(what follows is an opening statement of a debate I engaged in years ago. The names have been deleted.)
Why I am a Trinitarian
Greetings,
Allow me to be autobiographical in the beginning.
As all of you are aware, I am a former Oneness Pentecostal (OP). Ten years ago such a statement would not have been entertained in my mind, much less fallen from my lips (in case anybody's curious, I did not lust and then go whoring after a harlot church; I had the same smugness concerning trinitarians that I see prevalent among OPs today).
I, like so many OPs, was proud of “the revelation of Jesus Christ.” It was with great pleasure that I drank from the wells of Oneness Pentecostal writers such as David Bernard.
Oneness preachers were like celebrities to me.
I do not hold in contempt nor harbor any animosity towards OPs. Well, ok, maybe just a few.
My circle of friends and social acquaintances are, even today, mostly Oneness Pentecostals. So I am emotionally joined with them.
I have even preached in their pulpits.
So, concerning Oneness Pentecostalism, I am not a novice.
I am prefacing my opening statement with this abbreviated account of my involvement with Oneness Pentecostalism to let all those who read this know that I would rather, emotionally, be affirming Oneness Theology than applying my skills to the defense of the Trinity. But since truth does not arrive flying on the wings of emotions, I cannot affirm Oneness Theology.
Uh Oh! The unraveling of a construct. I remember watching Robert Sabin and Nathaniel Urshan debate E. Calvin Beisner and the late Walter Martin on the John Ankerberg show. I thought that their accounting of themselves and Oneness Theology was less than stellar.
Walter Martin was too much for them.
Or was he?
Was it Beisner and Martin’s acumen that proved to be their unraveling, or was it simply the fabric of their argument?
Woven with disparate theological and philosophical pieces, Oneness Theology was oblivious to the residue of thread that was carelessly hanging from their garments.
I pulled that thread.
And Oneness Theology unraveled before my unbelieving eyes.
But not to worry.
In it’s place I found a wonderful tapestry of beauty and splendor.
THE TRINITY. FUNCTION AND ESSENCE Throughout the history of the Christian church, those who adhere to Trinitarian doctrine have been engaged in negative apologetics. The creeds of Nicea and Chalcedon could be said to be such an exercise. What I mean by this is that the Trinitarian apologist must be adept at explaining what the Godhead is not more than explaining how the Godhead is Triune.
The mechanics of the Trinity, or whether it can be explained exhaustively “how” the Trinity functions, says nothing to the fact that the Trinity “is”. It would be a mistake to assume that since I, or anyone else, cannot understand it functionally, that the reality corresponds to my understanding. It does not. So even if I do not understand the “how” does not mean that I cannot apprehend the “is”.
Going further, even if I do not apprehend that the Trinity is does not mean that the
Trinity is not. God is not contingent upon my understanding or apprehension. He is, because, He is, like any other reality, which cannot derive it’s existence from my belief, understanding, comprehension, or apprehension.
Also, before moving on, the reader, and my opponent, must allow for the difference between function and essence.
Functionis what someone or something does, whereas essence is what someone or something is. I cannot count the times I’ve heard OP’s make an argument against the Trinity based upon this misunderstanding.
Since it has been my experience that a lot of the OP argumentation comes from such a misunderstanding, I’m sure that I will get the opportunity to point out such fallacious argumentations in my refutation.
THE STRUCTURE OF MY THESIS This defense of the Trinity will be constructed in four parts. The outline I will be following is:
I. AFFIRMING THE TRINITY
a. What the Trinity states
b. Matthew 28:19
c. John 1:1 and the non-contingency theory
d. John 17:5
e. miscellaneous verses Now before moving on I would like to inform my opponent and bystanders my intentions and expectations.
My intent is to destroy arguments. I cannot change anyone’s heart or mind. All I can do, as an apologist, is to dismantle arguments, both philosophically and scripturally, that erect themselves against truth.
But my expectations are not as lofty as my intentions. It has been my experience that people hold to presuppositions and worldviews tenaciously. And when dealing with those whom I love, Oneness Pentecostals, their presupposition and worldview is deeply entrenched.
So, my intent is to destroy Oneness Theology, my hope is that you will understand and be convinced of the truth of the Trinity, but my expectation is that I’ll leave behind obscurantists.
I pray that doesn’t happen.
Now to my argument.
I. AFFIRMING THE TRINITY a. What the doctrine states. The doctrine simply stated is “One God in Three Persons.” The most exhaustive codefication of the doctrine can be found in the Athanasian Creed. It codefies it, but it does not convince me of the truthfulness of it’s concepts. Scripture does. And scripture alone.
But first some definitions and clarifications.
Nouns and pronouns have certain properties that distinguish them from each other. They are either a person, a place, or a thing. They can be nothing else. There is no fourth option.
For this debate let me focus on the properties of a person. If a noun or pronoun (i.e. Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit) display will, intellect, personal interaction, and the ability of cogent communication then those set of nouns and pronouns should be referred to as “persons”.
It is a grammatical necessity.
But, alas, here is the point of consternation. The use of the word “persons” by Trinitarians.
Because of the modern connotation placed upon the word, non-Trinitarian interpreters interpret the word a-historical. In other words they fill the word with it’s common meaning which entails physicality to the word. However, classical creedal Trinitarians (or Biblical Trinitarians) do not. The historical position is thus in negation, or denial, of the modern definition of “person” when discussing the doctrine of the Trinity.
The statement “One God in Three Persons” is a metaphysical statement.
If one rejects or does not understand the preceding then allow me this course of explanation.
John 4:24, “God is a Spirit” That is a metaphysical statement. It speaks of God’s immateriality. He is not material and holds no tangent existence in space or time, save the Incarnation when He did not change His nature, but took on an additional nature, that of humanity.
Just saying “God” is a claim based on metaphysics, because it speaks of an existence that transcends the physical.
That is an example of a theological statement that is metaphysical.
Now to something more earthy.
The fetus.
From the Christian perspective, why is abortion wrong? (If some take the opposite view or are neutral on this subject, then we need to talk.)
Because it is the murder of an individual “person”. Now it does possess some physicality but if the Christian argument tries to argue from a purely physical standpoint then they have no argument at all. But the Christian argument stakes it’s claim from a metaphysical benchmark.
At the moment of conception a “person” begins to take physical shape. But abortion is not just the destruction of the physical but is also the destruction of that which transcends the physical, and what makes it murder. It is the destruction of a “person”.
So, in concluding this preface I think we all can understand that the idea of “personhood” transcends the physical even in our own experiences.
Now I gave the preceding explanation to indicate what I mean by “metaphysical”. I have made no claim concerning the Trinity. I have not used the fetus or human “persons” as some kind of analogy explaining the Trinity. I know better. My intent was to just simply place a landmark so that you could better understand what I mean by “metaphysical”.
ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS Any analogy I, or anyone else, could use would inevitably fall on account of lack of equivalency.
I have heard Oneness and Trinitarian believers alike use the analogy of the egg to substantiate their position.
But in reality the analogy crumbles because it says or attempts to prove too much.
So, in case I’m misunderstood, my analogy of the fetus was an explanation on how, naturally, we all think in metaphysical terms. I made no claim, using the analogy, about God.
The fact that there is no useful analogy should not surprise us. Scripture states that it is not possible for there to be a useful comparison.
“For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?” (Psalms 89:6)
“To whom then will you liken God? or what likeness will you compare unto him?” (Isaiah 40:18)
“To whom will you liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?” (Isaiah 46:5) It is impossible to be analogous with God.
It is impossible to compare Him to any of our experiences.
Considering this, we are then left being mandated by God to speak, concerning Him, only from what He has revealed in Holy Scripture. And in doing this we assume that He has not done two things.
1. He has not been illogical.
2. He has not lied.
What I mean by “illogical” is that He has not dealt in contradiction.
What I mean by “He has not lied” is that His self-disclosure is consistent and true.
Now both propositions are intertwined and conjoined.
The conclusion that we should have already arrived at concerning what He has done and what He has said in revealing Himself, is that He has told the truth and that truth is truth because it passes the test of logic.
He has not contradicted Himself.
Now our job is this,
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”(II Timothy 2:15) Our job is mining the truth from the scriptures through the Holy Spirit. Now in doing this we must not deal in contradiction or deceit, either. Our philosophy must be constructed by it’s truths, and our doctrines must be internally consistent and relevant in displaying what He has said.
The doctrine of the Trinity protects and salvages the aforementioned propositions from obscurantism, whereas Oneness Theology annuls both, and therefore cannot make any cogent statement concerning God.
The law of non-contradiction simply stated says; ‘A’ cannot be ‘A’ and not ‘A’ at the same time and in the same relationship. But ‘A’ can be ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ because of the fact that ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ are different categories.
Now let me bring this down to the issue at hand.
As has been my experience, most OP’s attack the Trinity on a misunderstanding of the Trinity’s claims. They attack a straw man, that if true, would render the Trinity defenseless against the charge of contradiction.
The doctrine is popularly stated as; One God in Three Persons. The Oneness argument states it, contrary to the Trinity’s own declarations, as being; One God in Three Gods. But such is not the case. If that were the meaning of the doctrine then the Trinity would be a contradiction.
But a careful study of it’s claims proves otherwise.
The Trinity is safeguarded against such skeptical assertions by it’s own internal consistency.
It is not a contradiction because it does not mix categories.
In the statement, One God in Three Persons, are two categories that speak to two different realities. Nature and identity.
One God (nature) in Three Persons (identity).
As is common among straw man argumentation, the assertion of the skeptic contradicts the preceding statement by re-defining the categories and mixing them.
One God (nature) in Three Gods (nature). This is a contradiction because of such an inconsistency. This is tri-theism not trinitarianism.
Now the contradiction is displayed by the fact that one nature (God) cannot be three natures (God) at the same time and in the same relationship. According to the category of nature, He cannot be one and three.
But this is not Trinitarian doctrine.
The Trinity incorporates into the statement, because of the biblical text, a different category that protects the integrity of the category of “nature.”
Person.
Therefore, since there is no mixing of categories then there is no contradiction.
Thus the statement can be reduced, for understanding the categorical purposes only, as One “What” in Three “Whos.” For “what” something is and “who” something is, is a statement concerning two different categories.
There is One God as to His nature, but that One God is revealed in three distinct persons as to His identity, with each sharing that one nature and existing in “personal” relationship with the other.
Now remembering my first definitional excursion into “metaphysics” one must understand the meaning poured into the word “person.” It does not mean three different “beings”. It does not mean three different Gods. It does not mean three different bodies. (Please see the previous argument against tri-theism above.)
Each person of the Trinity shares the same nature (not that each has a “share” but rather that each is fully and completely God), and is in intimate relationship with each other; The Father is in the Son, The Son is in the Father, The Holy Spirit is in the Son and the Father, and the Son and the Father is in the Holy Spirit. (Again I must remind the reader that when we are talking about “person” we are making a metaphysical statement.),
This is called the perichoresis.
The close intimate interpenetrability of each person in the Godhead.
If nouns and pronouns (not only such but also syntax and basic rules of grammar) mean anything then no other dogma will work, whether it be scripturally or philosophically, except the doctrine of the Trinity.
If the Father exhibits personal proclivities such as: will, intellect, personal interaction, and the ability of cogent communication distinctively from the Son and the Holy Spirit, then He must be regarded as a distinct person from the Son and the Holy Spirit.
If the Son exhibits personal proclivities such as: will, intellect, personal interaction, and the ability of cogent communication distinctively from the Father and the Holy Spirit, then He must be regarded as a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit exhibits personal proclivities such as: will, intellect, personal interaction, and the ability of cogent communication distinctively from the Father and the Son, then He must be regarded as a distinct person from the Father and the Son.
So simply put, my assertion is that Holy Scripture says the following:
1. There is One God
2. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God.
3. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit very strongly display personal, relational capabilities towards each other.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the preceding premises that protects and substantiates all three propositions, individually and corporately, is the conclusion I have already stated.
One God in Three Persons. The only proposition that I have to prove now is the third. So before the reader, and my opponent, tries to figure out the mechanics of the Trinity itself and commence to argue against it, he/she must first decide that if the scripture indicates that proposition 3 is true, then the Oneness paradigm will not work, and I have falsified it.
For, truly, if I show that indeed the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit show such characteristics then you should quickly abdicate modalism instead of incorporating a trivial eisegesis, with no scriptural or grammatical foundation, just for the sake of debating.
Now I will turn to the scriptures themselves.
b. Matthew 28:19
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Before I get started on this verse let me say that I am well aware of the Oneness interpretation of it. But their interpretation of this verse and their desire to prove their baptismal presupposition causes them to admit two of three propositions I wish to discuss. And that is the following.
1. Unity of nature
2. Plurality of realities
3. Distinct personality of identities.
The first two props OP’s admit even in their exposition of Matthew 28:19 when correlating it with their view of baptism. They admit the unity of nature and the plurality of three realities, which already militates against the word ‘manifestation’ to distinguish these realities, because, here Jesus does not paint in ambiguous terms, yet using such language as the OP’s do I think they deny what their own common sense preaches to them naturally. I think, OP’s,
naturally, don’t think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in modal concepts. Catching them off guard, or in a theological daze, OP’s pour into the nouns the same meaning that Trinitarians do.
But moving on. What OP’s deny, when being more careful, is the third proposition.
Personality.
But, because of the construction of the Greek in this verse, the only exegesis possible, grammatically, of Matthew 28:19 is that the three nouns, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are each distinct persons.
So, taking into account the Oneness interpretation (which is grasping for straws) an OP exegete must admit, or come to the conclusion, that of all the three, one of them has to be a person.
Which one is it?
Is it the Father?
Is it the Son?
Is it the Holy Spirit?
Or will the answer be, God?
Because of the construction of the Greek and because of the use of the singular word “name” there are three conclusions derived from the text.
1. That there is One God (evidence: the use of the singular “name.”)
2. There is unity among the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit not only of purpose but also of nature (evidence: the use of the singular “name.”)
3. The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are each distinct persons (evidence: the way the verse is constructed in Greek).
The balance of the doctrine of the Trinity makes it’s claims as a truth proposition more palpable when considering all of the above factors.
The Oneness position, however, does not possess the same internal consistency. A person could posit and force the Oneness interpretation onto Matthew 28:19, concerning the formula for baptism, but it would not explain the clear, non-ambiguous, personal distinctions given to the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit by Jesus Himself.
The text demands a Trinitarian conclusion. And since it is a quotation, the speaker from whose lips the words proceeded should demand such a conclusion, as well. And since the Oneness Pentecostal claims to be a follower of the speaker, then he/she should become what the speaker was. A Trinitarian.
c. John 17:5
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” The context, of course, is Jesus’ final summation of His earthly work and His knowingly impending propitiatory death upon the cross. It is a solemn prayer, a kind of benediction to His sojourn in the sarxe and His humiliation, even though the quintessence of His humiliation waited for Him on a Roman cross.
Since the predicate is the one who is addressing the subject we must assume that He (the predicate) is a person. But the very fact that He is addressing the subject makes it obvious that He (the predicate) makes a distinction between the object (Himself) and the subject (Father).
The distinct person of the subject is evidenced by:
1. The address of the object (Jesus)
2. The giving, or glorifying, by the subject (Father).
One receives as the other one gives. Distinction. And this distinction is made, not by me, but by Jesus Himself.
Also this distinction is not just incarnational in perspective, but rather concurrent with the sharing, and the hope of sharing again, of the glory before the world was.
There is a personal distinction being made between Jesus and His Father (a distinction made by Jesus) that is conspicuous. And, in my opinion, any other interpretation results from special pleading and eisegesis instead of taking the text for what it says.
In my mind this verse clearly shows the following:
1. The Father and the Son’s distinct personalities.
2. The Father and the Son’s co-equality and co-eternality, "And now, O Father (one person), glorify thou me(another person) with(sharing, co-equality) thine own self (person), with the glory which I (person) had with(sharing, co-equality) thee (person) before the world was (co-eternality).” d. John 1:1 and the non-contingency theory “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Let me just deal with the Oneness interpretation of this verse first.
Because the Oneness exegete pours into the word “Logos” the definition of an “idea,” means that the “Logos” could not be God, for the “Logos,” out of necessity, would have to have a beginning in time, which all ideas do. The “plan” (Logos) could not have preceded the “planner,” thereby necessitating that the “plan” (Logos) came into being at a moment in time. This automatically rules out the Johanine phrase, “and the Word was God,” for if the “Logos” was just a plan or a principle then “it” could not be God. “It” becomes, instead of the creator, a part of creation.
Now to what I have dubbed the non-contingency theory of the existence of the Logos.
John, in the first chapter of his gospel, says that the “Logos” did not become anything until verse 14. In the verses preceding verse 14, the “Logos” was (non-contingency). The “Logos” is (non-contingency). As far back into eternity past you stretch the existence of the Father, which is what John is doing in verse 1, the “Logos” is (non-contingency).
But since Oneness Pentecostals are explicit in their contention that John means an “idea” or a “plan” when he uses the word “Logos” in his prologue, and does not pour any personal meaning into “Logos” or the activity of the “Logos,” then they are philosophically, and logically, left with the “Logos” being something short of God (contingent).
Now the answer you might give me is, “But Jesus is the Father before His incarnation.” My reply would be, that John 1:1 explicitly makes an argument for the existence of the “Logos” with God before the Incarnation.
Now since a “plan” by nature, according to the order of existence, cannot be, ontologically, the same as the “planner” (a plan is a byproduct of a mind); How could John say that the “Logos” was God if all he meant was a thought, or an idea?? If that is the meaning he wishes to convey here in John 1:1-18 then he has entered into a philosophical, and logical, contradiction. A thought and an idea is contingent upon a thinker. But John calls the “Logos” God. In order for the “Logos” to be God, the “Logos” would have to be infinite and non-contingent. Therefore, the “Logos” is not an “it” or a plan or an idea but a person with all of the attributes of a person (metaphysically) needed to exist with another, such as distinct mind and will. Otherwise, He is not God, because not even God can act and then call that “act” God. Nor can God have an “idea” and call that “idea” God. That would not be true to His nature.
The “Logos” is not a product of mind. He is not a product of anything, or anyone. He is God. He is, and always has been, and always will be, simply, “I am.” Saying anything else makes Him a part of the created order.
e. miscellaneous verses John 8: 14-18
Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. If the Father is not a distinct person from the Son then how are we to understand these verses?
Was Jesus just being coy here?
His appeal for authentication is not just the witness of Himself but also the witness of another. The Father. If the Father is not a distinct person from Jesus then how does the Old Testament law validate His claims? And why would Jesus use such an argument? John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Who is the “He” whom the Father will send?
One sending, another sent. John 16:7-14
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. Who is the “I” and the “him”? Remember these are personal pronouns and there is a subject/object distinction being made between the “I” who is sending and the “him” who is sent. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Of sin, because they believe not on me;
Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. So much for the Holy Spirit being silent. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. Personal proclivities of the Spirit of truth:
1. He is referred to as a “He.”
2. He has a distinct will (i.e. “he shall not speak of himself) 3. He has consciousness because he knows he exists.
4. He has the ability to receive and show or explain.
Since all of these are activities and distinctives only of a person, then the Holy Spirit should be referred to as such. Philippians 2:5-7
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: This was before his incarnation. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: This is the incarnation.
What was he thinking before his incarnation?
Doesn’t “thinking” presuppose mind and will?
Only persons think. And since he thought that it wasn’t robbery to be equal with God, doesn’t that also entail distinction between he who is thinking and the one he was thinking about? Colossians 1:12-19
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Father and Son. Distinction In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the “whom”? Is it the Father or the Son? Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Who is the “who”? Is it the Father or the Son? For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Who is the “him” that created all things? Is it the Father or the Son?
Also, how could anything but a person be considered to do these things. How should we label “him” any other way without damaging the integrity of what the grammar so clearly represents and thereby doing a disservice to the “him” that created?
How can a thought or a plan create anything? And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Who is the “he”? Is it the Father or the Son? And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Who is the “he”? Is it the Father or the Son? For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; Who’s being pleased and who’s doing the pleasing? Hebrews 1:5-10
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Who is talking to who? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Who is bringing the firstbegotten into the world and who is the firstbegotten? And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Who is calling the Son God? Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Who has loved righteousness and how could he love righteousness if he was not eternal?
How could he hate iniquity if he was not eternal?
Since the Son is called God, who is this God that anoints him?
This is a beautiful explication of the divinity and the humanity of the Son while at the same time maintaining the personal distinction between the Son and the one who is doing the talking, the Father. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: Who laid the foundation?
It is clear that this whole section is a conversation between the Father and the Son before the incarnation.
Just a couple more, Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, Who is the “whom” and who is the “he”? by whom also he made the worlds; Who is the “whom” and who is the “he”?
And finally, Isaiah 48:12-16
Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? the Lord hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.
I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his spirit, hath sent me. Who is the “me”?
by Timothy Lewis Kegley
Why I am a Trinitarian
Greetings,
Allow me to be autobiographical in the beginning.
As all of you are aware, I am a former Oneness Pentecostal (OP). Ten years ago such a statement would not have been entertained in my mind, much less fallen from my lips (in case anybody's curious, I did not lust and then go whoring after a harlot church; I had the same smugness concerning trinitarians that I see prevalent among OPs today).
I, like so many OPs, was proud of “the revelation of Jesus Christ.” It was with great pleasure that I drank from the wells of Oneness Pentecostal writers such as David Bernard.
Oneness preachers were like celebrities to me.
I do not hold in contempt nor harbor any animosity towards OPs. Well, ok, maybe just a few.
My circle of friends and social acquaintances are, even today, mostly Oneness Pentecostals. So I am emotionally joined with them.
I have even preached in their pulpits.
So, concerning Oneness Pentecostalism, I am not a novice.
I am prefacing my opening statement with this abbreviated account of my involvement with Oneness Pentecostalism to let all those who read this know that I would rather, emotionally, be affirming Oneness Theology than applying my skills to the defense of the Trinity. But since truth does not arrive flying on the wings of emotions, I cannot affirm Oneness Theology.
Uh Oh! The unraveling of a construct. I remember watching Robert Sabin and Nathaniel Urshan debate E. Calvin Beisner and the late Walter Martin on the John Ankerberg show. I thought that their accounting of themselves and Oneness Theology was less than stellar.
Walter Martin was too much for them.
Or was he?
Was it Beisner and Martin’s acumen that proved to be their unraveling, or was it simply the fabric of their argument?
Woven with disparate theological and philosophical pieces, Oneness Theology was oblivious to the residue of thread that was carelessly hanging from their garments.
I pulled that thread.
And Oneness Theology unraveled before my unbelieving eyes.
But not to worry.
In it’s place I found a wonderful tapestry of beauty and splendor.
THE TRINITY. FUNCTION AND ESSENCE Throughout the history of the Christian church, those who adhere to Trinitarian doctrine have been engaged in negative apologetics. The creeds of Nicea and Chalcedon could be said to be such an exercise. What I mean by this is that the Trinitarian apologist must be adept at explaining what the Godhead is not more than explaining how the Godhead is Triune.
The mechanics of the Trinity, or whether it can be explained exhaustively “how” the Trinity functions, says nothing to the fact that the Trinity “is”. It would be a mistake to assume that since I, or anyone else, cannot understand it functionally, that the reality corresponds to my understanding. It does not. So even if I do not understand the “how” does not mean that I cannot apprehend the “is”.
Going further, even if I do not apprehend that the Trinity is does not mean that the
Trinity is not. God is not contingent upon my understanding or apprehension. He is, because, He is, like any other reality, which cannot derive it’s existence from my belief, understanding, comprehension, or apprehension.
Also, before moving on, the reader, and my opponent, must allow for the difference between function and essence.
Functionis what someone or something does, whereas essence is what someone or something is. I cannot count the times I’ve heard OP’s make an argument against the Trinity based upon this misunderstanding.
Since it has been my experience that a lot of the OP argumentation comes from such a misunderstanding, I’m sure that I will get the opportunity to point out such fallacious argumentations in my refutation.
THE STRUCTURE OF MY THESIS This defense of the Trinity will be constructed in four parts. The outline I will be following is:
I. AFFIRMING THE TRINITY
a. What the Trinity states
b. Matthew 28:19
c. John 1:1 and the non-contingency theory
d. John 17:5
e. miscellaneous verses Now before moving on I would like to inform my opponent and bystanders my intentions and expectations.
My intent is to destroy arguments. I cannot change anyone’s heart or mind. All I can do, as an apologist, is to dismantle arguments, both philosophically and scripturally, that erect themselves against truth.
But my expectations are not as lofty as my intentions. It has been my experience that people hold to presuppositions and worldviews tenaciously. And when dealing with those whom I love, Oneness Pentecostals, their presupposition and worldview is deeply entrenched.
So, my intent is to destroy Oneness Theology, my hope is that you will understand and be convinced of the truth of the Trinity, but my expectation is that I’ll leave behind obscurantists.
I pray that doesn’t happen.
Now to my argument.
I. AFFIRMING THE TRINITY a. What the doctrine states. The doctrine simply stated is “One God in Three Persons.” The most exhaustive codefication of the doctrine can be found in the Athanasian Creed. It codefies it, but it does not convince me of the truthfulness of it’s concepts. Scripture does. And scripture alone.
But first some definitions and clarifications.
Nouns and pronouns have certain properties that distinguish them from each other. They are either a person, a place, or a thing. They can be nothing else. There is no fourth option.
For this debate let me focus on the properties of a person. If a noun or pronoun (i.e. Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit) display will, intellect, personal interaction, and the ability of cogent communication then those set of nouns and pronouns should be referred to as “persons”.
It is a grammatical necessity.
But, alas, here is the point of consternation. The use of the word “persons” by Trinitarians.
Because of the modern connotation placed upon the word, non-Trinitarian interpreters interpret the word a-historical. In other words they fill the word with it’s common meaning which entails physicality to the word. However, classical creedal Trinitarians (or Biblical Trinitarians) do not. The historical position is thus in negation, or denial, of the modern definition of “person” when discussing the doctrine of the Trinity.
The statement “One God in Three Persons” is a metaphysical statement.
If one rejects or does not understand the preceding then allow me this course of explanation.
John 4:24, “God is a Spirit” That is a metaphysical statement. It speaks of God’s immateriality. He is not material and holds no tangent existence in space or time, save the Incarnation when He did not change His nature, but took on an additional nature, that of humanity.
Just saying “God” is a claim based on metaphysics, because it speaks of an existence that transcends the physical.
That is an example of a theological statement that is metaphysical.
Now to something more earthy.
The fetus.
From the Christian perspective, why is abortion wrong? (If some take the opposite view or are neutral on this subject, then we need to talk.)
Because it is the murder of an individual “person”. Now it does possess some physicality but if the Christian argument tries to argue from a purely physical standpoint then they have no argument at all. But the Christian argument stakes it’s claim from a metaphysical benchmark.
At the moment of conception a “person” begins to take physical shape. But abortion is not just the destruction of the physical but is also the destruction of that which transcends the physical, and what makes it murder. It is the destruction of a “person”.
So, in concluding this preface I think we all can understand that the idea of “personhood” transcends the physical even in our own experiences.
Now I gave the preceding explanation to indicate what I mean by “metaphysical”. I have made no claim concerning the Trinity. I have not used the fetus or human “persons” as some kind of analogy explaining the Trinity. I know better. My intent was to just simply place a landmark so that you could better understand what I mean by “metaphysical”.
ONE GOD IN THREE PERSONS Any analogy I, or anyone else, could use would inevitably fall on account of lack of equivalency.
I have heard Oneness and Trinitarian believers alike use the analogy of the egg to substantiate their position.
But in reality the analogy crumbles because it says or attempts to prove too much.
So, in case I’m misunderstood, my analogy of the fetus was an explanation on how, naturally, we all think in metaphysical terms. I made no claim, using the analogy, about God.
The fact that there is no useful analogy should not surprise us. Scripture states that it is not possible for there to be a useful comparison.
“For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord?” (Psalms 89:6)
“To whom then will you liken God? or what likeness will you compare unto him?” (Isaiah 40:18)
“To whom will you liken me, and make me equal, and compare me, that we may be like?” (Isaiah 46:5) It is impossible to be analogous with God.
It is impossible to compare Him to any of our experiences.
Considering this, we are then left being mandated by God to speak, concerning Him, only from what He has revealed in Holy Scripture. And in doing this we assume that He has not done two things.
1. He has not been illogical.
2. He has not lied.
What I mean by “illogical” is that He has not dealt in contradiction.
What I mean by “He has not lied” is that His self-disclosure is consistent and true.
Now both propositions are intertwined and conjoined.
The conclusion that we should have already arrived at concerning what He has done and what He has said in revealing Himself, is that He has told the truth and that truth is truth because it passes the test of logic.
He has not contradicted Himself.
Now our job is this,
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”(II Timothy 2:15) Our job is mining the truth from the scriptures through the Holy Spirit. Now in doing this we must not deal in contradiction or deceit, either. Our philosophy must be constructed by it’s truths, and our doctrines must be internally consistent and relevant in displaying what He has said.
The doctrine of the Trinity protects and salvages the aforementioned propositions from obscurantism, whereas Oneness Theology annuls both, and therefore cannot make any cogent statement concerning God.
The law of non-contradiction simply stated says; ‘A’ cannot be ‘A’ and not ‘A’ at the same time and in the same relationship. But ‘A’ can be ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ because of the fact that ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ are different categories.
Now let me bring this down to the issue at hand.
As has been my experience, most OP’s attack the Trinity on a misunderstanding of the Trinity’s claims. They attack a straw man, that if true, would render the Trinity defenseless against the charge of contradiction.
The doctrine is popularly stated as; One God in Three Persons. The Oneness argument states it, contrary to the Trinity’s own declarations, as being; One God in Three Gods. But such is not the case. If that were the meaning of the doctrine then the Trinity would be a contradiction.
But a careful study of it’s claims proves otherwise.
The Trinity is safeguarded against such skeptical assertions by it’s own internal consistency.
It is not a contradiction because it does not mix categories.
In the statement, One God in Three Persons, are two categories that speak to two different realities. Nature and identity.
One God (nature) in Three Persons (identity).
As is common among straw man argumentation, the assertion of the skeptic contradicts the preceding statement by re-defining the categories and mixing them.
One God (nature) in Three Gods (nature). This is a contradiction because of such an inconsistency. This is tri-theism not trinitarianism.
Now the contradiction is displayed by the fact that one nature (God) cannot be three natures (God) at the same time and in the same relationship. According to the category of nature, He cannot be one and three.
But this is not Trinitarian doctrine.
The Trinity incorporates into the statement, because of the biblical text, a different category that protects the integrity of the category of “nature.”
Person.
Therefore, since there is no mixing of categories then there is no contradiction.
Thus the statement can be reduced, for understanding the categorical purposes only, as One “What” in Three “Whos.” For “what” something is and “who” something is, is a statement concerning two different categories.
There is One God as to His nature, but that One God is revealed in three distinct persons as to His identity, with each sharing that one nature and existing in “personal” relationship with the other.
Now remembering my first definitional excursion into “metaphysics” one must understand the meaning poured into the word “person.” It does not mean three different “beings”. It does not mean three different Gods. It does not mean three different bodies. (Please see the previous argument against tri-theism above.)
Each person of the Trinity shares the same nature (not that each has a “share” but rather that each is fully and completely God), and is in intimate relationship with each other; The Father is in the Son, The Son is in the Father, The Holy Spirit is in the Son and the Father, and the Son and the Father is in the Holy Spirit. (Again I must remind the reader that when we are talking about “person” we are making a metaphysical statement.),
This is called the perichoresis.
The close intimate interpenetrability of each person in the Godhead.
If nouns and pronouns (not only such but also syntax and basic rules of grammar) mean anything then no other dogma will work, whether it be scripturally or philosophically, except the doctrine of the Trinity.
If the Father exhibits personal proclivities such as: will, intellect, personal interaction, and the ability of cogent communication distinctively from the Son and the Holy Spirit, then He must be regarded as a distinct person from the Son and the Holy Spirit.
If the Son exhibits personal proclivities such as: will, intellect, personal interaction, and the ability of cogent communication distinctively from the Father and the Holy Spirit, then He must be regarded as a distinct person from the Father and the Holy Spirit.
If the Holy Spirit exhibits personal proclivities such as: will, intellect, personal interaction, and the ability of cogent communication distinctively from the Father and the Son, then He must be regarded as a distinct person from the Father and the Son.
So simply put, my assertion is that Holy Scripture says the following:
1. There is One God
2. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God.
3. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit very strongly display personal, relational capabilities towards each other.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from the preceding premises that protects and substantiates all three propositions, individually and corporately, is the conclusion I have already stated.
One God in Three Persons. The only proposition that I have to prove now is the third. So before the reader, and my opponent, tries to figure out the mechanics of the Trinity itself and commence to argue against it, he/she must first decide that if the scripture indicates that proposition 3 is true, then the Oneness paradigm will not work, and I have falsified it.
For, truly, if I show that indeed the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit show such characteristics then you should quickly abdicate modalism instead of incorporating a trivial eisegesis, with no scriptural or grammatical foundation, just for the sake of debating.
Now I will turn to the scriptures themselves.
b. Matthew 28:19
“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Before I get started on this verse let me say that I am well aware of the Oneness interpretation of it. But their interpretation of this verse and their desire to prove their baptismal presupposition causes them to admit two of three propositions I wish to discuss. And that is the following.
1. Unity of nature
2. Plurality of realities
3. Distinct personality of identities.
The first two props OP’s admit even in their exposition of Matthew 28:19 when correlating it with their view of baptism. They admit the unity of nature and the plurality of three realities, which already militates against the word ‘manifestation’ to distinguish these realities, because, here Jesus does not paint in ambiguous terms, yet using such language as the OP’s do I think they deny what their own common sense preaches to them naturally. I think, OP’s,
naturally, don’t think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in modal concepts. Catching them off guard, or in a theological daze, OP’s pour into the nouns the same meaning that Trinitarians do.
But moving on. What OP’s deny, when being more careful, is the third proposition.
Personality.
But, because of the construction of the Greek in this verse, the only exegesis possible, grammatically, of Matthew 28:19 is that the three nouns, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are each distinct persons.
So, taking into account the Oneness interpretation (which is grasping for straws) an OP exegete must admit, or come to the conclusion, that of all the three, one of them has to be a person.
Which one is it?
Is it the Father?
Is it the Son?
Is it the Holy Spirit?
Or will the answer be, God?
Because of the construction of the Greek and because of the use of the singular word “name” there are three conclusions derived from the text.
1. That there is One God (evidence: the use of the singular “name.”)
2. There is unity among the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit not only of purpose but also of nature (evidence: the use of the singular “name.”)
3. The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit are each distinct persons (evidence: the way the verse is constructed in Greek).
The balance of the doctrine of the Trinity makes it’s claims as a truth proposition more palpable when considering all of the above factors.
The Oneness position, however, does not possess the same internal consistency. A person could posit and force the Oneness interpretation onto Matthew 28:19, concerning the formula for baptism, but it would not explain the clear, non-ambiguous, personal distinctions given to the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit by Jesus Himself.
The text demands a Trinitarian conclusion. And since it is a quotation, the speaker from whose lips the words proceeded should demand such a conclusion, as well. And since the Oneness Pentecostal claims to be a follower of the speaker, then he/she should become what the speaker was. A Trinitarian.
c. John 17:5
“And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.” The context, of course, is Jesus’ final summation of His earthly work and His knowingly impending propitiatory death upon the cross. It is a solemn prayer, a kind of benediction to His sojourn in the sarxe and His humiliation, even though the quintessence of His humiliation waited for Him on a Roman cross.
Since the predicate is the one who is addressing the subject we must assume that He (the predicate) is a person. But the very fact that He is addressing the subject makes it obvious that He (the predicate) makes a distinction between the object (Himself) and the subject (Father).
The distinct person of the subject is evidenced by:
1. The address of the object (Jesus)
2. The giving, or glorifying, by the subject (Father).
One receives as the other one gives. Distinction. And this distinction is made, not by me, but by Jesus Himself.
Also this distinction is not just incarnational in perspective, but rather concurrent with the sharing, and the hope of sharing again, of the glory before the world was.
There is a personal distinction being made between Jesus and His Father (a distinction made by Jesus) that is conspicuous. And, in my opinion, any other interpretation results from special pleading and eisegesis instead of taking the text for what it says.
In my mind this verse clearly shows the following:
1. The Father and the Son’s distinct personalities.
2. The Father and the Son’s co-equality and co-eternality, "And now, O Father (one person), glorify thou me(another person) with(sharing, co-equality) thine own self (person), with the glory which I (person) had with(sharing, co-equality) thee (person) before the world was (co-eternality).” d. John 1:1 and the non-contingency theory “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Let me just deal with the Oneness interpretation of this verse first.
Because the Oneness exegete pours into the word “Logos” the definition of an “idea,” means that the “Logos” could not be God, for the “Logos,” out of necessity, would have to have a beginning in time, which all ideas do. The “plan” (Logos) could not have preceded the “planner,” thereby necessitating that the “plan” (Logos) came into being at a moment in time. This automatically rules out the Johanine phrase, “and the Word was God,” for if the “Logos” was just a plan or a principle then “it” could not be God. “It” becomes, instead of the creator, a part of creation.
Now to what I have dubbed the non-contingency theory of the existence of the Logos.
John, in the first chapter of his gospel, says that the “Logos” did not become anything until verse 14. In the verses preceding verse 14, the “Logos” was (non-contingency). The “Logos” is (non-contingency). As far back into eternity past you stretch the existence of the Father, which is what John is doing in verse 1, the “Logos” is (non-contingency).
But since Oneness Pentecostals are explicit in their contention that John means an “idea” or a “plan” when he uses the word “Logos” in his prologue, and does not pour any personal meaning into “Logos” or the activity of the “Logos,” then they are philosophically, and logically, left with the “Logos” being something short of God (contingent).
Now the answer you might give me is, “But Jesus is the Father before His incarnation.” My reply would be, that John 1:1 explicitly makes an argument for the existence of the “Logos” with God before the Incarnation.
Now since a “plan” by nature, according to the order of existence, cannot be, ontologically, the same as the “planner” (a plan is a byproduct of a mind); How could John say that the “Logos” was God if all he meant was a thought, or an idea?? If that is the meaning he wishes to convey here in John 1:1-18 then he has entered into a philosophical, and logical, contradiction. A thought and an idea is contingent upon a thinker. But John calls the “Logos” God. In order for the “Logos” to be God, the “Logos” would have to be infinite and non-contingent. Therefore, the “Logos” is not an “it” or a plan or an idea but a person with all of the attributes of a person (metaphysically) needed to exist with another, such as distinct mind and will. Otherwise, He is not God, because not even God can act and then call that “act” God. Nor can God have an “idea” and call that “idea” God. That would not be true to His nature.
The “Logos” is not a product of mind. He is not a product of anything, or anyone. He is God. He is, and always has been, and always will be, simply, “I am.” Saying anything else makes Him a part of the created order.
e. miscellaneous verses John 8: 14-18
Jesus answered and said unto them, Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true: for I know whence I came, and whither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and whither I go.
Ye judge after the flesh; I judge no man.
And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me.
It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. If the Father is not a distinct person from the Son then how are we to understand these verses?
Was Jesus just being coy here?
His appeal for authentication is not just the witness of Himself but also the witness of another. The Father. If the Father is not a distinct person from Jesus then how does the Old Testament law validate His claims? And why would Jesus use such an argument? John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Who is the “He” whom the Father will send?
One sending, another sent. John 16:7-14
Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. Who is the “I” and the “him”? Remember these are personal pronouns and there is a subject/object distinction being made between the “I” who is sending and the “him” who is sent. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
Of sin, because they believe not on me;
Of righteousness, because I go to my Father, and ye see me no more;
Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. So much for the Holy Spirit being silent. I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. Personal proclivities of the Spirit of truth:
1. He is referred to as a “He.”
2. He has a distinct will (i.e. “he shall not speak of himself) 3. He has consciousness because he knows he exists.
4. He has the ability to receive and show or explain.
Since all of these are activities and distinctives only of a person, then the Holy Spirit should be referred to as such. Philippians 2:5-7
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: This was before his incarnation. But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: This is the incarnation.
What was he thinking before his incarnation?
Doesn’t “thinking” presuppose mind and will?
Only persons think. And since he thought that it wasn’t robbery to be equal with God, doesn’t that also entail distinction between he who is thinking and the one he was thinking about? Colossians 1:12-19
Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: Father and Son. Distinction In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the “whom”? Is it the Father or the Son? Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: Who is the “who”? Is it the Father or the Son? For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: Who is the “him” that created all things? Is it the Father or the Son?
Also, how could anything but a person be considered to do these things. How should we label “him” any other way without damaging the integrity of what the grammar so clearly represents and thereby doing a disservice to the “him” that created?
How can a thought or a plan create anything? And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Who is the “he”? Is it the Father or the Son? And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. Who is the “he”? Is it the Father or the Son? For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; Who’s being pleased and who’s doing the pleasing? Hebrews 1:5-10
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? Who is talking to who? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. Who is bringing the firstbegotten into the world and who is the firstbegotten? And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Who is calling the Son God? Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Who has loved righteousness and how could he love righteousness if he was not eternal?
How could he hate iniquity if he was not eternal?
Since the Son is called God, who is this God that anoints him?
This is a beautiful explication of the divinity and the humanity of the Son while at the same time maintaining the personal distinction between the Son and the one who is doing the talking, the Father. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: Who laid the foundation?
It is clear that this whole section is a conversation between the Father and the Son before the incarnation.
Just a couple more, Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, Who is the “whom” and who is the “he”? by whom also he made the worlds; Who is the “whom” and who is the “he”?
And finally, Isaiah 48:12-16
Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.
Mine hand also hath laid the foundation of the earth, and my right hand hath spanned the heavens: when I call unto them, they stand up together.
All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? the Lord hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans.
I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous.
Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord God, and his spirit, hath sent me. Who is the “me”?
by Timothy Lewis Kegley
No comments:
Post a Comment