Challenge for Anti-Trinitarians, Part 2

Those who oppose the basics of the doctrine of the Trinity on the grounds of biblical hermeneutics have no good reason to feel smug and confident. Their alternatives to the doctrine are no better than the doctrine at issue.

For instance, let’s take a kind of modalism that would suggest the following:

1) At different moments in cosmic history, the object or entity which the Bible denotes “Jesus” has been any object or objects which the Bible refers to with the noun phrases “Father,” “Son,” “the Holy Spirit.”

2) Jesus is God.

3) In the Scriptures Jesus is not simultaneously the Father and Son, or Father and Holy Spirit, or Son and Holy Spirit.

Certain presuppositions are central both to this sort of modalism and to trinitarianism. Both sides on the issue would agree with the following:

(1) Only one god exists (Isaiah 44.6), no god existed prior to this particular object, and no god will exist after this object (Isaiah 43.10).

(2) In the Scriptures there is an object named “the Father” which is also named “God” (e.g., see 1 Corinthians 1.9, 1 Thessalonians 1.1; cf. Matthew 6.9-15).

(3) In the Scriptures there is an object named “the Son” which is equal with “God” (e.g., see John 5.18, John 8.58), which created the cosmos (John 1, Colossians 1, 1 Corinthians 8.6), and which is called “God” (e.g., John 1.1).

(4) In the Scriptures there is an object named “the Holy Spirit” that possesses attributes held only by an object which is intelligent and which is God (Acts 5.3-4, 1 Corinthians 6.19).

However, the problem for the modalists is that to the contrary one finds both the co-existence and co-distinctiveness of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the Scriptures.

1) The Holy Spirit and the Son are co-existent and co-distinct:

· Malachi 3.6

If Jesus is God and if God sometimes is the Father, at other times the Son, and at other times the Holy Spirit, though never simultaneously, then God changes. The book of Malachi tells us that God does not change. Therefore, the form of modalism in question does not square with reality.

· Matthew 3.16

The text does not state that Jesus saw himself descend upon himself; the text likewise does not state that Jesus saw himself descend upon nothing. To the contrary, the text states that Jesus “saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.” Meanwhile, a thing cannot descend upon itself as surely as it is incoherent to speak of a thing’s descending upon something which does not exist at the moment. Therefore, one can rightly say that the man Jesus and the Spirit are distinct and that they exist simultaneously.

· Matthew 4.1

The text states that the Spirit then led the man Jesus into the desert. Yet how can something be led by something that does not exist at the moment--or more precisely, how can something be led by nothing and still be led by something? It cannot.

2) The Holy Spirit and the Father are co-existent and co-distinct:

· Malachi 3.6

If Jesus is God and if God sometimes is the Father, at other times the Son, and at other times the Holy Spirit, though never simultaneously, then God changes. The book of Malachi tells us that God does not change. Therefore, the form of modalism in question does not square with reality.

· John 14.26

The text states that the Father would send the Holy Spirit. Yet how does it make any sense to send something that does not exist--or more precisely, how does it make sense to send nothing and at the same time send something? After all, God is not the Spirit when he is the Father, right?

· Romans 8.26-27

The text states that the Spirit intercedes for believers. One important thing to remember all the while is that intercession necessarily involves three distinct parties or individuals. So, to whom does the Spirit graciously intercede on the behalf of sinners? Presumably, he intercedes to the Father if only to one member of the Trinity. Now then, how does one intercede to a thing or being that does not exist at the moment? Moreover, why would one intercede to something that does not exist, thus directing his petitions to precisely no one?

3) The Father and the Son are co-existent and co-distinct:

· Malachi 3.6

If Jesus is God and if God sometimes is the Father, at other times the Son, and at other times the Holy Spirit, though never simultaneously, then God changes. The book of Malachi tells us that God does not change. Therefore, the form of modalism in question does not square with reality.

· Matthew 10.32-33

These verses make no sense in the context of modalism. You don’t deny things before someone who does not exist when you exist.

· Matthew 23.9

Who said that the Father “is” in heaven? The Son did.

· John 1.1 (cf. v.14)

An object cannot be with itself, and it cannot be with something that does not exist at the moment either.

· John 5.30: “I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.”

One does not simultaneously send something that does not presently exist--i.e., nothing--and send something that exists.

· John 8.38

The very idea of seeing something with someone that does not exist when you exist is incoherent.

· Hebrews 7.22-25

The text states that the Son intercedes for believers. One important thing to remember all the while is that intercession necessarily involves three distinct parties or individuals. So, to whom does the Son graciously intercede on the behalf of sinners? Answer: The Father. Now then, how does one petition a thing or being that does not exist at the moment? Why petition something that does not exist thus directing your petitions to precisely no one?

**************

Meanwhile, modalism is akin and similar to what one could call a sort of conflationism to be found among Oneness Pentecostals. Consider the following from “Doctrine - 60 Questions on the Godhead” at http://www.upci.org/doctrine/60Questions.asp:

15. Did the prophet Isaiah say that Jesus would be the Father? Yes. Isaiah 9:6; 63:16.

Actually, the correct answer to this question is no. If the Son of Man would later become the Father, then God will have changed. However, Malachi 3.6 informs us that God does not change. On the other hand, if the Son’s becoming the Father simply involves the Father’s leaving a physical body behind never to indwell it again, then the Son of Man was never anything more than a physical body in which God dwelled, which means that the Son of Man was never God, which is in direct contradiction to John 1.1 which tells us that the Son of Man both was God and was with God in the beginning.

Likewise, Hebrews 7.22-25 states that the Son intercedes for believers. One important thing to remember all the while is that intercession necessarily involves three distinct parties or individuals. So, to whom does the Son graciously intercede on the behalf of sinners? Based on the context of Hebrews 7.22-25 you don’t want to say that the answer is the devil or anyone else but, yes, God the Father. But you cannot have the Son interceding to God the Father in the UPC theology at issue, because on that view the Son and the Father are identical and not distinct.

Finally, it was never clear in the first place that either Isaiah 9.6 or especially Isaiah 63.16 indicated that Jesus would be the Father. Isaiah 9.6 itself (KJV) reads as follows:

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Let’s be generous here and pretend as if “Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace” in the verse are not names but descriptions. Okay, when exactly has anyone ever gone around calling Jesus of Nazareth by the description “Wonderful” or by the description “Counselor”? Of course, the fact that a practice of calling the Son of Man by the descriptions “Wonderful” or “Counselor” is virtually or entirely non-existent shows that there is more to Isaiah 9.6 than initially meets the eye.

In fact, given the common practice of referring to persons by the name or label “Father” in speaking of non-paternal relationships--as with 1 Samuel 24.11, 2 Kings 6.21 or Catholic priests--reminds us that the Son of Man is indeed a father to many people in some sense, without his being the object denoted in the likes of 1 Thessalonians 1.1 by the noun phrase “God the Father.” And it bears noting that the definite article preceding “everlasting Father” appears in the KJV though not in various other renderings of Isaiah 9.6 as its use apparently is not required by Hebrew grammar.

More from UPCI:

46. If God and the Holy Ghost are two separate persons, which was the Father of Christ? Matthew 1:20 says that the Holy Ghost was the Father, while Romans 15:6, II Corinthians 11:31, and Ephesians 1:3 say that God was the Father. There is no contradiction when we realize that God the Father and the Holy Ghost are one and the same Spirit. Matthew 10:20; Ephesians 4:4; I Corinthians 3:16.

The author is obviously joking here, for anyone who has read the Bible knows that God is a god of means and agency such that the following words--“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost”--need not indicate anything contrary to the idea that on behalf of the Father the Holy Spirit caused Mary to become pregnant just as in Hebrews 1.1-2 God creates the world through his Son.

Meanwhile, the appeal to Matthew 10.20 makes no sense at all (doesn’t X of Y normally mean that X and Y are distinct?), and the appeal to 1 Corinthians 3.16 likewise makes no sense (can there not be two entities present within, and does temple of X necessarily mean that X is present within that temple, as in “temple of Athena”?).

Even the appeal to Ephesians 4.4 does not work. If the unspoken assertion being made by the author is that there is only one spirit, then what are we to make of the following?

2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1.2)

1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 See, I have called by name Bezaleel the son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah: 3 And I have filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship, (Exodus 31:1-3)

Let the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation, (Numbers 27.16)

And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour. (Acts 16.18)

And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. (Acts 19:16)

Or if the assertion is that there is only one spirit in heaven that we should be concerned with, then why would the apostle Paul make us mindful of spirits who are with the Lord after they die?

6 Therefore [we are] always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight:) 8 We are confident, [I say], and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things [done] in [his] body, according to that he hath done, whether [it be] good or bad. (2 Corinthians 5.6-10)

21 For to me to live [is] Christ, and to die [is] gain. 22 But if I live in the flesh, this [is] the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not. 23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better: 24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh [is] more needful for you. (Philippians 1.21-24)

Moreover, since the text of John 14.26 states that the Father would send the Holy Spirit, should we really overthink this simple verse to start interpreting it to mean that God will send himself? As if God says to himself, “Myself, I therefore send you to help my people on earth”?

Furthermore, since the text of Romans 8.26-27 states that the Spirit intercedes for believers, and since intercession necessarily involves three distinct parties or individuals, are we really supposed to believe that the Spirit intercedes for believers to anyone else but God the Father, who supposedly is identical with the Spirit?

**************

If one does the math then he will see that doctrines which rival the doctrine of the Trinity have more problems than the basic doctrine of the Trinity.