Wrestling With the Watch Tower: The Pagan and Platonic Trinity

Despite that the early Church Fathers taught a Trinitarian understanding of God (as demonstrated here), and despite that the vast majority of the bishops assembled at Nicaea had already believed in a Trinitarian understanding of God (as demonstrated here), and despite that New Testament prophesies indicated that the Church would experience apostasy in part but would nevertheless give glory to God throughout all ages (as demonstrated here), the Watch Tower continues in their brochure, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", and attempts to demonstrate that the doctrine of the Trinity is the result of pagan influence on apostate Christendom.

As we've seen, the doctrine of the Trinity, albeit clarified over the first centuries, nevertheless was the consistent teaching of the Church Fathers from the time of Christ to the Council of Nicaea, and from a short time thereafter until today. Thus, we already know this claim to be false; this domino is already being tipped over by the previous ones we caused to fall. Still, it is an easy claim to refute, and lest we give the perception that we haven't honestly dealt with the issue, we should answer this argument as well.

Wrestling With the Watch Tower: Athanasius and Apostasy

In "Development of the Trinity," we examined the Watch Tower's claims that it was not until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD that the Church first started teaching that Jesus is "of one substance" with the Father, that they did not include the Holy Spirit in this shared substance, and that the pagan Roman emperor Constantine forced the attending bishops to agree to a new view of the relationship between God and Jesus that had not previously been held. We discovered that in each case the Watch Tower utterly lies: the vast majority of the Council already agreed that Jesus and the Father were equal and "of one substance," and differed only in the terminology they felt should be used; they did include the Holy Spirit, though not as explicitly because His divinity was not called into question, as was the Son's; and Constantine merely proposed a Greek term that was a translation of a Latin term that had already been used by the Church for a century.

Their brochure, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", continues in the section entitled, "How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?" under the heading, "The Athanasian Creed:"

Wrestling With the Watch Tower: Development of the Trinity

In "Church Fathers and the Trinity," we examined the Watch Tower's claim that early "Church Fathers" did not teach a Trinitarian understanding of God's nature. In so doing, we discovered that the Watch Tower lies in their brochure, and that in fact the ancient theologians they quoted did teach that the Son of God is eternal and equal with the Father, two Persons but one God in substance and essence. Their brochure, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", continues in a section entitled, "How Did the Trinity Doctrine Develop?"

NICAEA AND THE HOLY SPIRIT

"AT THIS point you might ask: 'If the Trinity is not a Biblical teaching, how did it become a doctrine of Christendom?' Many think that it was formulated at the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E.

That is not totally correct, however. The Council of Nicaea did assert that Christ was of the same substance as God, which laid the groundwork for later Trinitarian theology. But it did not establish the Trinity, for at that council there was no mention of the holy spirit as the third person of a triune Godhead."

Much could be said in refutation of this short introduction alone; remember, the Church Fathers leading up to Nicaea had already been teaching for over two centuries that "Christ was of the same substance as God." What is important about this introduction, however, is the impression given that the Council did not teach that the Holy Spirit is one of the Persons in the Trinity.

Wrestling With the Watch Tower: Church Fathers and the Trinity

In "Trinity Not in the Bible," we examined the Watch Tower's claim that the historic Christian doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly taught in Scripture. In their literature, they quote several Protestant and Catholic sources as acknowledging as much. However, we discovered that the Jehovah's Witness quote these sources out of context, and that though these sources admit that the doctrine is not explicitly and succinctly stated in the Bible, they insist it is nonetheless an accurate representation of the statements throughout Scripture that teach it.

As we'll see as we continue through their brochure, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", the Watch Tower further misrepresents the teachings of the leaders of the early Church, which Christians often refer to as the "Church Fathers." Quoting again from the section of the brochure entitled, "Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?":

"THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ's birth. What they taught is of interest."

The section continues, quoting early Church Fathers, alleging that they taught something other than the Trinity. Let's take a look at these one-by-one.

Wrestling With the Watch Tower: Trinity Not In the Bible

In "Not a God of Confusion," we examined the Watch Tower's argument that the Trinity cannot be true because it is confusing, and discovered that 1 Corinthians 14:33 does not say, "God is not a God of confusion," but rather, "God is not a God of disorder," prohibiting chaotic church services. Additionally, we learned that God transcends human ability to fully comprehend Him, and thus we cannot expect to grasp His nature completely.

Having refuted this plank of the Jehovah's Witness' case against the Trinity, let's continue with their brochure, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" In the next section entitled, "Is It Clearly a Bible Teaching?" the argument continues:

"Since the Bible can 'set things straight,' it should clearly reveal information about a matter as fundamental as the Trinity is claimed to be. But do theologians and historians themselves say that it is clearly a Bible teaching?"

Wrestling With the Watch Tower: Not a God of Confusion

Previously in this series we saw that some of the passages the Watch Tower points to in order to cast doubt on the belief that Jesus is God do not support their case. In Jesus, the Firstborn of All Creation we found that the word "firstborn" communicates preeminence, rather than birth order. In Jesus, the Only-Begotten Son we discovered that the word rendered "only-begotten" is used of children born second to parents whose firstborn is still alive, and means "unique" rather than "only one born to." And in "The Father is Greater than I" we saw that the Father is greater than the Son in terms of authority, not nature.

NOT A GOD OF CONFUSION

Jehovah's Witnesses argue their case from other passages as well, and we'll look at those later in this series. At this point, however, the Witness at the Christian's door may try to cast doubt on the historic understanding of God's nature by claiming that it is confusing, pointing to 1 Corinthians 14:33 which reads, "God is not a God of confusion." In their brochure, "Should You Believe in the Trinity?", in an article entitled How Is the Trinity Explained?, the Watch Tower writes:

Thus, the Trinity is considered to be "one God in three Persons." Each is said to be without beginning, having existed for eternity. Each is said to be almighty, with each neither greater nor lesser than the others.

Is such reasoning hard to follow? Many sincere believers have found it to be confusing, contrary to normal reason, unlike anything in their experience. How, they ask, could the Father be God, Jesus be God, and the holy spirit be God, yet there be not three Gods but only one God?

Wrestling With the Watch Tower: "The Father is Greater than I"

Upon being shown that his "proof-texts" do not teach Jesus was created (here and here), the Witness at the Christian's door may try to go a different route in proving Jesus is not God. The Watch Tower publication "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" continues the argument saying, "The only-begotten Son never even considered trying to be equal to his Father, " citing John 14:28 and 1 Corinthians 11:3 as proof that "the Bible clearly teaches that the Father is greater than the Son" (http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_04.htm).

Wrestling With the Watch Tower: Jesus, the Only-Begotten Son

Upon refuting the argument that Jesus' having been called "the firstborn of all creation" means He was the first being God created (Wrestling With the Watch Tower: Jesus, the Only-Begotten Son), the Christian may be asked by the Jehovah's Witness at the door to turn to John 3:16 which reads, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..." The argument continues in the Watch Tower publication, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" in the chapter, "Who is Jesus Christ?" in the section, "Where Did Jesus Come From?":

There is something else that makes this Son special. He is the “only-begotten Son.” (John 3:16) This means that Jesus is the only one directly created by God. (http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_04.htm)

The word "begotten" comes from the word "beget" which means "to procreate or generate". The Jehovah's Witness, then, would argue from this passage that while Jesus created everything else, He himself was created by the Father, and thus is not eternal nor equal with God.

Wrestling With the Watch Tower: Jesus, the Firstborn of All Creation

The Jehovah's Witness at the Christian's door, if pressed to defend the position that Jesus is not God but is instead His first creation, might start with Colossians 1:15 which reads, "[Jesus] is...the firstborn of all creation" (in certain translations including the NASB and Watch Tower-approved NWT). The argument is presented in the Watch Tower publication, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" in the chapter, "Who is Jesus Christ?" in the section, "Where Did Jesus Come From?" (http://www.watchtower.org/e/bh/article_04.htm):

Jesus is Jehovah’s most precious Son—and for good reason. He is called “the firstborn of all creation,” for he was God’s first creation. (Colossians 1:15)

The dictionary defines "firstborn" as, "first in the order of birth; eldest" or "a first result or product." The Watch Tower's argument, then, is that in saying that Jesus is "the firstborn of all creation" Paul is asserting that of everything God created, Jesus was the first. Obviously, if Jesus was created by God, He is not God Himself, and does not have an eternal nature but instead came into existence when the Father created him.

But is this in fact what this passage in Colossians teaches?

Wrestling With the Watch Tower: Where Did Jesus Come From? An Introduction

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania is God's mouthpiece and theocratic representative on earth. The Watch Tower demands that faithful Witnesses subscribe to a variety of peculiar beliefs. Arguably most egregious of these is the Watch Tower's teaching that Jesus is not God, contradicting what the historic Christian faith has always taught, but is instead God's first created being through whom He spoke into existence the rest of all creation.

Since mainstream Christianity has always taught that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is in fact God Himself in human flesh, this can come as somewhat of a surprise to many Christians unfamiliar with the peculiarities of Jehovah's Witness' beliefs. When a faithful Jehovah's Witness presents the Watch Tower's case to the typical Christian, at first the claim is often easily shrugged off as bizarre. However, to those Christians having a weak understanding of why the Church has always taught that Jesus is God, the Jehovah's Witness' argument can quickly begin to appear quite convincing.

This is an introduction to a series of blog entries I will post intended to equip the Christian to defend the historic Christian position that Jesus is God, as the Bible clearly teaches. My sincere hope is that my friends and family who follow this blog—if such people actually exist J—will be able to lovingly but convincingly respond to the Jehovah's Witness at the door when he or she argues that Jesus is not God. In so doing, you may be able to "with gentleness [correct] those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of truth" (2 Timothy 2:25). More importantly, however, you can be certain that in believing Jesus to be God, you worship God "in spirit and truth" as He demands (John 4:24).

Look for an upcoming post entitled, "Wrestling With the Watch Tower: Jesus, the Firstborn of All Creation" for the first entry in this series. Also, you can click the labels "Watch Tower" and "Jehovah's Witnesses" under any post to see all of my posts that refute Watch Tower and Jehovah's Witnesses' teachings.