When most of us think of apologetics, the first thing that comes to mind is making a defense for the faith before unbelieving challengers. But in reality, there is a whole lot more call for making a defense of historical, Biblical Christianity within the Church. The recent discussions on Ken’s blog are a perfect example of this. We had professing Christians challenging justification by faith alone, the doctrine of the Trinity, and more. In all cases the arguments were ostensibly from the Scriptures and in the name of Christ.
While not many of us may find ourselves going toe-to-toe with an atheist over the existence of God, it is quite likely that we, or those we care about, will be confronted with this sort of challenge. For ourselves, perhaps, we could get away without being able to make a coherent defense of the truth against these errors. We could just take it on faith that what our pastors tell us or what our church publishes in its statement of faith is really correct.
But what happens when it is a friend or family member that falls under the influence of one of these false teachers? How about one of our own children? “Trust me. The Trinity is a Biblical view of God, while modalism is false. I just know that I know that I know.” is probably not going to cut it. We are going to have to make a reasoned defense of orthodoxy from the Scriptures. I think this is exactly what is in view in Jude 1:3 where we are exhorted to contend for the faith–knowing what you believe, why you believe it, and being able to pass it on to others.
If you are not convinced that this sort of threat is serious, take a look at this recent publication of The 50 Most Influential Christians in America. At the top of the list is T.D. Jakes, who, as a Oneness Pentecostal, denies the Trinity.
Correction: Bishop TD Jakes.
Bishop – a clergyman having spiritual and administrative authority; appointed in Christian churches to oversee priests or ministers; considered in some churches to be successors of the twelve apostles of Christ.
A high-ranking Christian cleric, in modern churches usually in charge of a diocese and in some churches regarded as having received the highest ordination in unbroken succession from the apostles.
What was the correction, Darin?
Eric,
You ought to try to make a reasoned defense or try to show where you get your Trinity doctrine. In particular, I object to the teaching that God is three separate persons. I have not found anyone there that can explain their basis for belief in the Trinity without falling back on what the “Church Fathers” believed. I have shown you plenty of reasons why I believe in Oneness. And I can show you living proof that people receive the gift of the Holy Spirit as evidenced by speaking in tongues, just as described in the Bible. If you think that is false please show me from scripture. By the way, I have studied apologetics quite extensively. I have a very extensive library if you are interested.
Jose
PS – I am deep into the complexities of learning modern web design. Bear with me a little longer and I will have my site up.
Jose, when you say:
Do you think that appealing to church leaders of the past is wrong? If yes, please explain to me the particulars of how Jesus can be a man and yet be God at the same time without citing “Church Fathers.”
Jose, that’s pretty interesting to me, because I wouldn’t know how to make a defense for the Trinity that is based on the Church fathers. I would make it entirely from the Scriptures. I’m planning to lay out a basic case for the Trinitarian view of God in a (near) future series of posts.
Jose, I was more than willing to pick up the glove you are throwing down concerning a Biblical defense of the doctrine of the Trinity. The problem is that your email got sent back to me. Maybe I should try again. Could you give me that email address again?
The Arianism that Bernard professes is refuted by the Bible as well as Church fathers (who relied on the Bible for their defense).
Again, without realizing it I am sure, you are accusing us of intellectualism and dogmatism. You are implying that we are unthinking and have just blindly accepted church tradition. This is simply not the case for me. As I get to know you, I am sure you don’t mean to offend, and I am not offended by such an accusation because I believe in the Biblical basis for the Trinity- but you might want to avoid doing this.
Jose,
I already did this privately, but ‘since my critique of you is public, I will apologize publically. Ask anyone on this blog- I have a lot to learn about being a winsome apologist. I am sorry for my attitude. Christ has taught me a lot through our interactions and this blog. Thanks to him and to all of you.
Guys, I have been having computer problems. I finally gave up trying to fix the old one. I still don’t have stuff loaded on the new one. This just to let you now I was not ignoring you. There are so many hours in a day and its year end at BellSouth and we are having a layoff. I have been very busy… say a prayer for me.
About Jason’s apology… good grief! I am not offended. I see how you care and you are tryihg to understand God’s word. Praise God for that! Let’s agree we can disagree. I expect you to probe me and test me, and I will do the same for you. I think we would all agree we are sinners (despite my antagonism toward the doctrine of total depravity or original sin). I plan to bust Jason for his very first criticism of Bernard’s book, which was out of context and unfair, but I also plan to learn from him. What about that conjunction I asked you about????? Let’s agree to respect and tolerate each other, and keep talking.
I am looking forward to much more Bible study with you.
Eric, I am looking forward to our debate.
Have a great week!
Jose
Jose, if you want to bring out the supposed “out of context critique” then please tell me what it is. Please don’t criticize me without telling me exactly what I did wrong, otherwise your criticism is worthless. If you are saving it for your blog, then please save it for your blog.
Secondly, the short answer to the weak argument that Bernard uses is that he has committed an exegetically fallacy. He has failed to consider the semantic range of kai and therefore he has restricted its range without warrant (because it fits his heretical theology). He did not even mentioned that kai could mean but, also, even, that is, and namely. Why? This is commonly known as using unwarranted semantic disjunctions and restrictions. It is a common but unfortunate mistake. Bernard commits this mistake with other words over, and over, and over, and over…..
This is one of so many mistakes that Bernard makes (in that same context, Bernard also fails to understand the use of the Greek definite article), that I feel like I would be firing a shotgun at you if I critiqued them all at once and that is precisely why I took my webpage down. If anyone wants to read it, let me know and I will repost it.
These are very complicated and technical issues. You yourself say that you do not know Greek. This begs the question, why are you blindly trusting Bernard’s interpretations then? Why favor his over others and particularly those in the Calvinist tradition?
I just checked to see if Jose replied to my previous post, and realized that it is not obvious what I am trying to say. Let me clarify.
Every word within language has what is called a semantic range. That is, the range of nuance that is seen in the usage of an individual word. For example let’s take the word “trunk.” It could refer to a tree trunk, a trunk in which something is stored like a car trunk, or an elephant’s trunk. Hypothetically, let’s say that the word “trunk” is used primarily in the bible to refer to a tree trunk. the type of mistake that Bernard makes can be seen in the analogy of me saying to you that “trunk” should primarily mean car trunk. Why did I force that restriction on you? What evidence do I have to justify my translation, especially when the word “trunk” primarily refers to a tree trunk.
Such is the case with kai and Bernard’s mistake. He has forced an unwarrented restriction on us by his use of the word kai. What evidence does he give to justify such a restriction? None. In original languages, grammar gives you the options, context and theology provides the answer. There is nothing in the context that justifies Bernard’s interpretations.
Bernard wants us to dogmatically accept his position. It is unwarrented and incorrect. Aside from the argument that he is making, Bernard’s methodology is exegetically flawed.
Hi Jason,
Thank you. That gives me something to chew on if I ever find some time.
You say Bernard inappropriately restricts the range. Are you saying he made a choice? I don’t believe you have explained why his choice is wrong. Are you saying it is? Someone else made a choice of “and.” What makes the choice of “and” inherently more correct than Bernard’s “even?” I would argue there are overwhelming supporting scriptures that argue for one God, and that the choice of “even” is a better fit for the whole gospel if context is how we make the choice.
I am working on the web site and learning Frontpage. Its not quite ready for prime time 🙂
Jose
Jose,
Yes, I do believe that Bernard’s choice of translating kai as even is wrong in the verses in which he attempts such a translation. What makes his choice wrong brings us to a discussion of heremeneutics (principles of biblical interpretation). I already answered this question in my previous post. “In original languages, grammar gives you the options, context and theology provide the answer.” When we make a decision about translating a word such as kai or any word for that matter, we have to justify our translation with the evidence that exists. Of the 8970 times that kai occurs in the Greek New Testament, the vast majority of the time it is translated as and because it is being used as a conjuction, frequently marking the beginning of a sentence. Context tells us this in each case- and it is obvious. Therefore, when a translator opts for a different nuance of the meaning of kai within its semantic range he must defend this. Bernard defends his translation of kai as even by pointing to his presupposed theology of “oneness.”
My argument is that this is flawed because nothing in the context of the verse itself warrents such a decision. Looking at the context would lead us to translate kai in the same way that almost every other English Bible has chosen to translate it- as and.
We have to adopt Bernard’s theology to agree with him. In short, we have to be oneness theologians to accept Bernard’s translation of kai. This is circular.
The question is, “Is Bernard’s presupposed theology biblically correct?” Of course not! I can prove this…just be patient. My critique of Bernard’s book is almost completely done.