity. It is correct to
say that Jesus died, rose, and ascended into heaven, physically. This is
standard Christian doctrine. However, when he asks, "does the
totality of the trinity reside in Jesus human body or does Jesus human body
reside in the one spirit being God," he demonstrates a deep lack of
understanding regarding the incarnation of Christ and the doctrine of the
Trinity.
First of all, the doctrine of the Trinity
states that Jesus is the word become flesh, not the Trinity become flesh.
The word which became flesh as Jesus is the second person of the Trinity, not
the totality of the Trinity. This clearly shows that the critic fails to
properly understand what the Trinity is.
You obviously missed my point.
According to your own statements from this web page, you have said. “Included in the doctrine of
the Trinity is a strict monotheism which is the teaching that there exists in
all the universe a single being known as God who is self-existent and
unchangeable.” Now if there is one spirit being in Heaven that Jesus prayed to
and Jesus human body that went to heaven is another being, If these two beings
were not combined somehow like I was asking, then we have two separate beings
making up the one True God. How do you explain this? If the second person of
the trinity is confined in the human body of Jesus and the other two persons of
the trinity are within the spirit being God, why would this not be two beings?
If the second person of the trinity is not confined in Jesus’ human body, but
dwells with the other two persons of the trinity, this makes the human body of
Jesus in heaven either not divine or an addition to the trinity as a fourth
identity.
Does this person actually think that the word
"Bible" occurs in the Bible? It does not. Note that I did
not say the Greek word "biblos". I said the English word
"Bible." The criticism I initially responded to in my paper was
dealing with the objection that the English word "trinity" does not
occur in the Bible.
This person has failed to make the distinction and has
demonstrated, yet again, a failure to think clearly when addressing the issues.
In this case, you are the cause of the misunderstanding. You never
limited your statement to the “English” use of the word Bible. Also,, you are using
deceptive simplistic reasoning on your readers. Your use of the word Bible has
nothing to do with things revealed in Scripture. The use of the English word
Bible in the Bible is totally up to the translator, the concept is in the
Bible. The Living Bible and William Beck's An American Translation, uses the
term BIBLE where others normally have the word SCRIPTURE. SCRIPTURE and BIBLE
are semantic equivalents, but we simply do not have an equivalent for a triune
deity.
It is interesting that this person tries to
cloud the real issue of whether or not the doctrine of the Trinity is taught in
the Bible or not. He goes to Thaumaturgus (I confess I've never even
heard of him before) as he tries to infer confusion. But, the doctrine of
the Trinity is that there are three persons in one God. Note that in my
comment above I said, "There is, apparently, a subordination within the
Trinity," This is true and most theologians agree. In fact,
the scriptures listed substantiate this. Yet, the critic ignores the
scriptures and tries to focus on some ancient person.
It is interesting that someone with a Masters of Divinity from
Westminster Theological Seminary never studied the Church Fathers and the
history of the trinity doctrine. In Scripture there is as yet no single term by
which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which
the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch
about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word
and His Wisdom ("Ad. Autol.", II, 15). The term may, of course, have
been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of
trinitas in Tertullian ("De pud." c. xxi). In the next century the
word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps.
xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil,
Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270,
he writes:
There is therefore nothing created, nothing subject to another in the
Trinity: nor is there anything that has been added as though it once had not
existed, but had entered afterwards: therefore the Father has never been
without the Son, nor the Son without the Spirit: and this same Trinity is immutable
and unalterable forever (P. G., X, 986).
How is it that when Trinitarians use the Church Fathers to prove the trinity, these Church Fathers are not simply labeled as “some ancient person?” By the way, this “ancient person” apparently was important enough to be used in the critical apparatus of the UBS Greek Text 3rd edition.
The king and servant example is meant to demonstrate
that difference in position does not mean difference in nature.
Exactly! Your example is perfect to show that Jesus and
Jehovah share divine nature and still are two separate beings with different
positions.
Note
that this critic mistakenly says "wife and king." Apparently,
he didn't read this very carefully -- yet he is ready to criticize it.
No, It is you with the comprehension problem. I was
simply lumping the two examples of the “wife and husband” and the “King and
servant” together as the examples of the wife and the king. Notice the plural
“examples.”
The problem with this person is that he fails to see
the point that is made. Instead, he constructs a difficulty that the
illustration was not meant to address. I don't blame him since he is
looking for anything to criticize.
Sure, Just as you criticize the Watchtower material on any little thing you can find, even if you have to fabricate it yourself.
It is confusing to someone like
this critic who applies false logic, misreads the text, and is only looking for
something to criticize without applying adequate analysis.
As the doctrine of the Trinity is indiscoverable by
reason, so it is incapable of proof from reason. There are no analogies to it
in Nature, not even in the spiritual nature of man, who is made in the image of
God. In His trinitarian mode of being, God is unique; and, as there is nothing
in the universe like Him in this respect, so there is nothing which can help us
to comprehend Him. (INTERNATIONAL STANDARD BIBLE ENCYCLOPEDIA, James Orr, M.A.,
D.D., General Editor)
The critic underlines "they will all of
them know me." The verse is not talking about us comprehending the
nature of God as a Trinity, which is what this conversation is about.
Instead, the verse is dealing with knowing God, who He is, and being in
relationship with God. Therefore, this person has mistakenly used
Jeremiah 31:4.
This person has failed to understand the biblical pattern of "knowing" that is reference between God and those who are redeemed.
If you disagree
with my reasoning on this matter, that is OK, However, you still have a
problem. According to John 17:3 And
this is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him
whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ.
(ASV) I don’t think you would disagree that this verse is also advocating the
idea that salvation is closely tied with knowing God and Jesus. However,
according to your own explanation that this “knowing” God is not talking about
us comprehending the nature of God as a Trinity. Then it should be understood that “knowing” the trinity is not
essential to be redeemed for salvation and eternal Life.
Might know (γινώσκωσι)
Might recognize
or perceive. This is striking, that eternal life consists in knowledge,
or rather the pursuit of knowledge, since the present tense marks a
continuance, a progressive perception of God in Christ.
That they might learn to know. (Vincent's Word Studies,
Marvin R. Vincent, D.D.)
Excuse me, but people do make typo's
don't they? The critic does not even address the fact that Jesus refers
to all three persons at once. Instead, he tries to demand of the verse a
Trinitarian statement. The Trinity is arrived at systematically, by
looking at the whole of scripture. The above verses is simply a
demonstrating that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned together
under "the name", not "the names."
The typo on your web page has not been fixed yet. By the way, it is
spelled typos not typo’s. In addition, it would be “verses are” if you meant
multiple verses. Of course if you did mean a single verse, then you would have to
drop the “a” before demonstrating or change demonstrating to demonstration.
McClintock
and Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and
Ecclesiastical Literature, though advocating the Trinity
doctrine, acknowledges regarding Matthew 28:18-20: “This text, however, taken
by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the
three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity.” (1981
reprint, Vol. X, p. 552) Regarding other texts that also mention the three
together, this Cyclopedia admits that, taken by themselves, they are
“insufficient” to prove the Trinity. (Compare 1 Timothy 5:21, where God and
Christ and the angels are mentioned together.)
Apparently
you forgot to respond to the following.
If the Bible calls the Father God, Jesus God, and the Holy Spirit God and if these uses of God (Theos) are not the totality of the Godhead (True God), what word means the totality of the Godhead? Doesn’t the Bible call the Father “the only True God?” This sounds like the Father is the totality of the Godhead to me. In addition, do not Trinitarians say Jesus is Jehovah (Jehovah being the name of the Total Triune being). They also say the Father is Jehovah.
Howard Mazzaferro
I have yet to hear back from Matt Slick yet…