Proof of the Trinity by a Beautiful Mind
This was originally in the Journal of the Churches of God internet magazine a few years ago in 2003 by an Aussie mathematician (not really Russell Crowe) who responded to the anti-trinitarian stances that the Armstrongite Churches of God consistently take in the Letters to the Editor section.
---Felix Taylor, Jr.
---Felix Taylor, Jr.
Mysteriously, three are one
Over the last several months there have appeared in The Journal several items (articles and advertisements) denying the divinity of the Lord Yeshua (hereinafter in this letter referred to as the Son).
This is an understandable, even inevitable, development given the COG milieu that teaches that God is a family of two: Father and Son.
Indeed, if God is a family of two, then there are two Gods. But the Bible says there is only one God. So only the Father or only the Son can be God, but not both.
The groups responsible for the advertisements and articles I referred to have opted to strip divinity from the Son, the junior (to their way of thinking) in the family.
The COGs' attempt at reconciling these apparently contradictory biblical doctrines includes the teaching that there is one God family. But, if this is so, then it is both Father and Son together who are God, for it is the two of them collectively who are a family.
But, then, if that is true the Father as an individual is not God for He does not constitute the family by Himself. And the same thing can be said of the Son, just as one ship is not the fleet; rather, all the ships collectively are the one fleet.
But this is not what the Bible says. The Bible says the Father is God, the Son is God, and--I also add--the Holy Spirit is God.
The Bible also says there is one God.
Numerous scriptures attest to the truth of the last two sentences. So how do we reconcile these apparent contradictions? Certainly not by the COG doctrine of God being a family, as demonstrated in the first paragraph.
It is the mainstream Christian belief in a triune God, the Trinity, three persons in one God, that reconciles these seemingly conflicting biblical verses that assign personalities to three different beings and reveals these beings as talking to and interacting with one another. But the Bible simultaneously calls them one God.
Arguments in The Journal based on COG God-is-a-family doctrine defending the divinity of the Son have approached the ludicrous (God was one, then became two when the Son was conceived and will be millions in the future).
The Bible says there is only one God, and in the future there will still be only one God (Isaiah 43:10).
Anticipating COG objections: Is it not even more ludicrous to say that one is three and three are one, which is what the Trinity doctrine says?
My reply: Three in one and one in three are indeed incomprehensible, even ludicrous, to our finite minds. But this is what the Bible says when it says that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and there is only one God.
Indeed, God is incomprehensible to the finite human mind (Job 9:10; 11:7-9; Psalm 139:6; 145:3; Isaiah 40:28; Ephesians 3:19; Philippians 4:7; Romans 11:33-34).
The Trinity is God. That is why the Trinity is incomprehensible. But we do not reject the Trinity just because it is incomprehensible. We just have to take it on faith because the Bible says so--just as we take on faith the virgin birth, the resurrection of men four days and three days dead, etc.
Besides, three in one and one in three are not so absurd if we rid ourselves of the popular misconception that mathematical rules are absolute truths. Consider the following from Eric Temple Bell, a highly regarded modern historian of mathematics:
"At this point, it is pertinent to ask 'How do we know that a particular set of postulates, say those of elementary algebra (or arithmetic), will never lead to a contradiction?' The answer to this disposes, once and for all, all of the hoary myth of absolute truth for the conclusions of pure mathematicians. We do not know, except in comparatively trivial instances, that a particular set of postulates is self-consistent and that it will never lead to contradiction."
This mathematician is saying that in "comparatively trivial instances," like the addition of apples or mangoes, the rules of maths apply so that 1 plus 1 equals 2.
But in complex matters (like the nature of God) the rules of mathematics may not apply, so that 1 plus 1 plus 1 may equal 1, as in the case of the Trinity.
Over the last several months there have appeared in The Journal several items (articles and advertisements) denying the divinity of the Lord Yeshua (hereinafter in this letter referred to as the Son).
This is an understandable, even inevitable, development given the COG milieu that teaches that God is a family of two: Father and Son.
Indeed, if God is a family of two, then there are two Gods. But the Bible says there is only one God. So only the Father or only the Son can be God, but not both.
The groups responsible for the advertisements and articles I referred to have opted to strip divinity from the Son, the junior (to their way of thinking) in the family.
The COGs' attempt at reconciling these apparently contradictory biblical doctrines includes the teaching that there is one God family. But, if this is so, then it is both Father and Son together who are God, for it is the two of them collectively who are a family.
But, then, if that is true the Father as an individual is not God for He does not constitute the family by Himself. And the same thing can be said of the Son, just as one ship is not the fleet; rather, all the ships collectively are the one fleet.
But this is not what the Bible says. The Bible says the Father is God, the Son is God, and--I also add--the Holy Spirit is God.
The Bible also says there is one God.
Numerous scriptures attest to the truth of the last two sentences. So how do we reconcile these apparent contradictions? Certainly not by the COG doctrine of God being a family, as demonstrated in the first paragraph.
It is the mainstream Christian belief in a triune God, the Trinity, three persons in one God, that reconciles these seemingly conflicting biblical verses that assign personalities to three different beings and reveals these beings as talking to and interacting with one another. But the Bible simultaneously calls them one God.
Arguments in The Journal based on COG God-is-a-family doctrine defending the divinity of the Son have approached the ludicrous (God was one, then became two when the Son was conceived and will be millions in the future).
The Bible says there is only one God, and in the future there will still be only one God (Isaiah 43:10).
Anticipating COG objections: Is it not even more ludicrous to say that one is three and three are one, which is what the Trinity doctrine says?
My reply: Three in one and one in three are indeed incomprehensible, even ludicrous, to our finite minds. But this is what the Bible says when it says that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and there is only one God.
Indeed, God is incomprehensible to the finite human mind (Job 9:10; 11:7-9; Psalm 139:6; 145:3; Isaiah 40:28; Ephesians 3:19; Philippians 4:7; Romans 11:33-34).
The Trinity is God. That is why the Trinity is incomprehensible. But we do not reject the Trinity just because it is incomprehensible. We just have to take it on faith because the Bible says so--just as we take on faith the virgin birth, the resurrection of men four days and three days dead, etc.
Besides, three in one and one in three are not so absurd if we rid ourselves of the popular misconception that mathematical rules are absolute truths. Consider the following from Eric Temple Bell, a highly regarded modern historian of mathematics:
"At this point, it is pertinent to ask 'How do we know that a particular set of postulates, say those of elementary algebra (or arithmetic), will never lead to a contradiction?' The answer to this disposes, once and for all, all of the hoary myth of absolute truth for the conclusions of pure mathematicians. We do not know, except in comparatively trivial instances, that a particular set of postulates is self-consistent and that it will never lead to contradiction."
This mathematician is saying that in "comparatively trivial instances," like the addition of apples or mangoes, the rules of maths apply so that 1 plus 1 equals 2.
But in complex matters (like the nature of God) the rules of mathematics may not apply, so that 1 plus 1 plus 1 may equal 1, as in the case of the Trinity.
Maximo Sarmiento
Croydon, Australia
Post a Comment