Mormonism

Jehovah's Witnesses

Oneness Theology
(modalism) 
 
Roman Catholicism

Apologetic
 Articles

Debates

Early Church Documents

FREE CLASSES
THEOLOGY & APOLOGETIC STUDY:

To attend our on-going apologetic/theology & cult evangelism classes held locally in Los Angeles:
Contact  edward@christiandefense.org
    

Support this ministry
DONATIONS

Certificate
of Theological Apologetics
Program

*FEATURED ARTICLES

The Mormon (LDS) view of Jesus Christ

Mormonism and Black Skin

A Concise Look at the Nature and Duration of Hell

 

How to share your faith with Jehovah’s Witnesses
 

"Firstborn" and the JWs

John 1:1 and the Jehovah's Witnesses' New World Translation

The Rise of False Teachings within the Church


The term "Jehovah" and the Jehovah's  Witnesses

Irresistible Grace: The Effectual Calling of God
 

The Security of the Believer: Perseverance of the Saints
 

The Big Three

The Jehovah's Witnesses most used three passages to show that Jesus was created and hence, not God:

Proverbs 8:22; Colossians 1:15; and Revelation 3:14

Proverbs 8:22: “Jehovah himself produced me as the beginning of his way. . . .” (New World Translation, i.e., the Watchtower's translation of the Bible [hereafter NWT]).

 JW theological starting point: God is unitarian (i.e., one Person, Jehovah) thus Jesus is not God, but created. 

RESPONSE:

 1. The word that the NWT translates as "produced" (“possessed” NASB) is from the Hebrew word, quanah, which normally carries the meaning of  "to get," "acquirer," or "buy" (e.g., Prov. 1:5; 4:5, 7). We do not find one instance where Solomon uses the term to  denote a creative idea.       

 2. The context of Proverbs chapters 1-9 is *Wisdom*. Wisdom is personified as a woman (cf. 8:1, 2, 3, 9:1-3; etc.). But to maintain that the chapter is referring to the Messiah, the NWT changed the original gender of the Hebrew pronouns ("her," "she") to neuter pronouns, "it," its" (at places such as 8:2, 3, 11; 9:1, 2, 3, etc. NWT).  

3. There has been no Jewish Rabbi or Jewish literature that has interpreted Proverbs 8 as speaking of Messiah. For Scripture does not teach that the Messiah of Israel would be female.

4. Even though some church Fathers saw these passages as referring to Christ, none saw the passages as teaching that Christ was created. So,  appealing to church history does not support the WT view.

5. Scripture presents that Jesus is eternal God, Creator of all things (cf. John 1:1; 8:24; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:3, 8-10; Titus 2:13).

--------------------------------

Colossians 1:15: Christ is, “the firstborn of all creation.”

JWs assume here that "firstborn" mean "first-created" as they see Jesus.

RESPONSE:

  1. Historic note: Paul wrote Colossians for the express purpose to refute the Gnostic heresy that taught Jesus was not God, nor the Creator of all things. They taught that sprit was good and matter (earth, flesh, etc.) was inherently evil, see more on Colossians 1:15-17 here.

2. The word translated “firstborn” (prōtotokos) primarily means "supremacy" or "superiority" as the entire context of chapter 1 indicates: all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

Biblical examples of where prōtotokos means supremacy:

*Exodus 4:22: Israel is called “firstborn” yet there were many nations before Israel--Israel had the supremacy being God's chosen nation.

*In Psalm 89:27, David is called “firstborn,” but David was technically last born.

Referring to Psalm 89:27, the Watchtower correctly recognized that fact that "firstborn" here refers to David's preeminent position as stated in their JW training book, Aid to Bible Understanding:

David, who was the youngest son of Jesses, was called by Jehovah the "first-born," due to Jehovah’s elevation of David to the preeminent position in God's chosen nation (Aid to Bible Understanding, 1971, 584; emphasis added).

Genesis 41:51, Manasseh is called “firstborn” and Ephraim is called “second.” But in Jeremiah 31:9, Ephraim is called “firstborn.” Moreover,

Thus, in these contexts "firstborn" does not indicate "first-created" as JWs assumes of Christ in Colossians. Hence, Christ as Creator had supremacy over "all things" created.

3. If Paul wanted to convey that Jesus was “first-created” he certainly could have used the word prōto-ktistos meaning “first-created” to do so (cf. 2 Cor. 5:18: kainē  ktisis, “new creation”).

--------------------------------

Revelation 3:14: Jesus is, “the beginning of the creation by God.”

The JWs assume here that Jesus is said to have had a beginning.

RESPONSE:

1. The Greek word translated “beginning” is archē can mean  "source" or "ruler" (e.g., architect, archbishop).

2. Concurring with this meaning, the NWT translates archē in Luke 20:20 as “governments.” See also Ephesians 6:12 where archē is translated by the NWT as “governments.”

3. Note that in Revelation 22:13,  Jehovah, whom JWs believe is eternal,  is called archē.

4. The the NWT mistranslates the passage. The Greek does say "by God," but rather "of God" (tou theou, lit., "of the God"). The term God (thou) is in the *genitive* case (i.e., the case that expresses possession) indicating that  Christ is the "ruler" or "architect"  (archē) of God's creation.

For more information on the JWs see Jehovah's Witnesses

sola gratia   solo Christo   sola fide     sola Scriptura   soli Deo gloria

The atoning cross-work of God the Son was not a vague non-specific universal work for which no one is actually (but only potentially) atoned, but rather it was a *definite atonement and according His perfect *sovereignty and pleasure of His own will (cf. Eph. 1:4-5, 11). 

ALWAYS BEING READY TO MAKE A DEFENSE

   In the first century the axiom of the church was: "Contend for the Faith" (Jude 3), but regrettably that has  changed. Through the Apostle Peter, God commands all Christians to always be ready to provide a defense (apologia) and reason (logos) for their faith (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15; Titus 1:9, 13). If Christians do not speak out against false teachings that confuse as well as deny definitive Christian theology, thus deny Christ, the false teachings will be construed as truth. Christian should be able to reasonably and biblically communicate essential Christian doctrines such as the Tri-Unity of God, the full Deity of Jesus Christ the Son of God and Justification through faith alone. Accurately affirming and defending who God is, thus, how He revealed Himself in Scripture, not only honors Him as He should be honored, but highly glorifies Him--for it is an act of true worship. 

                     See  The Rise of False Teachings within the Church

A Definitive Look at Oneness Theology: Defending the Tri-Unity of God (by Edward L. Dalcour, University Press)--Order here   

"For those who do not have time to conduct the exegetical work necessary to refute Oneness claims but who wish to be theologically informed or to discuss the doctrine of the Trinity with theologians in the United Pentecostal tradition, Dalcour has provided a valuable resource."—John D. Laing, Professor of Systematic Theology and Philosophy, Southwestern Theological Seminary, Harvard School for Theological Studies.

Virtually all non-Christian cults (esp. Oneness believers and Jehovah’s Witnesses) reject the doctrine of the Trinity and teach that the early church had no such concept of a triune God, but rather they held to a unitarian concept of God (i.e., God existing as one Person). Because of a great lack of study in the area of Patristics (i.e., church Fathers), these groups normally assert that the origins of the doctrine of the Trinity first emerged at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325.

So vast is the evidence that the early church envisaged a tri-personal God and not a unitarian or unipersonal deity to which groups such as Oneness Pentecostals (as well as Muslims, Jews, and JWs) hold, that Oneness writers such as William B. Chalfant make desperate attempts to convince Oneness believes that the early church Fathers were really modalists (Oneness):

the trinity doctrine exists only on paper. . . . No apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ ever taught such a doctrine. . . . None of the immediate disciples of the apostles (e.g., Clement Ignatius, Hermas, or Polycarp) taught such a doctrine . . . Trinities Abound in the ancient, false religions. . . .[2]

With no historic justification, Chalfant (and others Oneness writers) conveniently assumes his conclusion that is meant to be proved, namely—that the early church Fathers were modalists! What I find interesting is that nearly every non-Christian cult uses this same line of reasoning, which is nothing more that patent historical revisionism.

It is not surprising that the greatest and most authoritative Christian theologians and church historians[3] objectively disagree with the Oneness historical assumption that the early Christians in the days immediately following the apostolic age were Oneness. Despite the fact that many church Fathers utilized first person plural references in the OT (“Our,” “Us”; cf. Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isa. 6:8) to substantiate that God was multi-personal, it was the Trinitarian baptismal formula (cf. Matt. 28:19) that was used and quoted by many early church Fathers to show that God was Triune. The evidence clearly shows that the early church conceptualized a distinction of Persons in the Godhead—they were not Oneness.

Apostolic Fathers

Some of the earliest writings that have come down to us are those that belong to the category of the “apostolic Fathers.” Many of these men were actual disciples the original apostles and leaders of the original churches. The few citations below (there are massive amounts!) plainly indicate their view of a triune God.

The Epistle of Barnabas (c. A.D. 70):

Probably not written by the biblical character Barnabas, but whoever the author was the Epistle of Barnabas was written very early when some of the original apostles were still alive. Notice how the plural “Us” in Genesis 1:26 is used differentiating God the Father from Jesus:

And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God [the Father] said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,’ understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men (Epistle of Barnabas, 5).

Clement bishop of Rome (c. A.D. 96):

Clement of Rome wrote an epistle to the original Corinthian church. He was perhaps the same Clement who was Paul’s close companion mentioned in Philippians 4:3. In Clement’s salutation, he clearly distinguishes the Father from the Lord Jesus Christ:

The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace to you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied (Letter to the Corinthians, 1).

Surely if Jesus as the Father (the Oneness view) was the “apostolic doctrine,” as Oneness teachers would like us to believe, why was Clement, who was perhaps Paul’s associate, clearly distinguishing the Father from the Lord Jesus Christ? Clement then refers to a very Trinitarian passage (Eph. 4:4-6):

Let us cleave, therefore, to the innocent and righteous, since these are the elect of God. Why are there strifes, and tumults, and divisions, and schisms, and wars among you? Have we not [all] one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us? (ibid., 46).

Ignatius bishop of Antioch (c. A.D. 107):

Ignatius, bishop of the church at Antioch, was another apostolic church Father. What he says should be considered; after all, he was a leader of the original church at Antioch:

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord (Letter to the Ephesians, 7).

Clearly, Ignatius does not see the Father and the Son as the same Person. In the same letter, he distinguishes the Father from the Son and the Holy Spirit:

as being stones of the temple of the Father, prepared for the building of God the Father, and drawn up on high by the instrument of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope, while your faith was the means by which you ascended, and your love the way which led up to God (ibid., 9).

Even more descriptive, Ignatius, in his letter to the Magnesians, speaks of Jesus being with the Father before time:

Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever. . . . (Letter to the Magnesians, 6; emphasis added).

That Ignatius calls Jesus “the only-begotten Son,” and that He (the Son) was “God the Word,” goes straight against Oneness theology, which says that the Son had His beginning in Bethlehem. In his letter to the Roman church, he explicitly distinguishes the Father from the Son:

For our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is with the Father, is all the more revealed [in His glory]. Christianity is not a thing of silence only, but also of [manifest] greatness (Letter to the Romans, 3).

In the introduction to his letter to the Romans, please notice the specific language Ignatius uses to clearly differentiate the Father from Jesus, “the Son of the Father”:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus [“God-inspired”], to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour . . . and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father. . . . (emphasis added).

Hermas (c. A.D. 120):

Hermas was perhaps the same Hermas to whom Paul sends his greetings in Romans 16:14 around A.D. 57. In The Shepherd, Hermas writes in clear contradiction to the Oneness doctrine of the non-eternal Son:

The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father’s adviser in his creation. Therefore, also he is ancient (The Shepherd, Ninth Similitude, 12).

Polycarp bishop of Smyrna (c. A.D. 130-150):

The beloved Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, who claimed he had been a “Christian for eighty-six years,” was also, according to Irenaeus and Eusebius, a disciple of the Apostle John. In his last prayer before he was martyred, Polycarp glorifies the triune God:

O Lord God Almighty, the Father of thy beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the knowledge of Thee . . . I give Thee thanks that Thou hast counted me, worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the number of Thy martyrs, in the cup of thy Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and body, through the incorruption [imparted] by the Holy Ghost. . . . Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14; emphasis added).

Mathetes (c. A.D. 130):

In his letter to Diognetus, Mathetes, who claimed, “having been a disciple of the apostles,” speaks clearly of the eternality of the Word, not as the Father, but as being sent from the Father:

For which reason He [the Father] sent the Word, that He might be manifested to the world. . . . This is He who was from the beginning, who appeared as if new, and was found old, and yet who is ever born afresh in the hearts of the saints. This is He who, being from everlasting, is today called the Son. . . . (Letter to Diognetus, 11; emphasis added).

Aside from the many subsequent church Fathers that passionately affirmed and defended the Trinity (e.g., Athenagoras, Theophilus, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Athanasius, Cyril, etc.), the “apostolic Fathers” clearly envisaged a tri-personal God. Recognized Patristic authority and early church historian, J. N. D. Kelly, gives these observations:

the reader should notice how deeply the conception of a plurality of divine Persons was imprinted in the apostolic tradition and the popular faith. Though as yet uncanonized, the New Testament was already exerting a powerful influence; it is a commonplace that the out-lines of a dyadic and a triadic pattern are clearly visible in its pages.[4]

We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance [nature] 
(Athanasian Creed).

There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made [agennhtoj]; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first possible and then impossible, even Jesus Christ our Lord (Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, 7. 2; c. A.D. 107).

We worship the one Deity in three Persons, subsisting without beginning, uncreated, without end, and to which there is no successor (Methodius, Oration on the Psalms, 5; c. A.D. 305).c. A.D. 305).

We neither separate the Holy Trinity, like some; nor do we as Sabellius work confusion [into it] (Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, 16. 4; c. A.D. 348).

Sabellianism is Judaism imported into the preaching of the Gospel under the guise of Christianity. . . . 
(Basil the Great “To the notables of Neocaesarea,” in Letter 210; c. A.D. 375)

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ [tou kuriou Ihsou Xristou], and [kai] the love of God [tou qeou], and [kai] the fellowship of the Holy Spirit [tou agiou pneumatoj] be with you all (2 Cor. 13:14).

Therefore, having been justified by faith, 
we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
 (Rom. 5:1)

copyright:© 2008
Department of Christian Defense
 all rights reserved
 

Web design by L. D.