Archive for the ‘Apologetics’ Category

Pictures are worth a thousand words they say.  These memes and pictures were too good not to share.  I’ve given links to where the original could be found so that you can also further share them on Social Media with the first two Memes being what we made.

I think it is good to speak out against Planned Parenthood even if the politicians don’t defund them.  To raise this issue to the public conscience will convict people that this is a sin and perhaps God may use to spare another abortion.

If there are other good ones you would like to share let us know!




How does she stand with planned parenthood

Read Full Post »

An illustration of a rendered rainbow

An illustration of a rendered rainbow

Here’s the round up from our marathon series concerning a Christian response to homosexuality.  We have a few “stragglers” post we might still write and be added on here in the near future.


Free E-Books

Audios and Videos

Read Full Post »

Matthew vines

This is our third installment in which we look at the problematic precommitments that Matthew Vines has accepted prior to his research for his book God and the Gay Christian in which he argues that “Christians who affirm the full authority of Scripture can also affirm committed, monogamous same-sex relationship” (Page 3).  Here in this post I want to address Vines’ problematic pre-commitment concerning Old Testament laws.

Matthew Vines In His Own Words

On page 11-12 Vines said:

But while I’d once agreed with my parents’ view on homosexuality, I didn’t anymore.  Even before coming to terms with my sexual orientation, I had been studying the Bible’s references to same-sex behavior and discussing the issue with Christian friends.  Some of what I learned seemed to undermine the traditional interpretation of those passages.  For instance, Leviticus prohibits male same-sex relations, but it uses similar language to prohibit the eating of shellfish.  And while Paul did describe same-sex relations as ‘unnatural,’ he also wrote that for men to wear their hair long was contrary to ‘nature.’  Yet Christians no longer regard eating shellfish or men having long hair as sinful.  A more comprehensive exploration of Scripture was in order.”

Note in the above quote that even before Vines came out of the closet as being a homosexual or even before he began researching to write his book, Vines’ own view of the Old Testament has already led him to question whether the Bible prohibit same sex relations.  Although Vines admit that a “more comprehensive exploration of Scripture was in order,” already what he thinks he knows has “undermine the traditional interpretation of those passages”

Then on page 78 Vines gives us some more details of how he started to question the Old Testament laws found in Leviticus (18:22 and 20:13) that prohibits same-sex relationship:

When I was fourteen, I used that verse to ‘prove’ to a friend that gay marriage ws wrong.  Today, I realize I hardly knew anything about what I was saying–the context of that verse in Scripture, for instance, or the place of the Old Testament law for Christians.

It’s no surprise that I was at a loss when my friend responded to me with verses from Leviticus banning the eating of shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics.

Sad to say, though, that’s been the extent of many debates about the BIble and homosexuality in recent years.  One side starts by quoting Leviticus 18:22 (or 20:13, which prescribes the death penalty for males who engage in same-sex relations), and the other side counters with verses about dietary laws and bans on certain combinations of clothing.  We really need to go deeper”

Thus his interaction at the age of 14 with friends on the topic of Old Testament laws has already slanted him towards the view that the Bible does not prohibit same-sex marriage.  We definitely need to go deeper in our refutation of his pre-commitment that slants him towards affirming same-sex relationships.

The Problem with Vines’ view of Old Testament Laws

  • Vines lamented the state of debate between the two sides: “One side starts by quoting Leviticus 18:22 (or 20:13, which prescribes the death penalty for males who engage in same-sex relations), and the other side counters with verses about dietary laws and bans on certain combinations of clothing.”  Ironically this is what Vines himself does when he invokes dietary laws as a defeater to the non-affirming Christians’ interpretation of Leviticus.  He didn’t “go deeper” as he promised in the book but presented the typical gay apologists’ arguments about Old Testament laws.
  • Matthew Vines’ hermeneutics is definitely problematic.  Recall the principle that led him to think same-sex relationship is okay: “Leviticus prohibits male same-sex relations, but it uses similar language to prohibit the eating of shellfish.”  In essence, this is his hermenutical principle:  “Since X  from Leviticus is not applicable for us today, therefore Y should not be either.”
    • But just because Leviticus has laws that prohibit things that later in the New Testament it allows, does that means same-sex relationship fall under the same category of things permissible?
      • Homosexual sins is not in the same category as dietary laws.
      • Also the New Testament did not reverse the teaching of Leviticus against homosexuality, pronouncing that it is now permitted for a man to lie with another man, etc.
    • Matthew Vines’ hermentical principle that “Since X  from Leviticus is not applicable for us today, therefore Y should not be either” is dangerous.
      • Taking Vines’ hermeneutical principle towards Leviticus to its logical conclusion, is it now permitted to see the nudity of family and relatives members?  The same argument Vines use against the prohibition against homosexuality can be used by perverts to argue against Leviticus 18:6-17 (same chapter with the prohibition on male homosexual acts).  Leviticus might prohibit unclothing family members and relatives, but to use Vines’ own words Leviticus also “uses similar language to prohibit the eating of shellfish.”  Thus  shellfishes “undermine the traditional interpretation of those passages” and somehow with Vines leap of logic in the structure of his argument it must mean incestuous uncovering of nakedness is allowed today.
      •  Vines’ form of argument can be used to say it is permissible to commit children sacrifices, bestiality and incest by employing his erroneous hermeneutical principle to dismiss Leviticus 18:21, 18:22, 20:11-12 respectively.  We can go on but readers should get the point with his hermeneutics.
    • Matthew Vines is also inconsistent with his hermeneutical principle that “Since X  from Leviticus is not applicable for us today, therefore Y should not be either.”
      • Again Vines believes in “committed, monogamous same-sex relationship” (Page 3).
      • Part of that commitment means there must not be adultery, which by definition is the violation of a committed monogamous relationship.
      • If Vines is consistent with his interpretative approach it undermines the prohibition of adultery.
      • But Vines won’t go there and probably won’t accept someone who uses his argumentation to allow for adultery.  Thus, he is inconsistent with his own method.
    • Matthew Vines and others might argue that the points above does not apply in light of the New Testament relationship to the Old Testament.  This is our reply:
      • While the New Testament still prohibit adultery, etc., remember the New Testament continue to prohibit homosexual relations as well.  Of course, Vines and company will dispute that, but the Christian response can be found elsewhere in our blog and is beyond the scope of this post.
      • Going to the New Testament does not resolve Vines’ problematic hermeneutics.  That is because he himself applies this kind of argumentation to the New Testament; recall above how Vines was quoted as saying: “And while Paul did describe same-sex relations as ‘unnatural,’ he also wrote that for men to wear their hair long was contrary to ‘nature.'”  Now the problem is further compounded by bringing this interpretative strategy to the New Testament.
  • Ultimately, Vines’ basis of ethics is not the Bible if he can judge which prohibition in Scripture (Old and New Testament) should still stand and which should not.  His standard of ethics needs to be exposed and refuted.  This we have already done in part 1 of this series in which we documented and refuted his humanistic consequentialist’s ethics.

Read Full Post »


LGBT Movement: Part 2

Alright all, here is another segment concerning the LGBT objections.  It is our prayer that the Lord will use this material to edify the body of Christ concerning the attacks against God’s Word concerning the Gospel.

LGBT Objection: Jesus never spoke out against Homosexuality.


  • To answer this question, we need to understand the doctrine of the Trinity.  Jesus who is the second person of the Trinity, was behind the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18-19) and the very person behind the prohibition against Homosexuals (Lev. 18:22; 20:13).  To deny that reality is to deny the eternality of Christ.  He was at creation. In fact, the world would not be a present reality if it was not for Christ (Col. 1:17).  Apostle John referred to His eternality in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”  He is described as the Word being with the Father not only at creation, but before creation.  If that is not enough, Jesus Himself mentioned his eternality in John 8:58 when confronted by the Jews.  “Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.'”  He was alive before Abraham was born.   In principle, we clearly know that Jesus was present at the condemnation of Sodom and Gomorrah and was the authoritative base that provided the prohibitions against homsexuality in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13.
  • It’s true that there are no statements in the NT of Jesus specifically giving an isolated condemnation against homosexuality. However, this is where they err by misrepresenting Scripture.  They are guilty of begging the question. To deny that Jesus never gave prohibitions against homosexuality is to deny the indissolubility of their union.  They can never be divided.  The Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit never works against one another.  They are always in harmony no matter the topic.  An eternal God demands an eternal sovereign will.  The God-head is never one step behind one another.
  • Food for thought for LGBT proponents. Just because Jesus did not address isolated sins individually such as rape, incest, bestiality, etc., are we to say that He sanctioned them?  That is faulty hermeneutics.  There are many things Jesus did and said, but they were never recorded (John 21:25).
  • By the way, Jesus, the God-man, in His hypostatic union, mentioned many of those sins (not individually) in Matthew Matt. 15:15-20; Mark 7:21-23.  It is not presented in the liking of the LGBT proponents, but He did address homosexuality.  It is found in this key word: πορνεία (porneia).  The word has a broad range that covers every kind of immorality, including beastiality (immoral intercourse with a beast), immoral intercourse with a close relative, etc.   Imagine one was to debate over the statement: “Congratulations Warriors, you are 2015 NBA Champions.”  The conjecture from the critic would be that it is not in reference to every single player in the Warriors uniform.  That would be a far-fetched conclusion because in context in terms of how that congratulatory term is used, has been predominately implemented in reference to every single player in the team. Even though the congratulatory remark does not list the individual names, it does not mean it was not addressed to every player.  The same logic applies to the passages in Matthew 15:15-20 and Mark 7:21-23, whereby the word porneia is used.  Jesus was condemning all of the sexually deviate behaviors.  Beloved, Christ is eternal.  He is truth.  He is holy.  He will never contradict Himself.
  • If the argument upholds the notion that Jesus was not against homosexuality because there was no individually isolated prohibitions, then that same ill logic needs to apply to other sins that Jesus did not address individually: pederasty, bestiality, necromancy, etc.  You see, the attempt to excuse homosexuality is nothing short of revisionist history.  They fall into a slippery slop when they blaspheme the institute of marriage as defined by God.
  • Why did Jesus condemn homosexuality?  He repudiated it because it was an abominable act that went against Gen. 2:22-24.  The fact that God made them “male and female” which was anchored in the foundation of creation, predicated against polygamy and any other deviant sexual lifestyles.  Hence, there is no condoning of same-sex relationship nor any room for more than two persons.  To do so would violate the permanent bond of the one-flesh union.  Only a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman can achieve the permanent bond of the one-flesh union.  To open-up the doors for same-sex relationships would entail a hostile act against the Gospel.  In fact, the Gospel only became a reality because the woman would bear a seed–the seed who would be Christ (Gen. 3:15).  And Christ would be the example for His people of how a marriage between a man and woman looks (Eph. 5:22-33). No one in the face of the earth held onto the definition marriage to the highest esteem than Jesus Christ did.  Remember what He said to the religious leaders in Matthew 19?

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said,“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” ~ NASB

Next will be part 4.

Read Full Post »


Our nation experienced a great deal of controversy last Friday from the 5-4 SCOTUS ruling.  A ruling that has shifted the moral trajectory of our nation.  With a shift that is colossal in nature, it will be very important for Christians to give an answer to why we object to all forms of homosexual orientation.  1 Peter 3:15, “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence” (NASB). We also will need to be reminded that as abominable the sin of homosexuality is, the gay community must be a mission field for us.  We will be fighting in all fronts: abortion, Islam, cults, and even gay marriage.  But as I read this book, I can’t help but to think about the author’s love for this community.  How can we not love them?  Remember what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 6:9-11?  Here it is.  I will also modify some of the fonts so we can be reminded of who we (Christians) were once:

Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 SUCH WERE SOME OF YOU; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.”  

Wow, that should change our attitude from being hateful to being loving.  I am not saying to water down the Gospel.  Let the Gospel be the offense because it naturally functions that way to the prideful anyway.  But may we have attitudes of love towards the lost.  I am reminded of my professor’s quote: “When we confuse our mission field as our enemy, the Great Commission is impossible” (Pastor Rick Holland).  That needs to be preached as a reminder to my heart over and over.

In addition, what else can I communicate concerning this book?  It is a simple and very short read.  It covers many of the major points that Christians will need to consider with they are dealing with homosexuals and even those who have stated that they have submitted to Christ as their Lord and Savior, but still at times struggle with same-sex attraction.  How does one deal with that?  How does one counsel someone struggling with SSA?  I believe the author could of been more descriptive concerning the issue of same-sex attraction/desire, which I believe is a sin, but due the size of the book, it may cause one to loose focus on the main points of the book.  Overall, I recommend this book.


Read Full Post »


LGBT Movement: Part 1

There is a plethora of objections that I can share from the LGBT movement, but for time’s sake, I will try to provide you their main arguments:

LGBT Objection: The biblical prohibition against homosexuality is ancient and not to be followed anymore.

Response: Then why not apply the same logic to other sexual perversions too?  Should the prohibition extend beyond the scope of homosexuality to other sins too (i.e. adultery, etc.) if one operates off of a presupposition of the ancient? Just because something is ancient does not mean it no longer has relevant and direct applications for us.  For example, the murder is an ancient and wicked sin that can traced back to Genesis.  Should we stop prohibiting the act of murder because it is ancient? Can you imagine the repercussions if this logic was followed. The implications brings about other forms of sexual immoralities such as bestiality, pedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, etc.  This can of worms opens up because ones thinking is not submitted to the Lordship of Christ in the realm of knowledge.  Greg Bahnsen stated this concerning the Lordship of Christ in the realm of knowledge,

Paul infallibly declares in Colossians 2:3-8 that ‘All the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ.’  Not he says all wisdom knowledge is deposited in the person of Christ–whether it be about the War of 1812, water’s chemical composition, the literature of Shakespeare, or the laws of logic!  Every academic pursuit and every thought must be related to Jesus Christ, for Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life” (Bahnsen, Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith4-5).

To disconnect oneself from Christ is problematic because it leads to deception and moral suicide.

LGBT Objection: The biblical prohibition against homosexuality is addressed only to Jews.  Non-Jews are only affected by this prohibition if they reside in the Jewish land.

Response: Rabbi Jacob Milgrom is one person who espouses this belief.  He quotes form Leviticus 18:24-30, but he forgot about verses 25-27 (defilement and acts of abominations attributed to non-Jews too).  The passage states:

‘Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled.  ‎25 ‘For the land has become defiled, therefore I have brought its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants.  ‎26 ‘But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you  ‎27 (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled);  ‎28 so that the land will not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you.  ‎29 ‘For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people.  ‎30 ‘Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the LORD your God.’ ”

  • Clearly verses 25-27 refer to the other nations committing acts that is considered wicked and abominable before the Lord that the Jewish people were prohibited from following.  If God is using the other nations as examples, then clearly the Gentiles are people too that can commit abominable acts.  The criteria of abominable deeds is not determined by where you live or what race you belong to.  The prohibition against abominable acts can take place anywhere and by anyone.  Both Jews and Gentiles are culpable.  He does not have laws of morality only for one group of people or only for a specific region.

Objection stated: What is “natural” in Romans 1 is not in reference to natural homosexuals but to heterosexuals who go beyond their natural bounds and engage in homosexuality.

Response: These proponents have a complete misreading of Romans 1. It turns the argument of Paul on its head.  The sin of homosexuality just like any other sin is never natural.

  • Romans 1:26-27, For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
  • Romans 1:26-27 is in reference to all formerly heterosexuals who exchanged their natural function for the unnatural function.  Why? because there is no such thing as natural homosexuals.  Espousing that belief is tantamount to saying that Bruce Jenner was naturally a woman.  Anything sinful is unnatural.  You are what God intended you to be.  What is natural is to operate as beings that reflect the created order. If homosexuality is a natural state, then it will be illogical and contradictory for God to prescribe prohibitions.  Nice try LGBT movement, but this just shows your desperation in order to propagate your false teaching so you could justify your sin.

LGBT Objection: Paul is only speaking of pederastic homosexual behavior here, not adult homosexual relationships.

Response: Paul speaks of “men committing shameless acts with men….”  This statement when studied in the Greek text is prohibiting all sorts of homosexual behaviors.  The argument concerning whether it is in reference to pederastic behavior or not has to do with the word meaning of arsenokoitai and its cognates in extant usage.  Here is where I think Dr. Robert Gagnon’s (since I have not done complete research, I can’t fully vouch for all of Dr. Gagnon’s theology such as soteriology, bibliology, etcc.; so please use discernment to see if it aligns with Scripture)  commentary from his Facebook post concerning arsenokoitai  is helpful.  I am also thankful that Cripplegate was able to compile it and archive it for us.

The term arsenokoitēs and cognates after Paul (the term appears first in Paul) are applied solely to male-male intercourse but, consistent with the meaning of the partner term malakoi, not limited to pederasts or clients of cult prostitutes.

For example, the 4th century church historian Eusebius quoted from a 2nd–3rd century Christian, Bardesanes (“From the Euphrates River [eastward] . . . a man who . . . is derided as an arsenokoitēs . . .  will defend himself to the point of murder”), and then added that “among the Greeks, wise men who have male lovers are not condemned” (Preparation for the Gospel, 6.10.25). Elsewhere Eusebius alluded to the prohibition of man-male intercourse in Leviticus as a prohibition not to arsenokoitein (lie with a male) and characterized it as a “pleasure contrary to nature,” “males mad for males,” and intercourse “of men with men” (Demonstration of the Gospel, 1.6.33, 67; 4.10.6). Translations of arsenokoitai in 1 Cor 6:9and 1 Tim 1:10in Latin, Syriac, and Coptic also define the term generally as “men lying with males.”

  • Dr. Gagnon is correct concerning his above commentary.  Furthermore, according to Dr. Gagnon, if Paul wanted to refer only to prohibition of pederastic behavior he would of used a different term.

The terms paiderastai (“lover of boys”), paidomanai (“men mad for boys”), or paidophthoroi (“corrupters of boys”) could have been chosen.

  • Here is more commentary from Dr. Gagnon concerning the implications of arsenokoitai in Romans 1:24-27:

It is bad exegesis to interpret the meaning of arsenokoitaiin 1 Cor 6:9 without consideration of the broad indictment of male-male intercourse expounded in Rom 1:27 (“males with males”). The wording of Rom 1:27(“males, leaving behind the natural use of the female, were inflamed in their yearning for one another”) points to an inclusive rejection of all male-male relations. Paul here does not distinguish between good non-exploitative forms of male homosexual practice and bad exploitative forms but rather contrasts all male homosexual relations with natural intercourse between a man and a woman. He also emphasizes reciprocity (“yearning for one another”), a fact that rules out an indictment only of a coercive one-sided homosexual desire.

Other factors confirm the inclusive rejection of all male homosexual practice in Rom 1:27: Paul’s intertextual echo in Rom 1:23–27 to Gen 1:26–27 (which contrasts male homosexual practice with God’s intentional design in creation, “male and female [God] created them” and the consequent marital bond), his use of a nature argument (which transcends distinctions based on coercion or promiscuity), and the parallel indictment of lesbianism inRom 1:26 (a phenomenon in the ancient world not normally manifested with slaves, call girls, or adolescents).

The fact that semi-official same-sex marriages existed in the Greco-Roman world and were condemned by Greco-Roman moralists, rabbis, and Church Fathers as unnatural, despite the mutual commitment of the participants in such marriages, is another nail in the coffin for the contention that the term arsenokoitai had only exploitative or promiscuous male homosexual relations in view.

  • What I also found astonishing while studying this word arsenokoitēs, I came across this in the book called The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message About Homosexuality by Dr. James White and Jeff Neill, I came upon this discovery that somewhat startled me.  I found out some disturbing news concerning the influence of the LGBT pressures upon Christian scholarship in some lexical works concerning the changes from BGAD (2nd edition) to BDAG (3rd edition).  You can see the subtle compromises.  Limiting the meaning of the word arsenokoites should not even be a option.  Here is the excerpt below from the book:

“Some scholarly sources limit the meaning in just this way. The impact of political pressures appears even in the realm of Christian scholarship and publishing. For example, the second edition of A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich, and Danker (University of Chicago , 1979) defines arsenokoites as ‘a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite’ (109). The listed sources were fairly small at this point but included Bailey’s work. With the advent of the third edition (now known as BDAG) in 2000, the entry more than tripled in size, with the main definition dropping the term ‘homosexual.’ The definition given is, ‘a male who engages in sexual activity w . a pers. of his own sex, pederast.’ The first part of the definition, however, defines a homosexual, not a pederast. The largest portion of added ‘sources’ are revisionist in nature and have already been addressed . However, BDAG does note the formation of the word based upon the LXX usage at Leviticus 20: 13, even though this very fact militates strongly against the dropping of the term ‘homosexual’ from the definition (while retaining the description of homosexuality!)” (159-160).

Objection stated (Rom. 1): Paul is speaking solely of Jewish purity laws, and hence this is irrelevant in a modern, enlightened society.

Response: This reveals their desperate revisionism of the text. We know that Paul is prohibiting all homosexual acts whether it be done religiously or not.  There is no indication anywhere whereby the sin is limited only to a religious homosexual act.  If that is their logic, can we say that murder, adultery, other sexual deviant acts that are not done religiously be accepted?  Paul is condemning the total homosexual orientation because it is not natural.  They love to blame totalitarian regimes such as Nazis or communists being revisionists, but they are doing the very same act of error.

Objection stated (Rom. 1): Paul is not giving a binding, universal or timeless prohibition here, but is speaking only about what was then “natural” in a conventional or social sense.

Response: Paul is not intending this to be limited to a cultural climate. This is timeless and universal.  In every generation, this sin is condemned.  Why is it only wrong in terms of under the guidance of social norms?  No where in Scripture is God’s moral law to be governed by society?  Do you see that in Leviticus 18 and 20?  If it is subjected to social norms, that means prohibitions from God are not immutable and therefore are tossed to and fro by the gross immorality of arbitrariness.  Who knows then what the next new norm would be in the coming future.  Should the Gospel change too then?   Of course not.  If so, the message we preach has no transforming power and no binding authority upon all people in all ages.  God is not mocked.  He will not be limited by social norms or time.  He is the Ageless and the Eternal one.  May this stir up our hearts to preach the eternity of God and the immutability of God.

Stay tuned for part 3.

Helpful resources consulted:

Bahnsen, Greg L., and Robert R. Booth. Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith. Atlanta, GA: Tenth Printing, 2009.

White, James; Niell, Jeff (2002-04-01). The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible’s Message About Homosexuality (p. 135). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Read Full Post »



While teaching Christology overseas a student asked me how does one handle the following objection: “I don’t believe in the Trinity because the Word Trinity is not in the Bible.”

Here’s my take on the objection.

First, more important than the term is whether or not the concept of the Trinity is found in the Bible.  We must be more concern about the concept more than a specific theological terminology that Christians later use as a handle for the various truth claims about God.  If the concept of the Trinity is found in the Bible, it is enough to establish the doctrine of the Trinity.

I know my first point often don’t satisfy cultists and heretics. Hence the following points:

Secondly, just because you use biblical terminology doesn’t mean the concept behind the term you are using is faithful to the Bible.  I bring this point to illustrate that it is a naively flawed methodology to assume that merely finding a word in the Bible establish the truth content that one might put into the terminology.  People twists the meaning of biblical terms all the time.  In the end, what’s important is the concept behind the terms which reinforce my first point.

Thirdly, depending on the specific cultists or heretic I would also point out how the kind of argumentation presented in this objection to the Trinity also undercut their specific belief systems.   That is, the argumentation is a self-defeater to their own religious beliefs.  For instance, with Jehovah’s Witnesses I apply back this same kind of bad reasoning back to them:  I don’t believe in the Watchtower Tract and Bible Society because Scripture itself doesn’t mention these words.  We shouldn’t attend any of their Kingdom Hall because the word “Kingdom Hall” doesn’t appear in the Bible.  If one uses this flawed logic that is the basis for objecting to the Trinity, the cultist or heretic must also admit that it undermine their very own beliefs and belief system as well.  But if they sidestep this rebuttal by saying the concept is taught in the Scripture, note here that they also admit that content is what matters and not merely the appearance of a terminology in Scripture.  Either way you go, the problem is with the interlocutor.


Fourthly there are also other theological terms that Christians use that is not found in Scripture but the concept is taught in Scripture.  Think of the word “Bible.”  Yet the concept is there within the Bible.  Again, content is what is more important than merely doing a superficial word search.

Fifthly, to be very technical even a lot of terms in our Bible translations are also not found in the original language of the Bible.  The English Bible talks a lot about “God.”  But the Hebrew and Greek words in the manuscripts are “El,” “Elohim,” “Yahweh,” and “Theos.” Nowhere do we find in the original language manuscripts the English term “God,” the German word “Gott” or the Japanese term for deity called “Kami,” etc.  We can multiple the same thing with the term “Jesus,” “faith,” and “Salvation.”  That doesn’t mean we reject “God” because it’s not a term that’s found in the Original language of the Bible.  We might have many terms that “translates” the content of what the Bible is saying.  Note the priority: It is the content of Scripture that shapes a term that signify its meaning.  In some sense the Trinity is a theological translation of the concept of the Oneness and Threeness of the True God as attested in the Scriptures.


This objection might sound like it has a lot of force when one first hears it, but there’s no wind behind its sail upon closer analysis.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,691 other followers