Deeper Waters

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.

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!

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.

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’re continuing our look today at the Jehovah’s Witness booklet of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Our look so far has revealed that the Watchtower does not often name authors, editions, or page numbers. (Strangely enough however, they have citations for all the artwork in the pamphlet.) Tonight, we’re going to look at the sub-heading of “Not A God Of Confusion.”

The first point given is that a doctrine like the Trinity requires divine revelation. With this, I agree. The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be discovered by human reason alone. I do hold that there are truths that can be known about God apart from Scripture, but there are some that cannot be known. For a parallel, you can know from history that Jesus was crucified. You cannot know from studying history apart from the teaching of Scripture that he died for the sins of the world. You could not even know that as the purpose of the resurrection without the teaching of Scripture.

The main thrust in this paragraph is that God is not a God of confusion according to 1 Cor. 14:33, so surely God would not have a doctrine that is confusing.

If they want to say that that is a valid argument, then I would love to meet the Witness who thinks he’s totally wrapped his head around how God is an eternal being. Of course I believe that He is, but it is a concept that while I can grasp, I can surely not apprehend. By the standard of the Watchtower, I ought to abandon that doctrine.

What is going on in the passage? There are church services getting disorderly and if men are acting out of sync with the gospel in their services, then God is not with them. This says nothing about the complexity of doctrine but is a call on how worship services are to be held. After all, Romans 11:33-36 is in the Bible and speaks of the sheer mystery of God’s ways and knowledge.

The Watchtower also asks us if we have to be theologians to know the true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.

It’s kind of like asking if to know your wife, is it really necessary that you be married to her?

Of course you have to be a theologian. Now you don’t have to be a professional theologian, but I have often told my wife that you cannot avoid doing theology and philosophy. The question is will you do good theology and good philosophy or bad theology and bad philosophy or some combination thereof? The Watchtower is practically saying “This is too deep to understand and since Christ spoke to simple minds their intellects would not be able to grasp an idea like this.”

Apparently, the Watchtower wants to hold to an “Ancient People Were Stupid” idea I’d expect more from the new atheists. (The way they cite 1 Cor. 14:33 is also an example of this kind of reasoning)

Yes. Many of the Jews were not trained like the elite were, but they did know their Torah and they could tell when Jesus was making an allusion to it. They lived in a society where these ideas needed to be known. The average person back then would know more about what they believed than the average person does today.

The question is not how did the religious elite not recognize the truth of the claims of Jesus, including those to be the Messiah. The trouble was not the recognition of the claims but the belief in the claims. The elites knew all too well what Jesus was claiming and he never denied that they were wrong in it. The crucifixion could have easily been prevented by saying “Sorry. You’ve misunderstood me.” It was never said. Jesus did know the crucifixion was essential to his mission, but he would not use deception in what he said. Every word was true.

The real reason for this however is for the Watchtower to get the reader to shun academics. That is, except for in the cases where the Watchtower cites academics. In those cases, we are to trust the scholars, but as soon as you present an intellectual defense of the Christian message, you’ll find that the Watchtower will quickly put down any reading of that material and say they just want to go with the Bible. (Of course, not the Bible minus their little booklets like “What Does The Bible Really Teach?”

Don’t fall for it. If the Watchtower wants to have a book like this that we’re reviewing claiming to use scholarly sources, then it’s fair game to say they need to examine those resources for themselves. They have brought the usage of others into the field and if they want to play that game, they have no right to call “Foul!” when we do the same.

Welcome readers to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth! We’re going to be continuing our look tonight at the Jehovah’s Witness booklet “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” I don’t see much difficulty with the section where the Trinity is defined, so let’s skip to the section with the head title of our blog title tonight.

The Watchtower says there is much confusion when it comes to the Trinity and in a sense, they’re right, because the church has grown lazy in explaining this doctrine. I used to follow Greg Koukl in making the joke that I have only heard one sermon in church on the topic of the Trinity, and I was the one who preached it. I have done a sermon on the Trinity before and it was certainly the first one I ever heard on it.

However, this kind of thinking is the thinking that creates several atheists in response to theology and philosophy. “There’s so much confusion out there so surely no one has it right!” Now I know not all atheists think like that as some do take philosophy seriously, but a lot are saying that we need to abandon philosophy and go straight to science, which is itself a philosophical statement about what we ought to do.

Keep in mind the bad referencing that the Witnesses do. First, they say that the Encyclopedia Americana notes that the doctrine of the Trinity is to be “beyond the grasp of human reason.” What edition of the encyclopedia? We don’t know. What page? We don’t know. Does anyone? Do you think your average Witness at the door knows where this quote can be found or has bothered to look it up?

We have then some quotes. Monsignor Eugene Clark says “God is one and God is three. Since there is nothing like this in creation, we cannot understand it, but only accept it.” Then there’s a quote of Cardinal John O’Connor with “We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don’t begin to understand.” Finally, there’s a quote of Pope John Paul II.” The Watchtower says that he speaks of “The inscrutable mystery of God The Trinity.”

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we are diving into the ocean of truth. We’ve started looking at the doctrine of the Trinity from the Jehovah’s Witnesses magazine, “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” Before I get into that, I will state on a personal note that I did get a part-time job today. Of course, my wife and I still appreciate donations that can be made through Tektonics that are tax-deductible. However, we do have some breathing room.

Now let’s get to the matter at hand. The first point is one I in essence agree with the Watchtower on. It is important to know about the Trinity. If the Watchtower is right, then I say I am indeed committing blasphemy by saying Jesus is God when He is not. However, if I am right, then the Watchtower is denying who Jesus truly is and He made his identity the focus of his message and essential to salvation. There is a huge price to pay on both ends.

The Watchtower tells us that various Trinitarian concepts exist. The sad part is that they never list one other one rather than the orthodox one. I find this troublesome consider the last Witnesses that we had visit could not get my position straight. They’d give a modalist view and I’d say that’s not what the Trinity is and then they’d be saying later “So you don’t believe in the Trinity” and I had to correct them time and time again.

Unfortunately, I can understand them when they say many Christians they meet do give different descriptions and this is where we are falling short. Ask the average person at a church service to explain the Trinity and more likely than not, you’ll get a modalist interpretation, especially if they say “It’s like me being a father, a son, and a husband.”

Also interesting is how the magazine says “Others say that” and then goes on to list beliefs such as Jesus pre-existing as a spirit person created by God and the Holy Spirit as God’s active force and not a person. It’s not hard to wonder who these others are. The Witnesses don’t seem to mention “Watchtower” often, but go to their Kingdom Hall service and be amazed as you constantly hear about the “Faithful and Discrete Slave.”

Why do this? Most likely so that they will seem like Christians who believe the Bible just like you and I. The method has sadly worked. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses get a gathering from Christians at churches. The Mormon church has claimed that they baptize a Baptist church every week.

The Witnesses also say the Trinity is of pagan origin using as a source Arthur Weigall’s “Paganism in our Christianity.” How many of you all have heard of that name? Very few. Why is that? For one thing, it dates from 1928. Keep in mind that this magazine was written in 1989. Why did the Watchtower go back 61 years? I’m not saying because it’s old, it’s wrong, but when dealing with this topic, you need the latest scholarship and if it’s believed by scholars, moderns will be saying it just as much.

But just taking this source, is there anything the Watchtower isn’t telling us?

You bet there is. Look at some other claims and see if the Watchtower will accept these.

On page 204 they say the only document in existence written by someone who personally knew Jesus is 1 Peter.

In the chapter on the virgin birth, he argues that this was common in pagan circles and that the belief should not be included in Christian creeds.

Various other beliefs in gods played a role in shaping Christian doctrine, especially the god “Mithras.”

For the sake of argument, and definitely for that as I think Weigall is entirely wrong, it could be that Weigall was correct in everything he said. The question however is why do the Witnesses write about the Trinity being pagan without taking to note everything else the same writer believes to be pagan, namely beliefs like the virgin birth.

Now of course, no scholar gets everything right. It could be he was right about the Trinity but wrong about everyone else. This wouldn’t help the situation however. Why did the Watchtower just mention him as an authority without stating the reasons for his believing the Trinity are pagan. That’s what we’re interested in.

Now the Witnesses we dealt with said that all of that is just man’s opinion anyway. To that I say that saying it is man’s opinion does not mean that it is wrong. It certainly means it’s not infallible. However, fallible human beings can be right. No one is completely wrong in what they believe. Someone can say it’s man’s opinion, but I want to know if this man’s opinion is right or not.

If his authority is not to be taken seriously, then why should he be cited at all? All we have is an appeal to authority, which is not always invalid, but if we are to believe on the basis of authority, then we need to deny that most of the NT was written by people who did not know Jesus personally and that the virgin birth is pagan. Do the Witnesses want to say that?

Please note also the poor citation given here. The Witnesses go far enough to tell where the artwork throughout the book comes from. They do not tell when they cite a book what page the information is found on and many times they don’t tell the author. If a book has had many editions. They do not tell that. It is almost as if they don’t want you to check their sources.

Let’s not be gullible with them however. I intend to hold their feet to the fire and tomorrow, we shall hopefully examine further claims.

Welcome everyone to Deeper Waters where we’re diving into the ocean of truth. Based on recent events in my life, I’m going to be starting a new series tonight. Just last Monday, my wife and I had what I believe to be our last visit with some Jehovah’s Witnesses that visited. I found it very revealing they had to leave suddenly in the middle of my reading Ephesians 2:8-9. (I mean that literally. They got up to leave as soon as I read verse 8)

One thing that they’d done prior however was to leave me a copy of “Should You Believe In The Trinity?” This book is one they hand out regularly and I considered it important to look into it further. Doing that can be difficult however as even with a Seminary library at my disposal, I could not find all the books mentioned. Some of them I was able to find on Google Books.

For this series, I’d like to do what I can to equip my fellow Christians to deal with the knock on your door. It will require you to really learn what is being said however as Jehovah’s Witnesses will not do internet research on their own. As one who has been to a Kingdom Hall before, I do not hesitate to say that they practice indoctrination, and it is indoctrination of one of the strongest nature’s that I have ever seen.

This series will be looking at the Witnesses based on how they do research, something I’ve been looking at a lot lately with the new atheists as well. What I find quite revealing is that compared to “Should You Believe In The Trinity?,” the New Atheists are researchers par excellence. Those of you who have studied this pamphlet of the Jehovah’s Witnesses know very well that it is one of the worst publications out there.

We will be looking at the idea that orthodox Christian beliefs came from pagans, something the Witnesses hold to. More important in that area however will not just be disestablishing the claim, but pointing out how bad the research is that is done by the Watchtower to establish this and giving better rules for research. This will also help other readers when dealing with areas I’m not discussing right now, such as the popular internet film “Zeitgeist.”

We will also note styles of argumentation. For instance, the Witnesses specialize in the one-sided argument. By reading their book, you would think that Christian scholars have not considered these objections. It does not mean that there are no hard questions, but have those questions been interacted with?

I hope that this will be helpful resource as we go through and it will be one I’ll want to keep on hand as well for when the Witnesses come by again. I advise caution as well in dealing with the Witnesses and make sure you know your stuff before you deal with them. The last response to do however is to slam the door in their face as that will solidify their belief that they are on the right path.

Tomorrow, we should begin.