The Forgotten Trinity (28 page)

Almost every single imbalance in worship is due to a corresponding
imbalance in our view of God. Some people become so enamored with
the Spirit, for example, and their experience of Him that the Father
and the Son are lost in the haze of emotions. Others are so focused
upon the Father that they lose sight of the love of the Son and the joy
and empowerment of the Spirit. One thing the doctrine of the Trinity
does is always call us back to the balanced center point. We are never
allowed to elevate one person to the expense of the others, since the
fullness of deity dwells in each one completely.

Christian worship will be vital, consistent, and powerful when the
proper attitude toward the triune God is maintained. When that truth
is lost, Christian worship ends.

THE TRINITY AND THE GOSPEL

The Gospel is the means by which the Father, in eternal love and
mercy, saves men through the redeeming work of the Son, Jesus Christ,
and draws them to himself by the power and regenerating work of the
Spirit. The Gospel, as it is proclaimed in Scripture, is Trinitarian. Remove the Father and you have no Gospel. Remove the Son, and the
Gospel ceases to exist. Remove the Spirit, and the Gospel has no existence. There is no separating the work of the triune God in salvation
from the truth of the Trinity itself.

Look at the "gospel" message of every single group that denies the
doctrine of the Trinity. You will find error and perversion in every
group. Why? Because the true Gospel must be based upon the work of
the one true and triune God. Without that basis, the Gospel cannot
stand. Look at Mormonism, which denies the pillar of monotheism:
the Gospel becomes the means to becoming a god. Look at the Witnesses: the Gospel is a mere appendage, a message of how we can live
forever in a paradise earth. Such is what happens when the Redeemer
becomes Michael the Archangel, and the Spirit becomes an impersonal
active force. And in the Oneness groups the Gospel becomes legalism,

replete with "necessary" things one must "experience" to be truly
saved.

Just as the Trinity requires us to be balanced and thorough in our
reliance upon the Scriptures, so the Gospel demands the same care.
The two go hand in hand, and it seems that those who lack clarity on
the one inevitably end up in error on the other.

THE TRINITY AND YOU

So does it really matter? Only you can answer that question for
yourself. If you are a believer, it matters greatly. You know the longing
in your heart to honor and glorify God, and you know instinctively
that God is not honored by falsehood. You long for His Word so that
you can grow in His grace and truth. And you want everyone else to
know the truth about your God who has redeemed you.

I love the Trinity. I honor the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. I have
been baptized in that one divine Name, and I gladly call myself a servant of the triune God. Do you love the Trinity? I hope and pray that
our journey through the Scriptures has solidified your faith in this divine truth and given you great boldness and courage to share that faith
with others. But most of all, I hope and pray it has helped you to fulfill
the greatest commandment of all: to love the Lord your God with all
your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Truly I hope that you can join
with me in singing,

CHAPTER ONE

1. The great minister of Northampton (1703-1758), considered one of the greatest
theologians America has ever produced.

2. Ian Murray, Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth
Trust, 1987), 99-100.

3. William G. T. Shedd, "Introductory Essay" in Philip Schaff, ed., The Nicene and
Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), 10-11.

4. Romans 8:7-8; 5:10.

5. John 3:3-6.

6. 2 Corinthians 5:17.

CHAPTER TWO

1. The great bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius (early to mid-fourth century) defended
the deity of Christ against the Arian movement.

CHAPTER THREE

1. Throughout this work the New American Standard Bible is cited (1995 edition).
The NASB follows the standard English custom of rendering the divine name of
God in the Old Testament as LORD, using small capitals. This is meant to indicate
to the English reader that the Hebrew term is sir', YHWH, or Yahweh (oftentimes
badly mispronounced as Jehovah).

2. See the discussion in chapter 6 on the significance of this passage to the deity of
Christ.

3. Jeremiah 10:11 is the only verse in Jeremiah's prophecy that is written in Aramaic rather than Hebrew. As a result, many feel it is a gloss or interpolation. However,
a much more logical reason exists. Charles Feinberg notes, "It should, however, be
remembered that Aramaic was the lingua franca of the day; so the pagan idolators
would be able to read the judgment of God on their idolatry." And in a textual
note, he also says,

No one has ever explained why an interpolator would introduce it here. It
was a proverbial saying; so it was given in the language of the people (so
Streane). The best explanation appears to be that it is in Aramaic so that the
exiles could use these very words as a reply to solicitations by the Chaldeans to
join in their idol worship.

Charles L. Feinberg, "Jeremiah" in The Expositor's Bible Commentary, 6:449-450.

4. The KJV translation, "God is a spirit," misses the point of the anarthrous use of
"spirit" here. "God is spirit"=rtveuµa o 9E6;, where the position of the predicative nominative tells us something about God, that is, it is descriptive.

5. Hebrew:i "i=a, me olam ad olam. There is no stronger way to express ongoing, limitless existence than this. The psalmist is contrasting the created nature
of the world with the uncreated and hence eternal nature of the Creator, Yahweh.

CHAPTER FOUR

1. The imperfect tense of the verb eiµi (eimi) refers to continuous action in the past.
One might compare it to saying, "I was eating," in contrast to "I ate" or "I had
eaten." Specifically, and most importantly in this context, the verb does not point
to a specific point of origin or beginning in the past.

2. eyevEro is in the aorist tense. The main emphasis of an aorist verb is undefined
aspect, normally resulting in punctiliar action in the past. Such a verb points to a
particular point of origin when used in the context of creation.

3. Some have argued against this use of rlv by noting that the same verb is used of
Mary's presence at the wedding in Cana of Galilee in John 2:1, "and the mother
of Jesus was (en) there." Obviously John is not saying that Mary had eternally been
in Cana. Such an argument, however, assumes that every use of 11v indicates eternal
existence in the past, and such is not the case. In John 2:1, a specific limitation is
provided in the context (that speaks of "on the third day") and, of course, eternity
itself is not even in view in the passage, unlike the prologue where that is, in fact,
the specific "time" frame provided by the author himself.

4. To quote J. H. Bernard, the use of 11v in John 1:1 "is expressive in each case of
continuous timeless existence." A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel
According to St. John, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T.
Clark, 1928), 1:2. Greg Stafford in Jehovah's Witnesses Defended (Huntington
Beach, Calif.: Elihu Books, 1998), 168, attempts to avoid the weight of the distinction found in John's words:

The contrast between ilv in verses 1 and 2 ... and eyeveTo (egeneto, "came
to be," in reference to the "things" created in this part of the "beginning") is
simply a contrast between that which was existing (the Word) during the time
period to which John refers, and that which came into existence, namely, the physical universe. It is not necessarily a contrast between an eternal being and
created things.

Stafford posits a complex concept of "the beginning," attempting to limit the
Word's preexistence to a particular part of the "beginning." The inevitable result,
however, is to say that the Word was not rlv the "beginning" absolutely considered,
but was only relatively preexistent to a relative beginning, which is just the opposite
of what John is communicating. Stafford assumes, and imports into his exegesis,
the "creation of the Logos" as an immutable fact, despite John's testimony against
such an idea.

5. B. B. Warfield in The Person and Work of Christ, (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian
and Reformed Publishing Company, 1950), 53, commented:

"And the Word was with God." The language is pregnant. It is not merely
coexistence with God that is asserted, as of two beings standing side by side,
united in local relation, or even in a common conception. What is suggested is
an active relation of intercourse. The distinct personality of the Word is therefore not obscurely intimated. From all eternity the Word has been with God as
a fellow: He who in the very beginning already "was," "was" also in communion
with God. Though He was thus in some sense a second along with God, He was
nevertheless not a separate being from God: "And the Word was"-still the eternal "was"-"God." In some sense distinguishable from God, He was in an
equally true sense identical with God. There is but one eternal God; this eternal
God, the Word is; in whatever sense we may distinguish Him from the God
whom He is "with," He is yet not another than this God, but Himself is this
God. The predicate "God" occupies the position of emphasis in this great declaration, and is so placed in the sentence as to be thrown up in sharp contrast
with the phrase "with God," as if to prevent inadequate inferences as to the
nature of the Word being drawn even momentarily from that phrase. John
would have us realize that what the Word was in eternity was not merely God's
coeternal fellow, but the eternal God's self.

6. OF-6v is the accusative singular form of OF-6q. Often people are confused by the fact
that Greek nouns change form, depending upon their grammatical usage in a sentence. Greek is an inflected language, and its nouns are declined, meaning they take
a different form when they are subject, object, indirect object, plural, etc. These
changes in forms do not impact the actual meaning of the noun itself, only how
it is being used in a particular sentence.

7. That is, believing in one God. Monotheism is the belief in one true God.

8. Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New
Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 207.

9. Ibid., 208.

10. Specifically, for the grammatically inclined, a preverbal, anarthrous predicate nominative, for Oeos does not have the article, and appears before the verb, ilv.

11. The great American Greek scholar A.T. Robertson in his work Word Pictures in the
New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1932), vol. 5, 4-5, commented:

And the Word was God (kai theos en ho logos). By exact and careful language
John denied Sabellianism by not saying ho theos en ho logos. That would mean that all of God was expressed in ho logos and the terms would be interchangeable,
each having the article. The subject is made plain by the article (ho logos) and
the predicate without it (theos) just as in John 4:24 pneuma ho theos can only
mean "God is spirit," not "spirit is God." So in 1 John 4:16 ho theos agape estin
can only mean "God is love," not "love is God" as a so-called Christian scientist
would confusedly say. For the article with the predicate see Robertson, Grammar, pp. 767f. So in John 1:14 ho Logos sarx egeneto, "the Word became flesh,"
not "the flesh became Word." Luther argues that here John disposes of Arianism
also because the Logos was eternally God, fellowship of the Father and Son, what
Origen called the Eternal Generation of the Son (each necessary to the other).
Thus in the Trinity we see personal fellowship on an equality.

See also H. E. Dana, Julius Mantey, A Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament
(New York: The MacMillan Company, 1950), 148-149.

12. M. R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (Wilmington, Del.: Associated
Publishers and Authors, n.d.), 1:384.