The One and the Many: Trinity in Unity in the Bible

"They came to the other side of the sea, to the country of the Gerasenes. And when Jesus had stepped out of the boat, immediately there met Him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. He lived among the tombs. And no one could bind him anymore, not even with a chain, for he had often been bound with shackles and chains, but he wrenched the chains apart, and he broke the shackles in pieces. No one had the strength to subdue him. Night and day among the tombs and on the mountains he was always crying out and cutting himself with stones. And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and fell down before Him. And crying out with a loud voice, he said, 'What have You to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure You by God, do not torment me.' For He was saying to him, 'Come out of the man, you unclean spirit!' And Jesus asked him, 'What is your name?' He replied, 'My name is Legion, for we are many.'"
- Mark 5:1-9

When I interact with anti-Trinitarians, whether of the Arian or Sabellian varieties, one strategy they all seem to try is to describe the Trinity in this way: "One plus one plus one equals three, so you believe in three gods." For some inconceivable reason, they think this is a very clever argument, even though math has nothing to do with it. Or, if you want to do math, why can't it be one times one times one equals one? Or one cubed is one? If you see what I mean, the argument is nowhere nearly as clever as they think it is. We talk about things as unities in one sense but manifold in a different sense all of the time. Have you heard of the three branches of the one federal government?

Yet, the anti-Trinitarian desperately holds on to this argument. Their answer is, "Well, we do that, but the Bible doesn't."

Really? I guess anti-Trinitarians don't read Mark 5. Notice the interaction between Jesus and the demoniac. Actually the demon in the demoniac. Notice that Mark refers to the demon consistently as "he," not "they." And notice that the demons say "me," not "we," except one time in verse 9. Even in verse 9, the demon says "my name is," not "our names are."

My point is that the Bible certainly does refer to things as one in one sense and manifold in another. In this case, we see one demon also described as a legion, a unit of Roman military consisting of about 6,000 soldiers. If the demon of Mark 5 can be 6,000 demons described as a unity, then why can't the three Persons of the Trinity be one God?

The Watchtower: Jumping Through Hoops for False Doctrine

The Watchtower Society (the corporate name of the Jehovah's Witnesses) claims that the kingdom of God is something that will appear in the future. Their website says, "'This good news of the Kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come.' (Matthew 24:14) Once the good news has been fully preached, the Kingdom will come to bring the present wicked system to an end."

Do you see the bait-and-switch in their statement? They quote a verse regarding the preaching of the kingdom, and then apply it to the kingdom itself. Matthew describes a worldwide preaching of the kingdom. While I consider this a reference to the period prior to the Roman sacking of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the point is the same if you apply it to the period before His second advent. The Watchtower then interprets the verse to mean that the Kingdom will not appear until He returns.

However, what did Jesus say about His kingdom? "The kingdom of God has come upon you" (Luke 11:20). He spoke to His audience during His first advent, telling them that they were witnessing the appearance of His kingdom. On another occasion, He told them, "Behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" (Luke 17:21). Twice, then, Jesus vocally told His First-Century audience that the kingdom had come among them in the presence of His person. This is consistent with the Old Testament prophecy of the coming of the kingdom: "The stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth" (Daniel 2:35; see the entire vision in verses 31-45). The kingdom would start as just a small rock (see Matthew 16:18), and grow until it fills the earth. That is what is happening between the first and second advents. That is why John can refer to Jesus as "the ruler of kings on earth" (Revelation 1:5) at the beginning of that book.

The Watchtower is aware of this weakness in their doctrine, and try to address it: "The Kingdom of heaven was 'with' or 'among' the Pharisees, in that Jesus, the one designated by God to rule as King, was standing before them.​—Luke 1:​32, 33." Here they change what Jesus says, "Kingdom of heaven," to a reference to Himself as coming King! Another example of bait-and-switch!

To my mind, to use such blatant fallacies to support their doctrine demonstrates that the Watchtower Governing Board is well-aware that their doctrine is unbiblical. And that brings up an obvious question for Watchtower members: If your leadership is so clearly aware of the falsity of their doctrines, why do you remain loyal to those doctrines?

Oneness Refuted by the Words of Jesus

According to the doctrines of Oneness Pentecostalism, when we look at Jesus in the New Testament, God the Father is the deity in heaven, while the Son is the flesh on the earth. The Son did not exist, except in the mind of God, before His incarnation in the conception in Mary's womb.

That assertion is contrary to more biblical texts than I can address in just one blog post. I have cited some of the Old Testament examples of the presence of the Son before (click the "intra-Trinitarian" tag at the bottom).

Here I want to mention a New Testament example: "Now, Father, glorify Me in Your own presence with the glory that I had with You before the world existed" (John 17:5). This verse is spoken by Jesus as part of His high-priestly prayer (John 17:1-26).

There are several elements in this verse relevant to the topic of the preexistence of the Son. First, it is Jesus who is speaking, explicitly addressing the Father. That prevents some of the customary Oneness dodges when confronted with Scriptural evidence against their doctrines, such as that it was a vision, or it was spoken erroneously by someone else. Second, He says that He was with the Father, not that He was the Father. That refutes the Oneness claim that Jesus was the Father before the incarnation. Third, it is addressed to the Father at the time it was spoken, refuting the Oneness claim that Jesus is the Father, or that Father and Son are successive manifestations of the Godhead. Jesus is distinct from the Father, and co-existent with Him, at the present time when the verse was spoken. And fourth, He explicitly states that He was with the Father before the Creation, not just before the incarnation. That again refutes the successive nature of manifestations claimed by Oneness. But, more importantly, it demonstrates the preexistence of the Son as a Person, not as a mere idea or prophecy of the Father. Ideas don't have glory, especially not a glory comparable to that of the Father!

This one verse precludes many of the assertions of Oneness Pentecostalism regarding the Son.

The Continuing Obligation of the Law of God

Among professing Christians, there is a competition to find ways to twist the second clause of Romans 6:14: "You are not under law but under grace." For some reason, those interpretations never involve the first clause of the sentence. You will hear different versions, such as that the Law was done away in Christ, or that it was only for Jews, not Gentiles. But, in whatever way, such people think that the truly spiritual person despises the biblical Law.

I don't believe any such thing. Nor did the author of Romans, the Apostle Paul.

Consider what he said earlier in that same epistle: "Since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (Romans 1:28-32). OK, so "they" who? The context is a description of the unrighteousness of unbelievers. And to whom is the passage addressed? While the Church at Rome included Jews, it was predominantly a Gentile church, including members even of the emperor's family (Philippians 4:22). So, Paul is talking to Gentile Christians about unbelievers, and describes horrific sins that are properly subject to capital punishment. According to what? Not according to Roman law. Rather, according to God's law (compare I Timothy 1:8-11).

These verses are contrary to the whole popular evangelical theology of Law, which is properly known as antinomianism. The moral law is still in force, whether for Jew or for Gentile.

The Westminster Confession of Faith (XIX:5) correctly summarizes this: "The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation."

Faith of the Prophets versus the Faithlessness of Arminianism

"O LORD, You are my God; I will exalt You; I will praise Your name, for You have done wonderful things, plans formed of old, faithful and sure" (Isaiah 25:1). 

Recently, I have been in conversations with Arminians in which they claimed that predestination is based in foreknowledge. That part is fine. However, then they claim that "foreknowledge" merely means knowing in advance, denying any element of predetermination. Thus, they claim, God predestines those whom He knew

in advance would believe in Him. That imposes a tautology on God.

However, these Arminians build their doctrine on their (ab)use of one single word (used in various forms five times), and ignore everything else.

Note, for example, the verse quoted above. If that isn't predetermination, then language has no meaning. It makes no allowance for a passive deity, who merely rubberstamps the sovereign choices of men. The Prophet describes a God who makes and actualizes His own sovereign plans.

And notice, too, that Isaiah considers that concept one for which to be grateful!

So, when Arminians are doing their handwringing for the same thing for which Isaiah praises God, what are we to surmise about the faith of Arminians? 

For one thing, it certainly isn't biblical!

The Daughter of Jairus versus Soul Sleep

In Luke 8:40-42, 49-56, the Evangelist tells us the story of Jesus's healing of the daughter of Jairus, the leader of a synagogue. We aren't told what the girl's malady was. However, Jesus is interrupted on His way to her when He was distracted by the woman with the issue of blood (verses 43-48), and the girl dies. To say that He was interrupted is not to say that He was caught by surprise, of course. These events happened according to His providence.

In the case of the girl, Luke the Physician makes an odd observation: "Her spirit returned and she arose immediately" (verse 55). I don't recall a similar comment from any of His other healings or resuscitations.

I want to focus on that one phrase, "her spirit returned to her."

As is commonly known, Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-Day Adventists assert that the spirit has no existence apart from the body, commonly called "soul sleep." While the details differ, they both claim that whatever spirit there is remains in the grave with the body.

But then we have this verse. "Her spirit returned."

If the spirit of the dead is unconscious, remaining with the corpse, as SDA's believe, or obliterated, to be re-created at the Judgment, as Jehovah's Witnesses claim, then from where did her spirit return? At most, it should have remained unconscious in her body.

Of course, the orthodox view has no problem explaining this, since we understand that the existence of human spirit, while joined with the body, is distinct from it. When a believer dies, he or she is immediately ushered into the presence of Jesus in Heaven (II Corinthians 5:8, Philippians 1:21-23). The spirit of the unbeliever is immediately dismissed to Hell (John 3:18, II Peter 2:9). That is because each person is judged by his condition at death (Hebrews 9:27). Witnesses and SDA's (together with many misinformed Christians) wrongly believe that the judgment awaits the great Judgment at the return of Christ. Really? Are we supposed to believe that Jesus doesn't know our spiritual condition until then? No, but rather that judgment is a public display of the righteousness of God's justice.

Whether the girl was regenerate or not, we are not told. Whether she returned from Heaven or Hell, we cannot know.  Why she should want to return if she were in Heaven, we do not know. Those questions are often asked, but any possible answer would only be speculation.

Think of Pilate's judgment of Jesus. Pilate examined Him privately, and then went out to the crowd to announce his judgment. He didn't make that judgment in front of the crowd, but announced it "at the feast" (Matthew 27:15, Mark 15:6, Luke 23:13). This is the same division between the personal judgment of each person at death and the general judgment at the end of history

Jesus and Alcohol

I often see people of various Christian professions - fundamentalist, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, etc. - who claim that drinking alcohol is an absolute sin. Even my own church, which does not hold to that doctrine, serves grape juice for communion, in order not to offend teetotalers, in spite of the explicit biblical instruction that it is to be wine!

I have dealt with this question before. However, this time, I am going to take a different tack.

In Luke 7:33-34, we have the words of Jesus: "John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon.’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!'"

Do you see His complaint? The Pharisees had seen John the Baptist, not drinking wine, and criticized him for it. Now, they see Jesus, drinking wine, and they still criticize in the opposite direction. His point is that the Pharisees were more about criticizing than they were about consistency or real morality.

Yet, we must not gloss over His own words indicating that He drank wine! 

Thus, my question to those who claim that drinking alcohol is always a sin is this: Are you not putting yourself in the same place as those Pharisees, for which Jesus rebuked them? And, furthermore, do you believe that your standard of holiness is higher than that of Jesus?

The Salvation of Men: Impossible for Us, but Certain by Jesus

I have been having a lot of interactions with Arminians recently. They all want to hold on to some natural ability in men to bring themselves to Jesus, a form of Pelagianism. And this in spite of what we are told in Scripture: "No one seeks for God" (Romans 3:11). They just can't let go of some modicum of sovereignty for the human will. 

Jesus addressed this same attitude in His disciples. The Bible tells us the story of the interaction between Jesus and a rich man (Mark 10:17-31). To show where the man's true loyalties lay (as addressed in the First Commandment), He commanded him to give all of his wealth to the poor, and then to come follow Him. However, the man chose his possession rather than Jesus.

In response, Jesus told His disciples, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God" (verse 25). Shocked, His disciples despaired, "Then who can be saved?" (verse 26). 

The response of Jesus is the climax of the story: "With man it is impossible, but not with God. For all things are possible with God" (verse 27). The disciples thought what many today still think, that it is easier to trust God when you're wealthy. Yet, Jesus tells them that it is impossible for a rich man to come to Jesus on his own. And if it is impossible for the rich man, who would have the least reason to resist, then how much harder it must be for anyone else. With man, it is impossible. Or, as Paul put it, "No one seeks for God."

Yet, Jesus did not leave His disciples in their despair. Rather, He told them, "Not with God, for all things are possible with God" (verse 27). God does not leave men in our natural, unsalvable condition. Rather, He announces, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion" (Romans 9:14). Where men are naturally unsalvable, hardened and lost in our sin, impossible to save, He presents Himself in His mercy, which overcomes our resistance, and saves us by giving us faith in the finished redeeming work of Jesus. 

This is the marvel of what Calvinism has over Arminianism. The Arminian defends that which is impossible, leaving sinners with no hope of salvation.  The Calvinist looks to Jesus alone, and trusts Him to break through our resistance, causing us to love and obey Him, and to turn to Jesus alone for our eternal life.