Teaching the Truth: Studies

GWEN SHAMBLIN’S BELIEF ABOUT THE TRINITY:

A REBUTTAL

By

William Dicks

All Scriptures are from the New American Standard Bible:

Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission.

1. Introduction *

2. Gwen Shamblin’s writings *

  • Date: Aug 14 2000 22:29:22 EDT *
    •

    3. What Gwen Shamblin believes *

  • Use of words *
  • Subordinationism *
  • The Oneness of God *
  • Jesus is a demi-god / or bi-theism *
  • The Holy Spirit is not God or a person *
  • Trinitarian history *
    •

    4. The Trinity explained *

  • The Oneness of God *
  • The Three-in-Oneness of God *
  • Revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament *
  • Revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament *
    •

    5. More about Gwen Shamblin on the WEB *

    6. Conclusion *
       

    1. Introduction

      Truth! How important is it? I mean, does it hold any kind of eternal consequences for us? If I am sincere about what I believe concerning Jesus, no matter how that is formulated, will it make a difference as an eternal consequence? Yes, yes, and YES! Truth, concerning who God is, is absolutely important! If my belief about God is incorrect, then I am not even worshipping the "correct" god! John 4:24 says "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." Most of us are only interested in the "spirit" part of worship, and that is why today more emphasis is put on worship songs that make us "feel" good, or give us that "anointed feeling," rather than the truth that our worship should convey. Paul Copan says this

      "...the challenge lies before us to reach a generation that hears with its eyes and thinks with its feelings." 1

      We see this in many churches today. When someone questions a church’s doctrine in its worship songs, that church wants to hear nothing about it. All we want to do is "experience" God, and then build our truth from that. I am not saying that this is what Gwen Shamblin has done, I am trying to build a framework to show why truth concerning God is so very important! If this truth about who God is, was not important, then why do we exclude the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons, etc. It is based on truth, that God separates one "believer" from another.
       
       

    2. Gwen Shamblin’s writings

      Gwen Shamblin of the Weigh Down Workshop (http://www.wdworkshop.com) has this as part of her mission statement on the Weigh Down Workshop’s website, and was also sent out via email by Gwen herself. The email header contained the following information:

      Date: Aug 10 2000 17:24:00 EDT

      From: "The Weigh Down Workshop E-Mail List" <EmailReplies@wdworkshop.com>

      Subject: Mission Statement

      Here follows the mission statement concerning the Trinity:

      "GOD THE FATHER, JESUS CHRIST THE SON, AND THE HOLY SPIRIT

      As a ministry, we believe in God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. However, the Bible does not use the word "trinity," and our feeling is that the word "trinity" implies equality in leadership, or shared Lordship. It

      is clear that the scriptures teach that Jesus is the Son of God and that God sends the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not send God anywhere. God is clearly the Head. Note this passage from 1 Corinthians 15:27-28: "For he ‘has put everything under his feet.’ Now when it says that ‘everything’ has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." Philippians 2:6 says that Jesus "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped." Therefore, we feel that we grieve Jesus when we do not watch our words and their meaning-especially a word not found in either the Old or New Testament, writings that span centuries of God’s inspired word. If God had wanted us to refer to Himself, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as the "trinity," He would not have left this word completely out of the Bible."

      She then follows this up with a follow-up email with the email header as follows:

      Date: Aug 14 2000 22:29:22 EDT

      From: "The Weigh Down Workshop E-Mail List" <EmailReplies@wdworkshop.com>

      Subject: Digging Into the Word

      "To begin with, let me clarify what was stated in my e-mail last week (and the updated Statement of Faith information on the website) about God the Father, Jesus His Son, and God’s Holy Spirit. This teaching is definitely NOT connected to any other denominational teachings (no matter what you may have read on the encouragement boards). First of all, I believe that there is ONE God. The Trinity was a message formed in a society that believed in polytheism and it was done in an attempt to make sure no one mistakenly believed that Christians worshipped several Gods. Deuteronomy 6:4 states, "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is ONE." Where I differ is on the teaching in the Trinity that there is EQUALITY in power and glory of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit; rather, I believe it is a clear line of AUTHORITY.

      The teaching of the Trinity dates back possibly hundreds of years after the time of Jesus. The Old Testament and the New Testament are thousands of years old and are inspired; this is what God wants taught. The world's top theologians, linguists, and Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek scholars were all on the committees that translated the original language and scrolls into the New International Version of the Bible -- the version from which I teach in the Weigh Down seminars. When you go to the Bible, you see clearly that Jesus is referred to as the Son of God hundreds of times. But notice that God is NEVER referred to as the Son of Jesus, and God NEVER mediates between us and Jesus -- Jesus mediates between us and God every time.

      Yes, Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy Spirit of God are ONE in PURPOSE, but God Himself lets you know through His Word that He (God) is the Head and that Jesus is at His right hand. Any teaching that leads you to believe that you will only see ONE entity when you get to Heaven is an incorrect teaching. You will see God and you will see Jesus at His right hand, and you will not see the Holy Spirit, for it is God’s spirit or will. Christ was sent FROM God (John 1:14) -- the Bible never says that God is from Jesus. Please stay in the Word of God, for He will make it plain. God spent most of the New Testament describing Jesus as His son. With this in mind, Jesus HAS been given all authority (by God) and every knee will bow; Jesus is very worthy to be worshipped. Paul clarifies it further that Jesus did not send God to die on the cross and the Holy Spirit did not sent God into the world when he wrote, "For he (God) ‘has put everything under his (Jesus's) feet." Now when it says that everything has been put under him (Jesus), it is clear that this does not include God himself who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the son himself will be made subject to him (God) who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all." (1 Cor. 15:27-28)

      God is the clear authority -- and how could anyone want to undermine our God as the total authority? We are playing into Satan’s hands if we do this, and I believe we are also grieving Jesus. In John 14:28, Jesus Himself says, "If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is GREATER than I." Please tell me why someone would want to insist that Jesus and the Father are the same exact being when God Himself says that Jesus is His Son, and Jesus Himself states that the Father is greater, and the whole New Testament demonstrates how Jesus was under God’s authority, submitting His will to the Father's, even to the point of death? The Bible clearly teaches that when Jesus’s will did not match God’s, Jesus submitted by saying, "Not my will but thine be done." The Luke version of this story says that Jesus knelt down and prayed to God, saying, "Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me. Yet not my will but yours be done." (Luke 22:42) Again, Mark’s version says, "Going a little farther, He fell to the ground and prayed that if possible the hour might pass from him. ‘Abba, Father,’ He said, ‘everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me. Yet not what I will, but what you will.’" (Mark 14:35-36) And at his death, Jesus said, "Into your hands, I commit my Spirit." Isaiah 53:10 says, "Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer." God did not send Himself to death, but rather His Son. When Jesus prayed in the garden, He was not dialoging with Himself as if He were schizophrenic, but rather, He was dialoging with His Father. I know, like Stephen, that we will one day see the heavens open and see God and also see Jesus seated at His right hand; we will not just see one being.

      Why would anyone insist on a doctrine that confuses this idea or even teaches against this? It is so clear that God has created everything and that His only Son came to promote God’s kingdom, saying that "the world must learn that I love the Father and that I do exactly what my Father has commanded me." (John 14:31) Furthermore, the Bible says that Jesus was tempted in every way (Hebrews 4:15), but that God cannot Himself be tempted (James 1:13).

      Jesus is clearly our Lord, but He has been given that authority by God Himself. John 5:16-23 says, "Because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jews persecuted him. Jesus said to them, ‘My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I, too, am working.’ For this reason, the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. Jesus gave them this answer: ‘I tell you the truth, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, to your amazement he will show him even greater things than these. For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him." So Jesus Himself tried very hard to answer the Pharisees that He was not equal with God; He has been given authority and honor by the Father, but that He could do nothing without the Father.

      To summarize, I believe the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are definitely sent from God. The Holy Spirit (the Spirit and will of God) dwells in our own hearts. Jesus Christ is placed above us, all authority given to Him by the Father, and we are to follow the example of Jesus by dying to our own wills and living to the Father's will daily (Luke 9:23). Finally, God is over all and in all. These three are united in purpose. John 17:11b states, "Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name -- the name you gave me -- so that THEY may be ONE as WE are ONE." Jesus is calling us to be united in our purpose just as He and the Father are united in purpose.

      Hopefully this answers your questions. I look forward to getting more into God’s Word, as I hope you do too!"

      Finally, another email was sent as follows:

      Date: Aug 16 2000 19:17:15 EDT

      From: "The Weigh Down Workshop E-Mail List" <EmailReplies@wdworkshop.com>

      Subject: Chat Time Tomorrow!

      "Since my last couple of e-mails, there have still been a couple of questions about our stance on, "Is Jesus God?" Anyone familiar with all the Weigh Down materials or books would clearly understand that our belief is that YES, Jesus IS God -- He is "God the SON," not "God the Father." Jesus Christ was sent from the Father and submitted to the Father, and He is worthy of all praise and honor. The point of this whole total Lordship message is for us to learn the submissiveness to authority that Jesus

      demonstrated and to demonstrate this in our own lives."
       
       

    3. What Gwen Shamblin believes

      Use of words

      Gwen Shamblin seems to be a bit lost theologically. It seems she has fallen into the trap that so many people with heretical views have fallen into. She believes, like them, that if a word doesn't appear in the Bible, then we cannot use the ideas behind that word to explain the concepts from the Bible. She has this to say about the word "trinity:"

      "However, the Bible does not use the word "trinity," and our feeling is that the word "trinity" implies equality in leadership, or shared Lordship."

      She also writes,

      "If God had wanted us to refer to Himself, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit as the "trinity," He would not have left this word completely out of the Bible."

      Louis Berkhof says of this type of reasoning,

      "The Bible never deals with the doctrine of the Trinity as an abstract truth, but reveals the trinitarian life in its various relations as a living reality, to a certain extent in connection with the works of creation and providence, but particularly in relation to the work of redemption. Its most fundamental revelation is a revelation given in facts rather than in words." 2

      The word "trinity" is merely a word with a meaning that we use to describe the concept of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one God, yet three persons. Language is dynamic, and new words are continually formed to indicate certain concepts or ideas. Just imagine trying to speak about the new technological world without having technological words to communicate by. Imagine trying to tell someone about your new PC you bought, but you are not allowed to use words like "PC," "computer," "screen," "mouse," "printer," etc. Imagine how long conversations will be if we have to use long phrases or sentences (even paragraphs) to tell people something. "I bought myself a device by which I tap little square blocks with letters on them, while I view another device which shows me what I am tapping on itself by using electric light modules which throw the forms of the letters I tap on itself to make it viewable. I can then decide whether I would want to keep the information by tapping another sequence of these square blocks to ensure that the next time I switch on this device, I will be able to call up what I tapped in today. I can also instruct this device to send the information I tapped in to another device that will use instructions from the main device to sequentially take the information and put it onto paper." Wouldn't it be easier just to say, "I bought myself a computer which I can use to type information and save it or print it?" We will all know what is meant by that. When I use the word "trinity" we all know what is meant by that, whether we believe it or not (like Gwen). From Gwen’s writings it is clear that she not only does not believe in the use of the word, but also does not believe in the theological concept behind the word.

      Greg Koukl from Stand To Reason says:

      "I talked with my sister today. Someone close to her had told her that she was ignorant and unenlightened because she was a Christian. She believes in the Trinity and it's nowhere in the Bible.

      This is really only one leg of a three legged argument. It's just the second premise that is stated. The first premise and the conclusion are left out. They are just understood. You're left to figure it out. The conclusion is: therefore it's not true. But the first premise is left out and that's the one you ought to bring to light to clear the brush. When you do that it destroys the argument because the first premise is unsound. The first premise of that argument is: any concept whose name is not in the Bible is not a Biblical concept. So the word theocracy is not in the Bible so theocracy isn't a Biblical concept. That's ridiculous. The word doesn't have to be there for the concept to be taught.

      I ask a simple question to help clear the brush here. I ask the question, "what is it precisely that you mean? Are you saying that if it's not in the Bible then it must be false?" When you think about that for a moment you know it's not true. No, that's not what they mean. Then what do they mean? Of course, when you say then what do you mean the argument collapses. They can't make the point that the word Trinity isn't in the Bible." 3

      Subordinationism

      Wayne Grudem says:

      "While Arianism [Jehovah’s Witnesses] held that the Son was created and was not divine, subordinationism held that the Son was eternal (not created) and divine, but still not equal to the Father in being or attributes – the Son was inferior or "subordinate" in being to God the Father." 4

      Gwen holds to a kind of altered form of subordinationism. Her statement that the trinity "implies equality in leadership, or shared Lordship" gives this away. When Gwen Shamblin writes that the trinity

      "implies equality in leadership, or shared Lordship,"

      she consequently puts Jesus at a lower level than God the Father. This is borne out by her when she writes

      "So Jesus Himself tried very hard to answer the Pharisees that He was not equal with God."

      She continues

      "Where I differ is on the teaching in the Trinity that there is EQUALITY in power and glory of God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit; rather, I believe it is a clear line of AUTHORITY."

      She also says

      "God is the clear authority -- and how could anyone want to undermine our God as the total authority? We are playing into Satan’s hands if we do this, and I believe we are also grieving Jesus."

      All of this points to a doctrine of subordinationism.
       

      The Oneness of God

      When it comes to the oneness of God, Gwen Shamblin definitely departs from the orthodox faith delivered to us. Gwen Shamblin puts it like this:

      "Yes, Jesus Christ, God, and the Holy of God are ONE in PURPOSE…"

      and

      "These three are united in purpose."

      She definitely does not believe that Jesus is of one substance with the Father.
       

      Jesus is a demi-god / or bi-theism

      Gwen Shamblin says in her writings that she believes

      "YES, Jesus IS God -- He is "God the SON," not "God the Father.""

      She also says

      "I believe that there is ONE God" and "So Jesus Himself tried very hard to answer the Pharisees that He was not equal with God."

      According to Gwen, there is a mere oneness in purpose between the Father and Son, not a oneness in substance. This is where her theology becomes confusing and possibly heretical, if I understand her correctly. First, she admits that there is one God. Second, she admits that Jesus is God. Third, she denies the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son. Consequently, if the Father and the Son are not one in substance, and both the Father and Son are God, then either she believes that Jesus is a mere demi-god who simply stands second in the line of authority, or she believes in bi-theism (two gods). However, if there are two gods, it will not fit her theology as she already admitted that there is ONE god. Therefore, I think that she believes in Jesus as a demi-god, at the mercy of the Father, who is the head God. This very much falls in line with the Arian controversy that led to the Nicene council in AD 325. The Arians believed that Jesus was God too, but a created one at that. Jesus in their theology was a demi-god. The Jehovah’s Witnesses of today have a very similar theology to the Arian theology that was condemned at Nicea and finally lost its footing at the council of Constantinople in AD 381.

      The Holy Spirit is not God or a person

      Let us see what Gwen Shamblin says:

      "[in heaven] You will see God and you will see Jesus at His right hand, and you will not see the Holy Spirit, for it is God’s spirit or will" and "I believe the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ are definitely sent from God. The Holy Spirit (the Spirit and will of God) dwells in our own hearts."
       

      Trinitarian history

      Gwen Shamblin has this to say about the formation of the Trinity:

      "The Trinity was a message formed in a society that believed in polytheism and it was done in an attempt to make sure no one mistakenly believed that Christians worshipped several Gods."

      According to the little bit she wrote on this subject, it seems to me that she believes that the only reason the doctrine of the Trinity came about was to combat polytheism. This is probably not entirely incorrect. Yet, there are reasons greater than this, why the full-bodied doctrine of the Trinity was developed. Even though the doctrine of the Trinity is not explained in simple terms in the Scriptures, I do believe that it is given to us by the Scriptures. The main reason for the full creedal development of the doctrine of the Trinity was to counter the Arians who in essence relegated Jesus to being a created being. Philip Schaff, one of the foremost church historians of all time explains the Arian controversy like this:

      "The Arian controversy relates primarily to the deity of Christ, but in its course it touches also the deity of the Holy Ghost, and embraces therefore the whole mystery of the Holy Trinity and the incarnation of God, which is the very centre of the Christian revelation. The dogma of the Trinity came up not by itself in abstract form, but in inseparable connection with the doctrine of the deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost. If this latter doctrine is true, the Trinity follows by logical necessity, the biblical monotheism being presumed; in other words: If God is one, and if Christ and the Holy Ghost are distinct from the Father and yet participate in the divine substance, God must be triune. Though there are in the Holy Scriptures themselves few texts which directly prove the Trinity, and the name Trinity is wholly wanting in them, this doctrine is taught with all the greater force in a living form from Genesis to Revelation by the main facts of the revelation of God as Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier, besides being indirectly involved in the deity of Christ and the Holy Ghost.

      The church always believed in this Trinity of revelation, and confessed its faith by baptism into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. This carried with it from the first the conviction, that this revelation of God must be grounded in a distinction immanent in the divine essence. But to bring this faith into clear and fixed knowledge, and to form the baptismal confession into doctrine, was the hard and earnest intellectual work of three centuries. In the Nicene age minds crashed against each other, and fought the decisive battles for and against the doctrines of the true deity of Christ, with which the divinity of Christianity stands or falls." 5

      He continues:

      "Arianism proceeded from the bosom of the Catholic 6 church, was condemned as heresy at the council of Nicaea, but afterwards under various forms attained even ascendency for a time in the church, until at the second ecumenical council it was cast out forever. From that time it lost its importance as a politico-theological power, but continued as an uncatholic sect more than two hundred years among the Germanic nations, which were converted to Christianity under the Arian domination.

      The roots of the Arian controversy are to be found partly in the contradictory elements of the christology of the great Origen, which reflect the crude condition of the Christian mind in the third century; partly in the antagonism between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian theology. Origen, on the one hand, attributed to Christ eternity and other divine attributes which logically lead to the orthodox doctrine of the identity of substance; so that he was vindicated even by Athanasius, the two Cappadocian Gregories, and Basil. But, on the other hand, in his zeal for the personal distinctions in the Godhead, he taught with equal clearness a separateness of essence between the Father and the Son and the subordination of the Son, as a second or secondary God beneath the Father, and thus furnished a starting point for the Arian heresy. The eternal generation of the Son from the will of the Father was, with Origen, the communication of a divine but secondary substance, and this idea, in the hands of the less devout and profound Arius, who with his more rigid logic could admit no intermediate being between God and the creature, deteriorated to the notion of the primal creature." 7

      So, we see that the complete development of the doctrine of the Trinity at the Nicene Council (although it was taught at least as far back as the 2nd century after Christ) was formulated not against polytheism, but against the denial of the deity of Christ by the Arians. 8
       

    4. The Trinity explained

      The Nicene Creed says it like this: And I believe

      "in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;"

      The Athanasian Creed has this to say of the Trinity:

      "Now the catholic 9 faith is that we worship One God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is One, the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit; the Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated; the father infinite, the Son infinite, and the Holy Spirit infinite; the Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. And yet not three eternals but one eternal, as also not three infinites, nor three uncreated, but one uncreated, and one infinite. So, likewise, the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Spirit almighty; and yet not three almighties but one almighty. So the Father is God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; and yet not three Gods but one God. So the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be both God and Lord; so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, there be three Gods or three Lords. The Father is made of none, neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten. The Holy Spirit is of the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten but proceeding. So there is one Father not three Fathers, one Son not three Sons, and one Holy Spirit not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing before or after, nothing greater or less, but the whole three Persons are coeternal together and coequal. So that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Trinity in Unity and the Unity in Trinity is to be worshipped. He therefore who wills to be in a state of salvation, let him think thus of the Trinity."

      To reply to a statement that Gwen Shamblin made. The statement is thus: The

      "word "trinity" implies equality in leadership, or shared Lordship."

      What seems clear to me, is that she has a confused understanding of the "Trinity." If we decide to split the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit into the Father who has Lordship, the Son who was merely sent to earth, and the Holy Spirit "proceeding" merely from the Father, it is clear that Gwen Shamblin does not hold to the "faith once and for all delivered." In her scheme of the Godhead (if she holds to such a concept at all), is that Jesus has no part in leadership in the Godhead, and neither does the Holy Spirit.

      She also seems to believe that Jesus holds no Lordship, hence her statement

      "the word "trinity" implies ... shared Lordship."

      This seems so strange to me, that she holds to her doctrine by pulling two verses of the Bible out of context to prove her point, yet the Bible is full of this "shared Lordship" which is ascribed to Jesus. One merely has to read the New Testament as a storybook, with no in-depth motivation behind it, and one will discover that the New Testament itself claims deity for Jesus at the highest level.

      Those who believe that the concept of the Trinity is a late development that came about at the Council of Nicea do not have all their facts straight. Tertullian, who lived from AD 145-220, wrote the following:

      "As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds" 10

      which is a clear indication that the concept of the Trinity is not really a late development.

      J. Hampton Keathley III said:

      "So what’s the issue that faces us? The ultimate issue as always is, does the biblical evidence support the doctrine of the Trinity or tri-personality of God? If biblical evidence supports it, we can know it is true. Comprehending it is another matter. John Wesley said, "Bring me a worm that can comprehend a man, and then I will show you a man that can comprehend the triune God."" 11

      The issue before us is, in simple terms then, not whether we can actually comprehend the concept of the Trinity, but whether the Biblical evidence supports it.
       

      The Oneness of God

      The Scriptures are clear that God is one, and that there are not three gods, or multiple gods. Let us look at the Bible itself.

      Deut. 6:4 "Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one!"

      2 Sam. 7:22 "For this reason You are great, O Lord GOD; for there is none like You, and there is no God besides You, according to all that we have heard with our ears."

      Isa. 43:10 "Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after Me."

      Isa. 44:6 "Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel And his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me."

      Mk. 12:29 "Jesus answered, The foremost is, "HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD"

      1 Cor. 8:4 "we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one."

      Eph. 4:6 "one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."

      So, the oneness of God is unequivocally stated in the Bible, and there is no way around the fact that God is one. Therefore, we have to accept the fact that any theology that proclaims the existence of three gods must be heretical.
       

      The Three-in-Oneness of God

      Revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament

      Although there is no explicit revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament, we do find implicit revelation of it. Louis Berkhof says,

      "The Old Testament does not contain a full revelation of the trinitarian existence of God, but does contain several indications of it. And this is exactly what might be expected." 12

      Having read and understood the New Testament, we can now see where in the Old Testament there are messages of the Trinity to be found. Many people think that there is absolutely no revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament, but only in the New, yet several passages suggest or imply that God exists as more than one subsistence. Wayne Grudem says:

      "For instance, according to Genesis 1:26, God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." What do the plural verb ("let us") and the plural pronoun ("our") mean? Some have suggested they are plurals of majesty, a form of speech a king would use saying, for example, "We are pleased to grant your request." However, in the Old Testament Hebrew there are no other examples of a monarch using plural verbs or plural pronouns of himself in such a "plural of majesty," so this suggestion has no evidence to support it." 13

      The best explanation for this is that here in the beginning there is an indication of a plurality of subsistence in God Himself. We have not been told how many yet, but it definitely is there. The same type of situation is also found in Gen. 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8.

      There are also passages where one person is called "God" or "Lord" and also another who is also called "God."

      Psa. 45:6-7 "6. Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.
      7. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of joy above Your fellows."

      The New Testament has something to say about this verse. See how the writer of Hebrews shows that it is God speaking here, calling the Son, "God."

      Hebr. 1:8-9 "8. But of the Son He says, YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
      9. YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS."

      Another passage in the book of Psalms that is used in the New Testament is

      Psalm 110:1 "THE LORD says to my Lord: Sit at My right hand Until I make Your enemies a footstool for Your feet."

      Notice how Jesus confounds the Pharisees about this passage when He questions them about it.

      Matt. 22:41-46 "41. Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question:
      42. What do you think about the Christ, whose son is He? They said to Him, The son of David.
      43. He said to them, Then how does David in the Spirit call Him "Lord,' saying,
      44. "THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD, SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND, UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET'?
      45. If David then calls Him "Lord,' how is He his son?
      46. No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question."

      Jesus did not always not claim equality with God. There were times when He taught a certain concept about God where He had to drive home the point that no one is God’s equal. Here Jesus drove home the point that He is God’s equal. Notice how David starts this passage: "THE LORD says to my Lord." Now, we all know that David was worshipping the One God of his fathers, and all will agree that that God was known to the Hebrews as YAHWEH. David’s Lord was YAHWEH. Look how David here speaks of the "Lord" who speaks to his "Lord." Surely this shows a plurality of subsistence in the Godhead. This also shows the equality between these subsistences. Another clear indication is found in the book of Isaiah 48:16,

      "Come near to Me, listen to this: From the first I have not spoken in secret, From the time it took place, I was there. And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit."

      In this prophecy by Isaiah, the Lord is speaking, saying, "the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit." About this passage Grudem says,

      "The parallel between the two objects of sending ("me" and "his Spirit") would be consistent with seeing them both as distinct persons: it seems to mean more than simply "the Lord has sent me and his power." In fact. From a full New Testament perspective (which recognizes Jesus the Messiah to be the true servant of the Lord predicted in Isaiah’s prophecies), Isaiah 48:16 has trinitarian implications: "And now the Lord God has sent me and his Spirit," if spoken by Jesus the Son of God, refers to all three persons of the Trinity." 14

      Another example of the implicit revelation of the Trinity in the Old Testament can be found in the "angel of the Lord." The angel of the Lord came to inform Sarah of her pregnancy that would come, in the passage of Gen. 16:7-13. She recognizes the angel of the Lord as God himself, but notice that the angel of the Lord is separate from God.

      Gen. 16:13 "Then she called the name of the LORD who spoke to her, You are a God who sees; for she said, Have I even remained alive here after seeing Him?"

      It is recognized by many that the angel of the Lord in the Old Testament can be identified in many passages to be the pre-incarnate Christ. Similar passages can be found in Ex. 3:2-6; Judg. 2:1-2 and finally Judg 6:11-23,

      "11. Then the angel of the LORD came and sat under the oak that was in Ophrah, which belonged to Joash the Abiezrite as his son Gideon was beating out wheat in the wine press in order to save it from the Midianites.
      12. The angel of the LORD appeared to him and said to him, The LORD is with you, O valiant warrior.
      13. Then Gideon said to him, O my lord, if the LORD is with us, why then has all this happened to us? And where are all His miracles which our fathers told us about, saying, "Did not the LORD bring us up from Egypt?' But now the LORD has abandoned us and given us into the hand of Midian.
      14. The LORD looked at him and said, Go in this your strength and deliver Israel from the hand of Midian. Have I not sent you?
      15. He said to Him, O Lord, how shall I deliver Israel? Behold, my family is the least in Manasseh, and I am the youngest in my father's house.
      16. But the LORD said to him, Surely I will be with you, and you shall defeat Midian as one man.
      17. So Gideon said to Him, If now I have found favor in Your sight, then show me a sign that it is You who speak with me.
      18. Please do not depart from here, until I come back to You, and bring out my offering and lay it before You. And He said, I will remain until you return. 19. Then Gideon went in and prepared a young goat and unleavened bread from an ephah of flour; he put the meat in a basket and the broth in a pot, and brought them out to him under the oak and presented them.
      20. The angel of God said to him, Take the meat and the unleavened bread and lay them on this rock, and pour out the broth. And he did so.
      21. Then the angel of the LORD put out the end of the staff that was in his hand and touched the meat and the unleavened bread; and fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread. Then the angel of the LORD vanished from his sight.
      22. When Gideon saw that he was the angel of the LORD, he said, Alas, O Lord GOD! For now I have seen the angel of the LORD face to face.
      23. The LORD said to him, Peace to you, do not fear; you shall not die."

      Here we see, probably the pre-incarnate Son, coming to Gideon. Notice when Gideon realizes whom this Angel of the Lord really is; he thinks he is going to die. Why? He would not have thought he was going to die after seeing an angel. He knew, that no0one who sees the face of the Lord will live another day to tell the tale. He doesn’t die, because he came face to face with Christ. Calvin writes of this passage and others like it,

      "But if this does not satisfy the Jews, I know not what cavils will enable them to evade the numerous passages in which Jehovah is said to have appeared in the form of an Angel (Judges 6:7; 13:16-23, &c). This Angel claims for himself the name of the Eternal God. Should it be alleged that this is done in respect of the office which he bears, the difficulty is by no means solved. No servant would rob God of his honour, by allowing sacrifice to be offered to himself. But the Angel, by refusing to eat bread, orders the sacrifice due to Jehovah to be offered to him. Thus the fact itself proves that he was truly Jehovah. Accordingly, Manoah and his wife infer from the sign, that they had seen not only an angel, but God. Hence Manoah's exclamation, "We shall die; for we have seen the Lord." When the woman replies, "If Jehovah had wished to slay us, he would not have received the sacrifice at our hand," she acknowledges that he who is previously called an angel was certainly God. We may add, that the angel's own reply removes all doubt, "Why do ye ask my name, which is wonderful?"" 15

      The great John Calvin has this to say about the Trinity being revealed in the Old Testament:

      "But though I am not now treating of the office of the Mediator, having deferred it till the subject of redemption is considered, yet because it ought to be clear and incontrovertible to all, that Christ is that Word become incarnate, this seems the most appropriate place to introduce those passages which assert the Divinity of Christ. When it is said in the forty-fifth Psalm, "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," the Jews quibble that the name Elohim is applied to angels and sovereign powers. But no passage is to be found in Scripture, where an eternal throne is set up for a creature. For he is not called God simply, but also the eternal Ruler. Besides, the title is not conferred on any man, without some addition, as when it is said that Moses would be a God to Pharaoh (Exod. 7:1). Some read as if it were in the genitive case, but this is too insipid. I admit, that anything possessed of singular excellence is often called divine, but it is clear from the context, that this meaning here were harsh and forced, and totally inapplicable. But if their perverseness still refuses to yield, surely there is no obscurity in Isaiah, where Christ is introduced both as God, and as possessed of supreme powers one of the peculiar attributes of God, "His name shall be called the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace," (Isa. 9:6). " 16

      Calvin continues:

      "There can be no doubt, therefore, that he who a little before was called Emmanuel, is here called the Mighty God. Moreover, there can be nothing clearer than the words of Jeremiah, "This is the name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS," (Jer. 23:6). " 17

      There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, and in the minds of those who dare not pervert the Scriptures to their own eisegetical theology, that Jesus Christ is shown in the Old Testament to be known as YAHWEH, and therefore has the same glory, and authority as that of the Father.

      Revelation of the Trinity in the New Testament
       

      Deity of Jesus

      The deity of Jesus is affirmed right through the New Testament. We start with that great verse in John 1:1,

      "IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

      This appears in the Greek 18 as

      en ¢rcÍ Ãn Ð lÒgoj, kaˆ Ð lÒgoj Ãn prÕj tÕn qeÒn, kaˆ qeÕj Ãn Ð lÒgoj.

      And transliterated according to the standards set out by the B-Greek emailing list, it looks like this,

      EN ARCHi HN hO LOGOS, KAI hO LOGOS HN PROS TON QEON, KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS.

      The phrase "KAI QEOS HN hO LOGOS" is commonly translated as "and the Word was God." A word for word translation like an interlinear New Testament would give this as "and God was the Word." As a translation, this would be incorrect, and so would "and the Word was a god." Greek has very specific rules, and in this case Colwell’s Rule applies. This is how it works (this may be too technical for some, but it is necessary),

      "Insertion of the article "a" in John 1:1 is significant because it casts doubt upon the deity (Godhood) of Jesus Christ. (The Watchtower, like many cults, denies the fundamental doctrine of the deity of Jesus.) In fact, even their own New World Translation (both text and footnote for John 1:1) has been altered a few times to fit their agenda -- though Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18 clearly warn against altering the Written Word of God. ...-- D.Dew

      Tim Elston, a doctoral candidate of the New Testament at Denver Seminary with a BA in Linguistics from the University of Oregon, explains it thus:

      The absence of the article before "God" in John 1:1 is meant to indicate that "God" is the predicate nominative rather than the subject of the phrase. Because Greek does not use word order to indicate subject/object/predicate distinctions, one of its optional features is, where there is ambiguity in a subject-predicate nominative construction, to indicate the subject by preceding it with a definite article and to indicate the predicate nominative by the absence of a definite article. This is called "Colwell's Rule."

      This rule is evident at 1 John 4:8, "God is love." The Greek reads: ho [the] Theos [God] agape [love] estin [is]. If agape had the definite article, instead of Theos, then the correct translation would be "Love is God." But the definite article on Theos indicates "God" as the subject, and the absence of the article on agape indicates agape as the predicate nominative; thus, "God is love." This amounts to a qualification of God rather than a deification of love.

      In the case of John 1:1, the writer leaves the article off of Theos in order to mark it unambiguously as the predicate nominative. The absence of the article does not indicate that theos is an indefinite noun, as Jehovah's Witnesses have incorrectly led many to believe, but that it is not the subject of the phrase. The absence of the article on Theos assures the reader that "the Word" is the subject and that "God" is the predicate nominative.

      In Greek, the article is much less a marking of definiteness than it is an article facilitating syntactic clarity. Indicating definiteness is only one of eleven functions of the article in Koine Greek. Moreover, definiteness does not require the article for its indication. Many, many definite nouns in Greek are not indicated as definite by the use of the article or by any other morphological tag. These anarthrous nouns (nouns which do not have the definite article) are definite simply by virtue of their semantic function. The absence of the article with these nouns in no way indicates them as indefinite. The second occurrence of Theos in John 1:1 is one of these anarthrous nouns which are nonetheless definite." 19

      This may be a lengthy discussion on one verse with a technical handling behind it, but the deity of Christ is of such importance and without it, the Christian faith does not stand. From John 1:1 we immediately move to John 20:28,

      "Thomas answered and said to Him, My Lord and my God!"

      In this passage Thomas had doubted the reports of a resurrected Jesus, and it is from him that we get the idiom "doubting Thomas!" When Jesus appears to them and Thomas sees the holes in His hands and side. John’s writing of his gospel moved towards this climax where the deity of Jesus is affirmed once again, and we see both John and Jesus approving of this statement by Thomas, and encourages others who hear this statement to also believe. What is Jesus’ response to Thomas?

      Jn. 20:29, "Jesus said to him, Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed."

      For John this was the high point of revelation in his gospel, for he affirms it in the next two verses,

      Jn. 20:30-31 "30. Therefore many other signs Jesus also performed in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
      31. but these have been written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you may have life in His name."

      Jesus is shown as God when it is said of Him that He is God and He purchased the church with His own blood in Acts 20:28,

      "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."

      It is abundantly clear in this verse that it shows God as purchasing the church with His own blood, yet we know that it was Jesus who died on the cross, and did the purchasing with His blood, therefore showing that Jesus is God.

      Another clear example of Christ as God can be found in Titus 2:13,

      "looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus,"

      Once again, we can without opposition to the fact claim that Jesus is God. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is not just our Savior, but also our God. Peter claims the same in 2 Peter 2:1,

      "SIMON PETER, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ:"

      It should be clear to the reader by now that the deity of Christ cannot be ignored. For a lengthy, yet excellent discussion on the Greek grammatical rules in Tit. 2:13 and 2 Pet. 2:1 on the internet, it would be of great value to read Robert M. Bowman Jr’s article "Sharp's Rule and Antitrinitarian Theologies: A Bicentennial Defense of Granville Sharp's Argument for the Deity of Christ" at

      http://www.atlantaapologist.org/Sharp.html.

      The book of Hebrews was written to show how the New Covenant in Christ is greater than the Old Covenant brought by Moses and the angels. It is also full of the deity of Christ. The writer of this book starts of his treatise with that same deity of Christ we have so wonderfully discussed.

      Heb. 1:8-10, "8. But of the Son He says, YOUR THRONE, O GOD, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM.
      9. YOU HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; THEREFORE GOD, YOUR GOD, HAS ANOINTED YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS.
      10. And, YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;"

      God the Father is speaking to the Son saying, "You are God and Your throne will be forever. Concerning verse 9 the Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary says,

      "We should perhaps take the first occurrence of the word "God" in v.9 as another vocative: "Therefore, O God, your God has set you."" 20

      Jesus claimed to be the great "I am" Himself when he said in Jn. 8:58,

      "Jesus said to them, Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am."

      Josh McDowell writes,

      "By relying on Old Testament references, we find out that "I AM" refers to the name of God Himself, Yahweh (often translated in English Bibles as "LORD" in all capitals). A. G. Campbell makes this inference for us: "From such Old Testament references as Exodus 3:14, Deuteronomy 32:39, and Isaiah 43:10 it is clear that this is no new idea which Jesus is presenting. The Jews were quite familiar with the idea that the Jehovah of the Old Testament is the eternally existent One. That which is new to the Jews is the identification of this designation with Jesus."" 21

      What we have seen so far is that Jesus is undeniably God!
       

      Jesus’ Equality with the Father

      The Jews knew what Jesus meant when He said that He and the Father were one.

      John 10:25-33 "25. Jesus answered them, I told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Father's name, these testify of Me.
      26. But you do not believe because you are not of My sheep.
      27. My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me;
      28. and I give eternal life to them, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand.
      29. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
      30. I and the Father are one.
      31. The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him.
      32. Jesus answered them, I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?
      33. The Jews answered Him, For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."

      When Jesus said, "I and the Father are one," did He mean "one in purpose?" I think not! That is a concoction of the human mind to get past the equality of Jesus to the Father. The response of the Jews was clear as to what Jesus meant, for they knew what He meant when He said those words. It is clear that it was to be understood that Jesus meant to "make [Himself] out to be God." Concerning the word "one" A.T. Robertson says,

      "{One} (en). Neuter, not masculine (eiv). Not one person (cf. eiv in #Ga 3:28), but one essence or nature." 22

      Paul takes us further in Phil. 2:5-11,
      "5. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus,
      6. who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
      7. but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
      9. For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name,
      10. so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
      11. and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

      Spiros Zodhiates clears this passage up when he says,

      "The entire passage in Phil. 2:6-8 deals with the humiliation of Christ for the purpose of dying. It is brought forth as an illustration of humility (v. 3). This humility is expressed in thoughtfulness of others (v. 4). And then comes the illustration of how Christ humbled Himself and in His death He thought of nothing else but others. Although He was God incarnate and He could avoid death, He did not do it for the sake of man. He allowed Himself to die in His manhood. A translation more expressive of the true meaning of the Greek text of this passage would be, "Who, Christ, being in the form of God." The word translated "existed" is the Greek hUPARCWN, which means that He was in continuation of what He had been before.. It is not the participle ON, from EIMI (1510), but the verb hUPARCWN from hUPARCW (5225), which in this context means "being what He was before." Being in His essential form as God (Jn. 1:1), He continued to be that when He became and continued to be man. And then the second statement is "… did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped." He did not consider being equal with God as something to be forceably grasped from God. His essence of deity was not something that He took at any time, but it was something that He always had and never lost." 23

      Calvin adds a similar sentiment,

      "And the dispute is admirably settled by Paul, when he declares that he was equal with God before he humbled himself, and assumed the form of a servants (Phil. 2:6,7.)" 24

      More Scriptures from the New Testament will suffice.

      Col. 1:15-17 "15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
      16. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities -- all things have been created through Him and for Him.
      17. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

      Col. 2:9 "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form"

      Heb. 1:3 "And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature"

      The post-resurrection Jesus claims to be the first and last (Rev. 1:17; 2:8), which is also claimed by God in Is. 41:4; 44:6. This is just more proof that Jesus is equal with the Father.
       

      Holy Spirit is God

      We will not spend a lot of space showing the Holy Spirit also to be God, due to the fact that we want to show mostly in this article the deity and equality with the Father of the Son, Jesus Christ. We had to show that Gwen Shamblin’s doctrine of Christ is not orthodox, neither Biblical.

      He is a person.

      Notice how John specifically shows the personality of the Spirit, thereby denying the "it-ness" of the Holy Spirit in John 14:17,

      "that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you."

      John does not say that the world does not see "it," but "Him." John carries on in John 14:26 to show the personhood of the Holy Spirit by breaking a Greek grammatical rule to drive this point home.

      "But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come."

      The Greek of this passage looks like this,

      Ótan d ™lqV eke…noj, tÕ pneàma tÁj ¢lhqe…aj, Ðdhg»sei Øm©j ™n tÍ ¢lhqe…v p£sV: oÙ g¦r lal»sei ¢f' ˜autoà, ¢ll' Ósa ¢koÚsei lal»sei, kaˆ t¦ ™rcÒmena ¢naggele‹ Øm‹n.

      The transliteration looks like this,

      OTAN DE ELQHi EKEINOS, TO PNEUMA THS ALHQEIAS, hODHGHSEI hUMAS EN THi ALHQEIAi PASHi; OU GAR LALHSEI AF hEAUTOU, ALL OSA AKOUSEI LALHSEI, KAI TA ERCOMENA ANAGGELEI hUMIN.

      The words TO PNEUMA THS ALHQEIAS translated is "the Spirit of truth." Spirit in the Greek is a neuter noun, and thereby can be translated as an "it" like "breath" which is another meaning for the word. Notice, however, how John breaks the rules of the Greek grammar here when he wants to say that the Spirit will guide us into all things. Referring to the Spirit, he does not use a neuter pronoun such as "it" but uses a masculine one (hEAUTOU - ˜autoà). hEAUTOU in this form (Genitive, Maculine, Third person, Singular Pronoun) means "of himself." The Holy Spirit will not speak of Himself, but whatever He hears.

      His deity

      Wayne Grudem says,

      "Once we understand God the Father and the God the Son to be fully God, then the trinitarian expressions in verses like Matthew 28:19 ("baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") assume significance for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, because they show that the Holy Spirit is classified on an equal level with the Father and the Son." 25

      Some other Trinitarian passages:

      1 Cor. 12:4-6 "4. Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit.
      5. And there are varieties of ministries, and the same Lord.
      6. There are varieties of effects, but the same God who works all things in all persons."

      2 Cor. 13:14 "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."

      Eph. 4:4-6 "4. There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling;
      5. one Lord, one faith, one baptism,
      6. one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."

      1 Pet. 1:2 "according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood"

      Jude 20-21 "20. But you, beloved, building yourselves up on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Spirit,
      21. keep yourselves in the love of God, waiting anxiously for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to eternal life."

      Right through Scripture the attributes of God are also attributed to the Holy Spirit, therefore showing that He is also God. The attributes of God are never shown to be part of any creature. The Spirit is not merely the will of God, for we know that God doesn’t pray to Himself, yet the Holy Spirit is the one who helps us pray when we do not know how to in Rom. 8:26,

      "In the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words."

      Calvin says it so succinctly,

      "Again, no cavils can explain away the force of what Isaiah says, "And now the Lord God, and his Spirit, has sent me," (Isa. 48: 16,) thus ascribing a share in the sovereign power of sending the prophets to the Holy Spirit. (Calvin in Acts20: 28.) In this his divine majesty is clear. But, as I observed, the best proof to us is our familiar experience. For nothing can be more alien from a creature, than the office which the Scriptures ascribe to him, and which the pious actually feel him discharging, - his being diffused over all space, sustaining, invigorating, and quickening all things, both in heaven and on the earth. The mere fact of his not being circumscribed by any limits raises him above the rank of creatures, while his transfusing vigour into all things, breathing into them being, life, and motion, is plainly divine." 26

      Scripture tells us that we are the temple of God by virtue of the Holy Spirit living in us,

      1 Cor. 3:16 "Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you?"

      The apostles attributed Scriptures spoken by God to the Holy Spirit,

      Acts 28:25-26 "25. And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers,
      26. saying, "GO TO THIS PEOPLE AND SAY, YOU WILL KEEP ON HEARING, BUT WILL NOT UNDERSTAND; AND YOU WILL KEEP ON SEEING, BUT WILL NOT PERCEIVE"
       

    5. More about Gwen Shamblin on the WEB

      Gwen in the balance - Christianity Online’s article on the removal of her books by Thomas Nelson publishers.

      The weigh is narrow - As former employees claim they were pressured to join Shamblin's church, the Weigh Down Workshop leader attempts to clarify her stance on the Trinity.

      Official Weigh Down Workshop site.
       

    6. Conclusion

    So, the following elements are taught in the Bible:

    • One God.
    • The Father is God.
    • The Son is God.
    • The Holy Spirit is God.
    • The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons, i.e. They are not each other, nor are they impersonal and they relate to each other on a personal level.

    It isn’t always easy to understand the Trinity, but is that any reason not to believe in it at all. Many have problems with understanding mathematics, but that doesn’t steal from the correctness of mathematical formulas etc. We do not believe in something because we understand it (although it does help), but we believe in something because it is the truth, and we know that the Trinity is the truth because it is revealed to us by God from His Word, the Scriptures. To read more about the Trinity on the internet go to http://www.gospelcom.net/apologeticsindex/t10.html.

    Footnotes

    1.  Copan, Paul, "True for you, but not for me," Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1998, p155
    2.  Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology, Fourth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1996, p85
    3.  Koukl, Greg, “Ignorant & Unenlightened,” Stand To Reason website (http://str.org).
    4.  Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology An Introduction to Biblical Theology, ZondervanPublishingHouse, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, p245.
    5.  Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church (8 Volumes), Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-590, Originally published 1867; this printing, fifth edition, revised, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Mass., First Printing, 1996, p 618.
    6.  The word “catholic” has no Roman Catholic connotations in these early writings, and merely means “universal.”
    7.  Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church (8 Volumes), Volume 3, Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity A.D. 311-590, Originally published 1867; this printing, fifth edition, revised, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Mass., First Printing, 1996, p 618.
    8.  Arius “pressed and overstated the Origenistic view of the subordination, accused Alexander of Sabellianism, and taught that Christ, while he was indeed the creator of the world, was himself a creature of God, therefore not truly divine.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, p 620).
    9.  The word “catholic” has no Roman Catholic connotations in these early writings, and merely means “universal.”
    10.  Tertullian, Against Praxeas, AD 145-220.
    11.  J. Hampton Keathley III, online @ http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/proper/trinity.htm
    12.  Berkhof, Louis, Systematic Theology, Fourth Revised and Enlarged Edition, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1996, p85
    13.  Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology An Introduction to Biblical Theology, ZondervanPublishingHouse, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, p227.
    14.  Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology An Introduction to Biblical Theology, ZondervanPublishingHouse, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, p228.
    15.  Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Book 1 Chapter 13 Section 10, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1989, p117-118.
    16.  Calvin, John, Institutes, Book 1 Chapter 13 Section 9, p116-117.
    17.  Ibid.
    18.  The Greek font used here is “Greek.ttf” by Peter J Gentry and Andrew M Fountain.
    19.  Dew, D, Online @ http://www.dianedew.com/john1.htm.
    20.  Kenneth L. Barker & John R. Kohlenberger III, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary Volume 2: New Testament, ZondervanPublishingHouse, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, p 946.
    21.  McDowell, Josh, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Evidence I & II, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1999, p 142.
    22.  Robertson, A. T., Robertson's NT Word Pictures, Online Bible v8.20.00.05 beta, June 8, 2000.
    23.  Zodhiates, Spiros (Executive Editor), Hebrew-Greek Key Word Study Bible, AMG Publishers, Chattanooga, TN, 1990, p 1572.
    24.  Calvin, John, Institutes, Book 1 Chapter 13 Section 9, p133.
    25.  Grudem, Wayne, Systematic Theology, p 237.
    26.  Calvin, John, Institutes, Book 1 Chapter 13 Section 14, p 122.

    This teaching is also available as a MS-Word document. The Greek.ttf font is needed by this file too, just like the online version.

    Copyright © 2001, 2004  [Teaching the Truth]. All rights reserved.
    No part of this document may be reproduced in any form whatsoever for financial gain, or in any commercial product whatsoever without the consent of Teaching the Truth.
    However, this document may be reproduced in non-commercial products, such as church bulletins, e-mail distribution lists, etc if this copyright section is included or if credit is given to Teaching the Truth and the author.
    Contact us.

    Revised: May 05, 2004 .