Hippolytus

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through the Watchtower booklet lately called “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” I won’t deny that this has been a very enjoyable part of this for me. I am looking forward to the next time Witnesses come by and I hope some of you can put this to use and if somehow you do, by all means let me know. Tonight, we’re going to look at Hippolytus. Here’s what the Watchtower says about him:

Hippolytus, who died about 235 C.E., said that God is “the one God, the first and the only One, the Maker and Lord of all,” who “had nothing co-eval [of equal age] with him . . . But he was One, alone by himself; who, willing it, called into being what had no being before,” such as the created prehuman Jesus.

Once again, note the lack of citations. I hope readers have been able to find the quotes I’ve been citing. It will be especially helpful to show a Witness where in the church fathers something is said and to note that the fathers themselves do not say what they are reported to say.

I believe the reference comes from Chapter 28 of book 10:

The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself; not infinite chaos, nor measureless water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, not warm fire, nor refined spirit, nor the azure canopy of the stupendous firmament. But He was One, alone in Himself. By an exercise of His will He created things that are, which antecedently had no existence, except that He willed to make them.

What is going on however is not giving us God’s ontology. The Witnesses are assuming that to say God is by Himself is to assume that He is one person by Himself. Of course, a Trinitarian could say that in the beginning there was only God Himself and not have any problem whatsoever.

Chapter 29 begins this way:

Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first; not the word in the sense of being articulated by voice, but as a ratiocination of the universe, conceived and residing in the divine mind. Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Logos was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of His progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. For simultaneously with His procession from His Progenitor, inasmuch as He is this Progenitors first-born, He has, as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father.

Of course, to be sure, let us look at what he says in the next paragraph of that chapter:

The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God. Now the world was made from nothing; wherefore it is not God; as also because this world admits of dissolution whenever the Creator so wishes it.

Note that Hippolytus makes a point here that what is created is not God, but he says the Logos is not created, therefore the Logos could be God, as he has said earlier. Indeed, this is the case explicitly made. The point is at least that Jesus is not included in the creation.

And in chapter 30 we find this:

For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man.

While we may not have as much, keep in mind that this is one book of Hippolytus. The earlier portion of his work was spent going over the heresies that were taught in his day. Let that be a lesson to us also to know our enemy.

We shall continue tomorrow.

All quotes came from one work which can be found here:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/hippolytus10.html

Tertullian

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through the Watchtower booklet known as “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Right now, we’re dealing with what the early church fathers said. Today, we’re going to be looking at Tertullian.

Our look begins with what the Watchtower says:

Tertullian, who died about 230 C.E., taught the supremacy of God. He observed: “The Father is different from the Son (another), as he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent.” He also said: “There was a time when the Son was not. . . . Before all things, God was alone.”

Both of these quotes exist. Let’s look in Chapter 9 of against Praxeus for the first:

Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole,x as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another.

But what is this about? It is about the idea of modalism. This was the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit were identical in person. Here is what Tertullian said in the second chapter of the same book:

Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her — being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost.

And later:

As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.

Tertullian is in fact writing out a defense of the Trinity. Now there are still some ideas to be worked out, but we see the formation of the doctrine coming along. It could be that Tertullian is wrong in what he taught, but we cannot be wrong in saying that he taught it.

In fact, Tertullian even says in the third chapter that he and fellow Christians are often accused of worshiping three gods. Anyone who has dialogued with JWs knows that they often present the Trinity as if it was a triad, which seems to be the exact same idea that Tertullian was having to argue against in his day!

What about the other? It’s in chapter 3 of Against Hermogenes:

He adds also another point: that as God was always God, there was never a time when God was not also Lord. But it was in no way possible for Him to be regarded as always Lord, in the same manner as He had been always God, if there had not been always, in the previous eternity, a something of which He could be regarded as evermore the Lord. So he concludes that God always had Matter co-existent with Himself as the Lord thereof. Now, this tissue of his I shall at once hasten to pull abroad. I have been willing to set it out in form to this length, for the information of those who are unacquainted with the subject, that they may know that his other arguments likewise need only be understood to be refuted. We affirm, then, that the name of God always existed with Himself and in Himself–but not eternally so the Lord. Because the condition of the one is not the same as that of the other. God is the designation of the substance itself, that is, of the Divinity; but Lord is (the name) not of substance, but of power. I maintain that the substance existed always with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication indeed of something accruing. For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. Do I seem to you to be weaving arguments,

Tertullian is not talking about existence here but titles. The Son did not always exist as Son for Tertullian. That does not mean I agree, but let us be clear on his position. He is saying the Father is not always Lord for there was not always something for him to be Lord over, and with that I agree. This does not constitute a change in the substance of God but a change of relation.

We see Tertullian’s Trinitarianism again however in response in chapter 25 of Against Praxeus:

Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, “I and my Father are One,” in respect of] unity of substance not singularity of number

And in Chapter 27:

But the truth is, we find that He is expressly set forth as both God and Man; the very psalm which we have quoted intimating (of the flesh), that “God became Man in the midst of it, He therefore established it by the will of the Father,” — certainly in all respects as the Son of God and the Son of Man, being God and Man, differing no doubt according to each substance in its own especial property, inasmuch as the Word is nothing else but God, and the flesh nothing else but Man. Thus does the apostle also teach respecting His two substances, saying, “who was made of the seed of David;” in which words He will be Man and Son of Man. “Who was declared to be the Son of God, according to the Spirit;” in which words He will be God, and the Word — the Son of God. We see plainly the twofold state, which is not confounded, but conjoined in One Person — Jesus, God and Man.

I conclude that while there are some statements that can be seen as problematic, there are many more that are much harder for the Witnesses to explain. While we may not agree with all Tertullian said in this regard, we can be sure that he would not be on the side of the Watchtower today.

All works can be found at the following:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/tertullian.html

Clement of Alexandria

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through the booklet of the Watchtower, the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, called “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Tonight, we’re going to look at what they have to say about Clement of Alexandria and compare that to what he really said.

Once again, I must remind everyone that for this statement, the Watchtower gives no references whatsoever.

Clement of Alexandria, who died about 215 C.E., called Jesus in his prehuman existence “a creature” but called God “the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.” He said that the Son “is next to the only omnipotent Father” but not equal to him.

Book 1 of the Instructor, chapter 2:

Now, O you, my children, our Instructor is like His Father God, whose son He is, sinless, blameless, and with a soul devoid of passion; God in the form of man, stainless, the minister of His Father’s will, the Word who is God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand, and with the form of God is God.

Chapter 3:

The Lord ministers all good and all help, both as man and as God: as God, forgiving our sins; and as man, training us not to sin. Man is therefore justly dear to God, since he is His workmanship.

Chapter 5:

By the same prophet is declared His greatness: “Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace; that He might fulfil His discipline: and of His peace there shall be no end.” O the great God! O the perfect child! The Son in the Father, and the Father in the Son. And how shall not the discipline of this child be perfect, which extends to all, leading as a schoolmaster us as children who are His little ones? He has stretched forth to us those hands of His that are conspicuously worthy of trust. To this child additional testimony is borne by John, “the greatest prophet among those born of women:” Behold the Lamb of God!” For since Scripture calls the infant children lambs, it has also called Him–God the Word–who became man for our sakes, and who wished in all points to be made like to us–“the Lamb of God”–Him, namely, that is the Son of God, the child of the Father.

Chapter 7:

But our Instructor is the holy God Jesus, the Word, who is the guide of all humanity. The loving God Himself is our Instructor. Somewhere in song the Holy Spirit says with regard to Him, “He provided sufficiently for the people in the wilderness. He led him about in the thirst of summer heat in a dry land, and instructed him, and kept him as the apple of His eye, as an eagle protects her nest, and shows her fond solicitude for her young, spreads abroad her wings, takes them, and bears them on her back. The Lord alone led them, and there was no strange god with them.”

Now that the Word was at once Jacob’s trainer and the Instructor of humanity [appears from this]–“He asked,” it is said, “His name, and said to him, Tell me what is Try name.” And he said, “Why is it that thou askest My name?” For He reserved the new name for the new people–the babe; and was as yet unnamed, the Lord God not having yet become man. Yet Jacob called the name of the place, “Face of God.” “For I have seen,” he says, “God face to face; and my life is preserved.” The face of God is the Word by whom God is manifested and made known. Then also was he named Israel, because he saw God the Lord. It was God, the Word, the Instructor, who said to him again afterwards, “Fear not to go down into Egypt.” See how the Instructor follows the righteous man, and how He anoints the athlete, teaching him to trip up his antagonist.

Chapter 8:

Nothing, then, is hated by God, nor yet by the Word. For both are one–that is, God. For He has said, “In the beginning the Word was in God, and the Word was God.”

Chapter 11:

The divine Instructor is trustworthy, adorned as He is with three of the fairest ornaments–knowledge, benevolence, and authority of utterance;–with knowledge, for He is the paternal wisdom: “All Wisdom is from the Lord, and with Him for evermore;”–with authority of utterance, for He is God and Creator: “For all things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made;” –and with benevolence, for He alone gave Himself a sacrifice for us: “For the good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep; ” and He has so given it. Now, benevolence is nothing but wishing to do good to one’s neighbour for his sake.

Book 3, chapter 1:

For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God.

Book 3, Prayer to the Paedagogus:

Be gracious, O Instructor, to us Thy children, Father, Charioteer of Israel, Son and Father, both in One, O Lord. Grant to us who obey Thy precepts, that we may perfect the likeness of the image, and with all our power know Him who is the good God and not a harsh judge. And do Thou Thyself cause that all of us who have our conversation in Thy peace, who have been translated into Thy commonwealth, having sailed tranquilly over the billows of sin, may be wafted in calm by Thy Holy Spirit, by the ineffable wisdom, by night and day to the perfect day; and giving thanks may praise, and praising thank the Alone Father and Son, Son and Father, the Son, Instructor and Teacher, with the Holy Spirit, all in One, in whom is all, for whom all is One, for whom is eternity, whose members we all are, whose glory the aeons are; for the All-good, All-lovely, All-wise, All-just One. To whom be glory both now and for ever. Amen.

All of this has come from one of his works and should be sufficient to establish that the Watchtower has not fairly represented Clement. As we go further into this series of course, more writers wrote a lot more and there’s no way we can mine it indefinitely.

However, the following is where all quotes come from:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/clement.html

If any in the Watchtower think I have handled Clement wrong, they are welcome to state their case.

Irenaeus

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through the Jehovah’s Witness booklet of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Right now, we’re discussing if the early Christians taught it. Tonight, we’re looking at the church father Irenaeus. The following is what’s found in the booklet about him:

Irenaeus, who died about 200 C.E., said that the prehuman Jesus had a separate existence from God and was inferior to him. He showed that Jesus is not equal to the “One true and only God,” who is “supreme over all, and besides whom there is no other.”

Thus, in about fifty words, the Watchtower wants you to think you have a full view on Irenaeus. Note once again that there is no reference given whatsoever.

Let’s not do that here.

Chapter 10 of Book 1:

1. The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: [She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensationsof God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father “to gather all things in one,” and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Saviour, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, “every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess”to Him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all; that He may send “spiritual wickednesses,”and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, together with the ungodly, and unrighteous, and wicked, and profane among men, into everlasting fire; but may, in the exercise of His grace, confer immortality on the righteous, and holy, and those who have kept His commandments, and have persevered in His love, some from the beginning [of their Christian course], and others from [the date of] their repentance, and may surround them with everlasting glory.

Note the referring to Jesus as our Lord and God and also saying there is an invisible Father. Irenaeus also says that this is the belief of the church received from the apostles.

Paragraph #2 of chapter 19 of book 3.

2. For this reason [it is, said], “Who shall declare His generation? ” since “He is a man, and who shall recognise Him? ” But he to whom the Father which is in heaven has revealed Him, knows Him, so that he understands that He who “was not born either by the will of the flesh, or by the will of man,” is the Son of man, this is Christ, the Son of the living God. 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. But that He had, beyond all others, in Himself that pre-eminent birth which is from the Most High Father, and also experienced that pre-eminent generation which is from the Virgin, the divine Scriptures do in both respects testify of Him: also, that He was a man without comeliness, and liable to suffering; that He sat upon the foal of an ass; that He received for drink, vinegar and gall; that He was despised among the people, and humbled Himself even to death and that He is the holy Lord, the Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Beautiful in appearance, and the Mighty God, coming on the clouds as the Judge of all men; -all these things did the Scriptures prophesy of Him.

Notice again the strong terminology Irenaeus uses to describe Jesus and notice also his source. He’s not pointing to Greek philosophy, which I do not view as evil of course, but he is pointing to Scripture.

Book 3, chapter 20, paragraph #4. Notice this excerpt:

Thus he indicates in clear terms that He is God, and that His advent was [to take place] in Bethlehem, and from Mount Effrem, which is towards the south of the inheritance, and that [He is] man. For he says, “His feet shall advance in the plains: “and this is an indication proper to man.

Book 3, chapter 21, paragraph 1:

God, then, was made man, and the Lord did Himself save us, giving us the token of the Virgin. But not as some allege, among those now presuming to expound the Scripture, [thus: ] “Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bring forth a son,”

And in paragraph 4:

Carefully, then, has the Holy Ghost pointed out, by what has been said, His birth from a virgin, and His essence, that He is God (for the name Emmanuel indicates this). And He shows that He is a man, when He says, “Butter and honey shall He eat; “and in that He terms Him a child also, [in saying, ] “before He knows good and evil; “for these are all the tokens of a human infant. But that He “will not consent to evil, that He may choose that which is good,”-this is proper to God; that by the fact, that He shall eat butter and honey, we should not understand that He is a mere man only, nor, on the other hand, from the name Emmanuel, should suspect Him to be God without flesh.

Section 53 of fragments from the lost writings:

With regard to Christ, the law and the prophets and the evangelists have proclaimed that He was born of a virgin, that He suffered upon a beam of wood, and that He appeared from the dead; that He also ascended to the heavens, and was glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence, the Word of God, who was begotten before the light; that He was the Founder of the universe, along with it (light), and the Maker of man; that He is All in all: Patriarch among the patriarchs; Law in the laws; Chief Priest among priests; Ruler among kings; the Prophet among prophets; the Angel among angels; the Man among men; Son in the Father; God in God; King to all eternity. For it is He who sailed [in the ark] along with Noah, and who guided Abraham; who was bound along with Isaac, and was a Wanderer with Jacob; the Shepherd of those who are saved, and the Bridegroom of the Church; the Chief also of the cherubim, the Prince of the angelic powers; God of God; Son of the Father; Jesus Christ; King for ever and ever. Amen.

And section 54:

He is the Salvation of the lost, the Light to those dwelling in darkness, and Redemption to those who have been born; the Shepherd of the saved, and the Bridegroom of the Church; the Charioteer of the cherubim, the Leader of the angelic host; God of God; Jesus Christ our Saviour.

Once again, while we do not see full Trinitarian language, we see the doctrine forming. Do we really find what the Watchtower tells us to find? Not at all. We find several explicit statements and considering how much the Watchtower has made a big deal about explicit statements, we can be sure they’d welcome these and recant their position.

Well, maybe not, but we can pray for that can’t we?

All references come from the following:

http://earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html

Justin Martyr

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been looking at the booklet of the Jehovah’s Witnesses lately called “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” We’re not going to look at the heading of if the early Christians taught it as all that can be said is “More quoting out of context.” Instead, I’d prefer to jump ahead to the church fathers and we’re going to do a father a day starting with Justin Martyr. Keep in mind also as always, that the Watchtower tells which father said a quote, they don’t tell where that quote is. Thus, we cannot even be sure if the quote is accurate.

For the reference to Jesus as an angel, this is quite simple. This is referring to Jesus as the Angel of the Lord. The Angel of the Lord is a Trinitarian Precursor in the Bible and one I believe to be the pre-incarnate Christ. I would have no problem with Jesus being created so long as that creation is not temporal.

The closest I can find however to the references in the Watchtower about the Son being a created angel “other than the God who made all things” is in the Dialogue with Trypho. I will include a link to the dialogue at the end of the blog so you can all see the source I am referencing. Interestingly, one of these is at the start of chapter Fifty. (L for those who need help with Roman Numerals) This is Trypho, Justin’s opponent, speaking:

Answer me then, first, how you can show that there is another God besides the Maker of all things; and then you will show,[further], that He submitted to be born of the Virgin.”

Notice immediately that Trypho’s understanding of this being is that he is deity as he is another God. Trypho is seeing this as polytheism. Justin does not however deny that Jesus is fully God. Let’s keep going and see some statements of Justin. In Chapter 56 (LVI) we have the following:

“I shall attempt to persuade you, since you have understood the Scriptures,[of the truth] of what I say, that there is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things; who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things–above whom there is no other God–wishes to announce to them.”

In this, while not using full Trinitarian language, we see the seeds of the Trinity. Justin is talking about the appearance of the three men to Abraham in Genesis 18. Note what he says later in this same chapter.

“If I could not have proved to you from the Scriptures that one of those three is God, and is called Angel, because, as I already said, He brings messages to those to whom God the Maker of all things wishes[messages to be brought], then in regard to Him who appeared to Abraham on earth in human form in like manner as the two angels who came with Him, and who was God even before the creation of the world, it were reasonable for you to entertain the same belief as is entertained by the whole of your nation.”

Note this, that Justin says this one is called Angel, not that He IS an angel, and that this one was God before the creation of the world.

In Chapter 57, Trypho responds with

And Trypho said, “It is possible that[the question] about the mode of eating may be thus explained:[the mode, that is to say,] in which it is written, they took and ate what had been prepared by Abraham: so that you may now proceed to explain to us how this God who appeared to Abraham, and is minister to God the Maker of all things, being born of the Virgin, became man, of like passions with all, as you said previously.”

Trypho has no problem with two different persona being called God and he is understanding the early Christian claim that yes, Jesus is indeed God.

Justin says more on his identity in chapter 60:

Now assuredly, Trypho, I shall show that, in the vision of Moses, this same One alone who is called an Angel, and who is God, appeared to and communed with Moses. For the Scripture says thus:’The Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the bush; and he sees that the bush bums with fire, but the bush was not consumed. And Moses said, I will turn aside and see this great sight, for the bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he is turning aside to behold, the Lord called to him out of the bush.’ In the same manner, therefore, in which the Scripture calls Him who appeared to Jacob in the dream an Angel, then[says] that the same Angel who appeared in the dream spoke to him, saying,’I am the God that appeared to thee when thou didst flee from the face of Esau thy brother;’and[again] says that, in the judgment which befell Sodom in the days of Abraham, the Lord had inflicted the punishment of the Lord who[dwells] in the heavens;–even so here, the Scripture, in announcing that the Angel of the Lord appeared to Moses, and in afterwards declaring him to be Lord and God, speaks of the same One, whom it declares by the many testimonies already quoted to be minister to God, who is above the world, above whom there is no other[God].

Note that he says the one who is called an angel and who is God. He is using the Angel of the Lord reference and the very reference where God reveals his divine name to Moses. Observe chapter 61:

“I shall give you another testimony, my friends,” said I, “from the Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning,[who was] a certain rational power[proceeding] from Himself, who is called by the Holy Spirit, now the Glory of the Lord, now the Son, again Wisdom, again an Angel, then God, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave(Nun). For He can be called by all those names, since He ministers to the Father’s will, and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word[which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled[another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled.

Notice all the titles that can be given to Jesus. Check also how Joshua responded to this figure when he appeared to him. Joshua knew who this was.

Note also chapter 63 with the heading “It is proved that this God was incarnate.” What do we see in there?

Therefore these words testify explicitly that He is witnessed to by Him who established these things, as deserving to be worshipped, as God and as Christ.

And the start of chapter 68:

And Trypho said, “You endeavour to prove an incredible and well-nigh impossible thing;[namely], that God endured to be born and become man.”

“If I undertook,” said I, “to prove this by doctrines or arguments of man, you should not bear with me. But if I quote frequently Scriptures, and so many of them, referring to this point, and ask you to comprehend them, you are hard-hearted in the recognition of the mind and will of God. But if you wish to remain for ever so, I would not be injured at all; and for ever retaining the same[opinions] which I had before I met with you, I shall leave you.”

This is just one work of Justin Martyr. What about others?

Chapter 63 of the First Apology:

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 nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death.

Chapter 10 of the Fragments:

By the two birds Christ is denoted, both dead as man, and living as God. He is likened to a bird, because He is understood and declared to be from above, and from heaven. And the living bird, having been dipped in the blood of the dead one, was afterwards let go. For the living and divine Word was in the crucified and dead temple [of the body], as being a partaker of the passion, and yet impossible to God.

From Chapter 10 on the Resurrection:

But if our physician Christ, God, having rescued us from our desires, regulates our flesh with His own wise and temperate rule, it is evident that He guards it from sins because it possesses a hope of salvation, as physicians do not suffer men whom they hope to save to indulge in what pleasures they please.

Now while we don’t have Nicea here yet, we do have nothing that contradicts it and much that contradicts Watchtower teaching. Most informative is the dialogue with Trypho. I recommend Witnesses to start reading the works of the Fathers without the blinders of the Watchtower and see what the early Christians really taught.

All references come from the dialogues which can be located on the following page:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/justin.html

Testimony of the Greek Scriptures

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. Tonight, we’re looking at the Watchtower booklet “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” again. We’re going to be covering the sub-heading tonight of the Testimony of the Greek Scriptures.

To begin with, the Watchtower asks if the New Testament speaks clearly of a Trinity. The problem is that for them, clearly means explicitly. Let’s suppose that I gave the following facts.

Last year, I was the groom in a wedding on July 24th.

I go to sleep every night next to the same woman.

This woman now has the same last name as I do.

I wear a ring constantly on my left hand.

In all of these, I have not once said “I’m married!” but you don’t need to me to. All the information that is needed to reach that conclusion has been stated. In the same way, we have these truths presented in the Bible which will come much later in this series as biblical texts are examined.

The Father has the full nature of God.

The Son has the full nature of God.

The Spirit has the full nature of God.

These three persons are distinct.

There is only one God.

That’s all we need.

The next is a series of quotes from “The Triune God.” What is problematic is just how much is left out in these quotes. So much is left out it could be a blog in itself. Throughout Fortman’s book, he does give evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity. Of course we have no problem that the Bible does not explicitly teach the Trinity. We don’t need it to no more than you needed me to explicitly say I’m married.

I challenge any Jehovah’s Witness to simply go out and read Fortman’s book. Also, try to look up the quotes and see what was left out.

Other citations from other works are the same. The Watchtower wants to make much that the doctrine is not explicitly taught. Again, we do not have any disagreement with this. It would probably make my job a lot easier, but the ancients did not need to everything spelled out like so many moderns do.

The next quotation is from E. Washburn Hopkins. It goes as follows:

To Jesus and Paul the doctrine of the trinity was apparently unknown; . . . they say nothing about it.

Duly noted is that right before that Hopkins says “The beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity appears already in John.” Those who are skeptical can just go to page 336 of his book. It can easily be found on Google Books. On page 339, Hopkins also says the first simple Christians believed Jesus was God on Earth.

Note another statement. On page 335, Hopkins says the epiphany of Dionysus became that of Christ. Does the Watchtower agree with this?

Hopkins was not a friend of Christianity and neither was Weigall as we saw earlier who is quoted next. Of course, this does not make what they said wrong, but it is misleading on the part of the Watchtower to make no distinction between Christian and non-Christian.

The conclusion is that the New Testament does not clearly teach the doctrine. As in the case of the Old Testament, absent is any mention whatsoever of Scripture from the New Testament.

We shall continue tomorrow.

Are Allah And YHWH The Same?

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. I apologize for being away for so long. I unfortunately came down with the flu bug. The Mrs. is also currently recovering from some flu-like symptoms but does not have the bug. Fortunately, I’m at the point where I’m able to function again so here I am. Also, before continuing our look at “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” I’m going to break to address a question that has been raised due to some current events loved ones of mine are experiencing. Do Muslims and Christians worship the same god?

And I am regularly dismayed at the number of Christians who think we do.

I want to be clear in this post that while I do advocate Christianity, that is not my goal right now. It could be for the sake of argument that Islam is true and Christianity is false. It could be that both of them are false. However, it cannot be that both of them are true.

Let’s note some fundamental differences in the religions.

Christianity claims that in these last days, God has spoken by Jesus, namely this is said in Hebrews. Islam claims that Muhammad is the last of the prophets.

Christianity claims that Jesus is the Son of God. Islam says it is blasphemous to think that God has a son.

Christianity claims God is triune. This is blasphemy to Muslims also as it is ascribing partners to God in their view.

Christianity claims Christ was crucified. Islam claims that he was not. (To be fair, some Muslims would say the fourth Sura does not demand this, but many apologists like Deedat did deny Jesus was crucified)

Christianity claims salvation by grace through faith. Islam has salvation set up on a measuring scale of works.

Christianity claims the Bible is the Word of God and no other book has that place. Islam gives that place to the Koran.

Christianity says Jesus claimed to be ontologically equal with God. Islam has him denying he ever said such a thing.

Christianity claims Jesus rose from the dead. Islam says he never died so he never rose.

As has been asked in a book before, is the Father of Jesus the God of Muhammad? If so, it seems that God is getting his message confused. Who is God? How has he revealed himself? What did he come to do? How can I be saved? These are important questions that these two religions disagree on.

Now someone might say Allah was a name used by Christians well before Islam came along and it’s just their word for God.

Now if you went to see some Arabic Christians who speak Arabic, they would use the word Allah for God. Their John 1:1 would say “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with Allah and the Word was Allah.” With that, we have no problem. However, the danger is an equivocation fallacy in saying that because the names are the same, the content behind the names is the same.

For instance, my parents have a cat whose name is Reagan. Am I to assume that that cat is the same as the fortieth president of the United States? Why not? They both have the same name. The difference is that the word “Reagan” is a referent. One points to one of our feline friends. The other points to a president.

But there is only one true God!

To begin with, in being honest observers, we could come out and say “Maybe there isn’t.” Now as a Christian, I believe there is, but if you think so, upon what reasons? I am not going to give mine now but just say that this would require apologetics of some sort on your part.

What will it be? Will you go with Aristotle-Thomistic thinking? Will you go with the ontological argument of Anselm? Could you use the Kalam to somehow arrive at one creator? Whichever way, you are already engaging in apologetics which is important to establish since this is an apologetics question.

Suppose however for the sake of argument that we have done our apologetics and discovered that there is only one true God. Why stop our apologetics there? Our quest for truth should make us wish to decide what this one God is like. What is His nature? Has He revealed Himself and if so, how?

Because there is one true God, it does not follow that all descriptions of him are accurate. There is only one person in the universe that is me, for instance. However, if you say that that person is 6″4′ and can throw a football 100 yards, then I’m sorry but you have the wrong guy.

If all worship the same God just because there is one, then one wonders what the big fuss was about between the Jews and the Christians at the start of the New Testament era. Were the apostles going around saying to the Jews “Hey guys! Just wanted to let you know you’re still okay since you worship one true God! No need to come and know Jesus!”

On the other hand, the Jews were of the opinion that the apostles were blasphemers based on what they were saying about Jesus. The important point is that if Jesus had been a mere man and not God in the flesh, the Jews would have been absolutely right with what they said about the apostles. If Jesus is not God, then all of us who are Christians are blasphemers.

To say there is one God is not the same as saying all descriptions of the one God are accurate. Some are wrong and in fact, the very reason we should be doing evangelism is because we do believe some of them are wrong. I do believe Muslims are not worshiping the real God. I believe they are worshiping something, but that something does not exist as there is no Allah. There is YHWH. (By that, I mean the referent of course and not just a generic word for deity)

For those of us doing evangelism, it does us no service to say they are the same God. In fact, as a Christian, if I was told the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are the same, I would find that a blasphemous statement. I find it especially so because of the glory of the Trinity, a doctrine that Islam by necessity denies.

Christianity and Islam have differences. Let’s realize that. Again, it could be that Islam is right or it could be that both religions are wrong, but both religions are not the same. It may be politically correct to say that they are the same God, but it sure isn’t biblically or theologically correct.

Testimony of the Hebrew Scriptures

Welcome to Deeper Waters, the blog where we make it our goal to dive into the ocean of truth. Lately, we’ve been going through a booklet by the Watchtower called “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” We are discussing the points under the heading of if it’s a Bible teaching and the part tonight we’ll be looking at is concerning the Hebrew Bible.

To begin with, there is a reference to the Encyclopedia of Religion? Which one? The Watchtower doesn’t say. What page? Not said either. What volume? You won’t find it in the booklet. Who wrote it? Don’t expect that either. Hence, my position has been as one who reads books by the new atheists who have terrible research for what they do, that the Watchtower makes the new atheists look like first-rate scholars.

Anyway, the Watchtower says that the Encyclopedia admits that “Theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.” To begin with, the language of admitting is loaded language already as if this was some shameful secret that will destroy the doctrine of the Trinity.

On the contrary, it does nothing of the sort. I also would agree there is no full expression of the Trinity in the Old Testament but is part of the later revelation of the New Testament. There are hints of the Trinity in there, but the doctrine is part of progressive revelation. Again, what’s the problem? The only way this would seem convincing is to someone who has not been properly taught on the Trinity and believes that it has to be chapter and verse. This should be a condemnation on us in the Christian church in that we’re not teaching our congregations enough.

The same situation comes up with a Catholic Encyclopedia. The quote is that the doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament. Okay. Neither is baptism, which the Witnesses practice. Do you have the command to have the Lord’s Supper in the Old Testament? Do you have the promise of the New Testament coming?

Once again, the Watchtower does picking and choosing.

Next, the Watchtower has the following, directly quoted from their web site.

Similarly, in his book The Triune God, Jesuit Edmund Fortman admits: “The Old Testament . . . tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . . . There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead. . . . Even to see in [the “Old Testament”] suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.”—Italics ours.

The Watchtower leaves much out and in fact, there are numerous portions left out. A little bit of digging can bring up what was left out.

To the Old Testament writers God is a God of life, love, wisdom, and holiness, a God of righteousness. a God both immanent and transcendent, a God of power, glory, and majesty, the one and only God. the creator and lord of the universe. Sometimes they call Him Father, especially of Israel. They give the title ‘son of God’ not only to Israel collectively but also to the king. to the judges, to the upright Jew, and perhaps to the Messiah. There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a divine paternity and filiation within the Godhead. They write of the word of God and regard it as revelatory and creative, as instructive and illuminative. If at times they seem to show a slight tendency to hypostatize the word of God, nowhere do they present the word of God as a personal divine being distinct from Yahweh. They write much of the wisdom of God that was ‘created before all things’ and is the ‘worker of all things.’ But to the people of the Old Testament the wisdom of God was never a person to be addressed but only a personification of an attribute or activity of Yahweh. The spirit of Yahweh is a creative force, a saving power, a spirit of judgment, a charismatic spirit, a spirit of life and of inward renewal, a prophetic spirit. Although this spirit is often described in personal terms, it seems quite clear that the sacred writers never conceived or presented this spirit as a distinct person. Many of the sacred writers spoke of a Messiah who was to be Yahweh’s agent in establishing the kingdom of Yahweh in the messianic age. However, they regarded the Messiah not as a divine person but as a creature, a charismatic leader, a Davidic king. Thus the Old Testament writings about God neither express nor imply any idea of or belief in a plurality or trinity of persons within the one Godhead. Even to see in them suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers. Perhaps it can be said that some of these writings about word and wisdom and spirit did provide a climate in which plurality within the Godhead was conceivable to Jews. However, these writers definitely do give us the words that the New Testament uses to express the trinity of persons, Father, Son, Word, Wisdom, Spirit. And their way of understanding these words helps us to see how the revelation of God in the New Testament goes beyond the revelation of God in the Old Testament. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p8-9)

Some of you might be thinking that that doesn’t contain all the quotes. You’re right. That’s how bad the quoting is and the ellipses really do leave out much. I’m just hopeful the one example I’ve cited will be enough to open up the eyes of some Witnesses reading this.

Please also note that there has been no interaction with such ideas as the Angel of the Lord in the Old Testament or the passages with two persons called YHWH or how the Messiah is spoken of in terms of deity. There has been an appeal to authority only and while authority is fine, that authority is not even used right. Unfortunately, a Jehovah’s Witness reading this or an innocent Christian being duped will not know about this.

Tomorrow, we shall see what they say of the Greek Scriptures.

Trinity In The Bible?

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve lately been going through the Jehovah’s Witnesses booklet called “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” We’re on the topic now of if the Trinity is clearly a Bible teaching and under the heading that matches the title of this post. Let’s see what the Watchtower has to say.

The first reference is from a Protestant work called “The Illustrated Bible Dictionary.” Of course, no page number is cited, but the quotes in the brochure goes as follows:

The word Trinity is not found in the Bible . . . It did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century.

Anyone interested in what they left out?

The word Trinity is not found in the Bible, and though used by Tertullian in the last decade of the 2nd century, it did not find a place formally in the theology of the church till the 4th century. It is, however, the distinctive and all-comprehensive doctrine of the Christian faith…

Now I’d have no problem as is however with saying that the word is not found in the Bible. (Much like the term “Theocratic Kingdom”) I’d also have little problem with saying that it didn’t become a formal term until around the fourth century, although Tertullian and others did use it prior. I am not interested in the word but in the concept.

What’s the next line?

And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity “is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God.”

The quote comes from one earlier about Seminarians having a hard time explaining the Trinity in its Thomistic interpretation. What is instead said is that the doctrine is in there implicitly which is what Trinitarians have always claimed. No one has claimed that there is chapter and verse and therefore true, although some do point to the Johannine Comma to be fair.

The next statement is that the word first appears in Theophilus in 180 A.D. and that shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form, trinitas, in Tertullian.

I have no problem with this but I just wonder what difference it makes. Because a word is not there, it does not mean the concept that can be signified by that word is not present. We can easily coin a term later to describe something that at one time is not understood and go back and find evidence for that concept later. Absence of a word is not the same as absence of a concept.

The Watchtower points out that this does not mean that Tertullian did not teach the Trinity. I agree. We will look at Tertullian later as the Watchtower does spend some time discussing the church fathers. (Much like you can spend some money at a gumball machine however. For them, one quote is enough to prove the whole case)

My conclusion is that the Watchtower is still just stacking the deck. They do not use this standard when they teach about the theocratic kingdom. Could it be that they’re actually doing something like picking and choosing? Surely not!

Is It Clearly A Bible Teaching?

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve been going through the Watchtower pamphlet lately of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” We’re finding it lacking, especially with their poor citation practices, which make it easy to tell also in the age of the internet if a web site is just lifting material from the Watchtower without bothering to look it up themselves.

In starting this section, the Watchtower tells us that if the Trinity is true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible. Unfortunately, this term is a bit vague. How is something clearly and consistently presented? Does it have to have chapter and verse? How often? How clearly must it be presented? Does it have to outright express the doctrine of the Trinity?

Kind of like it does the Watchtower doctrine of the Theocratic Kingdom?

What of other doctrines? Do we have a commandment in the Bible to gather together books and call them the New Testament? Now we can piece together from what we have that there would be a New Testament, but we receive no such command from the Lord that is explicit.

However, I do believe the Trinity is clearly taught in the New Testament and the Bible as a whole when one studies the actual text. The information is there to show that the Bible teaches that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. It also teaches that there is only one God.

The Watchtower does at least point to the authority of Scripture in this, to which there is no disagreement. The problem however is not with their doctrine of Scripture but with the hermeneutical method that they espouse. It sounds like a great idea to say that something must be clearly taught, but it depends again on what that means.

Most people don’t take the time to realize that doctrine is very systematic. It is not just taking one verse here and basing your whole doctrine on that. It means taking all of the verses together and getting the information that they share and then bringing together all of that to form the doctrine.

What the Watchtower is doing is in fact stacking the deck. They are saying that if the Trinity is true, it must be presented in this way, not realizing that that is not the way Bible doctrine is presented. When the Watchtower gives their position on a doctrine such as the fate of the dead, do they go to just one verse? No. They go to numerous verses and try to pull them together. Of course, they misinterpret the verses, but that is closer to what ought to be done.

Christians should be aware of this tactic by the Watchtower. They need to realize that they need to make sure they do not agree to the wrong rules of the game which the Watchtower will often try to do. Realize that Bible teaching is rarely directly explicit but is based on a thorough understanding of the whole of Scripture.