Atheism is dead

index

I have to give atheists credit, if I believed there was no God I would hardly waste my precious time blogging against religions that weren’t true, or concerning myself with ten commandment monuments around national parks. I would firstly reproduce as much as possible, and secondly, I would fill my days with things that made me happy. Perhaps maligning religion makes some atheists happy, however, one can hardly compare this with living as though there truly were no God.

Which leads us to the core of my article, that atheists do not live as though their worldview were true, instead, the assume God exists in virtually all that they do.

The apostle Paul said of God “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28)

The same is true for atheists, they rely on God just as much as the Christian. Just in another way.

I was reading the news earlier in the week and noticed another atheist organization trying to have another Christian monument removed.

I wonder why atheists preoccupy themselves with these things.

If there were no God, the universe has absolutely no meaning. That means, everything within the universe, both the physical properties and the events which take place, are, as result, without meaning.

Most atheists agree that the universe is essentially, according the their worldview, without meaning. Without a Superior Intelligence guiding natural processes, or a Divine Will willing creation as an active choice, we are left with a random event, which leads inevitably to a chain of other random events. All events within this one event that had no meaning are without meaning.

I find remarkable then, that atheists take such issue with religion. I can recall many times reading the moral and philosophical issues that atheists take with the Christian religion.

They point to events like the crusades as though they should be morally outraged.

Let’s think for a moment.

If the universe has no objective meaning, that means, a human being, a product and part of the universe, has no objective meaning. That means the human life itself has no objective meaning.

This is the philosophical end result of atheism. That human life has no meaning along with the universe.

However, atheists don’t act this way. Everyday atheists campaigning against religion and pointing out what they perceive as “injustices” are acting as though human life does have meaning. We should not teach children creationism, because their lives have meaning and the truth matters. We should not ban same sex marriage, because those people have feelings and their lives matter and have meaning, we should not believe in any deities because what we believe matters and beliefs have consequences which have meaning.

The result of atheism being true is that there is no meaning to human life or anything in the material world.

Yet atheists act as though there is.

“That’s the beauty of life, to find out our own meaning.”

 

Says the atheist.

I agree, I find that the meaning of my life is to teach young earth creationism to children, specifically, yours.

And who is the atheist to stop me? That’s the meaning to my life. Or perhaps the meaning of my life is to rob banks. Without objective meaning we have relative meaning. Which leads to moral problems.

 

Atheists rely on God for their meaning.

No atheist attacking religion should act as though there were meaningful consequences to religion. If I engage in a crusade, any human life that was taken had no meaning, the beliefs in my mind which I hold to had no meaning, and the chemical reactions which take place during my crusade were neither moral nor immoral.

That’s problematic.

How can chemical reaction be moral or not? In the atheist’s worldview, everything that happens is the result of matter acting on matter. Chemical reactions are morally neutral.

Why are people dying in an atomic bomb explosion any less moral than the process of the atom being fractured?

Why?

We hold that human life is more valuable than other types of life, and that human suffering is more than chemical reaction.

These beliefs betray atheism.

The Christian worldview however states that human beings are not just matter, but are images of GOD bearing a unique soul, and that the most Powerful Being in existence gave us laws to abide by for our own good.

Atheists rely on God for their morality.

 

“The meaning of life is to gain the truth through reason and logic”

 

And why should that be the meaning of life? This also leads us to another nail in atheism’s coffin. How an immaterial logic could be in a world of only matter.

Nobody would argue that logic is material so how can a worldview that doesn’t allow for anything accept matter have logic?

“Logic is made of matter, logic is the result of organized and orderly processes within our brain.”

Does the human brain change?

Yes”

Then logic can change, and therefore we have no reason to impose logical absolutes on individuals or religions.

Human brains may change over time but the general makeup is the same, therefore the general rules of logic are the same.”

The general makeup? My Christian brain tells me that atheism is logically absurd, is the logic in my brain valid? if logic is rooted in the human brain, why is my logic different from atheism logic? And whose is right?

Logic is not made of matter, but is an abstract concept agreed upon by human beings.”

Then this is no longer materialism and the atheist just agreed the universe can harbor something that is not material. The problem is is that if humans agree on logic, why cannot we disagree? The law of identity for example is true whether or not I agree with the law. Logic is real independent of the human mind.

Logic I would argue, cannot be independent of a mind. I argue that logic is a reflection of God’s Mind. To make logic a reflection of the human mind is to say logic can be relative, because our minds are all different. To argue that logic is made of matter is to say logic can change, and is subject to entropy, which means in 500 years perhaps logic will be entirely unrecognizable, which is not the case if we look 500 years into the past.

Only an Immaterial Unchanging Rational Mind can be the necessary reason for immaterial unchanging logic.

 

Atheists rely on God for their logic.

 

Atheists don’t need any God or gods for morality, meaning, or logic. The knowledge we all gain is through the scientific method. We know things to be true, moral, and logical through studying the known universe.”

 

Which leads us to another atheist dilemma. How we have any idea what is true. What is truth without God?

“Truth is anything corresponding to reality”

And how do we know what’s real? The atheist believes the world around them is an actuality, and therefore can be studied as though what the world portrays is actually real.

What justification does the atheist worldview have for believing they are not in a dream world or that the world around them is not an illusion they cannot escape?

The Christian worldview states that God, who cannot lie, created us in His image with working senses in a world of His own, that, by nature, reflects the truth, and is real.

Perhaps our senses are valid, but how do we know what we’re sensing is actually real apart from the above worldview?

If we cannot know what is real, we cannot know what is truth, but instead just suppose truth without any certainty.

All the study of evolution or the cosmos relies on the premise that what they’re studying is actually real. This premise is only justified in a worldview with God. Without God what we see might not actually be a reality, but may be some type of illusion, or perhaps a dream world or simulation. We may have reason to believe the world is actually real, but we cannot say for certain that the world is real. Which means we cannot say anything is true for certain.

Yet atheists don’t act this way.

 

Atheists rely on God for truth and certainty.

 

Any and all criticism of this article supposes:

Logic

Truth

Certainty

Meaning

And morality (one would think there were a moral obligation to set me straight if I were not telling the truth)

The atheist relies on God for the existence of all. The atheist cannot breathe without God. The atheist can only attack God using the logic, truth, and certainty that He gave them. The atheist says God does not exist, yet has no basis for believing anything exists with certainty.

This article is not me trying to pick on atheists, this article is a call for atheists to repent.

The atheist uses these things that are GOD’S yet uses them to argue against His being.

The atheist has such a deep connection and reliance upon God the atheist must know innately that God indeed is real.

My friend, human life does indeed have meaning, and the truth and logic we all use rest in Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3)

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, and dear reader, I urge you to stop your battle with God using the things which are His.

 

All the attacks on God from atheists, arguing against the logical coherence of Christianity, or the moral atrocities in the name of religion, or the truth which is known through science, or the meaning which the truth even has, or the certainty by which we can know the universe arose through natural processes, all the meaning, all the logic, all the morality…

 

all of it is Christ’s.

 

 

Is atheism a valid idea we should give attention to?

No, atheism is dead, we must abandon atheism wholesale.

Advertisements

On human dignity

One of the many failures of secular worldviews is that they cannot account for the concept of a universal human dignity. Those who hold to these worldviews presuppose human dignity regardless. The question is that of origins and the nature of the human race.

Secular theories remove God from the equation and thereby remove man’s true identity as a special creature of God made in His image bearing a unique soul.

It is with the worldview of man being not only a special creature of God but a direct representative agent of God that we can expect the value of human life to fit in nicely. The Bible’s explanation of why murder is wrong is solely because man is God’s image (Genesis 9:6) and therefore as an image of God is inherently and infinitely valuable.

 

Secular theories on the other hand must account for the human dignity we all expect to be given when at core these theories teach man to be the product of time and chance acting on matter in an unguided universe with no objective meaning.

Man being a compilation of chemicals and only chemicals should not be expected to be given an inherent dignity or value above any other chemical compilations.

And yet the secular worldview is the most outspoken of the worldviews accusing the Christian religion as being responsible for the mistreatment of the humans whose dignity cannot be justified without relying on the very God they claim they can live without.

 

I find these internal inconsistencies of the secular worldview to be a testimony of the inadequacy of life without God both on a practical level and a philosophical level.

 

Why I’m not a pastor (yet?)

When I first became a Christian, like most newly saved young men, I wanted to become a pastor. I even fantasized about having my own church and what I would call it.

I wanted to be the guy who got up on the pulpit and preached to the congregation every Sunday.

Perhaps I would wear a suit, perhaps we would have church picnics and outings. Maybe a youth ministry as well.

Then something changed.

I met Christianity’s enemies.

The atheists who said Jesus “never existed.”

The Muslims who said belief in Jesus as God will send a man to hell.

The skeptics who said the Christian religion was bad for society.

The new agers who said Christ was a “retelling of pagan gods.”

Yeah, those guys.

The kind of people the average pastor avoids mentioning. The kind of people the average pastor doesn’t want his congregants to find out about.

I began to become afraid. What if my congregation comes to me with challenges I can’t answer? What if I’m challenged to a debate? What if I have to defend the faith in the public square and can’t?

My paranoia pretty much crippled my hopes for a ministry.

Then by the grace of God I was shown another office.

Enter the apologist.

The word apologetics comes from the Greek apologia meaning to speak (or write) in defense of.

A whole new world was opened up to me. And I knew I had to become someone who defends the faith in some way. Even if it’s just studying and posting on a blog.

The truth is I’m not really an apologist. I’m studying to be an effective defender of the faith. And this blog serves as a learning tool for me to engage the public while I study. I plan on going into the ministry full time in the future. I may not have this a job or anything but I do hope for a new version of this blog with reams of information for those looking for answers.

For now though this will do.

Anyway, getting back to my original point, I couldn’t in good conscience go into any kind of pastoral ministry, and that’s when I broke off and started doing this.

And now I don’t ever want to look back. And I feel I don’t need to.

What is a pastor? Technically someone who oversees a flock.

So maybe an apologist is a pastor but with the entire flock in mind.

Either way, I would encourage every Christian to get into defending the faith as a serious office within the church.

 

And with that in mind, stayed tuned for some upcoming articles that will tackle several issues and common challenges raised by non Christians. I have several ideas in the works but I hope to get a little in depth.

 

See you next time.

A brief defense of the Trinity (part 2)

LGetting back to my series on the Holy Trinity, I would strongly urge readers to read part one which is foundational to the topic of the Trinity. Just an overview, we looked at the Hebrew thought of what a spirit was, and showed the case for the Deity of the Holy Ghost. We also showed that if both the Holy Ghost is God and Jesus is God than the Trinity can be the only logical conclusion.

Which leads us to to our third point in the three point syllogism.

3. Jesus is God.

If this point can be established than the Trinity logically follows.

 

There are many, many points to be taken into consideration and there are a plethora of verses on the topic, however, we will look several factors to start with:

  1. Nobody has seen the Father
  2. People have seen God
  3. Therefore the O.T. appearances of God were Christ.

 

Now many unitarians will object here and say this doesn’t mean that Jesus is God. They will say He is “a god” (as the watchtower teaches).

This however completely goes against the supposed concept of unitarianism, and the person demoting Jesus to “a god” will have to accept the existence of not one God but now two, which defeats the entire purpose of what they were allegedly trying to establish, that is, strict monotheism.

Moving on, the evidence for the Deity of Christ is different than the evidence for the Trinity as a whole. In breaking with what I stated in part one, when dealing with the Deity of Christ there are verses that plainly state Jesus is God. (Hebrews 1:8, John 1:1)

We won’t be looking at those two verses however.

Instead let’s take a look at some interesting statement made by John and Jesus about the Father.

 

John 1:18  No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 5:37 And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.

John 6:46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

 

Jesus is pretty clear here the Father was never seen. Not by any man. And not at any time.

Well, this is interesting because people have seen God all throughout the O.T., and one cannot say these were visions only, because we have actual appearances in reality.

Exodus 24:9-119 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

 

Genesis 18:1-2 And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

No one can say these were appearances of an angel representing God or merely visions, they plainly state the LORD appeared and was seen.

The LORD here is the Tetragrammaton, which is Jehovah Himself. Yet no one has ever seen the Father. These statements made in John are earth shattering for the Deity of Christ, because the LORD interacted with in the O.T. wasn’t always the Father.

So who did they see?

1st Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Christ was in the O.T. following the Israelites

1 Peter 1:10-11Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

Christ was in the prophets of the O.T. speaking through them. This is significant because of the “the word of the LORD came unto”….(insert prophet) statements in the O.T.

No one has seen God the Father

Christ was in the O.T. interacting with the Israelites.

The Israelites have seen God

Therefore they saw God but not the Father.

There is only one God

Therefore they saw Christ

Therefore Christ is God

Of course much more could and will be said for the Deity of Christ in future parts. Christ has the names of the Father (Alpha Omega) and is given credit for creation (Hebrews 1:8-11) which we will look at in upcoming posts. Stay tuned

Some advice for new Christians

I wanted to do a quick post on some general tips for those who have been recently saved. Please note these are not hard, set in stone rules (accept maybe number four), just suggestions that if followed can be helpful, at least in my opinion. If anyone has some more suggestions please post in comment section.

 

ONE: Turn off the tube

This is probably my biggest, number one advice for the new Christian. I’m not talking about cooking shows. Most if not all of what is broadcasted on “Christian” television is entirely heretical. Any new Christian who makes a habit of watching stuff like “TBN” is going to be led down the wrong doctrinal path very quickly. That is not to say that every single program or teacher from TBN is heretical, but by and large most of what they broadcast are word faith teachers, Trinity deniers (I’m looking at YOU T.D Jakes), or people literally selling healing. Also, Christian broadcasting has added to the “American evangelical” picture of overly-emotional Christians who use the “evolution is simply theory” argument. In other words, they represent Christians pretty badly.

TWO: Learn some basic denominations and their teachings

This will help greatly when selecting a church. What do methodists teach and how are they different from baptists? What’s pentecostal? What’s the difference between Reformed and non reformed?

I am NOT suggesting getting into denominationalism. I myself am non-denominational, but will obviously still have fellowship with those in denominations within Biblical orthodoxy. Just knowing what these denominations teach will be of help though. I would recommend staying away from pentecostalism however, as they have some sects that teach some serious heresy (modalism for example, or baptismal regeneration, or tongues as a token of salvation) Again, use your better judgment.

 

THREE: Save the opposition for later.

Christianity is a 2,000 plus year old religion. That means for the past 2,000 years enemies of the faith have been thinking up challenges and attempted refutations to our faith.

For right now, don’t worry about these guys just yet. I say this because getting into apologetics (which I believe all Christians should do) can be challenging business for those new in the faith. Hearing arguments against Christianity while not even having a firm grasp in the basics of the doctrine will not be good for your spiritual life. There ARE exceptions to this those. Lee Strobel was an atheist who bought into such arguments until becoming a Christian. A person like him should indeed get into the doctrinal basics first, but him hearing arguments against the faith as a new Christian probably did not have much affect. However, for the average new Christian, focus on your new faith and learn everything about Scripture and from Scripture. Only when a firm grasp on the doctrines are in place, and there is a certain level of maturity, then feel free to start up in apologetic pursuits.

 

FOUR Remember the foundation

This next point goes back to my first post, the post was aimed at unbelievers, but Christians can benefit from this too. If you’re a new Christian, you’re going to be around other Christians obviously. Here’s something to keep in mind:

Christians are people, and people make mistakes. There are many people who become offended because such and such brother did this or said that. They then begin to question Christianity as a whole. While I don’t believe those genuinely saved will lose their salvation, or that we shouldn’t be careful around new believers, and believers in general, as a  Christian you are not always going to have a pleasant experience in church buildings.

My point is, however, is that the behavior of Christians living in the 21st century has absolutely no bearing on that fact that the Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead in the 1st century. Read and grasp 1st Corinthians 15, where Paul lays out the gospel, and lays out the resurrection for being the sole basis of and for our faith. We are Christians because Jesus rose from the dead, not because we all have perfect manners and built a religion that rises or falls on the behavior of the members.

 

FIVE: OBVIOUS PURCHASES

 

Buy a Bible of course. I recommend the Authorized Version without a doubt. Also, please stay away from liberal paraphrases like the Message or the Voice translations. Those will not build you up doctrinally because they aren’t intended to. Don’t worry about not understanding the Scriptures. The Holy Ghost gives us understanding so I was never really worried about that. Just pray whenever you’re on something you cannot seem to understand. Also there are resources available for answering those questions, again, use discernment

 

Six: OBVIOUS NON PURCHASES

I would definitely stay away from the majority of Christian books for now. There are many, many Christian authors who will lead the new believers astray. Have a firm grasp first.

 

SEVEN: Pastors are people

Obviously one should not think their new pastor is the final authority and is right 100 percent of the time. Unless Paul or Peter is your pastor (I’d very much like to go to your church) just remember Scripture is the final authority. However, one should respect their pastor as a teacher and accept guidance in line with Scripture.

 

That sums up my personal recommendations.

 

Some thoughts on Deism

 

Crab_Nebula

I’ve been interested in Deism ever since I came across my first deism website some years back. I was surprised how much disdain they held not only for organized religion, but Christianity in specific.

With works like “Age of reason” by Thomas Paine still popular today, and Deism still around, I thought I’d take a brief look at this topic today.

Deism, as I understand it, is the belief in a creator, and more specifically, a creator who does not intervene in the created world. In other words, the creator, whoever that may be, does not get involved in his creation, and does not act supernaturally in history, either through miracles or through communication.

Which means, yes there’s a creator, but all religions claiming to know the creator are “untrue” in essence, because the creator never spoke to us or revealed anything in a religion.

I saw one quote which said “God has no religion.” And another one “God gave us reason, not religion.”

 

Interestingly enough, I will attempt to show in this article, deism is not a worldview that is epistemically sound.

Deists make a lot of claims about their god. He didn’t inspire any religious text. He never acted in history, he isn’t the Christian God, (or the Jewish or Muslim one) He never spoke to man, and He gave us reason and logic by which we can know the created world.

My question is simple:

How can you know anything about a god who never revealed anything to you?

Deists like to make moral claims against religions stating they are responsible for the ills of the world. And that religious texts such as the Bible are “fable”. They appeal to the natural world as their basis for knowledge.

 

Well, here’s a couple of problems with that:

  1. If the creator deism posits never revealed anything about himself, how do you know anything you say is “immoral” is contrary to his nature?

For all the deist knows, their god is completely OK with immoral acts such as the torture of infants or murdering the innocent. By what basis do you claim this is not the case? God never revealed any religion (and therefore any of it’s moral standards) to us according to the deistic worldview. What are you basing morality in if not the nature of God? And if you do base morality in the nature of deism’s god, how do you know what that nature is?

 

2. How do you know the created world accurately reflects anything?

For all the deist knows, their creator could have created us in a dream world. Everything around us might not even be real, and therefore any claim to knowledge is not knowledge at all. If one appeals to the natural world as our basis for knowing the nature of the creator, how do we know the natural world truly reflects his nature? The natural world could be an illusion and have no true meaning, or deism’s god could have created something completely unrelated to his nature.

 

3. If religious texts such as the Bible are fable, on what basis do you claim anything is true?

This leads back to number 2. The creator of deism could have created our senses to deceive us and would have no problem lying to us (Unlike the Christian God who cannot lie) If the world around us is potentially a lie, how can you have any standard by which to judge truth? And how then can the deist judge my religion as untrue?

The Christian doesn’t face this problem because the God we believe in has indeed revealed to us things about Himself, and the only possibility of knowledge would be by accepting these revelations as axiomatic. The problem for deism is there are no revelations.

LET’S PLAY: ASK A CHRISTIAN

th

 

Hello and welcome back. I wanted to do something different today. I am a firm believer in the Proverb “Iron sharpens iron” (Proverbs 27:17) so I wanted to do something fun.

I am inviting atheists, skeptics, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, and every other non-Christian worldview to ask me a question. In other words, if you’re not a Christian, but want to ask one something, now is your chance.

So if you’re a deist, Hindu, Buddhist, what have you,  and have a question, ask away.

THE RULES:

I must lay down some rules though. Firstly, I am doing this not only for your benefit but for mine. Obviously I don’t have the answer to every question, so this is going to cause me to have to do research. Which will eventually increase both my learning and your learning. Learning is good. Second, the format we will be using to post questions is the comment section. Simple enough?

Thirdly, please keep in mind I have a 9-5 job and am without computer access aside from the library, so if I take a while to answer, please understand. However if you have a good question I will try my hardest to give you an answer.

NOW FOR THE RULES:

  1. Intelligent questions only

I will not respond to insults and insulting questions. For example:

“How can you believe a book of bronze age myths!!?”

“How can you believe a religion that causes people to become bigots!!?”

 

2. Nothing overly specific.

Example:

“How can you prove Moses did AB and C?”

“How can you prove Jesus actually wore a seamless garment!!?”

“How can you prove David played the harp!?”

 

General questions are welcome, but please try not to be vague either.

 

3. No “Bible contradictions”

There are plethora of encyclopedia answering alleged contradictions of Scripture, and I know certain people will use this as an opportunity to make themselves look good by overwhelming the comment section with such “contradictions”. I simply don’t have time for such.

 

4. Questions not demands.

The format is question asking, not demands. In other words no

“Prove to me” type “questions”

Questions asking for evidence for something are welcome, however if the question is merely a challenge and not an inquiry I will not answer. Also, please try not to be vague with the evidence questions either.

 

5. ONE QUESTION per person… AT MOST, TWO.

In other words, don’t go copy “78 questions for Christians” from your favorite atheism website and post that in the comment section. Instead, choose one or two from the list.

 

6. I’m not a biologist.

Although I am a creationist, I do not hold any credentials in biology or archeology. I am not qualified to speak authoritatively on overtly scientific topics and also because science is not an interest of mine. So please keep things within the scope of religion as I tend to avoid getting into the creation/evolution debate. However  if you feel you have a good question on the debate in general, I’ll approve your question.

 

7. Stay within topic.

Firstly, the questions are about Christianity, Jesus, the Bible, society, etc. So please stay on those topics. Second, if you’re an atheist for example, no “Well how do you know Islam isn’t true?” Since neither of us are Muslim in this instance, the question is irrelevant.

 

Also, I’m not Catholic so asking me questions about the pope or things related to Catholicism will probably not be helpful.

 

As I said this is a fun experiment not a challenge. I am not even close to having the answer to the vast majority of questions I will potentially be asked, however, I am of the belief that Christians need to start inviting dialogue with other worldviews.

The church in America is suffering because we spend too much time and resources on entertainment and making church a pleasant experience, not engaging the culture like Paul and the apostles did in Acts.

Also, one more rule:

 

8. Keep things friendly

I’m you’re wordpress neighbor, not the guy you’re trying to defeat in a debate. The goal is learning not winning.

So I invite everyone to ask me a question today. Be it a philosophical question, a historical question, a doctrinal question, etc.

I will answer the question in the comment section. However if I feel I have several really good questions I will do a post answering them.

 

Have fun and share with a friend.

A brief defense of the Trinity (Part 1)

Welcome back to my blog. Today I am writing on a topic of Christianity that is so often misunderstood, yet so central to the faith. Today’s paper is a brief outline of the basic support from Scripture that the doctrine of the Trinity has in favor of it. This post is by no means exhaustive, however I do seek to lay down a solid basis for believing this doctrine to be unequivocally true.

First, we need to lay some groundwork. Before getting into the Biblical evidence, we need to understand not only the nature of that evidence, but also what the Trinity is not. In other words, I seek to dispel myths and misrepresentations of this most precious doctrine.

It is the contention of many that the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, but coined by early church apologist Tertullian of Carthage in the second century. While Tertullian may have very well come up with the word, the etymology is not in question, but whether the doctrine is taught in Scripture. With that, I would also argue the word Bible is not in the Bible.

Second, we need to understand the nature of evidence for the Trinity. Aside from the so called “Johannine comma” (which I firmly believe belongs in the Bible) there are not verses explicitly stating something like:

“I am God, I am a Trinity”

The evidence for the Trinity is a conclusion based upon facts which we must accept. And these facts, two of which I seek to establish in these posts, we will look at.

Also, we must understand what the Trinity is not.

The Trinity is not:

Three gods

Jesus, the Father, and Mary (as the Quran teaches)

A triad

One God revealing Himself in three different “modes” (The Sebellian heresy, in other words, the Father “became” the Son, who “became” the Holy Spirit.)

The Trinity is:

One single Being called God eternally existing and revealed as Three distinct Persons that are in complete unity with One Another.

In light of the plethora of verses saying God is one, we must understand that one can just as easily refer to one entity that is a plurality. In other words when Jesus prayed that the disciples would “be one” (John 17:22) He was not saying they would all somehow physically amalgamate. The church is one yet the church is a plurality. “One” never rules out a plurality.

With this in mind, I shall establish two facts, both of which are denied by unitarians the world over. First, we must, as stated before, realize the Trinity is the conclusion if these facts are true.

  1. There is one God.

This is not disputed by unitarians.

2. The Holy Ghost is God.

3. Jesus is God.

 

These two facts are disputed by unitarian groups, and I will look into fact number two in the first segment of this post. If these two facts can be established, in light of fact number one, the only logical inference is that God must be One yet Three.

Moving on, in establishing the Deity of the Holy Ghost (Spirit) we will look at what ancient Hebrews believed a spirit to be. Unitarian groups call into question the consciousness and sentience of the Spirit. In other words, they believe in an “active force” theology, that rules out the possibility of the Spirit, in their teachings, to be alive and sentient.

Nobody would deny, that the Holy Spirit is indeed a Spirit, the question is, in Hebrew thought what exactly is a spirit? More specifically, are spirits sentient?

 

Let us take a look at some verses that refer to spirits in general, and we can take away from this what the Hebrews knew a spirit to be.

1 Kings 22:21-22

And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the LORD, and said, I will persuade him.
22 And the LORD said unto him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so.
This verse is an actual conversation between God and a spirit of some sort. We see here that a spirit is capable of communication, and therefore sentient. A theme throughout Scripture whenever spirits are mentioned.
Job 4:15-17
Then a spirit passed before my face; the hair of my flesh stood up:
16 It stood still, but I could not discern the form thereof: an image was before mine eyes, there was silence, and I heard a voice, saying,
17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? shall a man be more pure than his maker?
Again, a spirit here as early as Job is seen communicating.
Acts 23:9 And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.
Spirits were believed to be able to speak to men.
Luke 11:24  When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places, seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return unto my house whence I came out.
A spirit is capable of pondering, planning for the future, and traveling. What then of the Holy Spirit of God?
Ezekiel 11:5 And the Spirit of the LORD fell upon me, and said unto me, Speak; Thus saith the LORD; Thus have ye said, O house of Israel: for I know the things that come into your mind, every one of them.
The Holy Spirit (Spirit of the LORD) is seen speaking and says He has knowledge of the minds of the house of Israel. Only a Sentient Being could have this knowledge. If the Holy Ghost is alive and sentient (which He is) then we must note that the Holy Spirit is also distinct from the Father, yet one with Him because He is His Spirit. The two are inseparable yet distinct. As we see in the Baptism of Christ.
Acts 28:25-26
And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,

26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
Paul here actually attributes a verse from Isaiah where Jehovah is speaking, to the Holy Ghost Himself as saying these things. The truth is that unitarian groups believe all the spirits recorded in Scripture are sentient yet when they look at the Spirit of Life Himself they somehow argue against His Sentience. This line of argumentation is a “special pleading fallacy” and not a real argument against the Trinity. Spirits of all sorts were seen as capable of doing the things human beings can. Spirits are indeed alive, and ESPECIALLY the Spirit of God Himself, who is the source of all life. Indeed, as Elihu said, “The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.” (Job 33:4)
That’s all I will cover in this part. We must also note that the Spirit of God is said to be capable of being grieved, offended, as well as sending, striving, convicting, teaching, comforting, and being blasphemed. Only God can truly be blasphemed. Indeed, God is a Spirit (John 4:24) and God is Holy (Isaiah 57:15) Therefore the Living God is a Holy Spirit. In the next segment I will cover the Deity of Christ.