Greg Koukl Napkin Argument for The Trinity

[darinhouston]

This has been getting some traction through Facebook. Seems helpful for those trying to understand the basic argument. But it doesn't seem to address anything but the most basic disputations commonly received from JW's.

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs ... us-is-god/




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[robbyyoung]

This has been getting some traction through Facebook. Seems helpful for those trying to understand the basic argument. But it doesn't seem to address anything but the most basic disputations commonly received from JW's.

http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs ... us-is-god/

Hi Darin,

Thanks, this is a very practical exercise surrounding the mystery of the Godhead.

God Bless.

[Paidion]

I read the article, Darin. I find this a rather strange statement:

The third, that the distinct persons are each fully God, is denied by Arians like Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Yet, Arius himself stated in his letter to Eusebius that Jesus IS fully God. He wrote in part:

To these impieties [some teachings Arius regarded as heresy] we cannot even listen, even though the heretics threaten us with a thousand deaths. But what we say and think we both have taught and continue to teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor part of the unbegotten in any way, nor is he derived from any substance; but that by his own will and counsel he existed before times and ages, fully God, only-begotten, unchangeable.

In pointing this out, I am not implying that I agree with Arius. I do not agree that there was a time at which the Son did not exist, nor do I agree that the Son was begotten out of nothing.

The author of the article, in his categories, also indicates that "all things that came into being" is tantamount to "all created things". There is no direct scriptural evidence of this. I suppose the author thinks it is only logical and cannot be otherwise. However, I affirm that it IS otherwise. Jesus was begotten before all ages, as the second-century Christians affirmed, and yet was not created. We begat our children, but we did not create them. The ancient Christmas carol "Adeste Fideles" refers to the Son as "begotten not created." The original Nicene Creed affirms that the Son was "begotten before all ages":

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible;
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, only begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father.

At the first Christmas (Christ's Mass), the early Catholic church celebrated three masses in honour of the three births of Christ:
1. His birth before all ages.
2. His birth from Mary.
3. His birth in the hearts of the faithful.

Jesus Himself said, "I emerged out of the Father and have come into the cosmos, and now I am leaving the cosmos and going to the Father." (John 16:27).

[Singalphile]

Just for the record, it's not actually an argument for trinitarianism, and I don't think the author claims that it is. It is an argument "for the deity of Christ".

[TheEditor]

Just for the record, it's not actually an argument for trinitarianism, and I don't think the author claims that it is. It is an argument "for the deity of Christ".

Curiously, the author uses the word "trinity" not less then 11 times in about 2 and a half pages of text, though. He also says in a big Subheading "How to Prove the Trinity". I guess he thinks he's proving the trinity. I find it curious that the author admits what all honest trinitarians admit, namely, "Understanding the Trinity may be impossible", but then proceeds to try and use "logic" to "prove" it. I'd rather they just admit, "I'm fer it"

Regards, Brenden.

[Singalphile]

Well, I think he states it clearly enough: "My purpose is to answer the Arian challenge by giving an airtight, scriptural proof for the deity of Jesus Christ." He doesn't mention Tri-anything again for the bulk of the article until near the end when he speaks of "our defense of the Trinity". I only point it out so as not to prevent anyone from reading it based on a misconception about the author (i.e., that he's dumb or careless).

[darinhouston]

Well, I think he states it clearly enough: "My purpose is to answer the Arian challenge by giving an airtight, scriptural proof for the deity of Jesus Christ." He doesn't mention Tri-anything again for the bulk of the article until near the end when he speaks of "our defense of the Trinity". I only point it out so as not to prevent anyone from reading it based on a misconception about the author (i.e., that he's dumb or careless).

I think it shows how thin his consideration is on the matter -- he does seem to equate the issues (as most do).

[TheEditor]

Hmmm, well, maybe we didn't read the same article. He pretty clearly starts out by defending the trinity, and then makes the statement you quoted. Either way it's clear that his intent is to defend the trinity via the medium of the "Deity of Jesus" position. I don't think he's careless; I just think he demonstrates what most trinitarian apologists do, namely an oversimplification of the concept in order to win the debate. I think trying to "prove" the trinity is a fool's errand. Of course, I'm not a trinitarian, so I'm sure trinitarians will disagree.

Regards, Brenden.

[darinhouston]

Hmmm, well, maybe we didn't read the same article. He pretty clearly starts out by defending the trinity, and then makes the statement you quoted. Either way it's clear that his intent is to defend the trinity via the medium of the "Deity of Jesus" position. I don't think he's careless; I just think he demonstrates what most trinitarian apologists do, namely an oversimplification of the concept in order to win the debate. I think trying to "prove" the trinity is a fool's errand. Of course, I'm not a trinitarian, so I'm sure trinitarians will disagree.

Regards, Brenden.

He starts out by claiming to prove that Jesus is God. That is more than proving his divinity. It is akin to proving the Trinity (or at least the binity). That's another peave of mine -- the Holy Spirit is just completely omitted from any discussion of the Trinity. It's just par for the course -- I agree that it seems a fool's errand; perhaps that's why they often don't seem to try very hard to do a thorough job (though they are certainly confident in their position). I think it's one of those topics that people are afraid to unwrap too much lest it falls apart on them -- it makes you wonder why it's become such a mark of heresy.

[Singalphile]

I don't think he's careless; I just think he demonstrates what most trinitarian apologists do, namely an oversimplification of the concept in order to win the debate. I think trying to "prove" the trinity is a fool's errand. Of course, I'm not a trinitarian, so I'm sure trinitarians will disagree.

That's another peave of mine -- the Holy Spirit is just completely omitted from any discussion of the Trinity. It's just par for the course -- I agree that it seems a fool's errand; ....

I notice that too, darinhouston.

I wouldn't say it's a fool's errand, but I do think there might be too much emphasis on the idea. Anyway, I do think that his illustration from John 1:3 is a good way to show that it is reasonable to conclude that Jesus is the Word who was God through whom all come into being that came into being.