~Home~ ~Life Lines~ ~Study Surveys~ ~Bibliology~ ~Tracts & Articles~ ~Our Printed Materials~
As we said last month, enemies of the doctrine of the Trinity as it has been traditionally stated like to portray it as a man-made idea developed over centuries rather than the true and original teaching of God’s Word. It is true that the formulation of the doctrine was a historical development, but this does not necessarily mean it is not founded on the Word of God. The Scriptures do not present any doctrine as a complete theological treatise in a single passage or book, but give the components of it piecemeal—some here, there, and elsewhere. Since all the Bible is inspired of God, each of these components must be incorporated into a formulation of the doctrine of that particular subject in order for it to be a valid expression of what the Bible teaches on it. This necessarily involves much study and thought, for often the components or elements of a subject may seem irreconcilable with each other. What the Scriptures teach on the subject of the Godhead is certainly no exception to this. My point is this: just because the formal expression of a doctrine requires thought, time, and study to mature and develop does not necessarily mean it is only man-made. The difficulty, time, and effort in some cases is rather to be expected.
As I said last month, I do not subscribe to the traditional doctrine of the Trinity simply because it is traditional or orthodox. We should, however, carefully consider anything the Church as a whole in all times has believed and not be so quick, as some are, to dismiss it out of hand. A particular view may have become the traditional or orthodox one for good reason, and such is the case with the doctrine of the Trinity. I wholeheartedly subscribe to it, not simply because it is traditional or orthodox, but because it is the only satisfactory resolution to the problems presented by the elements involved as they have been given us in the Word of God. Last month we likened this to cards being dealt to a player in a card game. Once he has them in his hand, next he must arrange them into some sort of order so that he is able to use them to greatest advantage as the game or round proceeds. All the elements involved in the subject of the Godhead have been dealt to us like cards in the Word of God. The task, then, of harmonizing and consolidating them all into a single comprehensive statement or doctrine is like arranging the cards in one’s hand.
Let us review our "cards": the Scriptures unequivocally teach that 1) There is but one God, 2) Jesus Christ is God, 3) Jesus Christ is not the Father, 4) the Father is God, 5) the Father is not the same as the Son, 6) The Holy Spirit is God, 7) The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son, 8) The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct persons, and, 9) The Son and Spirit are subordinate to and proceed from the Father. This is our "hand." We have no control over their content—they have been "dealt" to us. The traditional doctrine of the Trinity is the only formulation that successfully harmonizes and holds all these parts together. Any other attempt does violence to or neglects one or more of them and is therefore error. It is true that opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity deny that the Scripture teaches one or more of the nine above propositions, but last month we presented enough Scriptural evidence to establish that it does. The doctrine of the Trinity takes these nine elements and preserves, unifies, and harmonizes them: there is only one God who exists in three Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom are distinct yet of the same uncreated, eternal Substance, coequal and coeternal; that the Son proceeds from the Father and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son does not negate their equality but enhances their unity.
Sometimes the doctrine of the Trinity is challenged on the grounds that it is not taught in the Old Testament, and since God reveals Himself there in all His other attributes, it is inconceivable that the Trinity, if true, would not appear there. It is true that in distinction to polytheism, God’s unity or Oneness is stressed in the Old Testament. But this does not mean the concept of the Trinity is absent. There are many things that were concealed in the Old Testament but revealed in the New, many things that were only suggested in type or shadow in the Old that were not brought out to full expression until the New. So important a doctrine as the Trinity surely would have its foreshadowings in the Old Testament, and I believe it does. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia says:
Pious Christian writers from the time of the church fathers have found covert binitarian or Trinitarian thought in some of the expressions and events in the OT, e.g., the language of "my Son" and "my Lord" (Ps.2:7; 110:1, "The Lord says to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet"), the tantalizing plurals in quotations of God’s thought (Gen.1:26, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness"; Gen.3:22, "The man has now become like one of us"; Gen.11:6-8, "Come, let us go down and confuse their language"; Isa.6:8, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?"), the trisagion (Isa.6:3, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty"), and the mysterious trio that visited Abraham at Mamre (Gen.18:1-10, "The Lord appeared to Abraham ...while he was sitting at the entrance to his tent in the heat of the day. Abraham looked up and saw three men standing nearby")....More obviously preparatory for NT materials are the OT concepts of word, wisdom, and spirit. The word of God in the OT is a powerfully creative (Gen.1:1-3, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth....And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light"; Ps.33:6, "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth"), redemptive (Isa.55:10,11, "so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it") and commissioning (Jer.1:4-7) instrument that reveals and performs the purposes of God. Though rarely personified, the OT concept, especially as developed in inter testamental thought, becomes a major Johannine metaphor for the Son of God who reveals God (Jn.1:14,18), mediates in creation (1:1-3), and transmits the word of His Father (3:34; 7:16; etc.). OT wisdom, famously personified in (Prov.8:12,22-31, "The Lord brought me forth as the first of his works, before his deeds of old; I was appointed from eternity, from the beginning, before the world began....I was there when he set the heavens in place....I was the craftsman at his side") serves similarly as a concept available for NT claims of Jesus Christ’s preexistence, mediatorship, and revelatory work (1 Cor.1:24; Col.2:3; cf. Mt.11:19; 12:42...). Spirit in the OT is not only breath or wind, but also divine presence and power—especially animating (Ps.33:6), activating (Ezek.36:26,27, "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you....And I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees"; Ezek.37:1-10, "Prophesy to the breath; prophesy, son of man, and say to it,...‘Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe into these slain, that they may live’"), and equipping equipping (Judg.3:9,10, "The Spirit of the Lord came upon [Othniel] so that he became Israel's judge"; 1 Sam.10:6,9,10, "The Spirit of the Lord will come upon you in power, and you will prophesy with them; and you will be changed into a different person....the Spirit of God came upon [Saul] in power, and he joined in their prophesying"; Isa.42:1, "Here is my servant....I will put my Spirit on him and he will bring justice to the nations") power. As one might expect, the Spirit and word of God sometimes coalesce (2 Sam.23:2, "The Spirit of the Lord spoke through word was on my tongue"; Ps.33:6), as do Spirit and wisdom (Isa.11:2, "The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him—the Spirit of wisdom and of understanding, the Spirit of counsel and of power"; c.f. John 1:32). Joel 2:28, "And afterward, I will pour out my Spirit on all people," expresses the OT hope of the universal dispensing of God’s Spirit, a hope fulfilled at Pentecost (Acts 2:16-21). OT writers ascribe personal activities and moods to the Spirit (Gen.6:3, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal"; Neh.9:20, "You gave your good Spirit to instruct them"; Isa.34:16, "it is his mouth that has given the order, and his Spirit will gather [His words] together"; Isa.63:10, "they rebelled and grieved his Holy Spirit"), but only occasionally and without easily discernible intent. Still, OT language seems to anticipate the fuller NT attribution to the Spirit of personal acts and properties. In sum, the concepts of word, wisdom, and spirit come short of complicating the monotheistic thought of the OT, but they do, together with the intertestamental developments, produce a hospitable atmosphere for NT recognition of distinct hypostases, or even persons, in God. For they are all ways of expressing the immanence of a transcendent God—an immanence astonishingly focused in Jesus Christ, who "pitches His tent" among us (Jn.1:14). (ISBE, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, gen.ed.; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids,MI; 1988, Vol.4, pp.914,915)
It is to be expected that the Triune nature of the Godhead would not be clearly revealed before God became man in Jesus Christ who in turn sent the Holy Spirit to dwell in believers.
Besides the references to the deity of the Father, Son, and Spirit, respectively, that we saw last month, the New Testament bears witness to the Trinity in a number of formulas where the three are spoken of at the same time. Even though a complete theological explanation is lacking, surely these are witnesses to the truth of the Trinity, for it is quite inconceivable that the Son and Spirit would be mentioned in parallel with the Father if they were not equal to Him and worthy of such proximity:
Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (Matthew 28:19) There are different kinds of gifts, but the same Spirit. There are different kinds of service, but the same Lord. There are different kinds of working, but the same God works all of them in all men. (1 Corinthians 12:4-6)
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all. (2 Corinthians 13:14)
In addition to these, there are many other places where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are spoken of together: Matthew 3:16 (Luke 3:22), John 3:34; 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:7,13; Acts 1:2,4; 2:33; 10:36; Romans 1:3; 8:9,26; 14:17,18; 1 Corinthians 12:3; 2 Corinthians 1:21,22; 3:3; Galatians 3:11-14; 4:4,6; 2 Thessalonians 2:13,16; 1 Tim.3:16; Titus 3:4; Hebrews 9:14; 1 Peter 1:2; 3:18.
A number of analogies of the Trinity have been suggested from nature as well—the three dimensions of space: height, length, and breadth; the three aspects of time: past, present, and future; the three states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas; the three sides of a triangle; the sun: sphere, ray, and heat; man: spirit, soul, and body; mind: reason, memory, and will. None of these, however, are fully adequate analogies of the Trinity, because God’s Triune Being is unique.
The forces that moved the Church to a formal definitive statement on the Trinity were both internal and external. Internal, in that serious thought would naturally arise on how monotheism and the Deity of Christ were compatible, and external in that false and erroneous explanations were offered both within the Church and outside it in splinter groups who claimed to be Christian. These internal and external forces pushed the Church toward the conclusion reached in the formal expression of the doctrine of the Trinity, which was both a negation of errors regarding the subject as well as an affirmation of the truth concerning it. The fact this process took several centuries is perfectly understandable. It is not that the final form of the doctrine added anything at all to the substance or elements of the truth of the Trinity; it was the mere consolidation of the elements already given and already held by the vast majority of the faithful from the apostles foreward. It is quite obvious to me that the writers of the New Testament fully regarded the deity of the Son and the Spirit along with the Father, recognized their unity yet distinctness of Persons, and discerned the subordination in function and order of the Son to the Father and the Spirit to the Father and Son. All the elements were there from the beginning even if the formal expression of a comprehensive doctrine was not. Thus, from the beginning Christians simply prayed to and worshiped Christ along with the Father, knowing Him to be their God in the same sense as the Father. And they reverenced and participated in the Holy Spirit as well, knowing He was a Person, the Spirit of the living God, God present in and among them. Someone might say, "Well and good, but why isn’t this enough? Why go into such complexity of terminology, etc., that characterizes the traditional doctrine of the Trinity in the creeds?" The answer is, simply, it was necessitated by the rise of error.
For a brief account of the historical development, it is important that we turn to an established authority, seeing that many offer their own biased accounts of what "must" have or "might" have happened to suit their own view. Ours will be the venerable Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. The wording is a bit difficult, but I have found that the account here of the history of the doctrine is the most concise and precise available.
In fact it is so compressed that you almost need a broader and fuller knowledge of this history in order to fully appreciate it. The author of the article, entitled "Antitrinitarianism," was written by the able B.B. Warfield:
This doctrine [of the Triune God] did not originate in the extra-Christian world, but,...was first distinctly revealed in the missions of the Son and Spirit, and first clearly taught by Jesus and his apostles. It naturally, therefore, as a purely Christian doctrine, had to establish itself against both Jewish and heathen conceptions; and throughout its history it has met with more or less contradiction from the two opposite points of view of modalism (which tends to sink the persons in the unity of the Godhead) and subordinationism (which tends to degrade the second and third persons into creatures). The earliest Trinitarians were those Jews who in the first age of the Church were convinced, indeed, that Jesus was the promised Messiah, but, in their jealously guarded monotheism, could not admit him to be God, and taught therefore a purely humanitarian Christology. They bear the name in history of Ebionites. The emanationism [the belief that there were successive, step-by-step emanations downward in a chain of beings with God at the top and man at the bottom] of the Gnostic sects, which swarmed throughout the second century, tended to subordinationism; and this tendency is inherent also in the Logos ["the Word"] speculation by which the Christological thought of the Church teachers through the second and third centuries was dominated. The Logos speculation [that is, in what sense Jesus, as the "Word" of God, was divine] was not, however, consciously antitrinitarian; its purpose was, on the contrary, to construe the Church’s immanent faith in the Trinity to thought, and to that end it suggested a descending series of gradations of deity by which the transcendent [above, over all] God (the Father) stretched out to the creation and government of the world (Son and Spirit). This subordinationism, however, bore bitter fruit in the early fourth century in the Arian degradation of the Son to a creature and of the Spirit to the creature of a creature. The ripening of this fruit was retarded by the outbreak, as the second century melted into the third, of the first great consciously antitrinitarian movement in the bosom of the Church. This movement, which is known in history as Monarchianism arose in Asia Minor and rapidly spread over the whole Church. In its earliest form as taught by the two [men named Theodotus] and Artemon, and in its highest development by Paul of Samosata, it conceived of Jesus as a mere man. In this form it was too alien to Christian feeling to make much headway; and it was quickly followed by another wave which went to the other extreme and made the Father, Son, and Spirit but three modes of being, manifestations, or actions of the one person which God was conceived to be. In this form it was taught first by Praxeas [c. 200 a.d.] and Noetus [c. 230 a.d.] and found its fullest expression in Sabellius [c. 250 a.d.], who has given his name to it [Sabellianism]. The lower form is commonly called Ebionitic or dynamistic Monarchianism; the higher, modalistic Monarchianism or, to use the nickname employed by Tertullian [in his fight against Praxeas, c. 200 a.d.], Patripassianism [the belief that since Jesus was the Father, it was the Father that suffered and died]. Modalistic Monarchianism came forward in the interests of the true deity of Christ, and, appearing to offer a clear and easy solution of the antimony of the unity of God and the deity of the Son and Spirit, made its way with great rapidity, and early in the third century seemed to threaten to become the faith of the Church. It was partly in reaction from it that the Arians in the early fourth century pressed the subordinationism of much early church teaching to the extreme of removing the Son and Spirit out of the category of deity altogether, and thus created the greatest and most dangerous antitrinitarian movement the Church has ever known. The interaction of the modalistic and Arian factors brought it about that the statement of the doctrine of the Trinity wrought out in the ensuing controversies was guarded on both sides [preserving both the deity of Christ and the unity of the Godhead]; and so well was the work done that the Church was little troubled by antitrinitarian opposition for a thousand years thereafter. (The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Baker Books: Grand Rapids, MI; [1896] 1977, Vol.1, pp.203,204)
The "Modalistic Monarchianism" of which Warfield spoke is sometimes called simply modalism. Roger Nicole writes concerning the alternatives to Trinitarianism:
The Christian doctrine of the Trinity may conveniently be defined in three simple propositions, all three of which are concurrently [at the same time] affirmed: 1) There is one God and one only. 2) This God exists eternally in three distinct persons; the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3) These three are fully equal in every divine perfection. They possess alike the fullness of the divine essence. It is the Christian distinctive to affirm these three simultaneously. In fact, the most dangerous distortions that challenge the doctrine of the Trinity do affirm two out of the three and deny the third. Modalism affirms that there is one God and that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit possess alike the fullness of the divine essence. It denies that God eternally exists in three persons. Rather it views the three as successive manifestations of one and the same person: God variously presented as Father or as Son or as Holy Spirit....Subordinationism affirms that there is one God but that three essentially separate persons must be considered when discussing our knowledge of God and of his relation to the world....the three—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—do not possess alike the divine essence but that they form a hierarchy. Thus the claim of Jesus Christ to deity appears toned down and so is the deity of the Holy Spirit....Tritheism at another extreme asserts the eternal existence of the three and their full equality but it denies the monotheistic doctrine of the uniqueness of God. (One God In Trinity, Peter Toon and James D. Spiceland, eds.; Cornerstone Books: Westchester, IL; 1980, "The Meaning of the Trinity," Roger Nicole, pp.1,2, emphases in original)
The ISBE says, "By the time of Novatian’s De trinitate (c. 257), modalism, whether by Praxeas, Noetus, or Sabellius, was routinely dismissed by orthodoxy as monist heresy, i.e., as belief in only ‘one person,Â’ for Father and Son are as plainly two persons as are Paul and Apollos (De trinitate xxvii)" (Vol.4, p.918). But the rift caused by the Arian heresy, named after a presbyter of Alexandria in the third century who asserted that Jesus was a mere man, was so great that Constantine, the first Roman Emperor favorable to Christianity, called for the first universal Church council in 325 a.d. to settle the issue. His interest was neither spiritual nor theological but political, wishing to ingratiate himself to the bishops and unite the empire. Out of the Council of Nicea came the Nicene Creed, second only to the "Apostles’ Creed" as the most accepted in all of Christendom.
Charles Hodge writes:
Although Origen [a presbyter at Alexandria, Egypt, c. 250] had insisted on the distinct personality of the Son, and upon his eternal generation, and although he freely called him God, nevertheless he would not admit his equality with God....[He] taught that the Son was of a different essence from the Father, and owed his existence to the will of the Father....It was not long, therefore, before Arius, another presbyter [c. 318] of Alexandria, openly maintained that the Son was not eternal, but was posterior to [came after] the Father....It is to be constantly remembered that these speculations were the business of the theologians. They neither expressed nor affected to express the mind of the Church. The great body of the people drew their faith, then, as now, immediately from Scriptures and from the services of the sanctuary. They were baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. They addressed themselves to the Father, as the creator of heaven and earth, and as their reconciled God and Father, and to Jesus Christ as their Redeemer, and to the Holy Ghost as their sanctifier and comforter. They loved, worshipped, and trusted the one as they did the others....This state of confusion was, however, a great evil, and in order to bring the Church to an agreement as to the manner in which this fundamental doctrine of Christianity should be stated, the Emperor Constantine summoned the First Ecumenical Council, to meet at Nice, in Nicomedia [Turkey], a.d. 325. The object for which the Council was called together was three-fold. (1.) To remedy the confusion which prevailed in the use of several important words employed in discussions on the doctrine of the Trinity. (2.) To condemn errors which had been adopted in different parts of the Church. (3.) To frame such a statement of the doctrine as would include all its Scriptural elements, and satisfy the religious convictions of the mass of believers. This was an exceedingly difficult task. 1. Because the [definition] of certain important terms [such as substance, essence, and person] was not then determined....2. [The] diversity of opinion among its own members. All the conflicting views which had agitated the Church were there represented....first, the Arians,....[which] constituted a small minority of the Council....second...the Semi-Arians and the disciples of Origen....third...the Orthodox, who constituted the great majority. All Christians were the worshippers of Christ....He was their God in the highest sense of the word. He was, moreover, in their apprehension, a distinct person, and not merely another name for the Father. But as the conviction was no less deeply rooted in the minds of Christians, that there is only one God or divine Being, the problem which the Council had to solve was to harmonize these apparently incompatible convictions, namely, that there is only one God, and yet that the Father is God, and the Son, as a distinct person, is God, the same in substance and equal in power and glory. The only thing to be done was, to preserve the essential elements of the doctrine, and yet not make the statement of it self-contradictory. To meet these conditions, the Council framed the following Creed, namely, "We believe in one God, the Father almighty, the maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, only begotten, begotten of the Father, that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten and not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made whether in heaven or on earth; who for us men and our salvation came down from heaven; and was incarnate and became man, suffered and rose again on the third day; ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Ghost. But those who say, that there was a time when He (the Son) was not, that He was not before He was made, or was made out of nothing, or of another or different substance, that He was a creature, or mutable, or susceptible of change, the Holy Catholic [meaning "universal", not Roman Catholic] Church anathematizes [says is accursed]."
The most obvious deficiency in the Nicene Creed is the omission of any definite statement concerning the Holy Spirit. This is to be accounted for by the fact that the doctrine concerning the Son, and his relation to the Father, was then the absorbing subject of controversy. Athanasius [bishop at Alexandria, 326-373 a.d.], however, and other expounders and defenders of the Nicene Creed, insisted that the Spirit is consubstantial with the Father and the Son, and that such was the mind of the Council. As this, however, was disputed, it was distinctly asserted in several provincial Councils, as in that of Alexandria, a.d. 362, and that of Rome, a.d. 375. It was opposition to this doctrine which led to the calling of the Second Ecumenical Council, which met in Constantinople [Turkey], a.d. 381. In the modification of the Nicene Creed, as issued by that Council, the following words were added to the clause, "We believe in the Holy Ghost," namely: "Who is the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets."...After the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 381, the controversies which agitated the Church had reference to the constitution of the person of Christ. Before the questions involved in those controversies were authoritatively decided, the so-called Athanasian Creed [it is universally agreed that Athanasius was not the author], an amplification of those of Nice and Constantinople came to be generally adopted, at least, among the Western Churches. That creed was in these words, namely:
"Whoever would be saved, must first of all take care that he hold the Catholic ["Universal"] faith, which, except a man preserve whole and inviolate, he shall without doubt perish eternally. But this is the Catholic faith, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being. As also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Being. In like manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And yet, there are not three omnipotent Beings, but one omnipotent Being. Thus the Father is God, the Son, God, and the Holy Spirit, God. And yet there are not three Gods, but one God only. The Father is Lord, the Son, Lord, and the Holy Spirit, Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord only. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person distinctively to be both God and Lord, we are prohibited by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made by none, nor created, nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made, not created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is not created by the Father and the Son, nor begotten, but proceeds. Therefore, there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing prior or posterior [before or after], nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal, and coequal to themselves. So that through all, as was said above, both unity in Trinity, and Trinity in unity is to be adored. Whoever would be saved, let him thus think concerning the Trinity."
...Although not issued with the authority of any Council, [the Athanasian Creed] was soon universally admitted in the West, and subsequently in the East, and was everywhere regarded as an ecumenical symbol. The doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in these three ancient creeds,—the Nicene, the Constantinopolitan, and Athanasian (so-called),—is the Church Form of that fundamental article of the Christian faith. There is no difference, except as to amplification, between these several formulas. (Systematic Theology, Charles Hodge; Eerdmans: Grand Rapids,MI; [1871] 1952; Vol.1, pp.452-459)
Several things are to be noted about the history of the development of the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity: 1) It was not due to philosophical or heathen influence in the Church but was occasioned by the various errors that arose regarding the Godhead, 2) It was the formulation of the various elements or components as they are already given in Scripture, not the result of mere human speculation, 3) It was not forced by a certain faction on the Church against its knowledge and will, but accurately stated what had been the consciousness of the vast majority of Christians all along.
As we said last month, the doctrine of the Trinity, along with most of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, is much neglected today. The sentiment seems to be that it is too complicated or boring or irrelevant to our needs, but this is a great mistake. Why is it important? Here are some, but not necessarily all, the good reasons: 1) It is true and the alternatives are error; truth is always good and error always bad. It is always important to know the difference between truth and error. 2) Any truth about God is valuable and important, foundational to everything else we need to know and do. 3) It is unique to the Christian revelation, setting it apart from everything else. 4) It preserves the Person and Place of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the Christian scheme of things—the Incarnation, salvation, sanctification, etc. 5) At the same time it preserves the unity of the Godhead, monotheism. 6) It has historical importance, preserving these essential features of the Christian faith through some of its greatest early battles against error. It seems great arrogance to ignore this history and brazenly set forth another view. 7) It is a test of soundness in doctrine even today. All enemies of the doctrine of the Trinity exhibit their folly and error concerning many other things as well. 8) It models what must be our approach to every other important doctrine of the Church. None of them come theologically "worked out" or formally stated but are delivered to us in a complex array of seemingly irreconcilable or conflicting elements. The great task for us in determining the truth of any Bible doctrine is to do the same thing that has been done successfully done with the Trinity—incorporate all the relevant data into a comprehensive whole without denying or discarding any part. Almost all error in the Church is due to the failure achieve this one thing. 9) It has devotional, inspirational effects. If we will study it and drink deeply of its truth, it will lift us higher in worship and adoration of our unique and wonderful God. To sum up, as Hodge quotes Heinrich Meyer, "The Trinity is the point in which all Christian ideas and interests unite; at once the beginning and the end of all insight into Christianity" (Op.cit., Vol.1, p.448)
When we neglect the doctrine of the Trinity as we have done, it leaves a "vacuum" for almost anything else to come in and take its place. Take, for example, the recent teaching of America’s most popular charismatic healing evangelist, Benny Hinn. His book Good Morning, Holy Spirit was a top-seller for many months. Like many popular books today, it was based on a series of his sermons. In the earliest edition of the book, Hinn exclaimed that since Jesus the Son has His own personal spirit, soul, and body, so does the Father and Spirit! To Hinn, this meant, in some convoluted way, that there were not three in the Godhead but nine: "There’s not three of =em; there’s nine of them!" After being soundly rebuked for this folly by what Paul Crouch, president of the TBN Christian TV network, calls "heresy hunters," Hinn deleted this in later editions. But, as we shall see, many problems regarding the Trinity remain in the "corrected" edition. The main point of the book is evident in the title—one must speak directly to the Holy Spirit in order to have the power and presence of the Spirit evident in one’s life. Of course there is no Scripture whatsoever for this, so most of the book is spent emphasizing Hinn’s experiences, the "uniqueness" of the Holy Spirit when compared, even contrasted, with the Father and the Son, and that the Holy Spirit is both God and a real Person. But by the time he is finished showing the "uniqueness" of the Holy Spirit, we no longer have a Trinity ("Tri-unity") but three separate and distinct deities—a form of Tritheism. The Scriptural, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity is careful to recognize that the three being equal, there is no difference at all in their essence, nature, character, or attributes, but that their "difference" is only in regard to their function and order. But Hinn says:
Let’s begin with the God-head: What is true of one does not necessarily apply to all three. They are sometimes different, even in the way They move and in the way They talk....some distinction in the way They think and in the way They act. For example, when the Jewish people under the Old Covenant willfully and knowingly sinned in the presence of the Father, do you recall what happened? Scripture records that they were either slain or punished. But Christ the Son dealt differently with those who knowingly and willfully sinned. Example: Consider the Pharisees. Did Christ kill them? No! He rebuked them....Don’t misunderstand. God the Father did forgive, but he also killed or punished those who refused to stop rebelling against Him. God the Son, however, responded in another manner. Instead of slaying or judging the willful sinner, He simply rebuked him. You ask, "But what about the Holy Ghost? What is His response to a person who knowingly, deliberately sins?" He reacts differently from even the Father and the Son. The Spirit does not remove them or rebuke them—He convicts them and withdraws the power of His presence. The Trinity, as we see is comprised of three distinct and unique persons (pp.139,140)....It [an experience in winter, 1974, in which, while praying, he says he heard the Holy Spirit in his room weeping] opened my eyes to why the Holy Spirit is a member of the Trinity and yet is different from the Father and the Son....Why is there no forgiveness for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? Throughout the pages of this book I have shared with you from the Scripture that there is a uniqueness—a difference—in the Holy Ghost. He is not higher nor lower than the Father or the Son, but we must come to know His characteristics....I feel also that the Holy Spirit has the capacity to feel human emotions—even pain, grief, and anguish—with an intensity that is known uniquely to Him. You say, "Do you mean that the Holy Ghost can feel heartache in a different way than the Father and the Son?" Scripture does not say, "Grieve not the Father or the Son." It is always, "Grieve not the Spirit." Why? I believe it is because He is touched in a deep, profound way that somehow varies from what the other members of the Godhead experience. (Good Morning, Holy Spirit!, Benny Hinn; Thomas Nelson: Nashville; 1990, pp. 139,140,152,153, emphases in original)
Not only is much of what he says above simply not true, it is heresy, violating the doctrine of the Trinity instead of, as he proposes, unfolding it to us in a new way. As I said, the main object of the book is to get people to speak directly to the Holy Spirit. Hinn tries to stress that this is not praying to the Holy Spirit but only "fellowshiping" with Him, falsely defining prayer as petition and falsely distinguishing prayer from talking. But even here he can't quite keep his talking to the Holy Spirit out of the prayer category and runs into many self-contradictions throughout the book. It makes no difference whether it be prayer or just speaking directly to the Holy Spirit, neither are taught in Scripture.
[As he was praying in his room after hearing Kathryn Kuhlman beg in a service that the audience not grieve the Holy Spirit, he says,] I wanted to address the Holy Spirit, but I had never done that before. I thought, "Am I doing this right?" After all, I had never spoken to the Holy Spirit I never thought He was a person to be addressed. I didn’t know how to start the prayer, but I knew what was inside me. All I wanted was to know Him the way she [Kuhlman] knew Him. And here is what I prayed: "Holy Spirit. Kathryn Kuhlman says you are her friend." I slowly continued, "I don’t think I know you. Now, before today I thought I did [he claims he was already saved and filled with the Spirit]. But after that meeting I realize I really don’t. I don’t think I know you."...I wondered, "Is what I’m saying right? Should I be speaking to the Holy Spirit like this?" Then I thought, "If I’m honest in this, God will show me whether I’m right or wrong." If Kathryn was wrong, I wanted to find out. After I spoke to the Holy Spirit, nothing seemed to happen. I began to question myself, "Is there really such an experience as meeting the Holy Spirit? Can it truly happen?" My eyes were closed. Then, like a jolt of electricity, my body began to vibrate all over—exactly as it had through the two hours I waited to get into the church. It was the same shaking I had felt for another hour once inside. It was back, and I thought, "Oh. It’s happening again."...Early, very early, the next morning I was wide awake. And I couldn't wait to talk to my newfound friend. Here were the first words out of my mouth: "Good Morning, Holy Spirit!" At the very moment I spoke those words, the glorious atmosphere returned to my room (pp.12,13).... Are you ready to meet the Holy Spirit intimately and personally? Do you want to hear his voice? Are you prepared to know him as a person? That’s exactly what happened to me, and it drastically transformed my life. It was an intensely personal experience, and it was based on God’s Word....Let’s start with the basics. The Holy Spirit changed my life. He was with me from the moment I asked Christ to come into my heart and became born again. Then came the time when I received the baptism of the Holy Spirit....But what I want you to know is this: beyond salvation, beyond being baptized in water, beyond the infilling of the Spirit, the "third Person of the Trinity" is waiting for you to meet Him personally (pp.48,49)....
The Holy Spirit is a gentleman. He doesn’t enter your room until you invite Him. He doesn’t sit down until you ask Him. And He doesn’t speak to you until you speak to Him. How long will He wait? Until you speak to Him. It could be months—even years. He will just wait and wait and wait. My friend, you will never know His power; you will never know His presence until you go and sit beside Him and say, "Wonderful Holy Spirit, tell me about Jesus (p.59)."...You ask, "How do I begin?" It’s really very simple. You might start by saying, "Holy Spirit, help me pray now." That’s exactly what He wants you to do (p.62)....[Quotes 2 Cor.13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all."] You do not need to pray to the Holy Spirit; you simply fellowship with Him (p.78)....It’s astounding, but people who have been raised in a "Spirit-filled" church have asked me: "Am I supposed to talk to the Spirit?" (p.80)....Unfortunately the Church of Jesus Christ has ignored what I am sharing with you (p.81)....
Often someone asks, "Benny, who should I pray to?" My answer is, "Please don’t confuse the issue. You pray to the Father." "Well, then," the seeker says, "You told us we are to talk to the Spirit." I have to tell them, "There is an enormous difference between talking and praying. I’ve never yet prayed to the Holy Ghost." Do you know what the meaning of the word prayer is? Prayer means petition. In other words you come with your need asking for an answer. You come looking and you expect to receive. You never look to the Spirit—HeÂs the one who helps you look." To this day I have never said, "Holy Spirit, ‘give me.’" But I can't count the times I’ve said, "Precious Holy Spirit, help me ask!"...Isn’t it time you turn to the Spirit of God and say, "Holy Spirit, You are my helper. I need You. Will You help me now?"(p.142)....[Y]our daily prayer should be: "Blessed Spirit of God, please help me today not to grieve You" (p.157)....(Ibid., emphases in original)
The fact that millions of charismatic and non-charismatic Christians can read these things and still think, "This is a great book," tells me we are in a heap of trouble. The vacuum left by neglecting sound teaching on the Trinity will be filled with such nonsense as this and pass for great truth and deeper revelation. What is the danger in what Hinn recommends? Simply this: when we seek God in ways not prescribed in His Word, we may surely open ourselves up to being deluded by a false spirit. Hinn makes this sound like a third experience with God we should all have, but where is this in Scripture? Something that no one did in the Bible is held up as the key to having power and revelation in your life: the Holy Spirit won’t do anything unless you speak to Him directly and ask Him.
Hinn says a number of things about the "body" and physical appearance of the Holy Spirit. The reason He does this is not only to underscore that the Holy Spirit is a Person, but because he claims to have seen the Holy Spirit. This is apparent from statements he has made on tape more than in the book, but the implication is still there:
But what about the Holy Spirit? Does He also have a mind, a will, and emotions? Does He have a body? He certainly does. It’s a subject that most ministers are afraid to discuss, but I have experienced the person of the Holy Ghost (p.84)....It is the question of the "body" of the Holy Spirit that causes much confusion....[Quotes Matthew 3:16] Just as the Father and the Son can be seen, so can the Holy Spirit (p.85)....The Holy Ghost is not seven lamps, nor is He a dove. A lamb, a dove, a lamp—these are all symbols, not physical forms of bodies....I also believe the Holy Ghost can make His presence known through bodily forms, and yet remain without limitation and fully omnipresent. The Bible makes this clear when it says, "The Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters" (Gen.1:2). Now the Bible does not tell me what He "looks" like....details regarding the way the Holy Spirit unveils Himself to us are rare in Scriptures....At any time, however, He can reveal His presence and message through any kind of form He chooses (p.86). What does God the Father sometimes look like? Although I’ve never seen Him make a visible, physical appearance, I believe—as with the Holy Spirit—that He can make Himself look like Jesus looked on earth. In fact, many divine character traits are best made known through human nature, which is created in God’s image (Gen.1:26,27; Jam.3:9)....I can only come to one conclusion: when we see Jesus, we see the Father also. And I believe that Jesus reveals the Holy Ghost as He does the Father. Look at Jesus and you see the Spirit too (p.87). (Ibid.)
One reason he says the Holy Spirit physically looks like Jesus is that in appearances to him, Hinn says the Holy Spirit is a man with long white hair. There are better quotes on this but I don’t have them. I do have this from a tape in the audio series on the Holy Spirit:
The Holy Spirit is not some cloud running around heaven. He’s a real Person with a face and hair and eyes and ears and fingers and legs. He walks around. (Benny Hinn, audio tape, "God, the Holy Spirit")
Others have done a pretty good job of documenting the many goofy as well as heretical things Benny Hinn has said (then "repented" of, then said again). That is not my purpose here—we are simply studying the Trinity. It bothers me that nutty things Benny or faith teachers say shock people more than what he says about the Trinity, as if it were not of great importance. The need for sound teaching on the subject is obvious. What he says about the Holy Spirit here should be enough to let any person who knows and loves the truth of the Word of God know that something very peculiar is going on. I simply can't "get into it" when I hear such things taught, no matter how glorious the services claim to be. What I hear ruins it for me. Something else Benny Hinn’s teaching demonstrates is that we should not go beyond nor add implications to the elements concerning the Trinity dealt to us in the Word of God. When we do, we enter the realm of speculation and, more often than not, error.
We must close our study of the doctrine of the Trinity. God is Triune. People often remark that this doctrine is unreasonable or incomprehensible; however, I find it not so much either reasonable or unreasonable, but simply true. As Charles Hodge says, "To say that this doctrine is incomprehensible, is to say nothing more than must be admitted of any other great truth, whether of revelation or of science" (Ibid., p.445). There is one God in three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It’s just the way He is and always has been. It’s not to be "understood" in the sense of understanding everything about it, for that may be impossible concerning anything. It is simply to be accepted. And in accepting it and dwelling upon it in prayer and worship, it is a great blessing.
Until next month, God bless you all.
Leon Stump, Pastor of Victory Christian Center
Background from Greenfield Graphics.