Trinity vs. Oneness Debate Part 1, White vs. Sabin

Debate Introduction and Why the Nature of God Matters

Asked me Chris would you like to say a few words tonight and I said yes and he said I don't think you heard me Chris. I said would you like to say a few words this evening so yes. No no you're not understanding.

Would you like to say a few words this evening. So I'm gonna be very brief. I'm from WMCA radio. I would like to alert you all to the fact that James White can be heard every Thursday evening in the New York metropolitan area and on in most places on Long Island every Thursday night on the voice of Sovereign Grace that's at 10 p .m. and WMCA is 570 on the a .m. dial.

I hope you tune in. I would also like to say that I am delighted that Robert Saban has come all the way from Minnesota here tonight. I've been having many many conversations with him on the phone and I can truly say he is a gentleman and I am looking forward to a debate tonight that is truly going to be a debate that sticks to the issues that does not get involved in ad hominem nasty remarks or anything like that and I can also as most of you know attest to the fact that our brother dr. James White is also a fine Christian gentleman and one who is not going to resort to steering us away from the main theme of the debate tonight.

By the way just out of curiosity will all the Oneness Pentecostals here raise their hands. Okay now will all the Trinitarians raise both hands and a foot please just as I thought the Trinitarians outnumber the Oneness Pentecostals three to one.

Anyway I am just delighted that you're all here tonight. I hope you take notes. I hope you really listen to what both debaters are saying. This is a very serious issue. This is not a minor issue where you're talking about the very nature of God and next to salvation there could be nothing more important in the faith than that issue.

I'd also like to before I hand the microphone back to Pastor Larry there are book tables in the back of this room from both representatives that we have here tonight both from Robert Saban and from Dr. James White so during the break and after the debate feel free to go in the back and look at the literature that we have back there and Mike Rotolo of Reformation Press wanted to announce that anybody making a purchase at the Reformation Press table will receive a.

Free gift. Thank you very much God bless you. Good evening on behalf of Grace Gospel Church we welcome you to this evening's debate on the Trinity. My name is Larry Carino I am senior pastor of Grace Gospel Church an evangelical free church located here in the village of Patchogue.

I will also be acting this evening as tonight's moderator. Our discussion this evening is of the utmost importance as it centers on the very nature of God himself. At the end of the book of Job God confronts one of Job's friends concerning their representation of his person.

In Job chapter 42 verse 7 God says. And it came about the Lord had spoken these words to Job that the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite my wrath is kindled against you and your two friends because you have not spoken of me what is right as my servant Job has.

God cares about how we speak of him and how we think of him and how we conceive of him because this affects how we worship him and how we relate to him. This evening we shall hear discussed and debated the issue of the very essence of who God is.

Does the scripture reveal a God who is triune or singular in person? We invite you to be the judge this evening as you hear our distinguished guests interact on this issue for it is the responsibility of every person to rightly understand what God has revealed about himself from his inspired word.

Now in order to receive the maximum benefit from our debate this evening I'm going to set out some ground rules so that our speakers as well as you the audience will be able to communicate and hear what is communicated most effectively.

For our speakers I am going to ask that they keep to the time constraints agreed to for each section of our debate this evening. I will be explaining our format in a moment. I'm also going to ask that our speakers maintain a spirit of cordiality and respect in their interchange with one another this evening.

And as for you the audience I want you to be aware that it is the nature of a debate to be communicating on a topic from two different and opposing viewpoints. Inevitably every single one of you sitting here tonight are going to hear things presented that either may upset or excite you.

Things that you will disagree with and things you will heartily endorse. As our speakers will be exercising the discipline of constraint I ask that you do the same. Please do not boo or applause or give any other input inappropriate during the time that our speakers are giving their presentations.

It's important that they would not be unfairly distracted by audience input or participation as they relate their positions to you. Now the proposition set out before us this evening is actually in the form of a question.

Is the doctrine of the Trinity taught in the Bible? Affirming that position is Dr. James White, director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Christian apologetics ministry based in Phoenix, Arizona. Dr. White is also adjunct professor teaching New Testament Greek for Golden Gate Baptist Theological Seminary and serves as an elder at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church in Phoenix, Arizona.

He serves as a critical consultant for the New American Standard Bible Update and has written over a dozen books including the Roman Catholic Controversy, Is the Mormon My Brother?, the King James Only Controversy, and most recently a book entitled The Forgotten Trinity.

Dr. White can be heard in this area every Thursday evening on 570 AM radio WMCA at 10 p .m. on the Voice of.

Sovereign Grace broadcast. Let's welcome Dr. White this evening. Defending against.

That proposition this evening is Mr. Robert Sabin. Mr. Sabin is a graduate of the Apostolic Bible Institute of St. Paul, Minnesota and Winona State University in Winona, Minnesota. He has pastored churches for the past 44 years in Wisconsin and Minnesota since the age of 22.

He is also taught at Winona State University and was adjunct professor at Kent Christian College in Delaware. Mr. Sabin has a special interest in Russia where he works and teaches with many churches of his faith.

He retired from pastoring in 97 and has been teaching overseas missions since that time. Mr. Sabin is a prolific writer writing many books and as well as in numerous periodicals. He participated a number of years ago in a televised debate on the John Ankerberg program debating Mr. Cal Beisner and the late Dr. Walter Martin.

He is the director of Omni, a network of ministers engaged in outreach and overseas ministries. Would you please welcome this evening Mr. Robert Sabin. Our debate format this evening will follow the following format.

I ask that you pay careful attention. Our program this evening consists of three parts. Now I'm a Trinitarian and that was purely coincidental I assure you. The first part of our presentation tonight will begin with Dr. James White issuing his opening remarks for 40 minutes followed by Mr. Robert Sabin who will issue his opening remarks for 40 minutes.

This will be followed by Dr. White's rebuttal for 12 minutes and then following that for 12 minutes Mr. Robert Sabin's rebuttal. This will all take place at the podium here and both speakers have provided a visual presentation for you this evening.

Following that first section we'll be taking a 10 to 15 minute break at which time you'll be able to visit the literature tables and even more importantly gain some refreshments at the back of the room.

We will move into our second part of the evening with Mr. Robert Sabin cross-examining Dr. James White for 12 minutes and then Dr. White cross-examining Pastor Sabin and then once again we will repeat that process for 12 minutes each.

That will take place up here as the two debaters are able to interact with one another on the positions that they have brought forth to you this evening. Then after that period of cross-examination Mr. Robert Sabin will be giving a seven minute closing statement followed by Dr. James White for seven minutes as well.

The end of that period we should have about a half an hour to 45 minutes to move into our third part of the presentation this evening where you will have the opportunity from the audience to ask questions of each of the debaters.

When we move to that point in our presentation I will be laying out some guidelines as well. I'm going to ask if we would now take a moment of silent prayer as we lift up this evening before.

The Lord. Amen. At this time I'm going to ask Dr. James White to come forward and begin with his opening remarks. I'm reminded of the words of Luke when he records Abraham saying, and we need to get that a little bit closer, a great gulf is fixed between you and I and there is a great gulf between us as well.

It's called technology.

The Eternal Preexistence of the Son in John 1

So we're going to hope that everything is going to work for you this evening and hope that all of this will be useful to you. Again I hope those of you who are watching the screen will be able to move toward the center so you'll be able to observe what's going on.

It is a very important issue that brings us together this evening and I truly hope that this debate this evening will focus primarily upon what the scriptures say and not who's standing up here. I honestly believe that the best debates are those debates where it doesn't really matter who's standing here.

It doesn't really matter what the personalities are. It doesn't really matter what their past history is. Simply the facts are presented and you are the debate judges this evening. You are the individuals who decide what is presented this evening and I hope that you will listen very carefully.

I hope that you will work as hard this evening as both myself and my opponent this evening have worked in preparing to present this information to you. It is work. This is not a simple subject. One of the reasons that this subject is probably not being debated very much today in our land and this is an unusual thing we're doing this evening is because most people in what calls itself Christendom don't bother themselves with such minutiae as what the doctrine of the Trinity is.

The idea that God has revealed his truth and that we should be conformed to that truth and that we need to hold that truth, well that's just not something that everyone believes anymore and so I congratulate you for being here.

I congratulate you for being concerned enough to come this evening and to consider what the word of God has to say. I believe in the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. I don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because of philosophy.

I don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because of church councils. I don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because some ecclesiastical authority forces me to do so. I believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because I believe in sola scriptura, that is that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith of the church, and I believe in tota scriptura, that you have to believe everything that the Bible has to say.

And one of the reasons I've been looking forward to this evening in a special way is because of the three debates that I've done over the past nine days, this being the third one. This is the first time that I and my opponent have the same ground upon which to argue.

Last Thursday evening when I debated a Roman Catholic on the doctrine of the mass, in that situation you have the church and the infallible magisterium that overrides any interpretation of the scripture.

And I sort of feel like I'm going in and out here just a little bit. Then Wednesday evening we had a debate with a Muslim on the subject of does the New Testament teach the deity of Christ? And those of you that were there know that the result of that was any passage that teaches the deity of Christ is obviously a later edition and wasn't a part of the original New Testament.

So we just dismissed that evidence that way. It is my understanding at least that this evening we have the same authority to draw from, that we both believe that the Bible is the God-breathed revelation and that we are to be conformed to what that truth says.

I believe that is both of our positions in regards to scripture. And so it is good that we will be able to present our whole debate on a sound and firm foundation. But we need to have some definitions first, so I'd like to begin with a basic definition.

Within the one being that is God there exists eternally three co-equal and co-eternal persons namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Please note the difference between the words being and person.

Being and person. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that there is one being that is God, not that there is one being that is three beings or one person that is three persons. One being that is God, three persons that fully and completely share that one divine being.

It is a vital distinction that exists between the words being and person. They are different things. Being is what makes something what it is. Person is what makes someone who they are. Being is what makes something what it is and person is what makes someone who they are.

We recognize that distinction every day. We recognize the distinction between being and person when we look out over this audience. We are all human beings. We have that in common and yet each one of us is a different person.

We recognize that distinction as it exists and we use the same distinction in discussing the nature of God. Remember that there is one what and three whos. The what is the being of God. The who is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

The most common error that we encounter in dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity are category errors. That is, everyone in this debate believes that God is one. But what does that mean? One in what category?

One only in the category of being or one both in the category of being and in the category of person? We cannot simply assume that since the scriptures say God is one, that that means that he is one in both categories if there is biblical data to indicate otherwise.

It is my job this evening to indicate to you what that data is. So we cannot simply assume that because the scriptures speak of the oneness of God that those passages of scripture that speak of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit as persons are to be dismissed.

Now there are three biblical foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity. The first foundation is monotheism. The scriptures teach that there is only one true God. For the past 30 consecutive general conferences of the Mormon Church, I have stood outside the gates of the tabernacled Mormon temple in Salt Lake City, about a dozen of us, about 30 ,000 Mormons, very good odds, and I have passed out tracts and borne testimony to the truth that there is only one true God.

I am a monotheist. I believe that to the core of my being. There is no Christian faith without monotheism. The second foundation, the second biblical teaching, and this is where we disagree this evening, is that there are three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.

That is where we will be focusing. The third foundation is the co-equality and co-eternality of those persons, and that would primarily deal with what Jehovah's Witnesses teach, for example, in denying the deity of Christ, they teaching that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, or things like that.

These three truths, the foundation, monotheism, the existence of the three divine persons, and then the equality of those persons, are all biblical teachings, and that is where I hope the debate centers this evening is in the very text of Scripture.

In fact, I hope some of you brought some Bibles to look at this evening, even though we'll be putting a lot of this on the screen, not always will we be doing that. Now, I believe that the Bible clearly and consistently differentiates between the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Never does the Bible identify the Father as the Son, the Son as the Spirit, or the Spirit as the Father, and passages such as Isaiah 9 .6 or John 10 .30 do not identify the Father as the Son, or make the Father and Son one person.

The Bible instead, I will assert, and will prove here in a moment, teaches that the Father has eternally existed as a divine person. I don't think there's anyone here that denies that. That the Son, likewise, has eternally existed as a divine person.

There's the rub, there's the issue. And that the Spirit has existed eternally as a divine person. Now, let's keep in mind very clearly my assertion that there are two issues upon which this debate must be decided, and that is your job as the judges this evening.

First of all, does the Bible teach that there are three distinct persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? Does the Bible teach this truth? And secondly, does the Bible teach that the Son existed as a divine person in eternity past?

If the Son is taught in Scripture to have existed as a divine person in eternity past, distinct from the Father, then I would assert to you that the issue has been joined, and in fact, the biblical teaching has been plainly presented.

That would mean that it could not be taught that Jesus was the Father and the Son, the Son referring to his human nature, the Father to his divine nature, that would deny that kind of a teaching. So let us look to the Scriptures and discover what the Scriptures teach on this vital issue.

I will present three New Testament passages, and I just realized that's somewhat of a pun, three New Testament passages that teach the eternal preexistence, personhood, and deity of the Son. I didn't choose three simply because I'm a Trinitarian, you might think that I did, but I want to keep the debate, at least from my perspective, very much focused upon what the Scriptures teach.

If I tried to cover all the passages that you cover on these types of discussions, I would be going way too fast for anyone to really understand what in the world I was saying. The sound system that we have in a room like this, it's difficult to really talk very quickly anyways.

The three that I will present to you during my opening presentation is the Prologue of John, John chapter 1, verses 1 through 3, and we'll also be looking at verse 18. Then we'll be looking at the Lord's High Priestly Prayer, John chapter 17, verses 3 through 5.

And then the Carmen Christi, the hymn to Christ as to God, Philippians chapter 2, verses 5 through 7. I believe that these passages lay the foundation for the defense of the biblical doctrine of the Trinity in light of the topic this evening and the oneness position.

We begin with John chapter 1. Most of you know the passage very well. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and apart from him nothing came into being that has come into being.

This is truly one of the single passages of the entirety of the New Testament, and what it teaches about the person of Jesus Christ is extremely important. Let's take that first verse apart very carefully.

In the beginning was the Word. The Logos, the Word that John presents to us. This first phrase presents to us the fact that the Logos is eternal. The Logos has eternally existed. How does he say this to us?

Well, he does so through that little word ein. Ein in Greek, the imperfect form of the verb of existence. Our language doesn't do a very good job in expressing these things. It's not nearly as expressive as the Greek language is.

But the idea is this. In the beginning, that's the very same phrase used in Genesis 1. In the beginning the Word was already in existence. This Word does not point to the idea of a point of origination or source.

Instead, John's very careful to differentiate throughout the prologue between the Word who is or was ongoing action in the past, and everything else that came into existence. And so when we look at this first phrase, the point that John is communicating to us is that the Word has eternally existed.

The Word does not come into existence at a point in time. The second phrase is, and the Word was with God. The Word was with God. The Greek term pros is used to express the concept of face-to-face with, communion with.

There is a relationship that exists between the Logos, the Word, and theos, God. We will look at a moment exactly what the nature of that relationship is. But I want to look at the third clause and then go back to that.

And the Word was God. Now many of you, if you've been woken up on a Saturday morning by those folks that have the book bags and come knocking on your door at the most inopportune times and want to pass out the Watchtower and Awake magazines to you, may have discussed this particular passage a few times.

You know that Jehovah's Witnesses teach that the proper translation here is the Word was a God, and they do so because the word God, the second word in the line of Greek, does not have the definite article in front of it.

But in reality, by placing the word God before the verb, by not putting an article in front of it, by constructing it the way that the inspired apostle did, what is being communicated to us is that the Word is, as to his nature, deity.

He is not contradicting the apostle John. He is not contradicting what he said in the previous clause. He's not saying he is the God with whom he is with. He is describing the nature of the Word, the nature of the Logos.

Now I said I wanted to talk especially about that second phrase, the Word was with God. The reason this is very important, I think, is that we need to ask the question, who is the God with whom the Word eternally was?

I believe that this is the Father. As John tells us in John chapter 1 verse 18, the bookend to John 1 .1. And what is a bookend? It is a literary mechanism whereby you place, just as you have maybe a section of books at home, you put a bookend on this side, a bookend on this side.

So you take a statement that you begin a dialogue with, and then you have a second bookend where you reiterate the same truth that you spoke at the beginning of your dialogue. Let me illustrate. John 1 .18 says, No one has ever seen God.

It is God, the only Son, who is close to the Father's heart, who has made him known. That's the New Revised Standard Version's rendering, and I think it is probably the best rendering of the Greek that I have found.

Now the God who has not been seen is the Father. But it is God, the only Son, Jesus Christ, who is close to the Father's heart, who makes known the Father. Indeed, I would suggest to you that John 1 .18 cannot be understood outside the doctrine of the Trinity.

For the Old Testament does tell us that men saw God. Abraham walked with Jehovah by the oaks of Mamre. In Isaiah chapter 6, Isaiah saw Jehovah sitting upon his throne, lofty and lifted up. Men have seen God.

Then what is John talking about? Well, he explains. When he says, No one has ever seen God, he then goes on to explain he's talking about the Father, and that the revelation of the Father, how he is made known, is done through God, the only Son, that is Jesus Christ.

In the same way, in John 1 .1, the God with whom the Word eternally existed is likewise the Father. That is, John is proclaiming to us the fact that the Father and the Son have eternally had communion with one another.

Now the reason why this is very important is because Dr. Sabin, responding to John 1 .1 on the Ankerberg show way those many years ago, in 1985, said whatever was back there was with God, not with God the Father, but with God.

If it had said that the Word was with God the Father, then we'd have the two persons in the Trinity. But it said the Word was with God. But I would submit to you that that is exactly what John does tell us.

For by using the phrase, God the only Son, in John 1 .18, he clearly indicates that the Son is and was deity, and the Son was with the Father from eternity, just as we see in John 1 .1. So here is the first of the three that I present to you, the prologue of John.

But as time, unfortunately, waits for no one, I must move on. The Son has existed eternally as a divine person, and I would suggest to you that this is an exegetical certainty, not a probability, but an exegetical certainty based on John chapter 17, verse 5.

Let's look at the context. Beginning in verse 3, Jesus' high priestly prayer, this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on the earth, having accomplished the work which you have given me to do.

Now, Father, glorify me together with yourself, with the glory which I had with you before the world was. Let's look very closely at these words. Now, Father, Jesus is addressing someone else. Father, glorify me, he uses personal pronouns, together with yourself, a personal pronoun used to the Father, with the glory which I had with you before the world was.

Now, given these personal pronouns, I don't believe there can be any question that in these words we have the words of one person speaking to another person. If I say I and you and so on and so forth, this is one person addressing another person.

However, as we look at the context, we see that this is one person, that is the Son, who is speaking of having shared glory with the true God before the world began, in eternity past itself. Notice the phrase, together with yourself.

This is truly a divine glory. It is a glory utterly unfitting for any mere creature to demand, and in fact, amazingly enough, Jesus is using here the imperative mode, the mode of command. He is saying to the Father, glorify me, I have completed your work, glorify me with the glory which you and I shared before time itself began.

Now, Dr. A .T. Robertson, the greatest Greek scholar America has produced, wrote, quote, with thine own self, para se auto, by the side of thyself is the literal rendering, Jesus prays for full restoration to the pre-incarnate glory and fellowship, compare John 1 .1, and joy before the incarnation, John 1 .14, where the word becomes flesh.

This is not just ideal pre-existence, but actual and conscious existence at the Father's side. Here the Lord Jesus very clearly reveals to us that he existed prior to the very foundation of the world.

Indeed, I would submit that all of the prayers of the Lord Jesus demonstrate the distinct personhood of the Son, yet they likewise prove the deity of the Son as well. These are not examples of the human side praying to the divine side, but of a divine yet incarnate person, the Son, communicating with a divine but non-incarnate person, the Father in heaven.

I would submit to you that I cannot possibly imagine any other way of understanding these words as they were written than to recognize that the Son existed before the foundation of the earth as a person and shared the very glory of the Father in that situation.

Time continues to go by, so let us go to our third passage, the Carmen Christi, the hymn to Christ as God, Philippians 2 .5 -11. Actually, if you're taking notes, most scholars believe that this is a fragment of an ancient hymn of the church, and this passage I'd like to focus upon says, have this attitude in yourselves, which was also in Christ Jesus, who although he existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a bondservant and being made in the likeness of men.

This is a precious passage of scripture indeed to all believers, but the key question for our debate this evening is, what is the time frame of these words? To what time frame are we making reference?

Christian exegetes down to the centuries have understood the passage to be referring to the period prior to the incarnation, prior to the eternal Word becoming flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, John 1 .14, when the Son had equality with the Father in heaven itself.

But oneness advocates say this passage, some anyways, refers to the time of Jesus's human ministry. Can we find out? Well, if in fact the passage refers to the period before the incarnation of Christ, then please realize it is plain that the Son then pre-existed as a person, was active and divine, and hence the debate is concluded, for the Trinitarian position is established in the face of those that would deny the existence of three eternal persons.

Now, I would suggest to you that in this situation, the verbs determine the truth. The verbs determine the truth. Let's look very closely at the verbs here. Paul says, have this attitude, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed, and actually that's a present participle, was existing in the form of God, did not regard or consider that equality that He had with God a thing to be grasped, but in opposition to that, He emptied Himself, or made Himself of no repute, taking, and this is an aorist participle, the form of a bondservant, and being made another aorist participle in the likeness of men.

Now, a lot of us don't like to do too much work with verbs and participles and things like that, but that is sort of the spadework of our language that we have to do to understand what is being said. And I'd like to try to explain to you that syntactically, and syntax is the relationship that words bear to one another, given their grammatical form and their position in sentences.

Syntactically, Paul presents two verbal clauses, separated by the adversative but. But begins verse 7. He existed in the form of God. He did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but instead of that, he did this.

The actions of existing and consider equality go together in the Greek language. This is important. Why? Because to consider is the action of a person. To consider, to think, to ponder, to make decisions, that's something a person does.

Plans don't consider. Plans don't ponder. Plans don't make decisions. Only persons do that kind of thing. Now, the key verb in the passage is emptied, or to make of no repute. The lights do be flashing all over the place, aren't they?

The key verb is emptied. The possession of equality that the son had with the father took place before the emptying that is referred to here in Philippians 2. Taking the form of a servant describes the means by which Jesus emptied himself.

Please think about it. He emptied himself. This is a voluntary action. This is something the does. And how does he empty himself? He does so by taking the form of a servant and by being made in the likeness of men.

There's the key. Being made in the likeness of men. That, my friends, is the incarnation. That has to be the incarnation. When else did Jesus enter into the likeness of men? When else does he take the form of a bondservant?

This is the incarnation. Therefore, since this is the incarnation, then what took place before that, his having equality with the father and his not considering that equality a thing to be grasped, was the action of a person and a person that Paul differentiates from the father.

Therefore, this passage I submit to you teaches the deity of Christ, because he exists in the very form of God, as well as the distinct personhood of the son prior to the incarnation. Just as in John 1 .1 and in John 17 .5, the text is inarguable.

The son, as the son, is eternal. So I'd like to summarize. I believe the case is clear. The Logos, the word, eternally existed as God and was in fellowship with the father, John 1 .1. The son shared glory with the father before the world existed, John 17 .5.

And prior to the incarnation, the son was divine and active, Philippians 2 .5 -7. We see then the meaning of the oneness of God passages in the Old Testament. When the scriptures refer to God being one, they refer to a oneness of being, not a oneness of person, since we have now seen conclusively the existence of the father and the son as distinct yet eternal divine persons, just as the doctrine of the Trinity teaches.

Indeed, every passage that teaches that it was Christ the son who created all things proves this point as well. In Colossians 1 .15 -17, in Hebrews 1 .2 -3, it is the son specifically who is said to be the one through whom all things were created.

One must be eternal to be the one through whom creation itself comes into being, not a part of the creation itself. Now, unless the combined testimony of these three inspired scriptural witnesses can be overthrown, the oneness denial of the Trinity is proven unscriptural and without basis.

To overthrow these testimonies, one must do so on the basis of the text itself, not other considerations. One cannot import one's idea of oneness into these passages. We must avoid eisegesis and engage only in exegesis.

We shall not read into the scriptures, we must read our beliefs out of or from the scriptures. And neither does it follow that it is an argument against the doctrine of the Trinity that, well, there's all these philosophical issues and there's all these terms that have been used over time.

The simple fact of the matter is the reason that Christians believe in the doctrine of the Trinity is because the Word of God forces us to. We have to end up denying one or more of those biblical foundations that I laid out at the beginning to not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.

And if we believe all that the has to say, then we will focus upon what the Bible itself says. Now let's look at a few commonly misunderstood texts. You may notice I like sticking with the Bible as the foundation of my comments.