Click 
icon to download articles in Microsoft Word format (Best for Printing)
The Nation of Islam on the Trinity
Oneness Pentecostals on the Trinity
Sound Doctrine
Doctrine is one of the most important parts of our Christian lives. Without sound doctrine we would have no standard by which to live. We would have no concrete method in which we were able to judge whether or not a thing was true. Doctrine is to scripture as inch markers are to rulers. In other words, the Word of God is the set standard, and the doctrines contained within the Word of God are what allow us to measure the accuracy or truthfulness of a thing.
The Proverbs speak of God giving us “good doctrine” (Pro. 4:2) while Paul speaking to Timothy reveals that the doctrine of God is on par with his name because it can be blasphemed (1Tim. 6:1). We are told to “give attendance to reading, to exhortation, and to doctrine” (1Tim.
A Little Leaven
On the flip side of this coin we see in scripture that there are “doctrines of devils” (1Tim. 4:2). Jesus warned his disciples to “beware of the leaven [doctrine] of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees” (Mat. 16:6, 12). Paul tells us to “be no more children tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph.
Jesus plainly told us that the devil is a liar and the father of lies; he abode not in the truth because there was no truth in him. If we examine the various lies of Satan in scripture there is a theme that occurs quite often. He distorts the truth in order to weaken the strength of its message, and many times the lie is believed. We see this clearly in the Garden of Eden when the serpent tempted Eve. The serpent approached Eve and said to her that God had said not to eat of every tree of the garden (Gen. 3:1), when the true command was that they may eat freely of every tree in the garden with the exception of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:16-17).
A
It is needful to point out that there are a variety of logical fallacies which are used to argue against the Trinity. These include:
This is when a person’s argument is deliberately misrepresented so as to weaken its strength and subsequently make it easy to knock down. The problem being that the weaker argument is not the actual argument of the person being misrepresented.
There is no such thing as something that is perfectly analogous. In other words, all analogies fail at one point or another, but a faulty analogy is blatant. This fallacy occurs when the things being compared are relatively dissimilar.
Circular Reasoning or Begging the Question occurs when a premise is simply restated in the conclusion without actually having been proven true.
Slippery Slopes come in two forms, either causal or semantic. A causal slippery slope is when a series of small propositions (B-Y) are set forth in order to assert that A will result in Z, yet the strength of these steps is not firmly established. A semantic slippery slope relies on the vagueness between opposite terms in a continuum. This is not common to anti-Trinitarians while the first argument is.
Equivocation is a fallacy of ambiguity. Most if not all words have various meanings and equivocation occurs when one word is used with two or more of its meanings to make an argument appear valid, when in fact it is not.
An Appeal to Ridicule if a fallacy of mocking; rather than address the actual argument, an opponent will mock it and write it off due to the silliness or ridiculousness of the argument. There are times when it is proper to reject an argument based on the nonsensicalness of it, but it must first be proven nonsensical.
This list is but a sampling, there are various other logical fallacies used to argue against the doctrine of the Trinity. In the next section we will observe the various ways that people and groups who deny the truth of the Trinity misrepresent the teaching in order to prove their position correct. In addition to correcting the various errors that are espoused when these groups change the Trinity teaching, I will also be giving a little background information on these groups as well as their beliefs. There is one thing that every known non-Christian group has in common, and that is a denial of essential Christian doctrine, especially the Trinity.
The Nation of Islam’s Straw Man
Former head of the Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad in the opening paragraph to his now infamous book, Message to the Black Man in America is quoted as saying,
“For thousands of years, the people who did not have the knowledge of the person, or reality, of God worshiped their own ideas of God. He has been made like many things other than what He really is. The Christians refer to God as a "Mystery" and a "Spirit" and divide Him into thirds. One part they call the Father, another part the Son, and the third part they call the Holy Ghost-which makes the three, one. This is contrary to both nature and mathematics. The law of mathematics will not allow us to put three into one.”[i]
I’m sorry, but I didn’t know that dividing one into thirds was contrary to mathematics. I am not aware of a single mathematical principle that denies that one could be divided into thirds. Simple addition shows us that ⅓ + ⅓ + ⅓ = 1. It would have been contrary to mathematics if it was said that three wholes could be made from one whole, but Mr. Muhammad said it himself, THIRDS! But notice that straw man argument in stating this; in fact the Trinity doctrine doesn’t state that each member is a third of God.
As the Athanasian Creed states, “…we are compelled by the Christian verity: to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord” (vs. 19). No one of the three Persons is part of God; all three of them are wholly God. Because God is a simple being, he is not composed of parts. If he were composed of parts then some form of assembly would have been required in order for God to exist as he is; but God is the causeless cause of all things. Once again the Athanasian Creed echoes the words of scripture is stating that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all uncreated, incomprehensible [infinite], and eternal, yet there is only One uncreated, incomprehensible [infinite], and eternal God (vs. 8-12). This notion precludes any possibility of God being composed of parts.
Begging the Question
Then it was asserted that the doctrine of the Trinity is contrary to nature, but we must ask how exactly this is so. Simply asserting a natural contradiction does not prove that one exists. In this argument it is first assumed that a Unitarian conception of God is true, therefore a Trinitarian view is unnatural, and from this assumption the conclusion is drawn that the Trinity is contrary to nature. Here’s the problem, the thing assumed is unproven and until it is proven then the Nation of Islam (and all other Unitarians) are stuck in an endless cycle of circular reasoning.
Simply because there is nothing in nature that is truly analogous to God does not mean that God is contrary to nature. God is transcendent meaning that he goes above and beyond nature but this doesn’t necessitate a violation of nature. Yes, nature is a reflection of its creator and we can see certain things which on a surface level resemble God’s being and persons (i.e. time; space), but we must remember that knowledge of the Trinity is not derived from natural theology or reason, but rather special revelation (i.e. God’s Word).
He also says in the opening of the Chapter entitled, The So Called Negroes Salvation,
“The number one principle of belief is that your God is one God and beside Him you have no other god that can help you. I shall begin with this, the most important of all principles of belief. How many non-Muslims will we find who do not believe in God as being One God? Regardless of the trinity belief practiced by the Christians, they (the Christians) claim and agreed that Allah (God) is One God. They make fools of themselves when they reject Islam and the Muslim's five principals of belief: One God, His prophets, His Books, the Resurrection, The Judgment. How, then, did they (the Christians) go astray believing in three Gods? Nevertheless, they make one of the three the Father of the other two-and these remaining two the equal of the Father.”[ii]
More Straw Man Argumentation and Logical Contradictions
He then says, “regardless of the trinity belief… they (Christians) claim and believe that God is One God.” Allow me to correct this statement… In LIGHT OF the Trinity belief, we claim and agree that God is One God, not regardless of it. A Trinitarian framework is the only system which allows for unity, consistency, and harmony in the Biblical text. In other words, we’re forced into Trinitarianism if we want to maintain a rational view and conception of God. Now obviously the Muslim is not bound by such principles seeing as they reject much of the Bible.
But notice now that Elijah Muhammad has contradicted his above straw man argument by presenting another. First the claim was made that Christians worship one God in three thirds, each third being only a part of the one God. Now we are told that Christians who claim and agree that God is one God go astray worshipping three Gods! Mr. Muhammad needs to make up his mind—it’s either one in three parts, one, or three—all of them can’t be true!
Just to reiterate what has been said so many times before, we do not worship three gods. We worship one God who exists in three persons. And for all of you mathematicians out there who don’t see how 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, you’re using the wrong equation. Addition gives you the number of persons, which amounts to 3, while multiplication (1 x 1 x 1) gives you the number of Gods, which is 1. This also is not contrary to nature or mathematics. But we must realize that God cannot be reduced to a mathematical equation; just as He transcends the universe He also transcends the laws of it to include mathematics. Once again, this does not necessitate a violation of these laws, but it does indicate that he is beyond them.
Notes
[i] Muhammad, Elijah, Message to the Black Man in
[ii] Ibid., p. 26 [Italics mine]
Sabellian Heresy
The error of the Oneness believer is Modalism. This is not an accurate representation of the true oneness of God nor is it a new invention. This error fails to see a distinction between the persons of the Godhead, by stating that God is one person who assumes three roles, modes, manifestations, or offices. In other words, the Father is the Son and the Holy Spirit, while the Son is the Father and the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son, and they are all resident bodily in Jesus. Often you will see the Oneness Pentecostal say something along the lines of them worshipping God the Father in the Son as the Spirit or some variation of that.
They rely on a handful of pet scriptures that appear on the surface to support their conclusion, but like every other truth, when placed in their proper setting say nothing of the sort. This heresy surfaced in the church in the second century but gained momentum in the early third century with a man named Sabellius. I will list two very brief encyclopedic references to Sabellius just to get an idea of the origins of this heresy. I urge the reader to study the various heresies condemned by scripture and the church, so that you may have a solid foundation on exactly why not to believe them.
“The teaching of Sabellius himself was very closely allied to the older Modalism (Patripassianism) of Noetus and Praxeas, but was distinguished from it by its more careful theological elaboration and by the account it took of the Holy Spirit. His central proposition was to the effect that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same person, three names thus being attached to one and the same being. What weighed most with Sabellius was the monotheistic interest.”[i]
The “
“fl. 215, Christian priest and theologian, b. probably
The Legacy lives on
This is the view of the United Pentecostal Church International. Observe this quote from their statement of faith,
“In distinction to the doctrine of the Trinity, the UPCI holds to a oneness view of God. It views the Trinitarian concept of God, that of God eternally existing as three distinctive persons, as inadequate and a departure from the consistent and emphatic biblical revelation of God being one. The UPCI teaches that the one God who revealed Himself in the Old Testament as Jehovah revealed himself in His Son, Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus Christ was and is God. In other words, Jesus is the one true God manifested in flesh, for in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (John 1:1-14; I Timothy
The claim is made that the Trinity doctrine is a “departure from the consistent and emphatic biblical revelation of God being one” while they state nothing to support their reason for this belief, yet another case of begging the question. The assumption is that one God means one Person yet this assumption is never proven. The Trinity doctrine is a doctrine of God being one. This is yet another misrepresentation on the part of those who stand in opposition, and it is done for the express purpose of knocking down a sound doctrine.
Faulty Analogy
The following quotes are taken from the tract, 60 Questions on the Godhead with Bible answers:
“53. Can it be proved scripturally that Jesus and the Father are one in the same sense that husband and wife are one? No. The Godhead was never compared to the relationship of a husband and wife. Jesus identified Himself with the Father in a way that husband and wife cannot be identified with each other. John 14:9-11”[iv]
The Trinitarian argument is not that the Father and Jesus are one the same way that a husband and wife are one. The only comparison that would possibly be made here by a Trinitarian is that the Hebrew word for “one” (echad) is used to describe both. This is actually two logical fallacies in one. First they have created a faulty analogy and secondly they attribute this fallacious argument to Trinitarians and then attempt to knock it down when in fact we don’t hold this argument to begin with. It is equivalent to beating against the air. Trinitarians do believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one as nothing else in existence is one. Remember, there is no perfectly analogous picture of the intimate relationship shared within the Trinity.
Circular Reasoning
“56. Can Trinitarians show that three divine persons were present when Jesus was baptized by John? Absolutely not. The one, omnipresent God used three simultaneous manifestations. Only one divine person was present--Jesus Christ the Lord.”[v]
This question and response are typical of those who oppose the Trinity. A question is asked by a modalist and then answered by a modalist. Would one expect to receive a proper representation of the Trinitarian view here? Of course not, but they offer their answer, which is completely unfounded. Notice that all they have done here is re-state their premise in the conclusion without actually having shown this to be true. They’ve assumed that one God means one divine person and therefore conclude that three divine persons can not be shown at Jesus’ baptism.
But because Trinitarians can show the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be three persons and Trinitarians can show the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be present at Jesus’ baptism, it then logically follows that Trinitarians can show three divine persons present at Jesus’ baptism. It is a common argument from the modalist that the omnipresence of God accounts for all three modes or manifestations being at Jesus’ baptism but this claim is light on substance.
The fact is that God is omnipresent, but this is a trait shared by each member of the Godhead (refer to The Trinity Seen Systematically.). It is illogical to claim that Jesus in his deity (as the Father) spoke to Jesus in his humanity (as the Son) from heaven while Jesus as the Spirit (his omnipresent deity) descended upon himself (in his humanity). This violates the law of non-contradiction as the modalist would have one person being three persons at the same time and in the same sense. They might claim that these are not ‘persons’ at all but rather ‘three manifestations of one person’ but this is shown false in that each ‘manifestation’ exhibits the qualities of personhood. In the account of Jesus’ baptism alone we see at the very least the Father speaking and the Son being the subject of the words spoken as irrefutable proof of at least two personalities. Omnipresence does not account for such nonsense and the burden of proof is on the modalist to show such.
Semi-Scholarly
I have yet to read as extensive an attempted refutation to the Trinity and defense of the oneness position as David K. Bernard’s book, The Oneness of God. I see this work as probably the most representative teaching of modern oneness theology that we have today, and consequently this spells out their logic (or lack thereof) when arguing against orthodox Trinitarianism. According to the back cover of this book,
“David K. Bernard is the founding pastor of New Life United Pentecostal Church of Austin, Texas, the president of the Urshan Graduate School of Theology, the superintendent of the South Texas District UPC, a former college professor […] He holds a Master of Theology in New Testament from the
Considering his credentials, it is fair to say that Pastor Bernard is able to adequately represent the oneness position. For this reason I will be quoting him extensively. After quoting quite a few non-orthodox views of the Trinity by “Trinitarian” authors, Pastor Bernard comments saying,
“It is apparent that many trinitarians interpret their doctrine to mean three personalities, three beings, three minds, three wills, or three bodies in the Godhead. They deny that by person they mean only manifestations, roles, or relationships with man. Instead, they defend an eternal threeness of essence while admitting it to be an incomprehensible mystery. They reduce the concept of God's oneness to a unity of plural persons. By their definition, they convert monotheism into a form of polytheism, differing from pagan polytheism only in that there is perfect agreement and unity among the gods. Regardless of trinitarian denials, this is polytheism - tritheism to be exact - and not the monotheism taught by the Bible and upheld by Judaism.”[vii]
The first error we notice is that Mr. Bernard has taken a decidedly Mormon theology and represented it as the Trinitarian position. Orthodox Trinitarianism asserts one being who is God, while the second person of the one being of God was incarnated and possesses a body. We do not hold to the Father or the Holy Spirit having a body, nor do we see the persons of the Trinity as separate beings.
Secondly he misrepresents the Trinitarian position as defending “an eternal three-ness of essence” which is directly opposed to every known Trinitarian Creed ever written. The Nicene Creed expressly states that Jesus is “of the substance of the Father” and “being of one substance with the Father” as well as anathematizing anyone who would say that the Son “is of a different substance or essence from the Father.” The Athanasian Creed clearly says that “we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance.”
Thirdly we must point out that it is not by the Trinitarian definition that monotheism is turned into polytheism, but rather by the distorted definition that Pastor Bernard has credited Trinitarians with. We must also debunk the myth that plurality of persons necessitates polytheism. As has already been set forth numerous times throughout the course of this [site], what God is, is different from who God is. As stated [in the section The Necessity of a Definition] a person is simply one who is self-conscious, rational, and intelligent. Each member of the Trinity meets the definition of a person in that they are self-conscious, they reason, and they have intelligence.
We saw that in our systematic examination of the persons of the Godhead. Each of them speaks and has a will, which constitutes personality. We know that the Son has a will distinct from that of the Father from scriptures such as Luke
“Speaking of God as a person does not do justice to Him. The word person connotes a human being with a human personality - an individual with body, soul, and spirit. Thus, we limit our conception of God if we describe Him as a person. For this reason, this book has never said there is one person in the Godhead or God is one person. The most we have said is that Jesus Christ is one person, because Jesus was God manifested in flesh as a human person.”[viii]
Aside from redefining the terms (person does not connote humanity in reference to the Trinity), Pastor Bernard has engaged in a form of nonsensical double speak. In one breath he maintains that it’s an injustice to refer to God as a person as well as stating that his book never describes God as one person, yet in the next breath he affirms that Jesus who is God is one person! This cannot be veiled in the fact that Jesus has a human nature, because to the oneness believer, the Father and Holy Spirit is Jesus! They would have to separate the oneness they so strongly defend if they were to logically argue that God (the Father and Holy Spirit) have no human personality, body, soul, and spirit, for they cannot all be one and the same person who dwell bodily in the in Jesus, while Jesus is the only one with a body!
“The use of the number three in relation to God is also dangerous. If used to designate eternal distinctions in God, it leads to tritheism, which is a form of polytheism. If used to designate the only manifestations or roles God has, it limits God’s activity in a way not done in Scripture. God has manifested Himself in numerous ways, and we cannot even limit them to three. The use of three goes against the clear emphasis both testaments place on associating the number one with God… Despite the protests of trinitarians, their doctrine inevitably leads to a practical form of tritheism.”[ix]
It is asserted that if the number three is used in reference to making personal distinctions within the One God, then it leads to tri-theism, which is a form of polytheism. In other words, to be a Trinitarian believing in One God who is eternally existent as Three Persons, will lead tri-theism which is the belief in and worship of three gods, which of course is polytheism, and as we all know, polytheists believe in and worship many multitudes of gods. So in effect, the author demonstrates his inability to differentiate between being and person, and then comes to the conclusion that believing in one being who exists as three persons will lead to the belief in three beings, which is a form of belief in a multitude of beings. Does everyone have their skis?
“The Jews and Moslems realize this, for this is one reason they have rejected traditional Christendom so vigorously. Throughout history, many Christians have also recognized this problem. As a result, some have rejected trinitarianism in favor of Oneness belief. Others have seen the errors of trinitarianism, but, in an attempt to preserve the unity of God, have fallen into the greater error of denying the deity of Jesus Christ (for example, the Unitarians and the Jehovah's Witnesses). In short, trinitarianism emphasizes threeness in God while the Bible emphasizes the oneness of God.”[x]
There is ONE God, namely Yahweh → Yahweh consists of one substance/essence → This ONE substance/essence is shared equally by THREE persons namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. How is the emphasis on three over one? And if anyone could honestly claim that the Bible does not speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit then they are deceiving themselves. Yes, the Bible emphasizes the oneness of God, but so do Trinitarians! The Bible as well emphasizes the fact that there are three persons who are God, and so do Trinitarians!
[i] "SABELLIUS." LoveToKnow 1911 Online Encyclopedia. ©2003, 2004 LoveToKnow. http://21.1911encyclopedia.org/S/SA/SABELLIUS.htm
[ii] “Sabellius” The
[v] Ibid.
[vi] Bernard, David K., The Oneness of God, (
[vii] Ibid., pp. 259-60.
[ix] Ibid., p. 288
Amidst the various anti-Trinity writings that I have sifted through, there is none that misrepresents the doctrine more so than the work of the Jehovah’s Witnesses founder C. T. Russell entitled, The Atonement Between God and Man. Below is just a brief sampling of Russell’s distortion of orthodox Trinitarianism. Anyone familiar with the doctrine will see that he is not attacking the Trinity at all, but rather a caricature of it, and at times he is attacking modalism which he equates with Trinitarianism.
In reference to the Johannine Comma Charles Taze Russell said,
“There is one statement found in the Scriptures, and only one, which seems in the slightest degree to even imply the doctrine of a Trinity of Gods; and that passage is now admitted by all scholars to be spurious –an interpolation.”[i]
Notice the reliance on a straw man argument of tri-theism. There is no Trinity of gods, but rather a Trinity of Persons. As if this fallacious claim was not enough, Russell continues in his straw man arguments by claiming the other extreme.
“The doctrine of the Trinity holds that the Father, the Son and the holy Spirit "are one in person, equal in glory and in power," as stated in the Church creeds. The Bible, while showing the absolute Unity between the Father and Son and holy Spirit in the various steps of the great plan of salvation, most positively contradicts the thought that the Father and Son are one in person…”[ii]
It is absolutely true that the Bible contradicts the thought that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in person, Trinitarians do also! Russell moved from accusations of tri-theism to accusations of modalism.
Contradiction
“But, strange to say, this doctrine of three Gods in one God, which not only has no Scriptural support, but is opposed by the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation…”[iii]
If it weren’t already bad enough that Russell felt the need to label both tri-theism and modalism with the title of Trinitarianism, now he has represented the doctrine as being a contradiction. As has been stated repeatedly throughout this book, the Trinity is not 3 gods in 1 God because it would violate the law of non-contradiction for 3 to be 1 at the same time and in the same sense. However, 3 Persons in 1 God does not violate this law because they are each God at the same time, but in a different sense (i.e. the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, the Holy Spirit is not the Father).
Role Reversal
“How strange that any should attempt to misuse and pervert these our Lord's words, to make them support the unreasonable and unscriptural doctrine of a Trinity--three Gods in one person.”[iv]
Russell has run the entire gambit of illogic in this chapter of his book. He went from straw man arguments and false analogies, to contradictions, and now a blatant role reversal. He takes the Christian doctrine of the Trinity which asserts that there is One God in Three Persons and flips it into “Three Gods in one person.” And as I stated earlier, these quotes are only a brief sampling. Russell literally distorts the doctrine of the Trinity dozens upon dozens of times in this single volume of a 6 volume work. Sadly, these are the charges that Trinitarians must face when defending the God of scripture.
Faulty Analogies
The following quotes are from the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society Brochure, Should You Believe in the Trinity Let’s take a look at how the Jehovah’s Witnesses represent the Trinity and see if it is the same doctrine that Christianity teaches…
“Many centuries before the time of Christ, there were triads, or trinities, of gods in ancient
The only legitimate comparison between this ancient Mesopotamian triad and the Trinity of scripture is the number three, but the similarities stop there. The quote readily affirms three gods while the Trinity consists of three Persons. Each god of the triad resides over a domain of a divided universe. The Trinity teaches one God who is Lord over the entire universe (Ac.
The book “The Symbolism of Hindu Gods and Rituals” says regarding a Hindu trinity that existed centuries before Christ: “Siva is one of the gods of the Trinity. He is said to be the god of destruction. The other two gods are Brahma, the god of creation and Vishnu, the god of maintenance. . . . To indicate that these three processes are one and the same the three gods are combined in one form.”—Published by A. Parthasarathy,
Once again, a weak analogy is drawn between one indivisible God which exists as three inseparable persons and three gods in a triad. The above quote readily admits the Hindu view of the “Trimurti” (Hindu Trinity) as three gods. This is blatant tri-theism. But there is actually another view which is just as inconsistent with Trinitarianism as the above. This other view is explained in The New Book of Knowledge,
“Hindus believe that there is one spirit that runs through everything in the world – plants, animals, and human beings. Because a part of the spirit is found in each of us, we are all united spiritually. Hindus call this unifying spirit Brahman. […] Hindus worship many gods that represent different sides of Brahman, or pure spirit. The most important are Siva the Destoyer, Vishnu the Preserver, Ganesha the Giver of Success, and Kartikeya, a son of the Divine Mother of the universe. Hindus also worship goddesses which represent in different ways the power of Brahman called the Divine Mother. Among them are the goddesses Kali, Durga, Laksmi, and Saraswati. […] Brahma the Creator is another important god, but Hindus do not worship him with the devotion with which they worship the other gods.”[vii]
The analogy crumbles in light of the facts presented:
1. Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva are actually various manifestations of the Brahman (not to be confused with Brahma). But they are not the only exclusive manifestations, but rather this “unifying spirit” is believed to be in all things!
2. Hindus worship many gods whereas Trinitarians worship only one!
3. There are many other gods that Hindus worship aside from the three in the Trimurti. It seems as though those who oppose the Trinity only like to single out three from the many others in order to draw a faulty analogy.
4. The power of Brahman is represented as the Divine Mother, a far cry from God the Father!
5. Brahma is not afforded the same worship as the other two gods of the Trimurti, Siva, and Vishnu. Brahma is not even given the same worship as the goddesses that represent the power of Brahman!
Loaded Question
“… some argue that Jesus is not simply the Son of God but that he is actually God himself. They say that he and his Father are both Almighty God. Are they correct? Is Jesus somehow part of God?”[viii]
This question presupposes that God consists of parts and Jesus could be one of these parts. The question is flawed from its inception, for it must first be proven that God is a combination of parts. This of course cannot be proven because it is not true. God is eternal, immutable, indivisible, and one. In other words, God is a simple being. Innumerable scriptures could be set forth to prove this assertion, but I will show it in a brief and concise manner. I will provide the explanation in three points: (1) God’s immateriality, (2) God’s indivisibility, (3) God’s self-existence (i.e. pure actuality).
Immaterial Being
Scripture presents a God who is Spirit (Jo.
Indivisible Being
Scripture affirms that there is but one God Almighty yet applies this title to both the Father and the Son (Gen. 35:11, Rev. 1:8). Jesus said, “I and my Father are one” (Jo.
Self-Existent Being
The Bible presents us with an eternal God (Deut. 33:27 cf. Rom.
None of the misrepresentations of the Jehovah’s Witnesses are what the Bible teaches concerning the Trinity. If they were to attack the actual biblical doctrine of the Trinity then they would find that they couldn’t prove it false. I am reminded of Jesus’ words in Luke 6:47-49,
"Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like: He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream bea