Context and relevance

False views on the Trinity

The Holy Spirit is given personal traits and spoken of as a Person, not as a mere force, power, or energy. 3

Some Oneness followers will say that when Jesus prayed to God in heaven, it was the human nature praying to the divine nature. But natures don’t pray, individuals pray. Also, it would be deceptive on God’s part to make it appear as though Jesus is praying to someone else when, in fact, he is not.

The Arian Jesus of the non-Trinity, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Christadelphians, the Way, and other cults, is a created being. He has a beginning and is not equal to the Father. This is clearly a false Jesus and is easier to refute than the modalist/Oneness Jesus, which is arguably more deceptive and more difficult to refute.

Arius (250-336) taught that Jesus was a created, finite being, and he was declared a heretic by the Council of Nicea in 325. So it is not the true Jesus if it is a Modalist/Oneness Jesus or the Arian Jesus, and therefore, belief in such a Jesus is fruitless.

Objection: “We aren’t saved by perfect doctrine.”

No, we are not saved by doctrine but by faith, but that faith must be an informed faith. If our doctrine about who Jesus or God is is wrong, then we don’t have faith in the right Jesus. We can have minor things wrong, but not about who Jesus is, because then we have a wrong Jesus, making him non-salvific.

Doctrine merely means “teaching.” The teachings about who God and Jesus are must be true and based on God’s revelation in Scripture. Otherwise, it’s a counterfeit God or Jesus. This is really quite basic. This objection is a straw man.

Just because the word “Jesus” is used by Oneness followers or by Arians does not mean it is the right Jesus. Pay attention to statements of faith because Oneness statements of faith can be quite tricky in their deception. They may say they believe in the “Triune God” without meaning the biblical Trinity.

Modalists can affirm the Apostles’ Creed without belief in the Trinity. They read their own meaning into who Jesus is. An example is the Statement of Beliefs on the website of Dan Dean’s Oneness church (Phillips, Craig & Dean). It gives the Apostles’ Creed as their beliefs, along with other statements. There is no affirmation of the Trinity and no statement clarifying the personhood of the Holy Spirit (because they are a Oneness church 4).

Is 1 John 5:7 not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the KJV?

Question: Is it true that 1 John 5:7 is not in any Greek manuscript before the 1600s? If it is true, why is it in the King James Bible?

Answer: 1 John 5:7 belongs in the King James Bible and was preserved by faithful Christians. But the passage was removed from many Greek manuscripts, because of the problems it seemed to cause.

It is true that there is a small number of Scriptures that are not the same between the King James Bible and the so-called "Majority" Greek text. There are a number of reasons for this:

1. The so-called "Majority" text was not really based on the majority of texts, but rather a relatively small number of manuscripts. The last person to try to find the differences between the majority of Greek manuscripts, Dr. Von Soden, did not collate more than 400 of the more than 5,000 Greek texts. In other words, what is commonly called the "Majority" Greek text is not a collation of the majority of manuscripts at all.

2. The "Majority" Greek text is also the main Greek text used by the Eastern Orthodox religion. They had a vested interest in changing (or deleting) some texts. More on this in a moment.

3. 1 John itself is not in a large number of extant Greek manuscripts.

So why then is 1 John 5:7 in the King James Bible, but not in many of the existing Greek manuscripts? To understand the answer, we must look at the history of what happened shortly after the Bible was written.

The Greek and Roman Institutions

During the early growth of the Christian church, ministers (whether saved or not) wrote down doctrines that they said were Christian and Biblical. Starting after the death of the apostles (about 100 AD) many people taught the lie that Jesus was not God the Son and Son of God, or that Jesus became God at His baptism, or the false doctrine that the Holy Spirit was not God or was not eternal.

The growing religion that became known as Roman Catholic, after many debates eventually agreed on the doctrine of the Trinity. So they had no reason to remove 1 John 5:7 from their Bibles, since it supported what they taught.

But the Greek Eastern Orthodox religion was combating a heresy called "Sabellianism," and would have found it easier to combat the heresy by simply removing the troubling passage from their Bibles.

There is a difficulty with these lines - they may not have been in the original text of the Epistle. In any case, they are not in any of the oldest surviving New Testament manuscripts in Greek - neither in the Sinai Codex, nor in the Vatican (both date back to the 4th century), nor in the Alexandrian (5th century). The ancient Fathers of the Church, with a few exceptions, did not quote this verse. Therefore, today many Western editions of the New Testament are published without these words. There are, however, quite weighty arguments in favor of the authenticity of this verse, notes Archpriest Oleg Davydenkov, doctor of theology, professor at St. Tikhon's Orthodox University for the Humanities. 

It has been established, in particular, that the controversial lines were contained in the so-called Vetus Itala - an Old Latin translation of the Bible, made in the II-III centuries from the Greek original. This verse is also found in many Syrian and Armenian ancient manuscripts. In the middle of the 4th century St. Athanasius the Great referred to him, and somewhat later, St. Gregory the Theologian. It is possible that these lines disappeared from the Greek manuscripts due to the efforts of the Arians, suggests Father Oleg. The Arians were the followers of the Alexandrian heretic Arius, who considered Jesus Christ not God, but only the highest of God's creations. For several decades of the 4th century, the Arians played a dominant role in the part of the Church that was located in the eastern Roman Empire, including in the territories of Greece and present-day Turkey. In the West, the Arian heresy has never received serious support. Perhaps that is why in the old Latin translation of the Bible and in those translations that were performed from the Latin, the lines about the "three heavenly Witnesses" were preserved. 

A Trail of Evidence

But during this same time, we find mention of 1 John 5:7, from about 200 AD through the 1500s. Here is a useful timeline of references to this verse:

200 AD

Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.

250 AD

Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)

350 AD

Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]

350 AD

Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]

350 AD

Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione

398 AD

Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism

415 AD

Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)

450-530 AD

Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:

    A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"

    B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]

    C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]

500 AD

Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]

550 AD

Old Latin ms r has it 

550 AD

The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]

750 AD

Wianburgensis referred to it

800 AD

Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]

1000s AD

miniscule 635 has it

1150 AD

minuscule ms 88 in the margin

1300s AD

miniscule 629 has it

157-1400 AD

Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse

1500 AD

ms 61 has the verse

Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

The Vaudois

Now the "Waldensian," or "Vaudois" Bibles stretch from about 157 to the 1400s AD. The fact is, according to John Calvin's successor Theodore Beza, that the Vaudois received the Scriptures from missionaries of Antioch of Syria in the 120s AD and finished translating it into their Latin language by 157 AD. This Bible was passed down from generation, until the Reformation of the 1500s, when the Protestants translated the Vaudois Bible into French, Italian, etc. This Bible carries heavy weight when finding out what God really said. John Wesley and Jonathan Edwards believed, as most of the Reformers, that the Vaudois were the descendants of the true Christians, and that they preserved the Christian faith for the Bible-believing Christians today.

Who Has the Most to Gain? Who Has the Most to Lose?

The evidence of history shows us that the Roman Catholic religion was relentless in its effort to destroy the Vaudois and their Bible. It took them until the 1650s to finish their hateful attacks. But the Vaudois were successful in preserving God's words to the days of the Reformation.

Now we have to ask ourselves a question: Who had the most to gain by adding to or taking away from the Bible? Did the Vaudois, who were being killed for having their Bibles, have anything to gain by adding to or taking from the words of God? Compromise is what the Roman religion wanted! Had the Vaudois just followed the popes, their lives would have been much easier. But they counted the cost. This was not politics; it was their life and soul. They above all people would not want to change a single letter of the words they received from Antioch of Syria. And they paid for this with their lives.

What about the "scholars" at Alexandria, Egypt? We already know about them. They could not even make their few 45 manuscripts agree. How could we believe they preserved God's words?

The Reformation itself owes a lot to these Christians in the French Alps. They not only preserved the Scriptures, but they show to what lengths God would go to keep his promise (Psalm 12:6-7).

And that's only part of the story about the preservation of God's words.

This One God Is the Single Divine Being Known in the OT as Jehovah or Yahweh (“The LORD”)

A. This one God is known in the OT as Jehovah or Yahweh (“the LORD”)

1. Texts where Jehovah is said to be elohim or el: Deut. 4:35, 39; Josh. 22:34; 1 Kings 8:60; 18:21, 39; Ps. 100:3; 118:27; etc.

2. Texts where the compound name “Jehovah God” (Yahweh Elohim) is used: Gen. 2:4-9, 15-22; 3:1, 8-9, 13-14, 21-23; 24:3; Ex. 9:30; Ps. 72:18; 84:11; Jonah 4:6

3. Only one Yahweh/Jehovah: Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29

4. The Bible never speaks of “the gods” as a group that includes Yahweh; nor is creation ever credited to “gods”; nor does it ever enjoin the worship of “gods”; nor does it speak in any other way that would imply that Yahweh was one of a group of deities. In fact the Bible explicitly rejects these types of statements (e.g., Deut. 5:6-10; 6:4-5, 13; Is. 43:10; 44:6-8, 24).

5. Conclusion: Jehovah is the only God, the only El or Elohim

B. This one God, the LORD, is one single divine being

1. The Bible always refers to the LORD or God in the third person singular (he, his, him), never as they, and speakers in the Bible addressing God/the LORD always do so in the second person singular (you singular). Citing texts is really unnecessary because there are far too many occurrences, but see, for example, Gen. 1:5, 10; Ex. 3:6, 12-14; 20:7; Deut. 32:39; 1 Kings 18:39; Ps. 23:2-3.

2. Whenever in the Bible the LORD or God speaks to human beings or other creatures, he always speaks of himself in the first person singular (I, andmy/mine, not us/we and our/ours). Of the obviously numerous examples, see the especially famous examples in Ex. 3:14; Ex. 20:2; Deut. 5:6. He says “I am the LORD” or “I am the LORD your/their God” some 164 times in the OT (especially in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Isaiah, and Ezekiel).

3. This conclusion cannot be circumvented by saying that there is one “Godhead” consisting of a plurality of divine beings. The word “Godhead” is equivalent to the word “Godhood” (-head is an old English suffix meaning the state or status of something, as in maidenhead, the state of being a maiden or virgin). In the English Bible it is used to translate three closely related words: theion (“divine being,” Acts 17:29), theiotês (“divine nature,” Rom. 1:20), and theotês (“deity,” Col. 2:9). In none of these texts does “Godhead” refer to more than one divine being. The use of “Godhead” as a term for the Trinity is not found in the Bible; it is not inaccurate per se, but it must be understood as a term for a single divine being, not a group of gods.

C. However, the Bible never says that God is “one person.”

1. Heb. 1:3 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but the word used here, hupostasis, is translated “substance” in Heb. 11:1 KJV; also in Heb. 1:3 “God” refers specifically to the Father.

2. Gal. 3:20 speaks of God as one party in the covenant between God and man, not as one person.

3. Job 13:8 KJV speaks of God’s “person,” but ironically the Hebrew literally means “his faces.”

D. The use of plural pronouns by God in Genesis 1-11

1. As already noted, the Bible always refers to God in the singular, and he always speaks of himself with singular pronouns (I, me, mine, my) when addressing creatures. These singular forms do not disprove that God exists as three “persons” as long as these persons are not separate beings.

2. At least three times God speaks of or to himself using plural pronouns (Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7), and nontrinitarian interpretations cannot account for these occurrences.

a. A plural reference to God and the angels is not likely in these texts. In 1:26 “our image” is explained by the parallel in 1:27, “in God’s image.” In 3:22 “like one of us” refers back to 3:5, “like God.” In 11:7 “let us go down and there confuse their language” is explained immediately in 11:8-9, “So the LORD [Yahweh] scattered them abroad from there … The LORD confused the language of the whole earth.” Angels were evidently present when God created human beings (cf. Job 38:4-7), but the Bible never includes them as participants in creating human beings. Nor does the Bible ever speak of humans as being in the image of angels.

b. That the plural is in some way literal is evident from 3:22 (“like one of us”) and from 11:7 (“Come, let us go down”), which parallels the people’s statements “Come, let us …” (11:3, 4).

c. The “literary plural” (possibly, though never clearly, attested in Paul) is irrelevant to OT texts in which God is speaking, not writing.

d. The “plural of deliberation” or “cohortative plural” (as in “Let’s see now …”) with reference to a single person is apparently unattested in biblical writings, and clearly cannot explain the plural in Gen. 3:22 (“like one of us”).

e. The “plural of amplitude” or of “fullness” (which probably does explain the use of the plural form elohim in the singular sense of “God”) is irrelevant to the use of plural pronouns, and again cannot explain Gen. 3:22 and 11:7.

f. The “plural of majesty” (the royal “we”) is possibly attested in 1 Kings 12:9; 2 Chron. 10:9; more likely Ezra 4:18; but none of these is a certain use of that idiom; and again, it cannot explain Gen. 3:22 and 11:7.

3. There are two factors that may explain why these intradivine plural pronouns occur only in Genesis 1-11.

a. These plural pronouns express communication among the divine persons, rather than communication from God to human beings or angelic creatures.

b. It may be significant that the use of these plural forms is reported only in Genesis 1-11, prior to the revelations to Abraham, when the focus of biblical revelation became the fostering of a monotheistic faith. The history of the OT is a history of the struggle to establish Israel as a community committed to belief in one God. In that context it would have been confusing to have referred overtly to the three divine persons of the triune God. This also explains why there is no overt revelation of the three persons in the OT.

E. The uniqueness of God should prepare us for the possibility that the one divine Being exists uniquely as a plurality of persons

1. Only one God, thus unique: see I.A

2. None are even like God: see I.B

3. God cannot be fully comprehended: Is. 40:18, 25; 1 Cor. 8:2-3

4. God can be known only insofar as the Son reveals Him: Matt. 11:25-27; John 1:18

5. Analogical language needed to describe God: Ezek. 1:26-28; Rev. 1:13-16

6. God is transcendent, entirely distinct from and different than the universe, as the carpenter is distinct from the bench

a. Separate from the world: Is. 40:22; Acts 17:24

b. Contrasted with the world: Ps. 102:25-27; 1 John 2:15-17

c. Created the world: Gen. 1:1; Ps. 33:6; 102:25; Is. 42:5; 44:24; John 1:3; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:2; 11:3

The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is God

A. Explicit statements: John 5:18; 6:27; 17:1, 3; 20:17; 1 Cor. 8:6; 2 John 3; etc

B. The expression, “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”: Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; Col. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3; see also 2 Cor. 11:31; Eph. 1:17; Rev. 1:6

(Note: No attempt is made here to argue at length for this premise of the doctrine of the Trinity, since those who profess some form of Christian faith rarely, if ever, dispute it.)

The Son, Jesus Christ, Is God

A. Explicit statements identifying Jesus as “God”

1. Is. 9:6; note 10:21. Translations which render the Hebrew el gibbôr here as “mighty hero” are inconsistent in their rendering of 10:21. Also note that Ezek. 32:21, which some try to cross-reference, is (a) not in the same context, as is Is. 10:21, and (b) speaking of false gods, cf. I.G.5. Some object that “mighty God” is simply theophoric (i.e., in which a person’s name says something about God, not about himself). However, this is not true of the rest of the compound name, which is descriptive of the Messiah himself (note especially “Prince of Peace”). It certainly makes no sense to argue both that the expression el gibbôr means merely “mighty hero” and that it is a theophoric description of God. In light of the NT, we should understand it as a description of the Messiah as God.

2. John 1:1. Even if Jesus is here called “a god” (as some have argued), since there is only one God, Jesus is that God. However, the “a god” rendering is incorrect. Other NT passages using the Greek word for God (theos) in the same construction are always rendered “God”: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:38; John 8:54; Phil. 2:13; Heb. 11:16. Passages in which a shift occurs from ho theos (“the God”) to theos (“God”) never imply a shift in meaning: Mark 12:27; Luke 20:37-38; John 3:2; 13:3; Rom. 1:21; 1 Thess. 1:9; Heb. 9:14; 1 Pet. 4:10-11. In context, the preincarnate Christ (called “the Word”) is eternal (existing before creation, 1:1-2), is credited with creation (1:3, 10), is the object of faith (1:12), and has the divine glory (1:14)—all of which shows that he really is God.

3. John 1:18. The best manuscripts have “God” here, not “Son.” The word monogenês, frequently rendered “only-begotten,” actually means “one of a kind,” “unique,” though in the NT always in the context of a son or daughter. Even if one translates “only-begotten,” the idea is not of a “begotten god” as opposed to an “unbegotten god.” The best translation is probably “God the only Son” (NRSV).

4. John 20:28. Compare Rev. 4:11, in which the same author (John) uses the same construction in the plural (“our”) instead of the singular (“my”). See also Ps. 35:23. Note that Christ’s response indicates that Thomas’s acclamation was not wrong. Also note that John 20:17 does show that the Father was Jesus’ “God” (due to Jesus becoming a man), but the words “my God” as spoken by Thomas later in the same chapter must mean no less than in v. 17. Thus, what the Father is to Jesus in his humanity, Jesus is to Thomas (and therefore to us as well).

5. Acts 20:28: “the church of God which he purchased with his own blood.” The variant readings (e.g. “the church of the Lord”) show that the original wording was understood to mean “his own blood,” not “the blood of his own [Son]” (since otherwise no one would have thought to change it). (No one seems to have thought to understand the text to mean “the blood of his own” until about a hundred years ago.) Thus all other renderings are attempts to evade the startling clarity and meaning of this passage.

6. Rom. 9:5. While grammatically this is not the only possible interpretation, the consistent form of doxologies in Scripture, as well as the smoothest reading of the text, supports the identification of Christ as “God” in this verse.

7. Titus 2:13. Grammatically and contextually, this is one of the strongest proof texts for the deity of Christ. Sharp’s first rule, properly understood, proves that the text should be translated “our great God and Savior” (cf. same construction in Luke 20:37; Rev. 1:6; and many other passages). Note also that Paul always uses the word “manifestation” (“appearing”) of Christ: 2 Thess. 2:8; 1 Tim. 6:14; 2. Tim. 1:10; 4:1, 8. The view that Paul means that Jesus Christ is “the glory of our great God and Savior” has several difficulties. For example, construing “Savior” as someone other than “Jesus Christ” in this context is awkward and implausible. Such alternate explanations would never have been entertained had Paul written “the appearing of the glory of our great Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” Thus, the root problem is the assumption that Paul could not have called Jesus God.

8. Heb. 1:8. The rendering, “God is your throne,” is nonsense—God is not a throne, he is the one who sits on the throne! Also, “God is your throne,” if taken to mean God is the source of one’s rule, could be said about any angelic ruler—but Hebrews 1 is arguing that Jesus is superior to the angels.

9. 2 Pet. 1:1. The same construction is used here as in Titus 2:13; see the parallel passages in 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18. See comments above on Titus 2:13.

10. 1 John 5:20. Admittedly, biblical scholars are split on whether the “true God” in this text is the Father or the Son. Three considerations favor the Son. First, the closest antecedent for “this one” is Jesus Christ (“in his Son Jesus Christ. This one…”). Second, in 1:2 the “eternal life” is Jesus Christ (who was “with the Father”), an apparent example of inclusio (repetition of a theme or idea at the beginning and end of a text). Third, the confession form “This one is …” (houtos estin) strongly favors Jesus Christ, rather than the Father, as the subject, since John uses this language repeatedly with regard to Christ (John 1:30, 33, 34; 4:29, 42; 6:14, 42, 50, 58; 7:18, 25, 26, 40, 41; 1 John 5:6; of the man born blind, John 9:8, 9, 19, 20; of the disciple, John 21:24; of the anti-Christ, 1 John 2:22; 2 John 1:7), but not once for the Father. John has just used this formula for Christ earlier in the same chapter (1 John 5:6).

B. Jesus is Jehovah/Yahweh (the Lord)

1. Rom. 10:9-13: Note the repeated “for” (gar), which links these verses closely together. The “Lord” of 10:13 (where kurios, “Lord,” translates the HebrewYahweh) must be the “Lord” of 10:9, 12.

2. Phil. 2:9-11. In context, the “name that is above every name” is “Lord” (vs. 11), i.e., Jehovah.

3. Heb. 1:10: Here God the Father addresses the Son as “Lord,” in a quotation from Ps. 102:25 (cf. 102:24, where the person addressed is called “God”). Since here the Father addresses the Son as “Lord,” this cannot be explained away as a text in which a creature addresses Christ as God/Lord in a merely representational sense.

4. 1 Pet. 2:3-4: This verse is nearly an exact quotation of Ps. 34:8a, where “Lord” is Jehovah. From 1 Pet. 2:4-8 it is also clear that “the Lord” in v. 3 is Jesus.

5. 1 Pet. 3:13-15: these verses are a clear reference to Is. 8:12-13, where the one who is to be regarded as holy is Jehovah.

6. Texts where Jesus is spoken of as the “one Lord” (cf. Deut. 6:4; Mark 12:29): 1 Cor. 8:6; Eph. 4:5; cf. Rom. 10:12; 1 Cor. 12:5.

7. Many other texts that call Jesus “Lord” do so in ways that equate him with Yahweh: Matt. 3:3, Mark 1:3, and Luke 3:4 (cf. Is. 40:3); Matt. 7:21-22 and Luke 6:46; Matt. 8:25 and 14:30 (cf. Ps. 118:25); Acts 1:24 (addressing the Lord Jesus [cf. v. 21] in prayer and attributing to him divine knowledge); 2:21 (cf. Joel 2:32), 36; 7:59-60; 8:25; 1 Cor. 1:2 (calling on the Lord), 8 (the day of the Lord) [etc.], 31 (cf. Jer. 9:23-24); 2:16 (cf. Is. 40:13); 4:4-5; 5:4 (gathering in the name of the Lord); 6:11; 7:17, 32-35 (devotion to the Lord); 10:21-22; etc.

C. Jesus has many other names or titles of God

1. Titles belonging only to God

a. The First and the Last (Beginning and End, Alpha and Omega): Rev. 1:7-8, 17b-18; 2:8; 22:13; cf. Is. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12; Rev. 21:6

b. King of kings and Lord of lords: Rev. 17:14; 19:16; cf. Dan. 4:37; 1 Tim. 6:15

2. Titles belonging in the ultimate sense only to God

a. Savior: Luke 2:11; John 4:42; Phil. 3:20; 2 Tim. 1:10; Titus 2:13, cf. v. 10; 2 Pet. 1:11; 2:20; 3:2, 18; 1 John 4:14; cf. Is. 43:11; 45:21-22; 1 Tim. 4:10; on Jesus becoming the source of salvation; Heb. 5:9, cf. Ex. 15:2; Ps. 118:14, 21

b. Shepherd: John 10:11; Heb. 13:20; cf. Ps. 23:1; Is. 40:11

c. Bridegroom/Husband: Matt. 22:2; 25:1-13; Mark 2:19; John 3:29; 2 Cor. 11:2; Eph. 5:25-27; Rev. 19:7-9; 21:2, 9; cf. Is. 54:5; 62:5; Jer. 31:32

d. Rock: 1 Cor. 10:4; cf. Is. 44:8

3. Jesus’ self-declarations—his “I am” sayings

a. Jesus’ “I am” (egô eimi) sayings with a predicate declare his divine functions: “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35, 48; cf. 6:41, 51), “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12), “I am the gate” of the sheep (John 10:7, 9), “I am the good shepherd” (10:11, 14), “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25), “I am the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6), “I am the [true] vine” (John 15:1, 5). In these sayings Jesus essentially claims to be everything his people need for eternal life.

b. Jesus’ “I am” (egô eimi) sayings without a predicate declare his divine identity as the divine Son come to be the Messiah: “I am [he]; do not fear” (Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20; cf. Is. 43:2, 5); “I am [he]” (Mark 14:62); “I am [he], the one speaking to you” (John 4:26, cf. Is. 52:6); “unless you believe that I am [he] you will die in your sins…then you will know that I am [he]” (John 8:24, 28, cf. Is. 43:10-11); “before Abraham came into being, I am” or “I am [he]” (John 8:58, note v. 59); “I know the ones I have chosen…you will believe that I am [he]” (John 13:18-19, cf. Is. 43:10); “I am [he]” (John 18:5, cf. vv. 6-8). Note the many parallels to the “I am” sayings of God in Isaiah, which virtually all biblical scholars agree are echoed by Jesus’ “I am” sayings in John. Some scholars also see at least an indirect connection to God’s declaration “I am who I am” in Ex. 3:14 (especially for John 8:58).

4. The NT gives an extraordinary emphasis on Jesus’ “name,” stating that it is the highest of all names, Eph. 1:21; Phil. 2:9-11; referring to it as “the Name,” Acts 5:41; 3 John 7; glorifying his name, Acts 19:13-18, cf. Ps. 20:7. Christians call on his name for salvation; they get baptized and receive forgiveness of sins and eternal life in his name; they cast out demons in his name; they suffer and risk their lives for his name; they do everything in his name: Matt. 7:22; 10:22; 19:29; 24:9; Mark 9:38-39; 13:13; Luke 10:17; 21:12, 17; John 1:12; 15:21; 20:31; Acts 2:21, 36, 38; 3:6, 16; 4:7, 10, 12, 17-18; 30; 5:28; 8:16; 9:14, 21, 27-28; 10:43, 48; 15:26; 16:18; 19: 5; 21:13; 22:16; Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:13-15; 6:11; Col. 3:17; 1 Pet. 4:14; 1 John 2:12; 1 John 3:23; 5:13; Rev. 2:3, 13; 3:8.

D. Jesus received the honors due to God alone

1. Honor: John 5:23; Heb. 3:3-4

2. Love: Matt. 10:37; Luke 14:26; John 14:15, 21; 15:10; Eph. 6:24

3. Prayer: John 14:14 (the word “me” in the text is debated, but in any case it is Jesus who answers the prayer); Acts 1:24-25; 7:59-60 (cf. Luke 23:34, 46); 9:14; 22:16; Rom. 10:12-13; 1 Cor. 1:2; 16:22; 2 Cor. 12:8-10 (where “the Lord” must be Jesus, cf. v. 9); 2 Thess. 2:16-17; Rev. 22:20-21

4. Worship (proskuneô): Matt. 2:2, 11; 8:2; 9:18; 14:33; 15:25; 20:20; 28:9, 17 (cf. Matt. 4:9-10); Phil. 2:10-11 (cf. Is. 45:23); Heb. 1:6 (cf. Ps. 97:7); Rev. 1:17; 5:14 (cf. Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9)

5. Religious or sacred service (latreuô): Dan. 7:14; Rev. 22:1-3

6. Doxological praise: 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 13:20-21; 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Pet. 3:18; Rev. 1:5-6; 5:13

7. Song: Eph. 5:19; Rev. 5:9-10; cf. Ps. 92:1; 95:1; 96:2; etc.

8. Fear/reverence: 2 Cor. 5:10-11; Eph. 5:21; 6:7-8; Col. 3:22-25; 1 Pet. 3:14-16; cf. Deut. 6:13; 10:20; Prov. 1:7; 2:5; 9:10; etc.; Is. 8:12-13

9. Faith: Matt. 9:28; John 1:12; 3:15-18, 36; 6:35, 40; 7:37-39; 8:24; 11:25-26; 14:1; 20:31; Acts 3:16; 10:43; 16:31; 20:21; 22:19; 24:24; 26:18; Rom. 9:33; 10:11; Gal. 3:26; 1 Pet. 2:6; 1 John 3:23; 5:1, 10, 13

E. Jesus does the works of God

1. Creation: John 1:3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16; Heb. 1:2, 10; Rev. 3:14 (where archê probably means ruler or head); on “through” and “in” Christ, cf. Rom. 11:36; Heb. 2:10; Acts 17:28; cf. also Is. 44:24

2. Sustains the universe: Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:3, 11-12

3. Demonstrating divine sovereignty over nature: Matt. 8:23-27 par.; Matt. 14:13-33 par.; Matt. 15:32-39; Matt. 17:24-27; Mark 5:19-20; Luke 5:1-11; 7:11-16; John 2:1-11; John 21:1-14

4. Speaking with divine authority: Matt. 5:20-22, etc.; 7:24-29; 24:35; Mark 1:22; 13:31; Luke 4:32; John 4:26; 7:46; cf. “Amen I say to you” (74 times in the Gospels); “the word of the Lord,” Acts 8:25; 13:44, 48-49; 15:35-36; 16:32; 19:10, 20; 1 Thess. 4:15

5. Salvation:

a. In general: See C.2.a. above

b. Forgives sins: Matt. 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26; note that Jesus forgives sins not committed against him.

c. Sends the Spirit and his gifts: Matt. 3:11; Luke 24:49; John 1:33; 4:10, 15; 7:37-39; 15:26; 16:7-14; 20:22; Acts 2:33; Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 12:5; Eph. 4:8-11

d. All spiritual blessings (with the Father): Eph. 1:2-3; 2 Thess. 2:16-17; 1 Tim. 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:2; 2 John 3; Rev. 1:4; etc.

6. Raising the dead: John 2:19-22; 5:28-29; 6:40, 54; 10:17-18, 27-28 (cf. Deut. 32:39); 11:25-26; Acts 2:24

7. Judgment: Matt. 25:31-46; John 5:22-23; Acts 10:42; 17:31; Rom. 2:16; 1 Cor. 4:4-5; 2 Cor. 5:10; 2 Thess. 1:7-8; 2 Tim. 4:1; Rev. 2:23

8. All of them: John 5:19

F. Jesus has all the attributes of God

1. All of them: John 1:1; 12:45; 14:7-10; Rom. 8:29; 2 Cor. 4:4; Phil. 2:6; Col. 1:13, 15, 19; 2:9; Heb. 1:3

2. Self-existent: John 5:26

3. Unchangeable: Heb. 1:10-12 (in the same sense as YHWH); 13:8

4. Eternal: John 1:1-3; 8:56-59; 17:5; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12; 7:3

5. Omnipresent: Matt. 8:5-13; 18:20; 28:20; Mark 7:24-30; Luke 7:1-10; John 1:47-49; 3:13; 4:46-54; Eph. 1:23; 4:10-11; Col. 3:11

6. Omniscient: Matt. 9:4; 11:21-23; 12:25; Mark 2:6-8; 8:31-32 (etc.); Luke 6:8; 10:13-15; 21:20-24; John 2:23-24; 4:16-18; 11:11-15; 13:10-11, 21-29, 36-38 par.; 16:30-31; 21:17; Acts 1:24; 1 Cor. 4:5; Rev. 2:23; cf. Mark 13:30-32

7. Omnipotent: Matt. 28:18; John 2:19-22; 10:17-18; 1 Cor. 1:23-24; 2 Cor. 12:9; Eph. 1:19-21; Col. 2:10; 1 Pet. 3:22

8. Loving (in a preeminent, unlimited way): John 13:34; 15:9, 12-13; Rom. 8:35-39; Gal. 2:20; Eph. 3:19; 5:2; Rev. 1:4; cf. Rom. 5:8

9. Incomprehensible: Matt. 11:25-27

G. Jesus is “equal with God”

1. John 5:18: Although John is relating what the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming, the context shows they were basically right: In v. 17 Jesus claimed to be exempt from the Sabbath along with His Father, and in 5:19-29 he claimed to do all of the works of the Father and to deserve the same honor as the Father.

2. Phil. 2:6: Jesus did not attempt to seize recognition by the world as being equal with God, but attained that recognition by humbling himself and being exalted by the Father (vv. 7-11).

H. Jesus holds God’s position

1. Jesus sits on God’s throne, occupying the highest position possible: Ps. 110:1; Matt. 22:44; 25:31; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; Luke 20:42-43; 22:69; Acts 2:33-35; 5:31; 7:55-56; Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; 2 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 1:20; 2:6; Col. 3:1; Heb. 1:3, 13; 8:1; 10:12-13; 12:2; 1 Pet. 3:22; Rev. 3:21; 7:17; 22:1, 3

2. Jesus rules over all things: Matt. 11:25-27; 28:18; Luke 10:21-22; John 3:35; 13:3; 16:15; Acts 10:36; 1 Cor. 15:27-28; Eph. 1:22; Phil. 2:10; 3:21; Heb. 1:2; 2:8; Rev. 5:13

3. Jesus rules in this position forever: Luke 1:33; Eph. 1:19b-21; Heb. 1:8; Rev. 11:15; cf. Eph. 5:5; Rev. 22:1, 3

I. Jesus is the Son of God

1. “Son” in Scripture can mean simply one possessing the nature of something, whether literal or figurative (e.g. “son of man,” “sons of thunder,” “sons of disobedience,” cf. Mark 3:7; Eph. 2:1).

2. Usually when “son of” is used in relation to a person (son of Abraham, son of David, etc.) the son possesses the nature of his father.

3. Jesus is clearly not the literal Son of God, i.e., he was not physically procreated by God.

4. On the other hand, Jesus is clearly the Son of God in a unique sense (cf. “only-begotten son,” John 1:14; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9) and in a preeminent sense (i.e. the term is more fitting for him than for anyone else, e.g., Heb. 1:4-5).

5. Scripture is explicit that the Son possesses God’s essence or nature (cf. F. above).

6. Jesus’ repeated claim to be the Son of God was consistently understood by the Jewish leaders as a blasphemous claim to equality with God, an understanding Jesus never denied: John 5:17-23; 8:58-59; 10:30-39; 19:7; Matt. 26:63-65.

7. Jesus is therefore by nature God’s Son, not God’s creation or God’s servant; Jesus is God’s Son who became a servant for our sake and for the Father’s glory (John 13:13-15; 17:4; Phil. 2:6-11; Heb. 1:4-13; 3:1-6; 5:8; etc.).

J. Objections

1. Prov. 8:22: This text is not a literal description of Christ, but a poetic personification of wisdom (cf. all of Prov. 1-9, esp. 8:12-21; 9:1-6), poetically saying that God “got” his wisdom before he did anything—i.e., that God has always had wisdom.

2. Col. 1:15: Does not mean that Christ is the first creature, since he is here presented as the Son and principal heir of the Father (cf. vv. 12-14); thus “firstborn” here means “heir” (cf. esp. Ps. 89:27; see also Gen. 43:33; 48:14-20; Ex. 4:22; 1 Chron. 5:1-3; Jer. 31:9); note that v. 16 speaks of the Son as the Creator, not as a creature (cf. E.1. above).

3. Rev. 3:14: “Beginning” (archê) in Rev. as a title means source or one who begins, i.e. Creator (cf. Rev. 1:8; 21:6; 22:13); elsewhere Christ is called thearchê in the sense of “ruler,” Col. 1:18, cf. plural archai, “rulers,” in Col. 1:16; 2:10, 15, also Luke 12:11; Rom. 8:38; Eph. 3:10; 6:12; Tit. 3:1; cf. Luke 20:20; Jude 6; 1 Cor. 15:24; Eph. 1:21. An alternative view is that archê in Rev. 3:14 refers to Christ’s position as head of the new creation.

4. 1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28: Christ is still subordinate to God, but as the incarnate Son to the Father; i.e., they are equal in nature, but the Son is subordinate relationally to God, especially due to the fact that he has permanently assumed human nature. (It may also be that the Son is in some sense eternally “subordinate” to the Father, though if so only in a functional sense; Christians who affirm the Trinity hold different views on this question.)

5. John 20:17; Rom. 15:6; 1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Cor. 1:3; Rev. 1:6; 3:12: Jesus calls the Father “my God” because he is still man as well as God; note the distinction between “my God” and “your God” in John 20:17 (i.e., Jesus never speaks of “our God” including himself with the disciples).

6. Mark 13:32: Jesus’ statement that he did not know the time of his return is to be explained by his voluntary acceptance of the humble form and likeness of a man (Phil. 2:7); in fact Jesus, as God, did know all things (John 16:30), and after his resurrection he does not including himself as not knowing (Acts 1:6-7).

7. Mark 10:17-18: Jesus does not deny being God, but simply tells the man that he has no business calling anyone “good” in an unqualified sense except God. Those who acknowledge that Christ is perfectly good but deny that he is God have a problem at this point.

8. Heb. 4:15: Jesus was tempted, cf. James 1:13; but note that Jesus could not sin, John 5:19. God, in his divine nature, cannot be tempted, but if he incarnated himself (John 1:1, 14), then in his human nature he could genuinely experience temptation.

9. John 1:18: No one has seen God, but people have seen Jesus, e.g. 1 John 1:1-2; but note that no man can see the glorified Jesus either, 1 Tim. 6:16, and to see Jesus is to see the Father, John 14:9.

10. 1 Tim. 1:17: God cannot die, but Jesus did, e.g. Phil. 2:8; but of course the point of 1 Tim. 1:17 is that God’s divine nature is immortal, not that God could not assume mortal human nature. Note that no one could take Jesus’ life from him, he could not remain dead, and he raised himself: John 10:18; Acts 2:24; John 2:19-22.

11. 1 Cor. 8:6: Father called God, Jesus called Lord: but here “God” and “Lord” are synonymous (cf. v. 5; cf. also Rom. 14:3-12 for a good example of “God” and “Lord” as interchangeable); moreover, this text no more denies that Jesus is God than it does that the Father is Lord (Matt. 11:25); cf. Jude 4, where Jesus is the only Lord.

12. 1 Tim. 2:5: Jesus here supposedly distinct from God; but Jesus is also distinct from (fallen) men, yet is himself a man; likewise Jesus is distinct from God (the Father), but is also God.

13. Deut. 4:12, 15-25; God not appear in a human form to Israel, lest they fall into idolatry; but this does not rule out his appearing in human form later after they had learned to abhor idolatry.

14. In many texts Jesus is distinguished from God: He is the Son of God, was sent by God, etc.; in all these texts “God” is used as a name for the person most commonly called God, i.e., the Father.

Also see Deity of Christ. 

The Holy Spirit Is God 

A. Equated with God/the Lord: Acts 5:3-4; 2 Cor. 3:17-18

B. Has the incommunicable attributes of God

1. Eternal: Heb. 9:14; this poses a problem for anyone suggesting that the Holy Spirit is something other than God (implies someone or something else besides God is eternal)

2. Omnipresent: Ps. 139:7

3. Omniscient: 1 Cor. 2:10-11

C. Involved in all the works of God

1. Creation: Gen. 1:2; Ps. 104:30

2. Incarnation: Matt. 1:18, 20; Luke 1:35

3. Resurrection: Rom. 1:4; 8:11

4. Salvation: Rom. 8:1-27

D. Is a person

1. Has a name: Matt. 28:19; note that even though “name” might be used of a nonperson, here, in conjunction with the Father and the Son, it must be used of a person.

2. Is the “Helper”

a. Is another Helper: John 14:16, cf. 1 John 2:1; note also that “Helper” (paraklêtos) was used in Greek always or almost always of persons.

b. Is sent in Jesus’ name, to teach: John 14:26.

c. Will arrive, and then bear witness: John 15:26-27.

d. Is sent by Christ to convict of sin, will speak not on his own but on behalf of Christ, will glorify Christ, thus exhibiting humility: John 16:7-14.

3. Is the Holy Spirit, in contrast to unholy or unclean spirits: Mark 3:22-30, cf. Matt. 12:32; 1 Tim. 4:1; 1 John 3:24-4:6.

4. Speaks, is quoted as speaking: John 16:13; Acts 1:16; 8:29; 10:19; 11:12; 13:2; 16:6; 20:23; 21:11: 28:25-27; 1 Tim. 4:1; Heb. 3:7-11; 10:15-17; 1 Pet. 1:11; Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22.

5. Can be lied to: Acts 5:3

6. Can make decisions, judgments: Acts 15:28

7. Intercedes for Christians with the Father: Rom. 8:26

8. “Impersonal” language used of the Spirit paralleled by language used of other persons

a. The Holy Spirit as fire: Matt. 3:11; Luke 3:16; cf. Ex. 3:2-4; Deut. 4:24; 9:3; Heb. 12:29

b. The Holy Spirit poured out: Acts 2:17, 33; cf. Is. 53:12; Phil. 2:17; 2 Tim. 4:6

c. Being filled with the Holy Spirit: Eph. 5:18, etc.; cf. Eph. 3:17, 19; John 14:10

Also see Works of the Holy Spirit.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Are Each Someone Distinct from the Other Two (i.e., they are three “persons”)

A. Matt. 28:19

1. “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”: use of definite article before each personal noun indicates distinct persons unless explicitly stated otherwise; compare Rev. 1:17; 2:8, 26

2. The views that “Father” and “Son” are distinct persons but not the Holy Spirit, or that the Holy Spirit is not a person at all, or that all three are different offices or roles of one person, are impossible in view of the grammar (together with the fact that in Scripture a “spirit” is a person unless context shows otherwise).

3. Does singular “name” prove that the three are one person? No; cf. Gen. 5:2; 11:14; 48:6; and esp. 48:16. Thus, the word “name” can apply distinctly to each of the three (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) and does not imply that they have only one name.

4. “Name” need not be personal name, may be title: Is. 9:6; Matt. 1:23.

B. Acts 2:38 and Matt. 28:19

1. Neither passage specifies that certain words are to be spoken during baptism; nor does the Bible ever record someone saying, “I baptize you in the name of....”

2. Those said to be baptized in the name of Jesus (whether or not the formula “in the name of Jesus” was used) were people already familiar with the God of the OT:

a. Jews: Acts 2:5, 38; 22:16

b. Samaritans: Acts 8:5, 12, 16

c. God-fearing Gentiles: Acts 10:1-2, 22, 48

d. Disciples of John the Baptist: Acts 19:1-5

e. The first Christians in Corinth were Jews and God-fearing Gentiles: Acts 18:1-8; 1 Cor. 1:13

3. Trinitarian formula for baptism (if that is what Matt. 28:19 is) was given in context of commissioning apostles to take the gospel to “all the nations,” including people who did not know of the biblical God

4. Cross-referencing Acts 2:38 and other Acts references to baptism “in Jesus’ name” with Matthew 28:19 to prove that Jesus is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is hermeneutically flawed, since none of these passages is seeking to make such a point and none of them is claiming that baptism must be performed using a particular formula.

C. God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ are two persons

1. The salutations: Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal. 1:3; Eph. 1:2; 6:23; Phil. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1, 2; 1 Tim. 1:1, 2; 2 Tim. 1:2; Tit. 1:4; Philem. 3; James 1:1; 2 Pet. 1:2; 2 John 3

2. Two witnesses: John 5:31-32; 8:16-18; cf. Num. 35:30; Deut. 17:6; 19:15

3. The Father sent the Son: John 3:16-17; Gal. 4:4; 1 John 4:10; etc.; cf. John 1:6; 17:18; 20:21

4. The Father and the Son love each other: John 3:35; 5:20; 14:31; 15:9; 17:23-26; cf. Matt. 3:17 par.; 17:5 par.; 2 Pet. 1:17

5. The Father speaks to the Son, and the Son speaks to the Father: John 11:41-42; 12:28; 17:1-26; etc.

6. The Father knows the Son, and the Son knows the Father: Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22; John 7:29; 8:55; 10:15

7. Jesus our Advocate with the Father: 1 John 2:1

D. Jesus is not God the Father

1. Is. 9:6: “Father of eternity” means eternal; compare other names formed with word “father”: Abialbon, “father of strength” = strong (2 Sam. 23:31);Abiasaph, “father of gathering” = gatherer (Ex. 6:24); Abigail, a woman’s name (!), “father of exultation” = exulting (1 Chron. 2:16).

2. John 10:30

a. Jesus did not say, “I am the Father,” nor did he say, “the Son and the Father are one person.”

b. The first person plural esmen (“we are”) implies two persons.

c. The neuter word for “one” (hen) is used, implying essential unity but not personal unity.

d. John 10:30 in context is a strong affirmation of Christ’s deity, but does not mean that he is the Father.

3. John 5:43: Jesus’ coming in his Father’s name means not that he was the Father because he had the Father’s name, but that, while others come in their own name (or their own authority), Jesus does not; he comes in his Father’s name (on his Father’s authority).

4. John 8:19; 16:3: Ignorance of Jesus is indeed ignorance of the Father, but that does not prove that Jesus is the one he calls “My Father.”

5. John 14:6-11

a. Jesus and the Father are one being, not one person.

b. Jesus said, “I am in the Father,” not “I am the Father.”

c. The statement, “the Father is in me,” does not mean Jesus is the Father; compare John 14:20; 17:21-23.

6. John 14:18: An older adult brother can care for his younger siblings, thus preventing them from being “orphans,” without being their father.

7. Colossians 2:9: Does not mean that Jesus is the Father, or that Jesus is an incarnation of the Father; rather, since “Godhead” (theotês) means Deity, the state of being God, the nature of God, Jesus is fully God, but not the only person who is God. “The Godhead” here does not = the Father (note that Jesus is in the Father, John 10:38; 14:10, 11; 17:21), but the nature of the Father. See  II.B.3.

8. The Father and the Son are both involved in various activities: raising Jesus (Gal. 1:1; John 2:19-22), raising the dead (John 5:21); 6:39-40, 44, 54, 1 Cor. 6:14), answering prayer (John 14:13-14; 15:16; 16:23), sending the Holy Spirit (John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7), drawing people to Jesus (John 6:44; 12:32), etc. These common works do prove that the two persons are both God, but not that Jesus is the Father

E. The Son existed before his Incarnation, even before creation

1. Prov. 30:4: This is not predictive prophecy; “prophecy” in 30:1 translates massa, which is rendered elsewhere as “burden.”

2. The Son created all things, requiring of course that he existed when he did so: See above, IV.E.1.

3. Jesus was “with” (pros or para) God the Father before creation: John 1:1; 17:5; pros in John 1:1 does not mean “pertaining to,” although it does in Hebrews 2:17; 5:1 (which use pros with ta).

4. Jesus, the Son of God, existed before John the Baptist (who was born before Jesus): John 1:15, cf. 1:14-18, 29-34.

5. Jesus, the Son, came down from heaven, sent from the Father, and went back to heaven, back to the Father: John 3:13, 31; 6:33; 38, 41, 46, 51, 56-58, 62; 8:23, 42; 13:3; 16:27-28; cf. Acts 1:10-11; cf. the sending of the Holy Spirit, John 16:5-7; 1 Pet. 1:12

6. Jesus, speaking as the Son (John 8:54-56), asserts His eternal preexistence before Abraham: John 8:58

7. The Son explicitly said to exist “before all things”: Col. 1:17, cf. 1:12-20

8. These statements cannot be dismissed as true only in God’s foreknowledge

a. We are all “in God’s mind” before creation; yet such passages as John 1:1 and John 17:5 clearly mean to say something unusual about Christ.

b. To say that all things were created through Christ means that He must have existed at creation.

c. No one else in Scripture is ever said to have been with God before creation.

9. Texts which speak of the Son being begotten “today” do not mean he became the Son on a certain day, since they refer to his exaltation at his resurrection (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:3-5; 5:5; cf. Ps. 2:7; cf. also Rom. 1:4).

F. Jesus is not the Holy Spirit

1. The Holy Spirit is “another Comforter”: John 14:16; compare 1 John 2:1.

2. Jesus sent the Holy Spirit: John 15:26; 16:7.

3. The Holy Spirit exhibits humility in relation to, and seeks to glorify, Jesus (John 16:13-14).

4. The Son and the Holy Spirit are distinguished as two persons in Matt. 28:19.

5. The Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus: Luke 3:22.

6. Is Jesus the Holy Spirit?

a. 2 Cor. 3:17: the Spirit is here called “Lord” in the sense of being Yahweh or God, not Jesus (cf. v. 16, citing Ex. 34:34; cf. v. 17 in the Revised English Bible); note Acts 28:25-27, cf. Is. 6:8-10.

b. 1 Cor. 15:45: Jesus is “a life-giving Spirit,” not in the sense that he is the Holy Spirit whom he sent at Pentecost, but in the sense that he is the glorified God-man; and as God he is Spirit by nature. All three persons of the Trinity are Spirit, though there are not three divine Spirits; and only one person is designated “the Holy Spirit.”

c. Rom. 8:27, 34: the fact that two persons intercede for us is consistent with the fact that we have two Advocates (John 14:16; Rom. 8:26; 1 John 2:1).

d. John 14:18: Jesus here refers to his appearances to the disciples after the resurrection (compare 14:19), not to the coming of the Spirit.

e. Jesus and the Holy Spirit are both involved in various activities: raising Jesus (John 2:19-19-22); Rom. 8:9-11), raising the dead (John 5:21; 6:39-40, 44, 54, Rom. 8:9-11), dwelling in the believer (John 14:16; 2 Cor. 13:5; Col. 1:27), interceding for the believer (Rom. 8:26; Heb. 7:25), sanctifying believers (Eph. 5:26; 1 Pet. 1:2), etc. These works prove that the two persons are both God, but not that Jesus is the Holy Spirit.

G. The Father is not the Holy Spirit

1. The Father sent the Holy Spirit: John 14:15; 15:26.

2. The Holy Spirit intercedes with the Father for us: Rom. 8:26-27.

3. The Father and the Holy Spirit are distinguished as two persons in Matt. 28:19.

4. Is the Father the Holy Spirit?

a. Matt. 1:18; Luke 1:35: It is argued that the Holy Spirit is the Father of the incarnate Son of God; this argument ignores the fact that the “conception” is not a product of physical union between a man and a woman!

b. The Father and the Holy Spirit are both said to be active in various activities; the resurrection of Jesus (Gal. 1:1; Rom. 8:11), comforting Christians (2 Cor. 1:3-4; John 14:26), sanctifying Christians (Jude 1; 1 Pet. 1:2), etc. The most these facts prove is that the two work together; they do not prove the two are one person.

Conclusion: The Bible teaches the Trinity

A. All the elements of the doctrine are taught in Scripture

1. One God who is one divine being (see Part I and Part II).

2. The Father is God (see Part III).

3. The Son is God (see Part IV).

4. The Holy Spirit is God (see Part V).

5. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons, i.e., they are not each other, nor are they impersonal; they relate to one another personally (see Part VI).

B. The New Testament presents a consistent triad of Father, Son, Holy Spirit (God, Christ, Spirit): Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; also Luke 1:35; 3:21-22 par.; 4:1-12; John 4:10-25; 7:37-39; 14-16; 20:21-22; Acts 1:4-8; 2:33, 38-39; 5:3-4, 9, 30-32; 7:55-56; 10:36-38, 44-48; 11:15-18; 15:8-11; 20:38; 28:25-31; Rom. 1:1-4; 5:5-10; 8:2-4, 9-11, 14-17; 1 Cor. 6:11; 12:4-6, 11-12, 18; 2 Cor. 1:19-22; 3:6-8, 14-18; Gal. 3:8-14; 4:4-7; Eph. 1:3-17; 2:18, 21-22; 3:14-19; 4:4-6, 29-32; 5:18-20; Phil. 3:3; 1 Thess. 1:3-6; 2 Thess. 2:13-14; Tit. 3:4-6; Heb. 2:3-4; 9:14; 10:28-31; 1 Pet. 1:2; 1 John 3:21-24; 4:13-14; Jude 20-21; Rev. 2:18, 27-29.

C. Therefore, the Bible does teach the Trinity.

What Difference Does the Doctrine of the Trinity Make?

A. Sovereignty: Because the three persons have each other, we can be assured that God created us only to share the love they have and not as a means to his own end: Acts 17:25; John 17:21-26.

B. Mystery: The triune God is totally unlike anything in our world, and therefore greater than anything we can comprehend: Rom. 11:33-36; Isa. 40:18.

C. Salvation: God alone planned our salvation, came to save us, and dwells in us to complete our salvation: 1 Pet. 1:2; Eph. 1:3-18; etc.

D. Prayer: We pray to the Father through the Son, and also pray to the Son directly, in the Spirit: John 14:13-14; Eph. 2:18; etc.

E. Worship: We worship Father and Son in the Spirit: John 4:23-24; Phil. 3:3; Heb. 1:8; etc.

F. Love: The love among the three persons is the basis and model for our love for one another: John 17:26.

G. Unity: The unity of the three persons is the basis and model for the unity of the church: John 17:21-23.

H. Humility: As the persons of the Trinity seek the glory of each other, so we should seek the interests of others above our own: Phil. 2:5-11; John 16:13-14.

I. Sonship: We are “sons of God” as we are united with the Son of God by the work of the Holy Spirit and the adoption of the Father: John 1:12-23; Rom. 8:14-17.

J. Truth: All those who wish to worship and love God must seek to know Him as He is in truth, for God, as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is truth: John 4:24; 14:6, 17; 15:26; 16:13.

Who is Jesus if the Trinity is Not True

If there is no Trinity, where does that leave Jesus? Here are the choices:

1. He is a lower god

2. He is another god

3. He is not really the Son of God but is God the Father

4. He is just a man and has no deity

These points clearly answer the question, “If the Trinity is not true, then where does that leave Jesus?” It leaves Jesus as a false Jesus. This should establish why the Trinity is an essential of the faith and cannot be denied by anyone who calls him/herself a Christian. It is good to point these out to someone who says the doctrine of the Trinity is not essential or primary.

Well-Known Anti-Trinitarians

There are many well-known people who were/are Anti-Trinitarians, dead and alive; below each name is a link or two exposing their anti-Trinitarian beliefs.

• William Branham (Modalism), a hugely influential figure on erroneous and cultic movements in the church today; there are Branham teachings and followers around the world 5 6

• T. D. Jakes, Modalism 7 8

• Phillips, Craig, & Dean (Modalism) 9 10 11

• Roy Masters, Arianism 12 13

• Ron Dart, similar to Arianism, still heard on Christian radio 14 15

• The Armstrong cults (Worldwide Church of God), polytheism (the Father and Jesus separate gods) 16 17 18 19

• The Way (formerly The Way International), Arianism 20 21

A Few Verses on the Trinity (there are many more)

“And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.” Matthew 3:16, 17

“Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He [Jesus] has poured forth this which you both see and hear.” Acts 2:33

“You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed Him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how He went about doing good and healing all who were oppressed by the devil, for God was with Him.” (Acts. 10:38)

““But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My [Jesus’] name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”” (John 14:26)

“When the Helper comes, whom I [Jesus] will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me…” (John 15:26)

“How much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” (Hebrews 9:14)

“The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all.” (2 Corinthians 13:14)

Additional Resources on the Trinity

(Selected list, not exhaustive)

• Arianism 22

• Modalism 23

• Oneness Pentecostalism 24

• What are Sabellianism, Modalism, and Monarchism 25

• The Athanasian Creed confessing the Trinity 26

• CANA post, Modalism is an Attack on God 27

• Why the Trinity Is An Essential Doctrine 28

• Jesus Christ Our Creator, A Biblical Defence of the Trinity 29

• Oneness Pentecostalism from NAMB (North American Mission Board of the SBC) 30

• Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity 31

• The Biblical Basis for the Doctrine of the Trinity 32

• Faith Groups that Reject the Trinity 33

Were the Early Church Fathers Trinitarians?

It’s become a trend among certain Muslim polemicists to goldmine citations from notable Christian historians in order to mislead people into thinking that the early church fathers, particular the Ante-Nicene writers such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian etc., were not Trinitarians and did not hold to the ontological equality of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One such historian whose work on the early church that is often misrepresented is J. N. D. Kelly. I have therefore decided to cite what Kelly states in respect to the early Apologists’ beliefs on the Trinity, specifically their view of the Person of Christ . All bold and/or capital emphasis will be mine.

Here is what this renowned scholar wrote:

The Apologists were the first to frame an intellectually satisfying explanation of the relation of Christ to God the Father. They were all, as we have seen, ARDENT MONOTHEISTS, determined at all costs NOT TO COMPROMISE THIS FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH. The solution they proposed, reduced to essentials, was that, AS PRE-EXISTENT, Christ was the Father’s THOUGHT OR MIND, and that, as manifested in creation and revelation, He was its EXTRAPOLATION OR statement. In expounding this doctrine they had recourse to the imagery of the divine Logos, or Word, which had been familiar to later Judaism as well as to Stoicism, and which had become a fashionable cliché through the influence of Philo. Others had, of course, anticipated them. In the Fourth Gospel, for example, the Word is declared to have been with God in the beginning and to have become flesh in Christ, while for Ignatius Christ was the Father’s Word issuing from silence. The Apologists’ originality (their thought was more Philonic than Johannine) lay in drawing out the further implications of the Logos idea in order to make plausible the twofold fact of Christ’s pre-temporal oneness with the Father and His manifestation in space and time. In so doing, while using such Old Testament texts as Ps. 33, 6 (‘By the word of the Lord were the heavens made’), they did not hesitate to blend with them the Stoic technical distinctions between the immanent word (logos endiathetos) and the word uttered or expressed (logos prophorikos).

Their teaching appears most clearly in Justin, although his theology is far from being systematic… The Logos, however, had now ‘assumed shape and become a man’ in Jesus Christ; He had become incarnate in His entirety in Him. The Logos is here conceived of as the Father’s INTELLIGENCE OR RATIONAL THOUGHT; but Justin argued that He was not only in name distinct from the Father, as the light is from the sun, but was ‘numerically distinct too’ (kai arithmo heteron). His proof, which he was particularly concerned to develop against Jewish monotheism, was threefold. The Word’s otherness, he thought was implied (a) by the alleged appearances of God in the Old Testament (e.g. to Abraham by the oaks of Mamre), which suggests, that ‘below the Creator of all things, there is ANOTHER Who is, and is called, GOD AND LORD’, since it is inconceivable that ‘the Master and Father of all things should have abandoned all supercelestial affairs and made Himself visible in a minute corner of the world’; (b) by the frequent Old Testament passages (e.g. Gen. I, 26: ‘Let us make man etc.’) which represent God as conversing with ANOTHER, Who is presumably a rational being like Himself; and (c) by the great Wisdom texts, such as Prov. 8, 22ff. (‘The Lord created me a beginning of His ways etc.’), since everyone must agree that the offspring is other than the begetter. So the Logos, ‘having been put forth as an offspring from the Father, was with Him BEFORE ALL CREATURES, and the Father had converse with Him’. And he is DIVINE: ‘being the Word and first-begotten of God, HE IS ALSO GOD’. ‘Thus, then, He is adorable, HE IS GOD’; and ‘we adore and love, next to God, the Logos derived from the increate and ineffable God, seeing that for our sakes He became man’.

The incarnation apart, the special functions of the Logos, according to Justin, are two: to be the Father’s agent in creating and ordering the universe, and to reveal truth to men. As regards to His nature, while other beings are ‘things made’ (poiemata) or creatures (ktismata), the Logos is God’s ‘offspring’ (gennema), His ‘child’ (teknon), and ‘UNIQUE SON’ (ho monogenes); ‘BEFORE ALL CREATURES God begat, in the beginning, a rational power OUT OF HIMSELF’. By this generation, Justin means, not the ultimate origin of the Father’s Logos or reason (this he does not discuss), but His putting forth or emission for the purposes of creation and revelation; and it is conditioned by, and is the result of, an act of the Father’s will. But this generation or emission does not entail ANY SEPARATION BETWEEN THE FATHER AND HIS SON, as the analogy between human reason and its extrapolation in speech makes clear… Elsewhere Justin uses the analogy of the impossibility of distinguishing the light from the sun which is its source in order to argue that ‘this Power is indivisible and inseparable from the Father’, and that His numerical distinction from the Father does not involve any partition of the latter’s essence.

Tatian was a disciple of Justin’s, and like his master spoke of the Logos as existing IN THE FATHER as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated. Like Justin, too, he emphasized the Word’s ESSENTIAL UNITY with the Father, using the same image of light kindled from light. ‘The birth of the Logos involves a distribution (merismon), but NO SEVERANCE (apokopen)…’ At the same time Tatian threw into sharper relief than Justin the contrast between the two successive states of the Logos. Before creation God was ALONE, the Logos BEING IMMANENT IN HIM as His potentiality for creating all things; but at the moment of creation HE LEAPED FORTH FROM THE FATHER as His ‘primordial work’ (ergon prototokon). Once born, being ‘spirit derived from spirit, rationality from rational power’, He served as the Father’s instrument in creating and governing the universe, in particular making men in the divine image.

The teaching of Theophilus of Antioch followed similar lines, although he frankly used Stoic technical terms appropriate to the underlying system of ideas. ‘God’, he wrote, ‘having His Word immanent (endiatheton) in His bowels, engendered Him along with His wisdom, emitting Him before the universe.’ He used this Word as His assistant in His creative work, and by Him He has made all things. This Word is called First Principle because He is the principle and Lord of all things fashioned by Him’. Again, dealing with the sonship of the Logos, he wrote: ‘He is NOT the Son in the sense in which poets and romancers RELATE THE BIRTH OF SONS TO GODS, but rather in the sense in which the truth speaks of the Word as ETERNALLY IMMANENT (endiatheton) IN GOD’S BOSOM. ’ For BEFORE ANYTHING CAME INTO BEING He had Him as His counsellor, HIS OWN INTELLIGENCE AND THOUGHT. But when God willed to create what He had planned, He engendered and brought forth (egennese prophorikon) this Word, the first-begotten of all creation. He did not thereby empty Himself of His Word, but having begotten Him consorts with Him always’. Like Justin, Theophilus regarded the Old Testament theophanies as having been in fact appearances of the Logos. God Himself cannot be contained in space and time, but it was precisely the function of the Word Whom He generated to manifest His mind and will in the created order.

A rather fuller account is given by Athenagoras. In a famous passage, after stating that the unoriginate, eternal and invisible God has created and adorned, and actually governs, the universe by His Word, he goes on to identify the Word as the Son of God. Repudiating the objection THAT THERE IS SOMETHING RIDICULOUS IN GOD’S HAVING A SON, he protests that God’s Son IS NOT LIKE THE CHILDREN OF MEN, but is ‘the Father’s Word IN IDEA AND IN ACTUALIZATION’ (en idea kai energeia). It was by Him, and through Him, that everything was made, and the Father and the Son FORM A UNITY. ‘The Son being IN the Father and the Father IN the Son by the unity and power of the divine spirit, the Son of God is the Father’s INTELLIGENCE and Word (nous kai logos). To make his meaning clearer, Athenagoras then points out that, while He is God’s offspring, HE NEVER ACTUALLY CAME INTO BEING (ouk hos genomenon), ‘for God from the beginning, being eternal intelligence, had His Word (logon) IN HIMSELF, BEING ETERNALLY RATIONAL (aidios logikos). A more correct account would be, that He ‘issued forth’ (proelthon: again the idea of logos prophorikos) into the world of formless matter as the archetypal idea and creative force. In support of this he quotes Prov. 8, 22, ‘The Lord created me as a beginning of His ways for His works’, without stressing, however , the verb ‘created’. In a later chapter he speaks of ‘the true God and the Logos Who derives from Him’, dwelling on the unity and fellowship which exist between Father and Son; and elsewhere he describes the Son as the Father’s ‘intelligence, Word, wisdom’.

There are two points in the Apologists’ teaching which, because of their far-reaching importance, must be heavily underlined, viz. (a) that for all of them the description ‘God the Father‘ connoted not the first Person of the Holy Trinity, but the one Godhead considered as author of whatever exists; and (b) that they all, Athenagoras included, dated the generation of the Logos, and so His eligibility for the title ‘Son’, not from His origination within the Being of the Godhead, BUT FROM HIS EMISSION OR PUTTING FORTH FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATION, REVELATION AND REDEMPTION. Unless these points are firmly grasped, and their significance appreciated, A COMPLETELY DISTORTED VIEW OF THE APOLOGISTS’ THEOLOGY IS LIABLE TO RESULT. Two stock criticisms of it, for example, are that they failed to distinguish the Logos from the Father until He was required for the work of creation, and that, as a corollary, they were guilty of subordinating the Son to the Father. These objections have a superficial validity in the light of post-Nicene orthodoxy, with its doctrine of the Son’s eternal generation and its fully worked-out conception of hypostases or Persons; but they make no sense in the thought-atmosphere in which the Apologists moved. It is true that they lacked a technical vocabulary adequate for describing eternal distinctions within the Deity; but that they apprehended such distinctions ADMITS OF NO DOUBT. Long BEFORE CREATION, FROM ALL ETERNITY, God had His Word or Logos, for God is essentially rational; and if what later theology recognized as the personality of the Word seems ill defined in their eyes, it is plain that they regarded Him AS ONE WITH WHOM THE FATHER COULD COMMUNE AND TAKE COUNSEL. Later orthodox was to describe His eternal relation to the Father as generation; the fact that the Apologists restricted the term to His emission should not lead one to conclude that they had no awareness of His existence prior to that.Similarly, when Justin spoke of Him as a ‘SECOND GOD’ worshiped ‘in a secondary rank’, and when all the Apologists stressed that His generation or emission resulted from an act of the Father’s will, their object WAS NOT SO MUCH TO SUBORDINATE HIM AS TO SAFEGUARD THE MONOTHEISM WHICH THEY CONSIDERED INDISPENSABLE. The Logos as manifested must necessarily be limited as compared with the Godhead Itself; and it was important to emphasize that there were not two springs of initiative within the Divine Being. That the Logos was ONE IN ESSENCE WITH THE FATHER, inseparable in His fundamental being from Him as much after His generation AS PRIOR TO IT, THE APOLOGISTS WERE NEVER WEARY OF REITERATING. (Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, revised edition [HarperSan Francisco, 1978], pp. 95-101)

The following citations from Athenagoras regarding his views on the deity of the Lord Jesus and the essential Trinity are taken from A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, Hendrickson Publishers, Massachusetts, 1998, edited by David W. Bercot. All bold and/or capital emphasis ours:

What is meant by the Son? I will state briefly that He is the first product of the Father. I DO NOT MEAN THAT HE WAS BROUGHT INTO EXISTENCE. For, from the beginning, God, who is the eternal Mind, HAD THE LOGOS IN HIMSELF. From ETERNITY, He is instinct with Logos. However, [the Son is begotten] inasmuch as He came forth to be the Idea and energizing Power of all material things, which lay like a nature without attributes… The prophetic Spirit also agrees with our statements. “The Lord,” it says, “made me the beginning of His ways to His works.” Athenagoras (c. 175, e), 2.133. (P. 104)

The universe has been created and set in order through His Logos… For we acknowledge also a Son of God. Athenagoras (c. 175, e), 2.133. (P. 113)

The Holy Spirit Himself, who operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning back again like a beam of the sun. Athenagoras (c. 175, e), 2.133. (P. 345)

Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men called atheists who speak of God the Father, and of GOD THE SON, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their POWER IN UNION and their DISTINCTION in order? Athenagoras (c. 175, e), 2.133. (P. 652)

Christians know God and His Logos. They also know what type of ONENESS the Son has with the Father and what type of communion the Father has with the Son. Furthermore, they know what the Spirit is AND WHAT UNITY IS OF THESE THREE: the Spirit, the Son, and the Father. They also know what THEIR DISTINCTION IS IN UNITY. Athenagoras (c. 175, e), 2.134. (Ibid.)

We acknowledge a God, and a Son (His Logos), and a Holy Spirit. These are UNITED IN ESSENCE– the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Now, the Son is the Intelligence, Reason, and Wisdom of the Father. And the Spirit is an emanation, as light from fire. Athenagoras (c. 175, e), 2.141. (Ibid.)

Let us now summarize the testimony of the Apologists:

1. The Apologists all believed that the person of Christ is eternal, uncreated.

2. The Apologists all believed that the person of Christ eternally existed within the eternal Being of God as His Reason, Intelligence, Word, and Wisdom.

3. The Apologists all affirmed the personal distinctions of the Father and His Word, acknowledging that the two were in communion with one another.

4. The Apologists all believed that God’s eternal Word sprang forth from the Father, without severing from him, thereby making the Father the source of the Word, to become the Father’s Agent in creation and redemption. It is at this point that the Logos begins to relate to the Father as the Son.

These points conclusively prove that the early fathers of the church, specifically the Apologists, were essentially Trinitarians in their beliefs. This means that Muslims such as Adnan Rashid have twisted J.N.D. Kelly’s statements in order to mislead their readers into thinking that the Apologists denied the eternal existence of Christ. Such shoddy scholarship is inexcusable to say the least, especially from individuals that claim to be honest seekers of the truth.

Further Reading

Ignatius of Antioch’s Proclamation of the Essential Deity of Christ

Origen’s Christology

Justin Martyr’s Witness to Christ’s essential and eternal Deity

Tertullian and the Doctrine of the Trinity

Did the Ante-Nicene Fathers Worship the Holy Spirit as God Almighty?

(Source)

References

0. Is 1 John 5:7 not in any Greek manuscript (From "Answers To Your Bible Version Questions"  David W. Daniels)

1. Theopedia, https://www.theopedia.com/trinity 

2.The Trinity, CARM

3. See numbers 3 and 4 on https://carm.org/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit

4. http://theheartlandchurch.com/beliefs/

5. https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/branhamismprofile.pdf

6. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/5870-william-branham

7. http://www.equip.org/article/concerns-about-the-teachings-of-t-d-jakes/

8. CANA article on T. D. Jakes’ slippery language on the Trinity http://www.solasisters.com/2012/01/td-jakes-through-glass-blurrily.html

9. http://hereiblog.com/modalism-revisted-phillips-craig-dean/

10. https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/2013/01/05/blurring-the-dividing-linethe-legacy-of-phillipscraig-and-dean/

11. https://rootedinchrist.org/2008/01/01/phillips-craig-dean-and-the-united-pentecostal-church-upci-oneness-pentecostals/

12. Walter Martin exposes Masters’ heretical beliefs in a debate with Masters https://soundcloud.com/steven-j-aronfeld/roy-masters-debates-walter

13. CANA post on Masters, https://www.facebook.com/FormerNewAger/posts/10153497822822237

14. http://www.soundwitness.org/evangel/ronald_dart_anti-trinitarian.htm

15. http://watchmansbagpipes.blogspot.com/2015/07/heresy-alert.html

16. https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/armstrongismprofile.pdf

17, 18. https://www.gotquestions.org/Worldwide-Church-God-Armstrongism.html

19. https://www.watchman.org/articles/cults-alternative-religions/history-of-armstrongism/

20. https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/wayprofile.pdf

21. https://carm.org/way-international

22. Theopedia https://www.theopedia.com/arianism 

23. Theopedia https://www.theopedia.com/modalism

24. https://www.watchman.org/profiles/pdf/onenesspentecostalismprofile.pdf 

25. Got Questions (4 articles) https://www.gotquestions.org/Sabellianism-Modalism-Monarchianism.html 

26. https://www.ccel.org/creeds/athanasian.creed.html 

27. https://www.facebook.com/exastrologer/posts/10153139147732108 

28. J. Warner Wallace, https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/why-is-the-trinity-an-essential-christian-doctrine/ 

29. Jonathan Safarti, https://creation.com/jesus-christ-our-creator-a-biblical-defence-of-the-trinity 

30. https://www.namb.net/apologetics/resource/oneness-pentecostalism/ 

31. Robert Bowman, Jr. https://www.gospeloutreach.net/optrin.html 

32. Robert Bowman, Jr., http://bib.irr.org/biblical-basis-of-doctrine-of-trinity 

33. https://www.learnreligions.com/faith-groups-that-reject-trinity-doctrine-700367 

34.  http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/ 

35. https://pravlife.org/ru/content/troica-tak-bog-odin-ili-tri-i-otkuda-cerkov-eto-znaet 

36. A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology: In the Light of Biblical Trinitarianism by Edward Dalcour

37. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity by Gregory Boyd

38. Jesus Only Churches by E. Calvin Beisner

39. Why You Should Believe in the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah’s Witnesses by Robert Bowman