Why God Allows Evil Upon Christian Evangelists?

          34 year old Nabeel Qureshi was a devout Ahmadiyya Muslim. He converted to Christianity almost 12 years ago. He served as an itinerant speaker with RZIM, and is a best-selling author (Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus, No God But One—Allah or Jesus?).

            Last year, the news that Nabeel had been diagnosed with cancer distressed the Christian world. His prognosis remains grim. A few days ago, the RZIM team bid their preliminary goodbye to Nabeel.¹

            God’s blessing upon a very young Nabeel is evident. His ministry has blessed many. Had God blessed Nabeel with a longer lifespan, multitudes might have been drawn to Christ.

            However, God’s plan seems to be different. Ravi Zacharias recalled Nabeel’s goodbye to his colleagues at RZIM, “Our itinerants all gathered, about seventy of us from every continent. Nabeel spoke to us on the opening morning. He told us that the doctors have given up hope and that there will be no surgical intervention (which was to have happened only if the chemo and radiation had worked). Medicine feels it has done all it can…To his fellow itinerants Nabeel came to say, “Thank you. I love you all and if I have hurt anyone, I ask for forgiveness. Most important, my faith is stronger than ever in my Savior and whatever lies ahead, I will take it as God’s will.” Then he said, “You will probably not see me speaking in public anymore and I bid you all goodbye.” He then looked in my direction to share his final words of affection to me and bid us goodbye. I was too overcome to say anything.” (Emphasis Mine).²

            Nabeel’s situation motivates a consideration of these legitimately perplexing questions that confound a thinking mind:

            (1) Why does God allow evil upon Christian evangelists? (Approximately two-thirds of this world does not believe in Christ. Aren’t Christian evangelists the need of the hour?)

            (2) Why does God terminate the life of HIS evangelists while they’re young? (If God extended the ministry of HIS most effective evangelists, many more would have been blessed.)

            (3) Is God not interested in the conversion of non-Christians?

            These questions, if not provided with valid answers, could prompt a misunderstanding about God. Alternatively, a correct understanding could benefit the thinking Christian to appropriately comprehend God and this situation.

Why Does God Allow Evil Upon Christian Evangelists?

            In a world that is largely non-Christian, the need of the hour is Christian evangelists. The Bible mandates preaching of the gospel. If God allows evil upon evangelists (not all, but some), is HE not detrimentally interfering with the spread of gospel? God’s inaction from the perspective of lack of protection seems to contradict HIS Word.

            How do we reconcile this existential and spiritual dilemma?

            This dilemma could be resolved from another vantage point. If we can biblically assert that God is not constrained to protect HIS evangelists, a plausible inference is that God could allow evil upon HIS evangelists in the same manner in which HE allows evil upon anyone.

            Therefore, let us wrestle with the question “Why Does God Allow Evil Upon Christian Evangelists?” from the vantage point of “Is God constrained to protect HIS evangelists?” 

            This question is predicated upon these premises:

            P1. Evangelism is the need of the hour.

            P2. Evangelism is the greatest Christian ministry.

            P3. Christian evangelists are more precious (in God’s sight / plan) than other Christians.

            P4. Hence, it follows that God should protect HIS evangelists (over other Christians).

            If we can invalidate one or more of these premises, the conclusion (P4) could be disputed. Then we could confidently assert that God is not constrained to protect HIS evangelists. Therefore, the situation of evangelists being affected by evil need not be an aberration in God’s plan.

            (P1) is valid, for the Bible affirms this premise (Matthew 28: 19-20; Romans 10: 14-15).

            (P2) could be disputed. There are many Christian ministries or spiritual gifts (Romans 12:6-8; 1 Corinthians 12:4-11; and 1 Corinthians 12:28); evangelism is not mentioned as the greatest Christian ministry. One verse that implies evangelism as the greatest ministry is 1 Corinthians 12:28, wherein the term “apostle” (“apostolos” in Greek) could be misconstrued as evangelist. However, it is worth observing that the New Testament also uses the word “apostolos” to simply mean messenger without referring to any specific church office (Philippians 2: 25; 2 Corinthians 8: 23; John 13: 16 and cf. Ephesians 4: 11). Therefore, the claim that evangelism is not the greatest Christian ministry could be adequately sustained.

            (P3) could also be disputed. The Bible does not dichotomize or provide hierarchy among Christian ministers. Furthermore, God cannot be partial to anyone (Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Galatians 2:6; Ephesians 6:9). Hence, the argument that “Christian evangelists are more precious (in God’s sight / plan) than other Christians” is invalid.

            Since (P2) and (P3) are invalid premises, it then follows that God is not constrained to protect HIS evangelists (over other Christians or anyone for that matter).  Therefore, God can allow evil upon HIS evangelists just as how he allows evil upon anyone.

Why Does God Terminate The Life Of HIS Evangelists While They’re Young?

            Unless God reveals, we will not know the precise reason of the untimely death of anyone, let alone an evangelist. But the Bible reveals that the death of God’s saints is precious in God’s sight (Psalm 116: 15).

            (We use the term “untimely” from a human perspective, not from a divine perspective. God takes people out only when HE so desires. Hence no death is untimely from God’s perspective.).

            Our common sense suggests that it is improper of God to terminate the lives of HIS evangelists while they are young. A simple reason behind this line of thought is that if God allowed HIS evangelists to live longer, more people could have been drawn towards Christ. 

            The sovereign God, who raised David instead of Saul and Timothy after Paul, can always raise another evangelist. Therefore, neither does the untimely death of any of God’s evangelists be deciphered as an aberration in God’s plan nor would God’s work be blocked or decelerated by the untimely death of anyone.

Is God Not Interested In The Conversion Of Non-Christians?

            This is an absurd question for a mature Christian. But from within our context of evangelists dying young, this question does gain a semblance of meaning from the perspective that if God had blessed the evangelists with longer life, many more might have been drawn to Christ.

            The untimely death of an evangelist cannot assail God’s desire for people to love HIM. God loves everyone and desires that all may know and believe in HIM (Ezekiel 18:23; Matthew 23:37; 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Peter 3:9).

            An omniscient or all-knowing God knows who would accept and reject HIM. So, at any point in time, there are those who reject God irrespective of the presence of the evangelists. Those who reject God do so out of their own freewill, for God would do everything possible for man to believe in HIM.

Conclusion

            We grieve when our loved one is in death bed. Death or the prospect of death is a matter of great sadness. An untimely death is a matter of greater sadness.

            But while we feel sad, we also rejoice, for the dead or the dying Christian would soon be in God’s presence. Hence we could respond as how Ravi Zacharias responded, “My dearest Nabeel, I love you, dear friend, and my heart aches to see you leaving this world so soon. But if it is of any comfort, you have so far lived the same number of years as our Lord and Redeemer. What is more, the world is a mess. We are still trapped by the fears of living in a world immersed in hate and living for matter, greed, pride, and violence. You will be freed to the joy of life where there are no more fears, no more tears, no more hate, no more bloodshed, because you will be with the One who has already shed his blood for you, where love is supreme, grace abounds, and the consummate joy is of the soul. The smile of God awaits you: “Well done.”

            “Eye has not seen, ear has not heard, neither has entered into the heart of man, the things that God has prepared for them that love him,” 1 Corinthians 2:9 promises.

            Your eyes will now see and your hands will now touch that which is the only Real estate.” ³

Endnotes:

¹http://rzim.org/global-blog/torn-emotions-a-visit-with-nabeel-qureshi/

²Ibid.

³Ibid.

Amor Fati (Love of Fate) & The Christian Response

            “Amor Fati” is a Latin phrase that means love of fate, wherein loss and suffering are to be accepted and considered as good or necessary facts of life. None of us are immune to pain. The Amor Fati of the Nietzschean consideration advises a love of one’s fate even in pain albeit without God. 

            On the contrary, God does not assure Christians of a painless life. Instead the Bible teaches us to live in Christ to gain the peace that transcends all understanding, which enables us to live successfully through pain.  

            The objective of this article is not to extensively dissect the Amor Fati of the Nietzschean consideration. Basic concepts of Amor Fati will be emphasized to motivate an adequate Christian response. Furthermore, a basic flaw in the atheistic consideration of Amor Fati will be identified.   

Nietzsche’s Amor Fati

            Amor Fati was glorified by the atheist German philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, who considered “love of fate” as essentially important for life. Nietzsche referred to Amor Fati as:¹

            “…formula for greatness in human being” (Ecce Homo, 258)

            “…his inmost nature” (Ecce Homo, 325)

            “…the highest state a philosopher can attain” (Will to Power, 1041)           

            In its existential outworking, those subscribing to Amor Fati would believe that everything happens for a purpose. They are to love that which has happened to them. This essentially translates to accepting, interpreting and activating fate as a positive purpose for life. Nietzsche expressed this as, “My formula for greatness in a human being is amor fati. That one wants nothing to be different, not forward, not backwards, not in all eternity. Not merely bear what is necessary, still less conceal it…but love it.”

            Nietzsche linked Amor Fati to the concept of eternal recurrence, “Basically, this means that you live your life according to the principle that if you were to have to repeat the same actions as in the past, you would do them the same way. In other words, be at one with your fate and give your actions the weight of eternity. Stop wishing for something else to happen, for a different fate. That is to live a false life.”²

Christian Response to Amor Fati

            How should Christians, subscribing to Historic Christianity, encounter and engage with fate?

            Our fate is not fatalistic. The Bible does not teach that our life is an outcome of a predetermined course of events. Although God is sovereign, HE has offered us freedom to make choices that control our fate.

            For instance, we could choose to either accept or reject God. If we accept God, we go to heaven. If we reject the Lord Jesus Christ, we go to hell. Our eternal destiny is based on the choices we make now.

            Our temporal destiny, in large part, is also based on our choices. Cigarette smoking is injurious to health. We either choose not to smoke cigarettes to live a healthy life or choose to smoke so that we are vulnerable to illnesses associated with smoking.

            Life is a series of choices. Our choices determine our destiny.

            Most significantly, we love God. We cannot disassociate God from our life. We see life’s events from the perspective that God is the author and sustainer of our life. This need not necessarily postulate that God has foreordained every aspect of our life.³

            Christians look to God always – be it in moments of joy or pain. We are to depend on God always; seek HIM and pray continually. Therefore, we are not called to navigate life without God, rather we are to gain God’s peace and HIS sustaining and healing power to navigate through life’ darkest moments.

            Amor Fati contradicts Christian belief. So Christians cannot subscribe to Amor Fati. Christians are to love God. We are not mandated to love our fate.

            The sovereign God also controls our fate (cf. Tower of Babel, Jonah in the fish etc.). So the individual Christian would rather be aligned with God’s will than to rebel against God. Aligning with God’s will is only possible when we love God and seek HIM always.    

Basic Flaw in Amor Fati

            The basic flaw in Amor Fati is that one cannot truly love his fate. In order to understand this, let’s consider an existential dilemma. How should a father, who subscribes to Nietzsche’s Amor Fati, respond when he discovers that his infant son has an illness that will kill him early?

            A man had Amor Fati tattooed in his forearm so to be constantly reminded to love his fate. Here’s how this man responded when he discovered his infant son’s terminal illness, “When it counts is when you find out your infant son might have an illness that will debilitate him and ultimately kill him before he sees his twentieth birthday…It is then when you have to look at your forearm, be reminded that you have a choice in how to perceive this event, and look in the mirror through tears and consider something: Maybe, just maybe, if he wasn’t sick I would have taken him for granted. Now I won’t.  Now I’ll make every second count.  I can choose to be grateful for twenty years fully-lived with my son versus sixty years mostly wasted.”⁴

            Sounds good, isn’t it? Not exactly!

            How do we live while suffering from a terminal illness or while experiencing the untimely death of a loved one? Would not Amor Fati (love of fate) help us in this situation?

            No!

            We cannot truly love a painful situation – a terminal illness or an unexpected loss of our loved one. A true love of any situation would involve a desire for that situation. None of us desire terminal illness or to lose our loved one early. Hence, we cannot truly love our fate that involves horrendous pain.

            True love of one’s fate should essentially motivate a life within that fate. If one loves his fate, he should love to live that fate. This is similar to loving our house. If we truly love our house, we would love to remain in that house. We would not immediately seek to relocate to a better house.

            Fate that involves suffering cannot merit a similar response. We cannot truly love to remain in pain. Instead, we truly love to immediately liberate ourselves from that very painful circumstance of our life. Therefore, the love that Amor Fati demands cannot be true love.  

            But some may argue that they love their debilitated life (e.g. disability). This cannot be true love as well! Suppose a medical intervention is discovered to heal that disability, would we not rush to gain healing? So we truly love a life without disability. We cannot truly love a disabled life.

            Nietzsche’s Amor Fati promotes action, not stagnancy within that fate. This action does not preclude an action to change that fate. While Nietzsche prescribes love of one’s fate, that very love does not translate to enduring one’s fate. The man who subscribes to Amor Fati states that Amor Fati does “…not to teach you to be a cow standing in the rain, simply enduring and hoping to survive your fate…”⁵

            While applying Nietzsche’s Amor Fati to life’s painful predicaments, the constant endeavor is to change life’s situations. Upon encountering a terminal illness, the immediate response is to seek appropriate medical care to heal the illness. This is an endeavor to change one’s fate.

            Similarly, upon losing one’s job, the immediate motivation is to search for another job. Those attracted to eat unhealthy food will fight their appetite for unhealthy food and strive to live healthy. They do not love their fate of sickness or joblessness or eating unhealthy food.

            Therefore, those applying Nietzsche’s Amor Fati to their painful predicament exhibit a stark exhibition of a lack of love towards their painful predicament. They desire to change their fate by either eating healthy or searching for jobs or searching for a suitable medical intervention for healing.

            Man constantly strives to make things better in life; to change his fate. Thus he cannot love his fate that involves pain, for he exhibits love for an improved position in life. Therefore, Amor Fati is not a tenable proposition for life.

Endnotes:

¹http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~beatrice/Nietzsche%20and%20Amor%20Fati.pdf

²https://dailystoic.com/robert-greene-interview/

³ Please refer to Dr. William Lane Craig’s argument to assert the fallaciousness of theological fatalism at http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/transcript/s3-14

⁴https://dailystoic.com/amor-fati/

⁵Ibid.

Websites cited were last accessed on 18^th May 2017. 

Salvation Of Jews; Is There An Aberration? (Salvation Of Old Testament Believers)

            Consider the number of Jews who reject Christ. Would they not be saved although they believe in the same God as Christians do? Is there an innate injustice in God’s plan for the salvation of Jews?

            Jews could be broadly categorized into:

            (J1) Jews who lived before Christ.

            (J2) Jews who live(d) during and after Christ.

            Jews are God’s chosen people. Intriguingly, it appears as if there are two plans of salvation for the Jews – a simple and a complicated plan. The simple plan does not explicitly involve Christ and applies to (J1). Since Christ was not explicitly involved in this salvific plan, the Jews had one less factor to believe. Hence this plan could be termed simple.

            The second plan, which involves Christ, applies to (J2). This appears to be a complicated plan because the Jews had to / have to believe in Christ as well.

            The apparent injustice is this; how could there be a simple and a complicated plan for the salvation of the same group of people? The only distinction between these two groups is that they’re either born before or after Christ.  

            This apparent injustice is magnified for God determines the precise time of birth of all people – Jews included. The individual Jew does not choose his/her time of birth. So it is rather plausible to infer that God placed the Jews born during or after Christ in a more precarious position than their ancestors. (Their ancestors did not have to deal with the Christ-factor for their salvation.)

Christ Is Necessary For Salvation

            The New Testament categorically asserts that both the Jews and the non-Jews (Gentiles) would only be saved if they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, “And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4: 12, NASB). Salvation is by the grace of God through faith in Christ (Ephesians 2: 8-9; John 1: 12, 14: 6).

            So mankind existing since the New Testament period should necessarily believe in Christ to be saved.

Salvation Of Old Testament Believers

            The term Old Testament (OT) believers include both the Jews and the Gentiles. The OT believers were not privy to the life and sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, for they were born at a time when Christ was not revealed by God to the world.

            Two questions are in order. First, how did God save the OT believers? Second, is God’s plan for the salvation of Jews who lived after Christ more complicated because they had to believe in Christ as well?

            Understanding the salvation of Jews who lived in the Old Testament era should throw vital light into unraveling this predicament. Let us consider the three vital aspects of salvation: Justification, Regeneration, and Sanctification.

            Justification of OT Believers: Man is a sinner (be it in the Old Testament or since the New Testament period). So man remains guilty in his standing with God. If man is to be saved, his legal status must be changed from guilty to not guilty. If man met God’s requirements fully, he would be declared just or righteous in God’s sight. Man is justified when Christ’s righteousness is imputed upon him (Romans 5: 1, Galatians 3: 24, Ephesians 2: 8, Titus 3: 5).

            Abraham, Moses and King David never heard of Christ, yet they were saved (justified) by virtue of their belief in God (of the Bible). Salvation of OT believers included Gentiles as well (E.g. Job, Melchizedek, King Abimelech).

            OT believers were not saved by adhering to the law. Abraham lived 400 years prior to the establishment of the law, yet he was saved. Moreover, the law cannot be adhered to perfectly; the law merely brings knowledge of sin (Romans 3: 20; Cf. Galatians 3: 11). The uncircumcised Abraham was saved merely by virtue of his faith in God. The salvation of uncircumcised Abraham negates any notion of salvation by works (performing sacred rituals and doing good works).

            But Christ is necessary for salvation, and the OT believers, who lived before Christ by the plan of God, did not possess a conscious knowledge of Christ. So how were these people saved?

            Romans 4: 1-5, 9-10, 16 offers an answer to this question. Paul invokes Genesis 15: 6 to establish the fact that belief in God is adequate for salvation. Thus when man is saved by virtue of his faith in God, Christ’s righteousness is transferred upon this man, thereby rendering him as not guilty in God’s sight (Romans 3: 21-22, 5: 17, 6: 23, 8: 1; 1 Corinthians 1: 30).

            Regeneration of OT Believers: A regenerated man will ardently desire to live a holy life in his new birth. He will not desire to live a sinful life.

            One could argue that the OT believers could not have been regenerated since the Holy Spirit was not yet given. (The Holy Spirit would not be given until the Pentecost.) However, the Bible provides us with adequate evidence to corroborate the fact that the OT believers were regenerated.

            Moses contrasted the two groups of Israelites – those who were circumcised of heart (Deuteronomy 30: 6) and those who were stiff necked and stubborn (Deuteronomy 29: 19-20; Exodus 32: 9, 33: 3; Ezekiel 2: 4). As Paul said in Romans 2, a real Jew is the one who is circumcised of heart (v28-29). The heart of the real Jew is altered to conform to God’s will.

            The OT believers also experienced a change of heart (1 Samuel 10:6, 9; Cf. Isaiah 57: 15; Ezekiel 11: 19-20, 36: 25-26). This is similar to the transformation Jesus described to Nicodemus much before the Pentecost. Thus we deduce that the Jews who loved and obeyed God in the Old Testament period were regenerated.

            Sanctification of OT Believers: Sanctification is the process in which the regenerated man becomes progressively holier. The Old Testament ascribes righteousness upon Noah and Job (Genesis 6: 9; Job 1:1, 8). While one can argue that Abraham, Moses and Daniel were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit, it does seem that these men were under the influence of the Holy Spirit because the Bible says that they were faithful, meek, good and self-controlled (cf. fruit of the Spirit). Although the Holy Spirit did not indwell the OT believers, HE evidently exerted an external influence.   

            Thus we understand that the salvific pattern of the believers in Old Testament and New Testament exhibit great similarity.

Salvific Plan Remains Same

              God’s plan of salvation included Christ then and now. However, the Jews who lived before Christ did not consciously see or hear of Christ’s salvific work to believe HIM.

            The Bible also states that the OT believers were saved because they possessed a forward-looking faith based on the promise that a Messiah, or a Redeemer would come. While speaking of the OT believers such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Sarah, the Bible asserts that “All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance…” (Hebrews 11: 13, NASB, Emphasis Mine). In the same chapter, Moses “…considered abuse suffered for the Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt, for he looked to the reward.” (Hebrews 11: 26, RSV, Emphasis Mine). The Lord Jesus emphasized that Abraham was looking forward to the day of the promised Messiah, “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8: 56, RSV, Emphasis Mine). So if the Jews before Christ had clearly heard and believed in the Messiah and in HIS coming, they were saved.

            But what about those Jews who probably did not hear of the Messiah’s coming? (There may have been Jews during the time of Christ, who may not have heard the gospel message clearly because of the geographical distance and the lack of technology to disseminate information quickly.) Would they be saved?  

            If the Jews had not heard about the coming of the Messiah in the future, they would not have rejected HIM per se. If these Jews believed in God, they would be saved. The benefits of Christ’s atoning death would be transferred upon them.

            One final question remains, is God’s plan for the salvation of Jews who lived after Christ more complicated because they had to believe in Christ as well?

            Regeneration or “being born again” is totally a work of God (John 1: 13; Ephesians 2: 5; James 1: 17-18; 1 Peter 1: 3; cf. Ezekiel 36: 26-27). When a Jew hears of God and of Christ, God speaks powerfully to him and the Holy Spirit works powerfully in him. (Herein God does what HE needs to do to bring man into HIS fold.) Then man responds to God in faith. When God works powerfully in us, the honest seeker would easily accept Christ.

            When Jews reject Christ, the only significant consideration is whether the gospel of Christ-crucified has been preached clearly to them or not (cf. Romans 10: 14). If the gospel of Christ has not been preached clearly to them, then they are not rejecting the Christ of the Bible. In this instance, there is every possibility that God would save them as how HE saved the OT believers. 

            Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no aberration in the salvation of the Jews.

Postscript:

The God Of Jews & Christians Is Not The Same

            Jews reject the Trinity. So they reject the divinity of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Jews strictly worship a monotheistic God. On the contrary, Historic Christianity subscribes to a Godhead that is Trinitarian yet monotheistic in nature. The Godhead is comprised of a co-equal Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

            The OT believers – the Jews and the Gentiles – worshiped the same God. However, when Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit were revealed to mankind in the New Testament, the conception of the Godhead became different for the Christians.

            In other words, God revealed HIMSELF progressively to mankind. Hence, it is plausible to deduce that God would not expect the OT believers to believe in the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. However, since HE has revealed the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the New Testament, God would expect mankind in existence since the New Testament period to consciously believe in Christ for their salvation.

            The Jews (existing since the New Testament period, and if they reject Christ) and the Christians worship a different God. (In other words, although God is one, the Jewish and the Christian conception of God is totally different since the New Testament period.) The God of the Jews is similar to the Islamic conception of God (Allah). The Islamic conception of God is strictly monotheistic and the Muslims reject the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Yet the Jews and Muslims worship a very different God. If the Jews and the Muslims worship a different God, then by the same reasoning, we can reasonably deduce that the Christians and the Jews worship a different God. Therefore, the Jews in existence since the New Testament period would be saved only if they believe in Christ.   

An Introductory Defense Of The Blessed Trinity

The Bible reveals the distinctive and an essential Christian doctrine of the blessed Trinity. The Christian worldview makes this unique claim that God is one and yet there are three who are God.

Although Natural Theology could posit God’s existence and HIS attributes, Trinity, however, belongs to revealed theology. Trinity is a unique nature of God, which can only be comprehended when God reveals HIS nature to man, else man cannot comprehend the unique nature of God.

Since our mind is limited to comprehend the doctrine of Trinity, this doctrine should be honestly and diligently studied. Trinity is denied by Jehovah’s Witnesses, Islam and the likes. Hence, Christians dialoguing with the proponents of other worldviews ought to justify and defend the doctrine of the blessed Trinity.

While striving to understand the nature of God from the Bible, especially when there is no explicit mention of the Trinity, all the passages referring to this particular theme ought to be recognized and systematically interpreted. Thus the doctrine of Trinity is an entailment of a diligent hermeneutical enterprise; an exercise in Systematic Theology.

FORMULATION OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRINITY

The word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible. However, the term “Trinity” describes a doctrine that is implicit in the Bible. But the doctrine of Trinity is based on the several explicit teachings found in the Bible.

The following statements form the core of the doctrine of Trinity:1

1. The Father is God.

2. The Son is God.

3. The Holy Spirit is God.

4. The Father is not the Son.

5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit.

6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit.

7. There is exactly one God.

EVIDENCE FROM THE BIBLE

Trinity is plausible only if the Bible asserts the following three aspects of the Godhead:

(1) The oneness of God.

(2) The three persons who are God.

(3) The three-in-oneness of God.

The Oneness of God is taught in the following passages of the Bible: Exodus 20:2-3, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me” (Emphasis Mine). The Hebrew translation of “before me” means literally “to my face.” Deuteronomy 4:35 says, “You were shown these things so that you might know that the Lord is God; besides him there is no other” (Emphasis Mine). The Shema in Deuteronomy 6 says, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (v4, Emphasis Mine).

Moreover, God has commanded HIS people to love HIM and no-one else (Deuteronomy 6:5) and fear and serve HIM and no-one else (Deuteronomy 6:13).

Verses revealing the oneness of God are not limited to the Old Testament. The New Testament also emphasizes the oneness of God (1 Corinthians 8: 4, 6; 1 Timothy 2:5-6; James 2:19).

The Bible teaches that there are three distinct persons in the Godhead with three sets of cognitive faculties.

The Father is God (John 6: 27; Galatians 1:1; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; 1 Timothy 2:5).

The Lord Jesus Christ’s deity is affirmed in the Bible (Isaiah 9:6-7; John 1:1, 20:28-29; Philippians 2: 5-11; Hebrews 1: 3a, 8; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Colossians 1:15-20, 2:9). Christ was placed on an equal footing with God (Matthew 28:19). Christ claimed to forgive sins (Mark 2: 8-10), for which HE was accused of blasphemy by the ardent Jews, for only God can forgive sins. Christ spoke of the angels as HIS angels (Matthew 13:41). He regarded the Kingdom of God (Matthew 12:28, 19:14, 24, 21:31, 43) and the elect of God as HIS own (Mark 13:20). Christ also claimed the power to judge the world (Matthew 25:31-33) and reign over it (Matthew 24:31; Mark 14:62). Significantly, Christ did not deny HIS deity before Caiaphas, “And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!” Jesus said to him, “It is as you said…” (Matthew 26:63-64, NKJV, Emphasis Mine). Last but not the least, Thomas addressed Christ as HIS God (John 20:28).

There are biblical references that identify the Holy Spirit as God (Psalm 139:7-10; Acts 5:3-4). The Holy Spirit is described as having the qualities of God and performing HIS works (John 3:8, 16:7-11; 1 Corinthians 3: 16-17, 6: 19-20, 12: 4-11). The Spirit is also placed on an equal footing with God (Matthew 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14; 1 Peter 1:2). Mark 3:29 states that blasphemy against the Spirit of God is an unforgivable sin.

The three-in-oneness of God is also taught in the Bible:

Matthew 28: 19-20 links the three persons of the Godhead and places them in equality. It is imperative to note that the word “name” is singular while describing the three persons, “…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”

The Pauline benediction also places the three persons of the Godhead in unity and equality (2 Corinthians 13:14).

John’s gospel provides the strongest evidence of a coequal Trinity (1:33-34, 14:16, 26, 16:13-15, 20:21-22 cf. 1 John 4:2, 13-14).

The oneness of the Father and the Son (John 10:30, 14:6-11), the Son and the Spirit (Romans 8:9) and Father and the Spirit (1 Corinthians 2:11) is also taught in the Bible.

Although the Bible does not explicitly state the three-in-oneness of God, adequate data is found in the Bible (as mentioned above), which suggests the unity of the three persons of the Godhead.

TRINITY & THE LAW OF NON-CONTRADICTION

The doctrine of Trinity is not self contradictory, “Some attempt to argue against the Trinity by asserting that the concept is in violation of the law of non-contradiction. How can God, they ask, be both one and three at the same time? The law of non-contradiction asserts that something cannot be ‘a’ and ‘non-a’ at the same time and in the same sense. I do not think the Trinity violates this principle, however, since the doctrine maintains that God is one in a sense and three in a different sense. He is one in substance or essence but not one in person…”2

THE PLAUSIBILITY ARGUMENT

Dr. William Lane Craig argues for the plausibility of the Trinity from the perspective of love, “God is by definition the greatest conceivable being. As the greatest conceivable being, God must be perfect. Now a perfect being must be a loving being. For love is a moral perfection; it is better for a person to be loving rather than unloving. God therefore must be a perfectly loving being. Now it is of the very nature of love to give oneself away. Love reaches out to another person rather than centering wholly in oneself. So if God is perfectly loving by His very nature, He must be giving Himself in love to another. But who is that other? It cannot be any created person, since creation is a result of God’s free will, not a result of His nature. It belongs to God’s very essence to love, but it does not belong to His essence to create. So we can imagine a possible world in which God is perfectly loving and yet no created persons exist. So created persons cannot sufficiently explain whom God loves. Moreover, contemporary. [sic] cosmology makes it plausible that created persons have not always existed. But God is eternally loving. So again created persons alone are insufficient to account for God’s being perfectly loving. It therefore follows that the other to whom God’s love is necessarily directed must be internal to God Himself.

In other words, God is not a single, isolated person, as unitarian forms of theism like Islam hold; rather God is a plurality of persons, as the Christian doctrine of the Trinity affirms. On the unitarian view God is a person who does not give Himself away essentially in love for another; He is focused essentially only on Himself. Hence, He cannot be the most perfect being. But on the Christian view, God is a triad of persons in eternal, self-giving love relationships. Thus, since God is essentially loving, the doctrine of the Trinity is more plausible than any unitarian doctrine of God.”3

ENDNOTES:

1http://edwardfeser.blogspot.in/2010/02/trinity-and-mystery.html, last accessed 18th February 2017.

2http://crossexamined.org/the-trinity-defended/, last accessed 18th February 2017.

3http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity, last accessed 18th February 2017.

All Scripture references are from NIV, unless otherwise mentioned.

This article was written for the Christian Apologetics Alliance and was first published at http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2017/02/18/an-introductory-defense-of-the-blessed-trinity/