Six Objections to the Trinity – 5 of 6

5 of 6:  There are no types, patterns, or analogies for the trinity in Scripture.  Nor in creation can you find an example of three persons in one being, unless it is a person who is possessed by multiple demons – and what is godly or even normal about that?  God commonly gives types, patterns, and analogies for those things He wants us to learn.  Just think of how often Jesus used such analogies in His teaching.  Since we can find no analogy for the trinity, isn’t that a sign that it is not a teaching that comes from God?

The choice is simple: you can either follow Christ for whom there are countless types, patterns, and analogies in the Bible or you can try to follow a trinity concept for which types, patterns, and analogies are practically impossible to find.

It’s much simpler, and more biblical, to live for our Lord Jesus Christ.

To learn more about Christ versus the Trinity, see:

There Is No Trinity; There Is Christ

Posts to Date on the Trinity Versus Christ

Bible notes on this post.

The purpose of this blog is to proclaim Jesus Christ to those who want to hear about Him without having to join a church – or anything else – but Him.

This entry was posted in Jesus Christ and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to Six Objections to the Trinity – 5 of 6

  1. Pingback: The Trinity Is Myth-like…and a Myth | Current Events in Light of the Kingdom of God

  2. Oliander Leaves says:

    The U.S. government is a lot like what I described. Three branches, one government. God is organized. The government is organized. Judicial, Legislative, Executive. That’s how I picture it.

    • Mike Gantt says:

      The Bible never describes God as being organized into three branches.

      • Oliander Leaves says:

        God is described as a government.

        Romans 13:1-3 – Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;

        • Mike Gantt says:

          There is no doubt that God is the supreme governing authority of the universe, and that all authority is derived from Him. However, this has nothing to say about His nature. And it certainly doesn’t say that His nature is like the U.S. government – or any other nation’s government for that matter.

          When I grew up, all authority in my family was derived from my father. This tells you nothing, however, about my father’s nature.

          • Oliander Leaves says:

            Well God is not one person. They are a family. Father commands the Son and the Son commands the Holy Spirit. The Father is Yahweh, the Son is Michael the Archangel and the Holy Spirit is Melchizedek. They are one God, not three. One monarchy. One kingdom. One family. God is one!

            • Mike Gantt says:

              The Son of God is the one whom we are to obey. If you are following Him, you are doing well.

              • Oliander Leaves says:

                Acts 7:39 – “Our fathers were unwilling to be obedient to him, but repudiated him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt, (NASB)

                We are supposed to obey God and whoever he put in charge. Therefore, I obey all three members of the Trinity because it does not matter who it is what the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit says go.

                • Mike Gantt says:

                  One of those three said “No one can serve two masters.” If we cannot serve two masters, how are we going to serve three?

                  • Oliander Leaves says:

                    1. Matthew 6:24 – “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. – He expounds by saying you cannot serve both God and mammon, hence, two masters who are not in perfect agreement. Jesus and the Father are in complete agreement. Perfect harmony. John Gill writes: “No man can serve two masters,…. Whose orders are directly contrary to one another: otherwise, if they were the same, or agreed, both might be served; but this is rarely the case, and seldom done. This is a proverbial expression, and is elsewhere used by Christ, Luke 16:13. The Jews have sayings pretty much like it, and of the same sense as when they say (w)”
                    2. You make the mistake/assumption of assuming Trinitarians believe that the Father and the Son are two Lords. We do not. The Athanasian Creed is a good place to start for understanding the Trinity and it says we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one Lord. The Jehovah’s Witnesses do believe that Yahweh and Jesus are two Lords.
                    3. A three leaf clover has three petals but is one leaf so there is your real life analogy to the Trinity. A family has three main categories but is still one family of father, children, and mother. The Father the Son and the Holy Spirit are all one Elohim family (God). They are all one Lord Kingdom/Monarchy/Government (Master).

                    • Mike Gantt says:

                      3 – One of the leaves of a three-leaf clover is not a three-leaf clover, yet Trinitarian doctrine says that the Trinity is God and that each member is God. That would be like saying the three-leaf clover is a three-leaf clover and each leaf is a three-leaf clover.

                      2 – Here you are being demonstrating both the illogical and unscriptural nature of trinitarian doctrine – illogical because you say, presumably, that “Jesus is Lord” and yet simultaneously that “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one Lord,” and unscriptural because, for example, 1 Corinthians 8:6 says there is one Lord and that it is Jesus Christ (not that it is a Trinity).

                      3 – If you are able to follow Christ (e.g. 2 Cor 11:3) while holding to trinitarian doctrine feel free to ignore me with my blessing.

                    • Oliander Leaves says:

                      Said: “One of the leaves of a three-leaf clover is not a three-leaf clover, yet Trinitarian doctrine says that the Trinity is God and that each member is God. That would be like saying the three-leaf clover is a three-leaf clover and each leaf is a three-leaf clover.”
                      No. Trinitarians do NOT teach that each member of the Trinity is the TRINITY! They are each a member of the Elohim family and as such can each be called ELOHIM.
                      Said: “Here you are being demonstrating both the illogical and unscriptural nature of trinitarian doctrine – illogical because you say, presumably, that “Jesus is Lord” and yet simultaneously that “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one Lord,” and unscriptural because, for example, 1 Corinthians 8:6 says there is one Lord and that it is Jesus Christ (not that it is a Trinity).”
                      1. What is your case that Jesus is the unipersonal Supreme Deity? You have yet to present scripture to prove that. I have shown you scripture that demonstrate the Father, the Son, and the Hoyl Spirit to at least be THREE non-consubstantial entities.
                      2. Yes, Jesus is Lord. Yes, the Father is also Lord and the Holy Spirit is also Lord and they are one Lord. So likewise, the Legislative branch is Lord. The Judicial branch is Lord. And the executive branch is Lord. Yet they are not each other and they are not three Lords. They are ONE Lord – the governemnt. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are ONE Lord – the ELOHIM Family.
                      Said: “If you are able to follow Christ (e.g. 2 Cor 11:3) while holding to trinitarian doctrine feel free to ignore me with my blessing.”
                      There is nothing complicated about this doctrine!

                    • Mike Gantt says:

                      Yes, Jesus is Lord. Yes, the Father is also Lord and the Holy Spirit is also Lord and they are one Lord.

                      Such a statement is worthy of Alice in Wonderland. Practically speaking, it’s nonsensical. You think it’s logical for the same reason that the Emperor thought he was wearing new clothes.

                  • Oliander Leaves says:

                    Mike Gantt said: “Such a statement is worthy of Alice in Wonderland. Practically speaking, it’s nonsensical. You think it’s logical for the same reason that the Emperor thought he was wearing new clothes.”
                    Are you an Arabian or something? Do you not profess that the Legislative branch of the U.S. government is Lord? Do you not profess that the Executive branch of the U.S. government is Lord? Do you not profess that the Judicial branch of the U.S. government is Lord? If so, then you are a Trinitarian for there are not three U.S. governments, there is ONE U.S. governemnt and as such the branches are each Lord of the U.S. and are not each other, and are not three Lords but ONE Lord.

                    • Mike Gantt says:

                      I am not an Arabian; I am an American. About the only thing the system of government in the U.S. has to do with the Trinity are the numbers 3 and 1. After that, all points of comparison fall apart. The U.S. government is designed to separate the powers of the government so as to limit the possibility of tyranny. God has no need of such restraints. Moreover, the Bible tells of the Father passing on all power to Jesus:

                      “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father” – Matthew 11:27
                      “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” – Matthew 28:18
                      “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand” – John 3:35
                      “…His Son whom He appointed heir of all things” – Hebrews 1:2

                      There is no way that the Legislative branch of the U.S. government would give all its power to the Executive or Judicial branches. Each branch of government holds to its own power. The genius of the U.S. system is that it keeps overall power in check by limiting the power of each branch – the very thing most needful when your government is going to be comprised of human beings who can never be fully trusted.

                      Even if you were to enlist nothing but Trinitarians to sit for your U.S. Civics class, you would not get far trying to use the Trinity as a teaching aid and your students would have a very distorted view of American government.

              • Oliander Leaves says:

                You said: “I am not an Arabian; I am an American. About the only thing the system of government in the U.S. has to do with the Trinity are the numbers 3 and 1. After that, all points of comparison fall apart. The U.S. government is designed to separate the powers of the government so as to limit the possibility of tyranny. God has no need of such restraints. Moreover, the Bible tells of the Father passing on all power to Jesus:”
                This is not what happened. Get historical facts straight:
                1 Corinthians 15:25-28 – For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 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.

                • Mike Gantt says:

                  Indeed He was (Jesus Christ Has Already Come Again). And that’s when His glory was fully revealed (1 Corinthians 1:7; 1 Peter 1:7, 13; 5:1) – as God.

                  • Oliander Leaves says:

                    2 Peter 2:12 – These people, however, are like irrational animals, mere creatures of instinct, born to be caught and killed. THEY SLANDER WHAT THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND, and when those creatures are destroyed, they also will be destroyed,

                    • Mike Gantt says:

                      I haven’t slandered you. You have written on my site to disagree with me and I have defended my position. If you take that as slander, I can’t be responsible for your choice.

  3. Brandon E says:

    Hi Mike,

    Why would the truth about God who is Spirit (John 4:24) need to have an analog in the physical universe? The Lord Jesus said that He was in the Father and the Father was in Him (John 14:10-11). The Scripture also reveals that the Spirit, the Son, the Father, and “God” all indwell the believers (John 14:16-20, 23; John 17:23; Rom. 8:9-11; 1 Cor. 3:16-17; 1 Cor. 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; 2 Cor. 13:5; Gal. 2:20; 4:6; Eph. 4:6; 1 John 3:24; 1 John 4:4, 12-16). Persons indwelling and living inside other persons–is there an analog for this in the physical universe?

    • Mike Gantt says:

      The universe exists in two fundamental dimensions: visible (i.e. physical, flesh) and invisible (spirit). To teach us about the invisible dimension, God uses aspects of, and objects of, the physical dimension.

      Of course, the visible and invisible dimensions of creation co-exist. They are not independent of each other. Specifically, the physical dimension is dependent on the spiritual dimension. For example, “the body without the spirit is dead” (James 2:26). Nevertheless, the interaction between these dimensions is complex and they are not always easily dissected. Hebrews 4:12, for example, says that only the sharpest instrument in creation is able to divide soul and spirit.

      In your question, you seem to be asking for analogs in the physical dimension to the interaction between the two dimensions. This does not make sense.

      • Brandon E says:

        To reiterate: the Bible teaches that the the Father and Son are in one another, and that the believers indwell God and God (Father, Son, and Spirit) indwells the believers. In summary, the Bible describes persons mutually indwelling one another invisibly and spiritually. I’m suggesting that there isn’t an analog for this mystery, and thus there being no creational analog for God being triune is no argument that the teaching is not true and does not from God. The most divine, mystical, and spiritual things are beyond our full explanation and natural understanding.

        • Mike Gantt says:

          You’re mixing apples and oranges. To say we are “in” God does not say we “are” God.

          • Brandon E says:

            You’re still missing my point. Believers being in God and God being in the believers (persons mutually indwelling other persons) invisibly and spiritually doesn’t have an analog. Hence, the concept of a trinity (also a mutual indwelling of “persons”) not having an analog is not a good argument against it.

            • Mike Gantt says:

              I never said that intersections of the two dimensions require an analog in one of the dimensions. Rather I said that God gives us analogs for all His characteristics. If it was a characteristic of His that He was simultaneously three and one He’d have given us analogs for it.

              • Brandon E says:

                Is not Christ being in us (2 Cor. 13:5; Rom. 8:9-11; Col. 1:27), living in us (Gal. 2:20), and making His home in our heart or soul through faith (Eph. 3:17) an invisible, spiritual reality, not merely an interaction of the invisible and visible dimensions of creation? It’s persons invisibly and spiritually indwelling one another; a characteristic of God is that He can indwell our us invisibly and spiritually. If there’s no analog for this in creation, then God being a trinity not having an analog is no good argument against its truthfulness.

                • Mike Gantt says:

                  That God can indwell us is a characteristic of His relationship with us, not a characteristic of His.

                  • Brandon E says:

                    Arguably, that God can have this kind of relationship with us is a characteristic of His.

                    Even if not, if you’re admitting that there is no analog for God indwelling us and us indwelling God invisibly and spiritually, then consider: if not every characteristic of His relationship with us requires an analog in order to be a teaching from God, why does every characteristic of His need an analog in order to be a teaching from Him?

                    Actually, many of the types, patterns, analogies He gives us are for characteristics of His relationship with us. What’s a Door (John 10:9) without creatures in need of salvation to enter into it? What’s the Body of Christ without the many members, or the true Vine with many branches without believers as the branches? What’s the Sower and seed without the human heart for the seed of His word to be planted into? The Lord often gave us analogs to describe characteristics of His relationship to us, but if there aren’t even analogs for all of these, why should we require them for all of His characteristics before we will believe it is a teaching from God?

                    And do all of His divine characteristics actually have creational analogs? Can you name all of God’s characteristics and their creational analogs? And if God is transcendent and infinite, why would all of His characteristics need an analog in creation in the first place? It just seems like you’re creating an objection to the concept the trinity out of thin air.

                    • Mike Gantt says:

                      Once upon a time there was a teacher who was renowned for his use of audio-visual aids. Many of his students clung to his teachings by the sheer power of the concrete images he used to convey important concepts. There were, however, some students who insisted that he used no audio-visual aid for one of his most important topics. Moreover, no one could find where he even explicitly taught on this topic – with or without an audio-visual aid. These students insisted that this teaching could be logically inferred from all his teaching, even though concept itself admittedly defied logic. The rest of the students could not go along with this. Was their objection “out of thin air”?

  4. Brandon E says:

    Your allegory is creative, but it the story doesn’t accurately model the real condition. It’s a fallacy of composition, where you’re selecting only the details you want to emphasize instead of presenting the full picture. I could just as easily add the story detail that the teacher taught some concepts so profound, unique, and mysterious that he didn’t use an audio-visual aid to communicate it. Jesus, though fully a man, was the eternal God, but He didn’t go around explicitly saying “I am God,” and didn’t give an analog for His teaching that He was in the Father and the Father was in Him working (John 14:10-11) and yet He and the Father were one and not two, or His teaching that one day “you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you” (John 14:20). You’re saying that there must be an analog for an important teaching or else it’s a sign that it does not come from God, and I’m saying there are scriptural reasons to think otherwise.

  5. Brandon E says:

    John 14:10-11 and 20 are more trinitarian teaching? Well then, good, case closed!

    • Mike Gantt says:

      I was referring to your interpretation of the verses, not the verses themselves.

      • Brandon E says:

        And are there analogs for John 14:10-11 and 20?

        • Mike Gantt says:

          The most obvious one would be God dwelling in the midst of ancient Israel as they came out of Egypt. As God had dwelt in a nation, His mighty works to perform, so He was now dwelling in the single person of the Messiah, and would be soon throughout His body the church – spiritual Israel.

          • Brandon E says:

            In your original post you said that you can’t find in creation an example of “three persons in one being” except in the case of demon possession, and you objected to it not because it wasn’t an example in creation but because it’s not godly or normal. So I gave you cases in which it is godly, normal, and spiritual for persons to be in other persons invisibly–the Father in the Son and the Son in the Father, and the Father, Son, and Spirit indwelling the believers. If you’ve just given an analog for this relationship, then we have an analog to describe how the trinitarian understanding of the relationships between the Father, Son, and Spirit differs from your claims. That is, the Father does not “become” the Son and cease to be the Father, as you claim, but rather the Father dwells in the Son and the Son dwells in the Father.

            Besides, as I asked before, did God give us creational analogs for all His characteristics? His omnipotence? His omniscience? Can you name all God’s characteristics and their analogs?

            • Mike Gantt says:

              Which paragraph represents your belief: The first one where you suggest that there is an analog in the physical creation for the trinity concept, or the second in which you argue that an analog in the physical creation for God’s characteristics is not necessary?

              • Brandon E says:

                My belief is that the Bible doesn’t purport to list all God’s characteristics and give analogies for them, so a teaching about God doesn’t require an analogy in order to be true or come from Him.

                As for my first paragraph, my point was to show problems or inconsistencies in your claims. As far as whether there is an analogy for God being triune, or other characteristics we could name, I think it depends upon how strictly or flexibly we define “analogy.” No type, shadow, pattern, or analogy perfectly and exhaustively defines and describes the very nature of God, who is beyond our finite comprehension.

                • Mike Gantt says:

                  There are innumerable types and shadows of Christ throughout the Old Testament.

                  All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ.

                  Many present “another Jesus” to distract us and lead our minds astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.

                  Meditate on these biblical truths and you will begin to see how the trinity doctrine siphons precious attention away from Christ.

                  • Brandon E says:


                    There are innumerable types and shadows of Christ throughout the Old Testament.
                    All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden in Christ.
                    —-
                    What Christian wouldn’t affirm or say Amen! to this? 🙂 But this doesn’t show that every characteristic of God needs a perfect analogy in the physical creation in order to be true.


                    Many present “another Jesus” to distract us and lead our minds astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
                    Meditate on these biblical truths and you will begin to see how the trinity doctrine siphons precious attention away from Christ.

                    —-
                    Covered here: http://blogforthelordjesus.wordpress.com/2011/09/01/six-objections-to-the-trinity-%E2%80%93-1-of-6/
                    There I pointed out that the apostles wrote of praising, thanking, praying to the Father (even before, as you claim, that Christ returned as the Father on the day of the Lord). However, this doesn’t siphon attention away from Christ in any ungodly way. I also pointed out that I believe that Christ is the content, center, focus, embodiment, and expression of the triune God, and hence we would have every reason to be centered upon Him.

  6. Mike Gantt says:

    How can you acknowledge that the Bible is filled types and shadows of Christ, and that it presents no analogs for the Trinity, and yet not draw a conclusion from those two facts? I can only conclude that you’re unwilling to go where the conclusion leads you.

    The apostles wrote before the kingdom came, that is, before the great revelation of Christ about which they prophesied. Thus they wrote of the Father and the Son. Once Christ was fully revealed there was no more need to speak of two.

    Though I can appreciate that you want to tilt trinitarian doctrine to a Christ focus, it is nonetheless a distraction to His glory. We are never told in Scripture to put our focus on the Trinity (as if that were even possible), yet are are repeatedly told to focus on Christ. It is the teaching of Christ that is to predominant all our speaking of God (2 John 1:9 and elsewhere).

    • Brandon E says:

      How can you acknowledge that the Bible is filled types and shadows of Christ, and that it presents no analogs for the Trinity, and yet not draw a conclusion from those two facts? I can only conclude that you’re unwilling to go where the conclusion leads you.

      I don’t come to this conclusion because it’s a logical leap, Mike. You’re only willing to make the leap because you want it to be so. As I said, does the Bible list all of God’s divine characteristics and provide perfect analogies for them?

      The Bible doesn’t present a perfect analogy for your claims about God: that the Father “becomes” the Son and ceases to be the Father, and yet the Son while in existence prays, is heard by, and answered by the Father. So should we conclude that your claims are false and do not come from God?

      The apostles wrote before the kingdom came, that is, before the great revelation of Christ about which they prophesied. Thus they wrote of the Father and the Son. Once Christ was fully revealed there was no more need to speak of two.

      Where’s this in Scripture? If the apostles knew and thought that “the great revelation of Christ” would show that there was no need to speak of two, the Father and Son, while would they continue speaking of two, if they already knew the coming revelation? And if Christ came as the Father in His second coming, which you claim happened in the first century, why not say that He’s the Father now, and that we should all be Father-focused? Besides, the apostles’ words clearly show that the Father did not “become” the Son and cease to be the Father, as you claim, but that when the Son exists the Father exists at the same time also.

      Though I can appreciate that you want to tilt trinitarian doctrine to a Christ focus, it is nonetheless a distraction to His glory. We are never told in Scripture to put our focus on the Trinity (as if that were even possible), yet are are repeatedly told to focus on Christ. It is the teaching of Christ that is to predominant all our speaking of God (2 John 1:9 and elsewhere).

      Plenty of scriptural passages direct attention to the Father or to the Father, Son, and Spirit (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor.13:14; Eph. 2:18; 3:14-19; 5:20; Col. 3:17; 1 Pet. 1:2-3 are just some examples). If this is not a distraction to Christ’s glory, I don’t see why speaking of the Father, Son, and Spirit as being distinct but never separate would be so.

      • Mike Gantt says:

        I want to follow Christ wherever He leads. He does not lead to a trinity.

        Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters. How then could we ever serve three?

        God gives analogies in Scripture and in creation for those truths He most wants to convey.

        If the Father doesn’t die and become the Son, then why is all the “heir” and “inheritance” terminology used with respect to Jesus. Heirs are appointed and inheritance determined because someone is going to die.

        What the apostles knew and didn’t know about the great revelation to come, I cannot say. What I can say is that they knew things they were not allowed to announce (2 Corinthians 12:4). This is reminiscent of how He told His disciples to keep secret His identity as Messiah until after His resurrection from the dead (Luke 9:20-22).

        As for how “two become one” Paul himself says this is “a great mystery” (Ephesians 5:31-32). And, of course, all of God’s mysteries are meant to be revealed (Matthew 10:26).

        If the Father says to focus on the Son, and we instead try to have a multiple focus on the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit have we obeyed the Father?

        • Brandon E says:


          Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters. How then could we ever serve three?

          This is an abuse of Scripture. Unlike God and Mammon mentioned in the “two masters” passage, the Father, Son, and Spirit are not three separate entities at odds with one another. God and Mammon aren’t in any sense one, but the Father, Son, and Spirit couldn’t be served as individuals, because they exist in full harmony. One couldn’t truly serve the Father, or Son, or Spirit without truly serving the triune God embodied in Christ.

          God gives analogies in Scripture and in creation for those truths He most wants to convey.

          That’s not all that you said. You said that “Since we can find no analogy for the trinity, isn’t that a sign that it is not a teaching that comes from God?” But I would ask, what analogy is there for what you claim about God: that the Father “dies” and “becomes” the Son and ceases to be the Father, even though the Scripture presents the Father as continuing to exist as the Son prays to, is heard by, is answered by the Father?

          You make these claims as if they are the truth in Scripture. But does the Scripture say that every important truth needs an analogy, or does the Scripture list all God’s divine attributes and their corresponding analogies? Or, if demons indwelling persons would count as an analogy of multiple persons in one being except that it is a negative example, and we accept your claim that there is an analogy for John 14:10-11 and 20 (positive examples of multiple persons invisibly and spiritually indwelling one another), do we not have an analogy for multiple persons in one being?


          If the Father doesn’t die and become the Son, then why is all the “heir” and “inheritance” terminology used with respect to Jesus. Heirs are appointed and inheritance determined because someone is going to die.

          An inheritance is something that is allotted to someone; an heir is someone who receives or is entitled to the inheritance. It doesn’t always mean that someone has to die and cease to exist first, especially if we’re talking about spiritual things.

          By your kind of logic, we could just as easily say that because Christ is the Son of God, but fathers don’t become their sons or cease to be fathers when they become their sons, therefore your claim that the Father “became” the Son and ceased to be the Father is refuted! We could just as easily claim that parents and predecessors don’t become their heirs and cease to be parents and predecessors!

          Further, Romans 8:17 says that believers, his children, are “heirs of God” and joint-heirs with Christ; but it doesn’t mean that God had to die and cease to exist as God in order for us to be heirs of God.

          So how can you claim that this means that the Father “became” the Son and ceased to the Father, especially when the Scripture clearly presents the Father as existing at the same as the Son?

          What the apostles knew and didn’t know about the great revelation to come, I cannot say. What I can say is that they knew things they were not allowed to announce (2 Corinthians 12:4). This is reminiscent of how He told His disciples to keep secret His identity as Messiah until after His resurrection from the dead (Luke 9:20-22).

          All I can say is that would perfectly explain why we don’t find your view–that the Father “became” the Son and ceased to be the Father–in Scripture! The apostles had a secret teaching that they were not allowed to announce!
          —-
          As for how “two become one” Paul himself says this is “a great mystery” (Ephesians 5:31-32). And, of course, all of God’s mysteries are meant to be revealed (Matthew 10:26).

          Two can’t become one unless they are somehow “two” in the first place. Why would Jesus and the apostles talk about the Father and Son as existing and acting at the same time if they really secretly believed what you claim about God?
          —-
          If the Father says to focus on the Son, and we instead try to have a multiple focus on the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit have we obeyed the Father?

          Yes, we are obeying, because the true Son, the Son who is, is the embodiment of the complete God that includes the Father and the Spirit.

          • Mike Gantt says:

            The Trinity is your placeholder until you are ready to accept the truth about God. Obey the Son and you will do well (John 3:36).

            • Brandon E says:

              Mike, after all that we’ve discussed here, your words ring hollow. What “truth” are you talking about? That the Father “became” the Son and ceased to be the Father, even though the Scriptures show the Father and the Son existing at the same time and interacting? That the Father carefully planning things beforehand somehow means that He no longer exists as Father and His designs for the Son are supposedly carried out by other agents, even though the Father speaks, works, hears, answers and is prayed to by the Son while the Son was on earth? That the Father and the Son (somehow “two” beforehand?) will become one in Christ’s second coming, even though the Scripture says nothing of the sort and if anything more closely identifies Him as father in His incarnation (Isa. 9:6) and His crucifixion and resurrection (Isa. 53:10) during which He is still the Son?

              • Mike Gantt says:

                Brandon, what do you think the evangelists thought about the Father and Son as they wrote the gospels? What did Paul and the rest think of God and Jesus as they wrote the epistles? That is, do you think that these writers thought of these two as you describe them: “co-existing, distinct yet one” etc.?

                In other words, if the apostles understood trinitarian doctrine, why didn’t they explicitly teach it? And, if they didn’t understand it, what did they think of God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit, and how is that different from trinitarian doctrine?

                • Brandon E says:

                  I think that they believed that God is one, believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are truly God (but with a special attention on Christ’s process of incarnation, human living and teaching, crucifixion, resurrection and ascension), and repeatedly wrote of the Father, Son, and Spirit existing and operating at the same time in the plan of salvation and in their personal lives and church life. Terms like “triune” or “trinity” or “co-existing,” “distinct but not separate” make explicit what is implicit in the text, similar to how the first century church had the apostles’ teaching but they didn’t have an explicit concept of a New Testament canon consisting of 27 books.

                  I definitely think that we can become too reliant on doctrinal creeds and formulas, making those our yardstick instead of making the Bible their yardstick and seeing the revelation there for ourselves. But this is vastly different than declaring “there is no trinity” (that is, that which is meant by “trinity”) and seeking to replace it with unscriptural concepts, such as the Father “becoming” the Son and ceasing to be the Father or exist as Father, etc.

                  • Mike Gantt says:

                    You only partially answered the question. You’re claiming that the apostles understood God as triune but you haven’t explained why they didn’t explicitly teach this. Since the apostles wrote from various locations over an extensive period of time, it was not likely that any of them knew at the time that 27 books would remain extant. You are saying, however, that they knew for sure that there were three in God. What prevented them from writing explicitly about this?

                    • Brandon E says:

                      Do you actually believe that Christ and/or the apostles believed that the Father “became” the Son and ceased to be the Father? Or that the Father and Christ would become one during Christ’s second coming (of all occasions)? If so, why didn’t they explicitly teach this? And so we could ask the same for many statements you make on your blogs.

                      So my response is that nothing “prevented” them. There’s many important things revealed in Scripture that aren’t revealed in an explicit, formal, systematic, or tidy way, and I actually prefer it to be this way in Scripture. Moreover, just because people coin expressions or formulas later for summary, description, or convenient in reference to meet a certain need, doesn’t mean that the concept is not there. If someone was always talking about twelve inches, and someone later names twelve inches “one foot” for reference, would you ask why the first person didn’t explicitly talk about one foot?

  7. Mike Gantt says:

    I think it is fascinating to seek to understand what the apostles knew and when they knew it. I hope you will give this subject serious consideration.

    If you do so seriously, I think you will have to come to the conclusion that the trinitarian answer that the apostles knew, understood, and taught the Trinity but just didn’t use the words “trinity” or “triune” is just not plausible.

    I think if most of us saw a document that constantly referred to 12 inches and never call it a foot, we’d wonder why.

    • Brandon E says:


      I think it is fascinating to seek to understand what the apostles knew and when they knew it. I hope you will give this subject serious consideration.

      That’s an equivocal response to my comment, Mike.

      Do you believe that the apostles believed that the Father “became” the Son and ceased to be the Father? Or that the Father and Christ would become one during Christ’s second coming (of all occasions)? If so, why didn’t they explicitly teach this?

      Is it fair for you do ask me to do work that you’re not willing or prepared to do? It’s as if you’re willing to point the finger, but not willing to see the four fingers pointing back at you.


      I think if most of us saw a document that constantly referred to 12 inches and never call it a foot, we’d wonder why.

      To use the illustration, the apostles did have an expression for “12 inches.” That is, “Father, Son, and Spirit,” whom they consistently spoke of as existing at the same time, as being God, and yet as God being one.

      Because that is something of a mouthful, words like “triune,” “trinity,” “persons,” etc. came in later in for convenience. The reason why these words came in later rather than sooner was to meet new needs–that is, to compare and contrast what the Scriptures said about God with heresies like modalism (which denied that the Father, Son, and Spirit existed at the same time) and Arianism (which made Jesus into a separate “God” and separate being from the Father.)

      • Mike Gantt says:

        My answer to you was clear and unequivocal. You just didn’t like it that I am indifferent to your esoteric point.

        If the apostles knew that Jesus was God, they were reticent to boldly proclaim it. Their declarations were about Jesus being Messiah, not Jesus being God. As Jesus’ identity as Messiah was not relevant to the gospel message until after Jesus was raised from the dead, so Jesus’ identity as God was not relevant until after the coming of the kingdom.

        Take some paper and a pen and read through your New Testament. Note the number of times that the Father and the Son (i.e. God and Jesus) are mentioned in the same verse and then note the number of times that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are mentioned in the same verse. There are so many more of the former than there are of the latter, that by your logic it’s a mystery why we don’t have shorthand terms for two of them instead of three of them. (Yes, I have done the exercise.)

        • Brandon E says:

          —-
          My answer to you was clear and unequivocal. You just didn’t like it that I am indifferent to your esoteric point.

          What’s esoteric about me saying that the apostles talked about the Father, Son, and Spirit being God, existing at the same time, and yet being one, but just not using later, more technical terminology like “trinity,” “triune,” “persons,” etc. to describe this? Or what’s esoteric about me asking whether you think that the apostles believed that the Father “became” the Son and ceased to be the Father, or that the Father and Christ would be revealed as one during Christ’s second coming (of all occasions), since this is what you claim about God?

          If this was my point, then “I think it is fascinating to seek to understand what the apostles knew and when they knew it. I hope you will give this subject serious consideration” isn’t clear and unequivocal.

          —-
          If the apostles knew that Jesus was God, they were reticent to boldly proclaim it. Their declarations were about Jesus being Messiah, not Jesus being God. As Jesus’ identity as Messiah was not relevant to the gospel message until after Jesus was raised from the dead, so Jesus’ identity as God was not relevant until after the coming of the kingdom.

          John 1:1, 10:30 and 20:28 seem pretty bold to me, just for starters. And in the gospels, written after His resurrection, we have the metanarrative internal to Scripture of the Lord Jesus knowing that He was the Christ but telling the disciples not to speak this openly. The same cannot be said of what you claim, since the coming of the kingdom could only happen after the Scriptures were written. (I would also suggest that the reason why Jesus’ identity as Messiah was kept secret prior to His resurrection was not because it was not relevant to the gospel message but partly because an explicit declaration would have gotten Him crucified by His opposers before all the works of His earthly ministry could be carried out.)

          So, of course, supposing that the apostles actually believed that Jesus’ being God wasn’t relevant to the gospel until His second coming, or that Jesus and the Father were not to be shown to be one until the second coming (of all occasions), they were more than reticent to teach this. Supposing that they didn’t believe or suspect this, they also would not have taught this. Thus it is no surprise we don’t find your claims in Scripture, while in contrast we do find Jesus being called God, being ascribed divine attributes that belong only to God, being worshiped, Him saying that He is one with the Father and to see Him is to see the Father, etc.

          So we’re left with Mike Gantt not knowing or saying whether 1) he knows something that the apostles didn’t know at the time the Scriptures were being written, or 2) he knows something that the apostles secretly knew about but had some reason not to teach in Scripture. And what is the scriptural warrant for saying that “Jesus’ identity as God was not relevant until after the coming of the kingdom” or that Jesus and the Father were not to be revealed as one until the second coming (of all occasions)?

          —–
          Take some paper and a pen and read through your New Testament..
          …There are so many more of the former than there are of the latter, that by your logic it’s a mystery why we don’t have shorthand terms for two of them instead of three of them..

          —-
          Why would sheer number of references determine the truth in a text? That’s your logic, not my logic. There are plenty of powerful verses and passages that mention or describe the interrelations between the Father, Son, and Spirit in the same thought (Matt. 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14; Matt 3:16-17; Luke 1:35, 3:22, 10:21; John 14:16-20; 15:26; 20:21-22; Rom. ch. 8; Gal. 4:6; Eph. 2:11-22; 3:14-21; 1 Pet. 1:2; Heb. 9:14) and many verses speak of God, the Father, Christ, the Spirit interchangeably when speaking of God’s activities. See: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/holy-trinity-biblical-proofs.html)

          • Mike Gantt says:

            What’s esoteric was your question about the Holy Spirit.

            While I am with you completely that Jesus was God, it cannot be said that the apostles explicitly and unequivocally declared Him to be so. The Unitarians have reasonable challenges to a verse even like John 1:1. There are plenty of verses wherein the apostles say explicitly and unequivocally that Jesus was the Messiah or that Jesus was the Lord. However, to determine that He was God (whether trinitarian or otherwise) requires inference.

            The apostles knew many things unknown to the prophets before them (Matthew 13:17). That doesn’t mean that they were necessarily more spiritual than the prophets.

            You seem to misunderstand the nature of your own argument. You want us to believe that whenever the Scripture mentions God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in the same breath it is teaching us about the Trinity, but you do not want us to believe that the many more occasions when the Scripture talks about just God and Jesus in the same breath that its teaching us about a binity.

            By the way, you misstate the case when you say that the Scriptures speak about the activities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit interchangeably. It is true that the Son takes over functions from the Father (and this is the process that the New Testament describes*), but the Holy Spirit’s activities are always different and on behalf of either the Father or the Son.

            *The consummation of the process is the coming of the kingdom wherein the Son inherits the last of the Father’s functions that had not previously been transferred to Him – judgment of heaven and earth. See:

            The Great Handoff

            The New Testament Is a Picture of a King Transferring the Reign to His Son

            The Son of God Is the Living God

            When Christ Separated the Sheep and the Goats

            • Brandon E says:


              What’s esoteric was your question about the Holy Spirit.

              But was that not in a different thread? And it was a fairly straightforward question about whether you think that the Spirit (called “eternal Spirit” in Heb. 9:14) was created by God at some point, if He is not eternal like God. This kind of question is no more esoteric than your claims that the Father became the “Son” and ceased to be the Father and dependent upon a system of unfitting analogies to explain away the New Testament plainly revealing the Father and the Son as existing at the same time.

              I would say that the scriptural evidence that the Son (who is God) and Spirit are one is just as good as the evidence that the Father and the Son are one.


              While I am with you completely that Jesus was God, it cannot be said that the apostles explicitly and unequivocally declared Him to be so. The Unitarians have reasonable challenges to a verse even like John 1:1. There are plenty of verses wherein the apostles say explicitly and unequivocally that Jesus was the Messiah or that Jesus was the Lord. However, to determine that He was God (whether trinitarian or otherwise) requires inference.
              The apostles knew many things unknown to the prophets before them (Matthew 13:17). That doesn’t mean that they were necessarily more spiritual than the prophets.

              —-
              I don’t think that the objections to John 1:1, 10:30 and 20:28 as clear affirmations that Jesus is God are reasonable. My overall point is that your claim that the God, the Father, and Christ were not to be revealed to be one until the second coming (of all occasions) is not only not in Scripture, but would have to be a post-scriptural revelation. This is unlike Jesus’ identity as the Christ being known by Him and and His disciples kept from the world and then being disclosed upon His death and resurrection, since that situation is explicitly revealed in Scripture after-the-fact.


              You seem to misunderstand the nature of your own argument. You want us to believe that whenever the Scripture mentions God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in the same breath it is teaching us about the Trinity, but you do not want us to believe that the many more occasions when the Scripture talks about just God and Jesus in the same breath that its teaching us about a binity.

              Mike, you’re misunderstanding the nature of what I’m saying. I didn’t say that just because the Father, Son, and Spirit are mentioned in the same breath there must be a trinity. I said that sheer number of references is a poor way of arriving at truth in a text, and in the case of Scripture:
              1) The overall portrait in Scripture indicates that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God, having divine attributes that can only be ascribed to God; that the Father, Son, and, Spirit exist at the same time; that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one, not existing or acting independently or separately, and hence not separate beings.
              2) There are powerful passages that not only mention the Father, Son, and Spirit together but describe the interrelations between the Father, Son, and Spirit.

              A person who believes that God is triune may expect that the Father and Son would be mentioned together more frequently, since the Lord Jesus said that the Spirit would impart the things of Christ who Himself embodies the things of the Father. They would also expect passages that mention just the Son and Spirit together, and the Father, Son, and Spirit together, such that we should even baptize in the (singular) name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or that benedictions could include the grace of Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (2 Cor. 13:14).

              You’re the one who claims that the Father “became” the Son and ceased to be the Father, which we don’t find in Scripture all.

              —-
              By the way, you misstate the case when you say that the Scriptures speak about the activities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit interchangeably. It is true that the Son takes over functions from the Father (and this is the process that the New Testament describes*), but the Holy Spirit’s activities are always different and on behalf of either the Father or the Son.

              First, to avoid confusion, I should make it clear that I didn’t say this concerning all activities (which would contradict my own position that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are distinct though not separate; e.g., it is the Son who died on the cross, though the Father and Spirit operated in that action of the Son), and the link I provided specifies certain activities.

              However, contrary to your claims, Spirit’s activities are not “always different and on behalf of either the Father or the Son.” For example, the Scriptures speak interchangeably of God, the Father, Christ, and the Spirit as the One who indwells the believers. The Spirit’s indwelling is the indwelling of God, the Father, and Christ, without separation.

              • Mike Gantt says:

                I said that for all practical purposes, the Holy Spirit is eternal. To go beyond that and speculate more precisely than that is esoteric. That is, the answer – even if you had it – would have no bearing on – nor change the way we do – anything in this life.

                Here is a paragraph of yours:

                The overall portrait in Scripture indicates that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all God, having divine attributes that can only be ascribed to God; that the Father, Son, and, Spirit exist at the same time; that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one, not existing or acting independently or separately, and hence not separate beings.

                Here is that same paragraph with references to the Son removed, indicating what was true up until the time of Christ:

                The overall portrait in Scripture indicates that the Father, Son, and Spirit are all [both] God, having divine attributes that can only be ascribed to God; that the Father, Son, and, Spirit exist at the same time; that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one, not existing or acting independently or separately, and hence not separate beings.

                Why then did the Jews not believe God was a binity? (I’ve asked this question several times before but you’ve never answered it.)

                • Brandon E says:


                  That is, the answer – even if you had it – would have no bearing on – nor change the way we do – anything in this life.

                  I think how one answers the questions I asked does matter, but you apparently don’t know how.

                  Why then did the Jews not believe God was a binity? (I’ve asked this question several times before but you’ve never answered it.)

                  I did answer this question. First, the question is loaded: since the angel of the Lord who visits man even in human form is also identified as the Lord Himself, it is more appropriate to ask why they didn’t believe believe in a trinity. And my response was that the Jewish people didn’t have the New Testament revelation of God, Christ, the Spirit, the gospel, the Body of Christ, and many other matters. We may as well ask why they didn’t know to baptize people into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19). It is only through the coming of Christ that many things were revealed, e.g, the Son being God and identified with both the Father and the Spirit.

                  • Mike Gantt says:

                    This is the same non-answer you gave before. That is, instead of answering the question I asked, you tell me I should be asking other questions – and then give answers to those instead of to the one I asked.

                    My question is a reasonable one. If you don’t have an answer for it, just say so. But don’t say that it’s “loaded” because that’s just not true.

                    • Brandon E says:

                      Q. Why didn’t they believe it? A. Because it wasn’t clearly revealed yet, as is true of many things in the New Testament revelation. The revelation in Scripture is progressive and many things revealed in the New Testament are found only in “seed” form in the Old Testament to be developed later.

                      Can you describe why this is not a valid response?

                      Your question was loaded, for since the angel of the Lord is identified with the Lord God Himself just as the Spirit was, I don’t see why we should ask why they didn’t believe in a “binity.”

                    • Mike Gantt says:

                      How many times do I have to tell you that the angel of the Lord has nothing to do with this question? And how many times do I have to tell you that the question is not loaded?

                      Trinitarians believe that the Trinity (that is, that God consists in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) was not revealed until the New Testament. Fine. My question is, “Since the only one of those three revealed in the NT was the Son, why didn’t Jews before Jesus believe that God was a binity (that is, that God consists in Father and Holy Spirit)?

                    • Brandon E says:


                      Trinitarians believe that the Trinity (that is, that God consists in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) was not revealed until the New Testament. Fine. My question is, “Since the only one of those three revealed in the NT was the Son, why didn’t Jews before Jesus believe that God was a binity (that is, that God consists in Father and Holy Spirit)?

                      Because there was more about God, and so many other things, yet to be revealed? The relationship between the Lord God, the Spirit, the angel of the Lord, God being transcendent, invisible and spirit and yet appearing to others in human form (as He did to Abraham at the oaks of Mambre) was in a sense more ambiguous back then, and the OT saints were fine with that means of revelation for that time. God told Moses that he should see His back but not His face; but now the glory of His face has been revealed in Christ Jesus! Did the ancient Jews hear and know all that the New Testament reveals about God, Christ, the Spirit, life, the church, the law, the gospel, the New Jerusalem, spiritual warfare, Satan, sin, the world, the flesh?

  8. Mike Gantt says:

    Huh?

    What does all that stuff have to do with my question?

    I’ll ask it again: Two of the three were present in the OT; why then weren’t the two equated in the OT as you think the three were equated in the NT?

    • Brandon E says:

      Because God and the Spirit (like many other subjects) wasn’t fully revealed to them in the same way as it was in the NT. I find it incredible that you’re unwilling or unable to see how this is relevant to your question.

      Many Jews did equate God’s Spirit with God, as the manifestation of His Shechinah glory, or as God in action (Gen. 1:2). But in the Old Testament we also find an evil spirit of God (1 Sam. 16:23), a lying spirit from God (I Kings 22:23) in addition to a spirit of holiness (Psa. 51:10). It’s not until the New Testament that we see that there is one divine life-giving Spirit (Eph 4:4), the Holy Spirit who is singular in name with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19), who is described as having divine attributes appropriate only to God, as having personal characteristics and functions, and existing at the same time as the Father and Son. See:
      http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/holy-trinity-biblical-proofs.html

  9. Mike Gantt says:

    Essentially everything known about the Holy Spirit in the New Testament was known about the Holy Spirit in the Old Testament. What changed from the OT to the NT was expansion of scope – that is, the Holy Spirit was poured out on all flesh. But even this expansion was hoped for (Numbers 11:29) and prophesied (Joel 2:28) in the OT. The great glory of the picture portrayed by 1 Corinthians 12-14 was that He was doing among many Jews and Gentiles things that He had in OT times only done among select individual Jews (e.g. Elijah and Elisha).

    • Brandon E says:

      I think that there are many things revealed in the New Testament concerning the Spirit’s person, titles, attributes, coming, and work that are not clearly revealed in the Old Testament, such that it is not a matter of simply having the same function but then an increase of scope.

      • Mike Gantt says:

        You’re saying that if you didn’t have the NT, and only had the OT, you wouldn’t think that the Holy Spirit was God. What does the NT say about the Holy Spirit that makes you think He’s God that is not in the OT?

        • Brandon E says:

          I think that if we had just the Old Testament we would think that the Spirit is God in some distinct mode or aspect (the same for the angel of the Lord), but that it’s not until the New Testament that the interrelations between the Father, Son, and Spirit are more clearly revealed.

  10. Mike Gantt says:

    In the NT, the Holy Spirit went from acting on behalf of the Father in Matthew through John to acting on behalf of the Son in Acts through Revelation. Besides this, and expanding His operations to many more people, what is it in the NT that tells you “the Holy Spirit is God” that the OT didn’t tell you?

    • Brandon E says:

      For starters, the Lord is the Spirit and the Lord-Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17-18). Christ became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45b) and there are not two life-giving Spirits but one Spirit who gives life (2 Cor. 3:6; John 6:63). Hence, Christ is strongly identified with the Spirit or as being one with the Spirit just as He is with the Father (Isa. 9:6, John 10:30, 14:10-11). The disciples are to baptize into the (singular) name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the Old Testament, God is “among” His people in a somewhat outward way, but in the New Testament after the Lord Jesus’ resurrection the Spirit dwells inside the believers making them “one spirit with the Lord” (1 Cor. 6;17), regenerated, born again, begotten of God, possessing the very life of God in Christ, partakers of the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4), a new creation in Christ, members of the organic Body of Christ who share the same life in Christ–in short, one with God, partaking of His life and nature. The terms God, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are accordingly used to describe the One God who indwells the believers, but no believer has the realization that three separate beings indwell them; that is, the Spirit’s indwelling is interchangeable with God’s indwelling, the indwelling of Christ with the Father. With this in mind, we see that to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God (Acts 5:3-4, 9); that the Spirit can be blasphemed and that such is an “everlasting sin” that “will not be forgiven” neither in this age nor in the age to come (Matt. 12:31-32; Mark 3:29; Luke 12:10), and only God can be blasphemed such that it is an everlasting sin that will not be forgiven; that the Spirit is described as eternal (Heb. 9:14) and as having other divine attributes or functions pertaining only to God: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/holy-trinity-biblical-proofs.html

  11. Mike Gantt says:

    Trinitarian-speak is turgid to the point of incomprehensibility.

    Can you not produce a simpler answer to my question?

    • Brandon E says:

      For starters, the Lord is the Spirit and the Spirit is the Lord-Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17-18). Christ became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45b) and there are not two life-giving Spirits but one Spirit who gives life (2 Cor. 3:6; John 6:63). Hence, Christ is strongly identified with the Spirit or as being one with the Spirit just as He is with the Father (Isa. 9:6, John 10:30, 14:10-11).

  12. Mike Gantt says:

    You demonstrate that it’s possible to shorten something without simplifying it. In fact, your shortening was merely truncating the last 4/5’s of your paragraph. The remaining 1/5 suffers from the same incoherence as the whole. I can’t even digest the first sentence. (Its first phrase is just a quote of the Bible passage cited, but you don’t explain what it means. The second phrase is the invention of non-biblical term “Lord-Spirit” which also comes without explanation. And it doesn’t get any better in the sentence that follow.)

    It’s not your fault, though. This is just the nature of Trinitarian-speak.

    • Brandon E says:

      1) The “Lord-Spirit” is not an invention of a non-biblical term. It’s a quotation of the compound title the apostle Paul uses in the Greek text of 2 Corinthians 3:18. It is the apostle Paul’s expression.

      2) According the previous verse, the Lord (Christ) is the Spirit. Moreover, 1 Cor. 15:45 says that the last Adam (Christ) became life-giving Spirit. Since it is the Spirit who gives life (2 Cor. 3:6; John 6:63) and the Lord is the Spirit, the Lord and the Spirit are not two separate life-giving Spirits but are one.

      3) Hence, in the New Testament, Christ, whom we know is God, is the Spirit, is identified with the Spirit, is one with the Spirit, just as He is identified with and is one with God the Father (Isa. 9:6). Further, the Spirit Himself is called “Lord” and identified with Christ. This is new revelation not revealed to the OT saints that shows how the Father and the Spirit are one with and not separate beings from Christ who is God.

  13. Mike Gantt says:

    1) Here’s 18 English translations of 2 Cor 3:18. None of them are showing the term “Lord-Spirit.” How can you say this is Paul’s term and not yours?

    2) If Jesus and the Holy Spirit are “not two…but are one” then you are saying that Jesus is the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is Jesus. How can Jesus be the Holy Spirit if He was anointed with the Holy Spirit? (e.g. Acts 10:38)

    3) It is typical of Trinitarian-speak (which is just another word for double talk) to say such things as “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are separate when they are presented separately and yet not separate either.” Again, you didn’t invent this way of speaking so I don’t hold you accountable for it.

    • Brandon E says:

      1) Mike, you obviously haven’t looked at the Greek. The Greek is κυρίου πνεύματος [Lord Spirit]. And several of the more literal translations listed there do translate it “the Lord the Spirit,” (the Greek lacks the definite articles). The translations that render it “the Lord, who is the Spirit” make my point just as well, that the Lord Christ is identified with the Spirit and the Spirit with the Lord, as in the previous verse.

      2) How can the Father and the Son exist at the same time, and yet be one? Yet this is what the Scripture presents.

      3) I didn’t say that they are “separate when they are presented separately and yet not separate either.” Where’d you get this? “Distinct” and “not separate” are different concepts, which you’re having trouble distinguishing.

  14. Mike Gantt says:

    1) Of course, the Holy Spirit is identified with the Lord. That is why He is also called the Spirit of the Lord. That doesn’t mean, however, that the Holy Spirit is the Lord.

    2) The Scripture presents the Father and the Son as two. We today view this as a mystery because we know Jesus is God. First-century believers, however, had no problem perceiving them as two.

    3) To say something can be distinct without being separate is the same kind of sophistry as saying three persons can exist as one being.

    • Brandon E says:

      1) Except that’s what the Scripture says. The Lord is the Spirit. He became life-giving Spirit. The “Lord Spirit” with “Lord” and “Spirit” in apposition. Since you deny that Christ is the Spirit, that the reality of the Spirit is Christ, you might be antichrist on this point, denying some aspect of Christ and replacing it with something else.

      2) “Two,” but not separately “two,” but one, since both are “God,” and “Lord,” and there is only one God and one Lord. At least you admit that the Father and the Son existing at the same time as somehow “two” is founded upon the Scriptures.

      3) How so? Are your thoughts or your face distinct from you? Yes. Are they separate from you? No. We’ve already been through how “persons” and “being” are placeholder terms to describe the biblical revelation that the Father, Son, and Spirit exist at the same time (distinct) but are not separate (that is, are one).

  15. Mike Gantt says:

    1) Christ is Lord and God. He gives us His Holy Spirit. He is replaced with nothing else and by no one else.

    2) The apostles did not believe there were two Gods and two Lords. Rather Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 8:6 that there was one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Clearly, he was not presenting them as one being in that verse.

    3) More sophistry. My thoughts or my face are an aspect of me, but they are not another me.

    • Brandon E says:

      1) You claim fidelity to the Scriptures and yet deny that Christ is the Spirit and that the reality of the Spirit is Christ, and hence are likely in the principle of antichrist in this matter. For instance, just saying that one worships Jesus alone and yet denying that He came in the flesh makes that someone an antichrist in that matter. In kind, the Bible says that the Lord is the Spirit, He became life-giving Spirit, and He is the Lord Spirit (even as He is called the Father, Isa. 9:6), but you reject this and hence deny an aspect of Christ’s person.

      2) In 1 Corinthians 8:6 it is two divine titles and positions being emphasized, not two separate beings. If Father and the Son were considered separate beings, not only would the apostles be confused and wrong, but how could the apostles ever call the Father “Lord” and the Son “God,” or legitimately worship the Son?

      3) You suggested that it was sophistry to say that “something can be distinct without being separate” and I disproved this. And I did I say that your thoughts or face are “another you,” or am I simply affirming that the biblical revelation that the Father, Son, and Spirit are God and exist at the same time (are distinct) and yet are one? How could knowing and seeing the Son be the same as knowing and seeing the Father (John 14:7-11) unless the Father and Son were distinct and yet not separate?

  16. Mike Gantt says:

    All three of your answers are imbued with Trinitarianism, which is antichrist because it takes from the Son to give to the Father (who handed all things over to the Son and said we should listen to the Son) and to the Holy Spirit (who seeks to reveal and glorify the Son). Like Unitarianism, Trinitarianism says that Christ is only part of the answer. Trinitarianism is a doctrine of men and a Gordian Knot which cannot be untied but only cut by the sword of the Lord which is the word of God. And His name is Jesus (Revelation 19:13).

    See especially 2 Corinthians 11:2-3; Colossians 2:1-3; 1 John 5:12; 2 John 2:9.

    • Brandon E says:

      I’m saying that Christ embodies the Father and is the reality of the Spirit. He’s the center, content and expression of the Godhead. This doesn’t take away from Christ but glorifies Him.

      That you deny that according to the Scriptures the Lord is the Spirit, became the life-giving Spirit, and is the Spirit and hence are likely to be in the principle of antichrist in this matter.

      And look at what you would have the apostles (the same ones who wrote 2 Corinthians 11:2-3; Colossians 2:1-3; 1 John 5:12; 2 John 2:9) professing and the first century church believing without feeling the need to reconcile it:
      -Only one God and one Lord
      -The Father “God” and the “Lord” Christ as two separate beings, and the Spirit a third separate being
      -Yet God the Father is called Lord, the Lord Christ is called God, God is called the Lord (Matt 4:7; Matt 11:25; Luke 1:32; John 1:1; 20:17, 28; Acts 3:20, 22, 4:26; 17:24; James 3:9; Heb. 1:8; Rev. 21:1; 22:5-6), and the Lord is called the Spirit and the Spirit is called the Lord (2 Cor. 3:17, 18).
      -Yet Christ became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. 15:45b) and yet it is the Spirit who is the life-giving Spirit (2 Cor. 3:6; John 6:63).
      -And hence you would have them entertaining two separate Gods, three separate Lords, and two separate life-giving Spirits, which may as well be three separate Gods.

      The Bible reveals that the Father is God and Lord, that the Son is God and Lord, that the Lord is the Spirit and the Spirit is the Lord, that God is Spirit, and that there is only one God, Lord, and Spirit. Further, God, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are all described as the One who indwells the believers. How can you claim that the apostles presented three separate beings? The Bible reveals that the Father, Son, and Spirit continuously exist at the same time, and says nothing of the Father dying and becoming the Son and ceasing to be the Father or of such an “understanding” being imparted at the second coming of all occasions. The Bible reveals that the Lord is the Spirit and the Lord Spirit. My writing is imbued a certain way because the apostles were saturated with the triune God–the Father, Son, and Spirit, existing and operating at the same time distinctly but not separately.

  17. Pingback: Trinitarianism Is an Arbitrary Embrace of Contradictions | Current Events in Light of the Kingdom of God

  18. Pingback: Posts to Date on the Trinity Versus Christ | A Nonchurchgoer's Guide to Jesus and His Kingdom

Comments are closed.