Never have I seen more errors in so few words!

[CutlerB]

Here I go again with my dear friends the JWs.

They publish their literature a few months in advance online, and I came across their Awake! magazine for August 2013, which includes a two-page article on, guess what, “Should you believe in the Trinity?”. It is not really two pages at all, but even less. Let me quote the entire thing here with some comments on why I think this is the article with the highest error/words ratio I have ever read. I have attached the original two pages to this post.

Should You Believe in the Trinity?
More than two billion people profess to be Christian. Most belong to churches that teach the Trinity—the doctrine that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit together form one God.
How did the Trinity become an official doctrine? More important, is this teaching in harmony with the Bible?

In the first two sentences, I see the intention to argue that there are “Christians” who don’t believe in the Trinity. They obviously have to say that, while at the same time casting doubt on the other religions. The wording “the Father, the Son and the holy spirit together form one God” is ambiguous to me. One could argue that the question posed in this paragraph is a nonsensical one: The Trinity was always official doctrine.

THE Bible was completed in the first century C.E.

The Bible was definitely not complete in the first century. The writings were, but there was no Bible for multiple hundred years to come. Note the “C.E.”, instead of AD.

Teachings that led to the development of the Trinity began to be officially formulated in 325 C.E.—more than two centuries later—at a council in the city of Nicaea in Asia Minor, now Iznik, Turkey.

While the sentence itself is correct, its wording has the real potential to mislead people into thinking the Trinity was not contemplated until then. No mention of the abounding evidence found in the Fathers here.

According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the creed attributed to the Council of Nicaea set out the first official definition of ‘Christian orthodoxy,’ including the definition of God and Christ. Why, though, was it deemed necessary to define God and Christ centuries after the Bible was completed? Is the Bible unclear on these important topics?

It would be correct and honest to note the Arian controversy, the only reason for the definition, here, but there is only silence. It is not because Scripture was unclear, unless of course you look for the word Trinity in it.

IS JESUS GOD?
When Constantine became sole ruler of the Roman Empire, professed Christians
were divided over the relationship between God and Christ. Was Jesus God? Or was he created by God?

Still no mention of Arius and the novelty of this “created” idea.

To settle the matter, Constantine summoned church leaders to Nicaea, not because he sought religious truth, but because he did not want religion to divide his empire.

Very dishonest. Christianity wasn’t even the state religion then, so Constantine’s empire would have been “divided” anyway among the religions. Even if one grants that point, why can Constantine not have both? Find “religious truth” and thereby stabilise the empire?

Constantine asked the bishops, who may have numbered into the hundreds, to come to a unanimous accord, but his request was in vain. He then proposed that the council adopt the ambiguous notion that Jesus was “of one substance” (homoousios) with the Father.

This ignores the fact that Constantine opened the council, exhorted the Bishops to settle the matter and then withdrew. Consequently, he could not have proposed the term homoousios. Moreover, he wouldn’t have proposed that, since – as the article conveniently withholds – he was himself Arian in his beliefs.

This unbiblical Greek philosophical term laid the foundation for the Trinity doctrine as later set forth in the church creeds. Indeed, by the end of the fourth century, the Trinity had essentially taken the form it has today, including the so-called third part of the godhead, the holy spirit.

So what if the term is unbiblical? Many terms are unbiblical that are used, even in Watchtower theology. That one wouldn’t be biblical, neither is “Bible”.

The Trinity definition took form way before that, as is omitted here. Church Fathers, anyone?

WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?
Jesus said that “the true worshipers will worship the Father with . . . truth.” (John 4:23) That truth has been recorded in the Bible. (John 17:17) Does the Bible teach that the Father, the Son, and the holy spirit are three persons in one God?

Here comes the usual rant. There was no Bible. Scripture had not yet been canonised, therefore one could not appeal to “the Bible says so!”.

For one thing, the Bible does not mention the word “Trinity.”

This is repeated over and over by the JWs but it would be so much easier just to omit it, since it proves nothing. “Watchtower”, “magazine”, “Bible” and many others are not in the Bible either. This proves nothing.

For another, Jesus never claimed to be equal to God. Instead, Jesus worshipped God. (Luke 22:41-44)

While the first part is clearly false, the second part is not in contradiction the the Dogma. They have up to this point not provided an official exposition of the Dogma.

 

[CutlerB]

A third line of evidence concerns Jesus’ relationship with his followers. Even after he was raised from the dead to the spirit realm, Jesus called his followers “my brothers.” (Matthew 28:10) Were they brothers of Almighty God? Of course not! But through their faith in Christ—God’s preeminent Son—they too became sons of the one Father. (Galatians 3:26) Compare some additional scriptures with the following statement from the creed attributed to the Council of Nicaea.

Firstly, this is not a third line of evidence. There hasn’t even been a first one. It is embarrassing to see them take the absence of a dogmatic term as a “line of evidence”.

Secondly, there is no mention of the Hypostatic Union here, fully God and fully Human. That eliminates the point.

Thirdly, am I correct in seeing here the relativisation of Christ’s Sonship? Are they saying He is no more than one of us?

What the Nicene Creed says:
“We believe . . . in one Lord Jesus Christ . . . that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God.

What the Bible says:

• “My Father is greater than I [Jesus].”—John 14:28.
• “I [Jesus] ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God.” —John 20:17.
• “To us there is but one God, the Father.”—1 Corinthians 8:6.
• “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” —1 Peter 1:3.
• “These things saith the Amen [Jesus], . . . the beginning of the creation of God.” —Revelation 3:14.

I won‘t comment on all the verses, but they can all be sufficiently answered.

John 20:17: Their citing this completely ignores the distinction Christ is making between His God and their God, as well as the Hypostatic Union with His true Humanity.

1 Corinthians 8:6: This is the most ridiculous verse to use to argue their point. They conveniently conceal the latter part of that verse which states „and one Lord, Jesus Christ“. If they take the first part to mean that Jesus is not God, then the second part must be taken to mean the Father was not Lord, which is an absurd notion to hold.

1 Peter 1:3: This relates back to John 20:17.

Revelation 3:14: They don‘t explain the meaning of the Greek word for „beginning“ here, which utterly destroys their argument, turning the whole thing around. It means „source, origin, ruler“ not „first creation“.

That was the article, but here are some other quotes they have provided around the main body. Note that the editors do not provide proper references.

The Nicene Creed is actually not the product of the First Council of Nicea (325) . . . but of the First Council of Constantinople (381),” says The New Westminster Dictionary of Church History.“

Multiple things to say here: First, the ellipse (…) they use makes me suspicious, since the Watchtower often uses that to hide words that disprove their point. It is proven that Nicaea provided a Creed, which was amended at Constantinople. Therefore, I assume that the ellipse is hiding a reference to this.

The Council of Nicea in 325 stated the crucial formula for [the yet future Trinity] doctrine in its confession that the Son is ‘of the same substance . . . as the Father.’—Encyclopædia Britannica.

What does this quote tell us? Nothing more than that the word homoousios was employed at Nicaea. I don‘t know what they are trying to prove here.

The Christian Bible, including the New Testament, has no trinitarian statements or speculations concerning a trinitary deity.”—Encyclopædia Britannica.

Now here is some witty employment of words! When the Britannica says that there aren‘t any „trinitarian statements or speculations“, what does it mean? It most definitely says the opposite of what they want to prove in another sentence. The insufficient reference makes it hard to check up the original quote. However, most of the time, these expressions mean explicit definitions of the Trinity like „God is a Trinity“ or something close.

“The doctrine of the trinity … is not a product of the earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed before the end of the second century.”—Library of Early Christianity—Gods and the One God“

See here „carefully expressed“. All this says is, that it took time to find the right language to express the doctrine. Note again the most suspicious location of the ellipse! Indeed, it could read „The doctrine of the Trinity [as we have it expressed in the Creed] is not a product of the earliest Christian period“.

In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the [Catholic] Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin.”—Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Interesting they quote the Catechism. The Watchtower would only need to provide the one paragraph number this is said in, that can‘t be too diffucult? It‘s CCC 251. Three numbers. Now, why didn‘t they supply that number? Probably because of the rest the paragraph says: “In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance,” “person” or “hypostasis,” “relation,” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand.” ”

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Here I go again with my dear friends the JWs.

They publish their literature a few months in advance online, and I came across their Awake! magazine for August 2013, which includes a two-page article on, guess what, “Should you believe in the Trinity?”. It is not really two pages at all, but even less. Let me quote the entire thing here with some comments on why I think this is the article with the highest error/words ratio I have ever read. I have attached the original two pages to this post.

In the first two sentences, I see the intention to argue that there are “Christians” who don’t believe in the Trinity. They obviously have to say that, while at the same time casting doubt on the other religions. The wording “the Father, the Son and the holy spirit together form one God” is ambiguous to me. One could argue that the question posed in this paragraph is a nonsensical one: The Trinity was always official doctrine.

The Bible was definitely not complete in the first century. The writings were, but there was no Bible for multiple hundred years to come. Note the “C.E.”, instead of AD.

While the sentence itself is correct, its wording has the real potential to mislead people into thinking the Trinity was not contemplated until then. No mention of the abounding evidence found in the Fathers here.

It would be correct and honest to note the Arian controversy, the only reason for the definition, here, but there is only silence. It is not because Scripture was unclear, unless of course you look for the word Trinity in it.

Still no mention of Arius and the novelty of this “created” idea.

Very dishonest. Christianity wasn’t even the state religion then, so Constantine’s empire would have been “divided” anyway among the religions. Even if one grants that point, why can Constantine not have both? Find “religious truth” and thereby stabilise the empire?

This ignores the fact that Constantine opened the council, exhorted the Bishops to settle the matter and then withdrew. Consequently, he could not have proposed the term homoousios. Moreover, he wouldn’t have proposed that, since – as the article conveniently withholds – he was himself Arian in his beliefs.

So what if the term is unbiblical? Many terms are unbiblical that are used, even in Watchtower theology. That one wouldn’t be biblical, neither is “Bible”.

The Trinity definition took form way before that, as is omitted here. Church Fathers, anyone?

Here comes the usual rant. There was no Bible. Scripture had not yet been canonised, therefore one could not appeal to “the Bible says so!”.

This is repeated over and over by the JWs but it would be so much easier just to omit it, since it proves nothing. “Watchtower”, “magazine”, “Bible” and many others are not in the Bible either. This proves nothing.

While the first part is clearly false, the second part is not in contradiction the the Dogma. They have up to this point not provided an official exposition of the Dogma.

First of all. Just toss all that Watchtower stuff if you want to protect your faith. The Seventh Day Adventists are a cult which preys on the unwary. Secondly, the New Testament give ample witness to the Three Persons of the Trinity. Thirdly, read paragraphs 249-256 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which discusses the three Persons of the Trinity. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM

Lastly, do not engage these people. That is just what they want. They are specially trained to intrap you, that is what they are trained to do.

Linus2nd

 

[CutlerB]

First of all. Just toss all that Watchtower stuff if you want to protect your faith. The Seventh Day Adventists are a cult which preys on the unwary. Secondly, the New Testament give ample witness to the Three Persons of the Trinity. Thirdly, read paragraphs 249-256 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which discusses the three Persons of the Trinity. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM

Lastly, do not engage these people. That is just what they want. They are specially trained to intrap you, that is what they are trained to do.

Linus2nd

I don’t believe anything the Watchtower says. In fact, I’m very suspicious of anything they say and know my way about their teaching. The reason I like to read up on their latest ramblings is that a very good friend of mine is a JW and I’m trying to find talking points to share the Truth of the Catholic Faith I have come to find with him. No worries, all is well!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Firstly, this is not a third line of evidence. There hasn’t even been a first one. It is embarrassing to see them take the absence of a dogmatic term as a “line of evidence”.

Secondly, there is no mention of the Hypostatic Union here, fully God and fully Human. That eliminates the point.

Thirdly, am I correct in seeing here the relativisation of Christ’s Sonship? Are they saying He is no more than one of us?

I won‘t comment on all the verses, but they can all be sufficiently answered.

John 20:17: Their citing this completely ignores the distinction Christ is making between His God and their God, as well as the Hypostatic Union with His true Humanity.

1 Corinthians 8:6: This is the most ridiculous verse to use to argue their point. They conveniently conceal the latter part of that verse which states „and one Lord, Jesus Christ“. If they take the first part to mean that Jesus is not God, then the second part must be taken to mean the Father was not Lord, which is an absurd notion to hold.

1 Peter 1:3: This relates back to John 20:17.

Revelation 3:14: They don‘t explain the meaning of the Greek word for „beginning“ here, which utterly destroys their argument, turning the whole thing around. It means „source, origin, ruler“ not „first creation“.

That was the article, but here are some other quotes they have provided around the main body. Note that the editors do not provide proper references.

Multiple things to say here: First, the ellipse (…) they use makes me suspicious, since the Watchtower often uses that to hide words that disprove their point. It is proven that Nicaea provided a Creed, which was amended at Constantinople. Therefore, I assume that the ellipse is hiding a reference to this.

What does this quote tell us? Nothing more than that the word homoousios was employed at Nicaea. I don‘t know what they are trying to prove here.

Now here is some witty employment of words! When the Britannica says that there aren‘t any „trinitarian statements or speculations“, what does it mean? It most definitely says the opposite of what they want to prove in another sentence. The insufficient reference makes it hard to check up the original quote. However, most of the time, these expressions mean explicit definitions of the Trinity like „God is a Trinity“ or something close.

See here „carefully expressed“. All this says is, that it took time to find the right language to express the doctrine. Note again the most suspicious location of the ellipse! Indeed, it could read „The doctrine of the Trinity [as we have it expressed in the Creed] is not a product of the earliest Christian period“.

Interesting they quote the Catechism. The Watchtower would only need to provide the one paragraph number this is said in, that can‘t be too diffucult? It‘s CCC 251. Three numbers. Now, why didn‘t they supply that number? Probably because of the rest the paragraph says: “In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop its own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance,” “person” or “hypostasis,” “relation,” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand.” ”

Thank you. But everyone might as well read the entire section, CCC 249-256.
You know I have been wondering why all the sudden interest in these forums over the meaning of the terms " substance " and " accident. " I guess the O.P. might be one reason. Linus2nd

 

[CutlerB]

Thank you. But everyone might as well read the entire section, CCC 249-256.
You know I have been wondering why all the sudden interest in these forums over the meaning of the terms " substance " and " accident. " I guess the O.P. might be one reason. Linus2nd

Are you sure I’d be the reason for an increased interest in the meaning of those words? I don’t recall very much about that at all.

 

[Robyn_p]

Thanks CutlerB! I found your posts very helpful.

 

[Porknpie]

First of all. Just toss all that Watchtower stuff if you want to protect your faith. The Seventh Day Adventists are a cult which preys on the unwary. Secondly, the New Testament give ample witness to the Three Persons of the Trinity. Thirdly, read paragraphs 249-256 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church which discusses the three Persons of the Trinity. vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM

Lastly, do not engage these people. That is just what they want. They are specially trained to intrap you, that is what they are trained to do.

Linus2nd

My answer would be the opposite…

• Save the Watchtowers and take note on how to answer their statements.
• Keep them in a binder and have them ready for when they come to your door.
• Ask them a few questions…and show them errors in the Watchtower (as an example, show them how scripture itself says that there are many more than just 144,000 in heaven…and how God desires to save all)

In short, Evangelize. Drop some seeds and get them thinking. But do this only if you are well catechised.

Pork

 

[CutlerB]

Thanks CutlerB! I found your posts very helpful.

You’re welcome!

My answer would be the opposite…

• Save the Watchtowers and take note on how to answer their statements.
• Keep them in a binder and have them ready for when they come to your door.
• Ask them a few questions…and show them errors in the Watchtower (as an example, show them how scripture itself says that there are many more than just 144,000 in heaven…and how God desires to save all)

In short, Evangelize. Drop some seeds and get them thinking. But do this only if you are well catechised.

Pork

Precisely!

 

[Monergistic]

You know I have been wondering why all the sudden interest in these forums over the meaning of the terms " substance " and " accident. " I guess the O.P. might be one reason. Linus2nd

I haven’t noticed that, and it’s a topic I’m interested in. Maybe I missed something, though. Did it come up on threads that were derailed in that direction? I would have missed it that way.