Marks of a Cult (Part 3)

The Trinity and the Deity of Jesus Christ

Our Father and our God, we thank you for the opportunity to again be in your house to look at this important subject of the nature of the Trinity and more specifically, Lord, the Deity of Jesus Christ.

And Lord God, as we consider what we've just learned in the video and the things that we're going to be speaking about tonight about the person of Jesus Christ and what the Word has to say on that subject, I just pray, O Lord, for your mercy upon us.

Keep me, O God, from error, as I am such a fallible man and in need always of your grace. And I pray again for those who are listening that you'd open their hearts to understand your word. And all of this would be for your glory and honor.

In Jesus' name, amen. All right. As was noted in the video, and I think a great case was made in the video, what we see within the cults is a subtraction from the deity of Christ or rather a subtraction from the nature of the Trinity.

And that leads us to have to deal with the question of does the Bible teach the Trinity? Because we all know the answer to that, at least from a linguistic point of view, that the Bible never uses the word Trinity.

We all know that, right? You're not going to look up in your Strong's Concordance and you're not going to find the word Trinity in the King James or New King James or NIV. That word is not there. However, when we talk about the Trinity, what we are talking about is a deduction of reason.

The Trinity is a doctrine based on the deduction of some very important truths. The first truth, of course, is that there is one God. Deuteronomy 6, 5, it says, Here, O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one Lord.

The very foundational, that's called the Shema or the prayer of Israel. That was the prayer that was recited by the Israelites in the morning. They pray the prayer, Here, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord.

So the understanding of monotheism is foundational in Scripture. We never find a place in Scripture where it talks about a multitude of gods. In fact, what we do find in Scripture is quite the opposite.

We find, like in Isaiah, where he says, There is no God other than me. When Jehovah is speaking, Yahweh is speaking, he says, There's no God like me. There is no God. There is no other God. Before me, there was no God formed and there will be no God formed after me.

So he says these things about himself being individual in being. So we know that God, there is one God. And then yet at the same time, we see three persons that are described with the language of deity.

The first is the Father. The Father is described throughout the Old and New Testament as being divine. Specifically, let's just let's limit ourselves very quickly only to the New Testament. And we ask the question, Is the Father seen as being divine in the New Testament?

Absolutely. Jesus refers to the Father as God. Right. So this is not even a question. Nobody really questions whether or not the Father is called divine. But then there is another who is called divine, and that is the Son.

Now, I'm going to put very quickly a question mark, not because we question it, but because this is where the biggest emphasis of the question comes is whether or not the Son is divine. We're going to come back to that question in a minute.

But the third, obviously, is the Holy Spirit. And the question is never, is the Holy Spirit divine? The question is, is the Holy Spirit a person? Just so that you know that if you're dealing with a cult or a group that is anti-Trinitarian, they will either say or they will say both of these things.

They will say the Son is not divine and they'll say the Spirit is not a person. As such, they become not monotheists, but they become what is known as Unitarian. Right. The argument is not between monotheism and polytheism.

The argument is between Unitarianism and Trinitarianism because we all agree that there is only one God. That's not a debate. The debate is whether or not these three are divine and personal. Like it was mentioned in the video, the United Pentecostal Church says, yes, they're all divine, but they're all the same person.

They're all Jesus. Jesus is the Father. Jesus is the Son. Jesus is the Spirit. So as such, to them, they deny the person or the personality of each person. So that is what we have to say. There is one God.

Each one of these persons is called God. This is why the distinct definition of the Trinity has always been God is one in essence and three in person. And these three persons are co-equal, co-eternal and distinct.

All right. So we see this understanding and we know what we mean when we ask the question about what is the Trinity. This is the definition of the Trinity, that God is one in essence and three in person.

And those persons are the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Now, let's go back to the question. I put the question mark up there. And that is the question. Does the Bible teach that Jesus is divine?

Because if the Bible does not teach that Jesus is divine, then from that point forward, the rest of the doctrine of the Trinity would break down. If the Bible doesn't teach that Jesus is divine, then the entire foundation upon which the doctrine of the Trinity is based, and that is that there is more than one person who is called God and one of those persons actually existed as a human being.

If Jesus is not divine, the entire system breaks down. This is why the majority of the cults attack the deity of Christ. Not many of the cults really spend a lot of time attacking the deity of the Holy Spirit or the personality of the Holy Spirit.

In fact, the Jehovah's Witnesses do, but they don't spend a lot of time with it. Jehovah's Witnesses simply say the Holy Spirit is not a person, he's a force. He emanates from the Father, but he's not a person.

But that is not often argued. It's not often put out as the first issue. The first issue is almost always whether or not Jesus is divine. Am I going too fast? I feel like I'm the micromachine man. You guys remember when I was a kid, the micromachine man who used to talk real fast?

I have a lot to get through and that's why I'm trying to go as fast as I can. So we're going to ask the question, does the Bible teach that Jesus is divine? And what we're going to see is, and I didn't provide notes for you tonight.

I'm sorry if you want to write something. Hopefully you have some, maybe I brought some paper with you or you might want to step out and get a bulletin or something that you can use for writing. But I want to show three things.

Number one, I want to show that there are places where it is taught explicitly that Jesus is divine. Number two, there are places where it is taught implicitly that Jesus is divine. So we have explicitly, implicitly.

And then finally, there are places where it is arrived at deductively. OK, so in some places it's taught explicitly, in some places it's taught implicitly, and in some places it is arrived at deductively.

So let's look at the first of those, and that is the places where it is taught explicitly. I did not bring an entire library of texts. I simply want to look at a couple of texts. The first, of course, is the famous one, the one that most everyone who believes in the Trinity and the deity of Christ knows already.

And that is John 1 .1. Somebody know John 1 .1 off the top of your head? OK, thank you. Very good. In the beginning was the Word. So we have an R .K. Let's see, R .K. That's John 1 .1. A. OK, in the beginning was the Word.

All right. So we see that we understand this is defining an individual. It's defining by name, giving a name to a person. All right. The person is the Word. Later in John 1 .14, it will say, and the Word became flesh.

Right. It'll say in the Word became flesh. So at that point, it defines for us who the Word is. It defines for us who the Logos is. You guys heard the word Logos, right? You know that this is not it. It's not strange to us.

We understand that word Logos. We've heard that many times. People say Logos or Logos. It doesn't matter how you pronounce it unless you want to get real strict because we really, you know, we can argue all day about how to pronounce the letters in the Greek.

But the truth of it is it simply means word. It's where we get like when we put Logia on the end of a sentence, like if you talk about psychology, that is the words about the psycho or the mind. This is where the ology, when you put on the end of something, is we get that from the word Logos.

OK. Words about something. And there's more. There's a lot built into this Greek word. And there are those who make the argument that John really was trying to push upon this word a very existential meaning and pulling from the Greek in which he was writing, really trying to put into that the idea of consciousness and personhood and that there is this pre-existing person called the Logos.

That Jesus, before he existed as Jesus, was known as the word or the Logos of God. OK. Now, the key, though, to this, what we call John 1 1 A is Anarchy. Anarchy. In the beginning was. We say in the beginning was.

Anarchy. Anarchy. The key. This word was indicates already existed. In fact, another way of translating Anarchy and Logos would be in the beginning, the word already was. OK. That there's a very understanding this word within the Senate structure.

In the beginning, the word already was. The reason why that's important is because the Jehovah's Witness would argue that Jesus came into existence at the beginning as God, because God created Jesus as a lesser God.

Remember that argument that they made in the video that that they're going to argue that Jesus is divine, but he's a lesser God. God created him and then he created everything else. So they would say, yes, in the beginning, the word existed because he existed before everything else.

But you see, that misses the point of John's writing, because John is saying in the beginning, the word already existed. He already was. Not that in the beginning he came into existence, but in the beginning he already was in existence.

At the beginning of our time, Christ had already existed. He already was. Thus, he pre-existed our time. Everybody get that? How that fits together? All right. So we look at John 1 .1a and then John 1 .1b in Archaean Logos.

Remember how to do this one. And we'll just write it in English. In the beginning was the word. And the word was with God. And the word was with God. The word with time. No, I'm sorry. The word with is pros.

This should be aim. All right. So was with God. Now, there is something interesting that happens here in the language. And again, the only reason why I do this in Greek, because if you if you don't understand the Greek behind this, they will fool you.

Because this is how theirs reads. In the beginning was the word. The word was with God. And the word was a God. They add the indefinite article a and they base their entire system around the idea that Jesus is not the God, but he's a God.

And understanding this helps us to understand how that is a linguistic problem in the underlying language of Greek. This is simple. It says and the word is in distinction with God because he is with him.

If I said I am with someone else, that makes a distinction between me and that person. If I say I'm with the music stand, then that puts a distinction between me and the music stand because we're together and distinct.

All right. It says he is with God. Now, this phrase right here, content on is actually the God. That's important. We do not translate the definite article into English, but it is in Greek making a distinction about this reference to chaos.

It is content on rather than chaos. It is content on the God. And then finally, the most important part of the sentence from our perspective would be. Hi. They ask. And I love us. This is the most important part of the sentence from us, because John one one a in the beginning was the word John one one B and the word was with God.

John one one C. And the word was God. However, you'll notice. Well, maybe you won't type chaos. What word is chaos? God, chaos, theology. OK, chaos is God ties and I forgot to put the end up here. Hi.

Shouldn't put a dot over a Greek letter. I'm being dumb. OK. And God was the word. Well, wait a minute. None of our English language. None of us translate it that way. Do any of your Bibles translate it?

And God was the word. Now, I'm going to answer for you. No, they don't. Nobody's nobody's Bible translates it. And God was the word. The reason why is because that would be incorrect. How do we determine the subject of a sentence?

How does English determine substance order of the sentence? Right. We order the sentence subject predicate. Right. And we would put the subject at the beginning of the sentence. Right. If I say I threw the ball, subject is me.

The object is the ball. If I say the ball was thrown by me, it's the same thing. But what changed? The subject, the sentence. The second time I said the subject is the sentence of the sentence is the ball.

The ball was thrown by me. Right. And that is how English we would translate. Or that's how we would speak and determine subject from predicate. But in English or in Greek, it's not that way. There is an article with the logos.

There is no article with chaos which makes logos the subject. So in English, it is properly translated. And the word was God. Because in English, we put the subject first. OK. Everybody with that? You got an idea what I'm saying?

I'm not trying to run away with you. I'm not trying to impress anybody by writing Greek. I'm trying to show you something because they make the argument that there needs to be an article in front of chaos.

What is it? They say that it needs to have the letter A here. And the word was a God. And theirs would be a little G. They're arguing for this. Because here's their argument. Does this say that the logos is the God?

No, there's no article, right? Does the phrase the God appear in the sentence? Yes, it appears right here. It appears. Remember, I said the God does appear in the sentence in Greek. So because we do not have the article the or God here, their argument is that because we don't have a definite article that it requires an indefinite article.

Because there are only two ways to say something, right? We can say he is a man or we can say he is the man. Right. But see, that's the point. That's the part that they miss. Because what you just did is you took it from being a quantitative noun to a qualitative noun.

Quantity speaks of what? How many? If I say there's a man or if I say he's the man, I'm still speaking quantitatively, right? Qualitative though, if I said he is man or she is woman or he is God, that doesn't speak quantity, that speaks of quality.

And Wallace makes a very fine argument in his grammar on this subject to say that what we see theos as is a qualitative noun. Is it speaking of what type of being this log off is? The log off is theos or God.

The word is God. He is. Another way would be to say, and the word is divine. In the beginning was the word. The word was with God and the word was divine or the word was God. OK, but you will hear the argument that there's a requirement for the article.

When in actuality, it would be inappropriate to put the article there. And I can't go into all this because I don't understand it all myself, but there is a grammatical rule. I think it's called Cowell's Canon.

You've heard of that maybe? I'm looking at guys in my Greek corner back there. There is a grammatical rule that would preclude the use of the indefinite article in the sentence that would say it's improper to do it.

As such, we are left with the only way of understanding the word was God. It's the way it's been translated by all the English grammarians who have translated it. In fact, the only ones who have mistranslated it are the Jehovah's Witnesses.

And what do they have underlying their translation? An agenda. Only an agenda would force the indefinite article before Thaos because it does not come by virtue of the grammar. It does not come by virtue of the grammar.

In fact, to do so would be inappropriate to put that he was a God. It's not appropriate in regard to the sentence. Like I said, most of us know John 1 1. Most of us can cite it, recite it. You need to know it.

But let me just say this to you. It's not going to do you any good. What I mean by that? It does a great deal of good for us to know what this says and for us to internalize it and memorize it. But if you have a Jehovah's Witness show up to your door at 8 o 'clock on Saturday morning and you go to John 1 1, it is not going to faze them at all.

Because they have a wrote, memorized response for John 1 1. And they will go over why they believe the article should be there. And no matter how well you can explain to them that it shouldn't be there, it's going to become a battle of who knows more Greek at that point.

And because most of us are still very, very elementary, it wouldn't be much of an argument had it. It wouldn't go very far. My point, though, is you should know what it says in case they try to pull the old switcheroo and pull it on you.

Well, don't you know this should be an A here? You can look and say, no, it should not. Yes, it's all capitalized in Greek. In Greek, there are in the original writing, in the original writing, the entire New Testament, all capital letters, no spaces, no punctuation.

That is what we call unsealed text. And that is how the original writing would have looked, would have been all capitalized, no spaces, no punctuation. Now, if you read a Greek New Testament, I have not mine that I have.

I have the UBS text and I have a twenty seven on my computer. I have not seen that they capitalize the divine names. I know what you're trying to get to. Do they capitalize? I haven't seen that in the Greek text.

They capitalize the beginning of sentences. Like I said, in the UBS 40 and the NA 27. I haven't seen this.

Yes, I'm going to. I'm getting there.

No, no, no. When I was thinking of and they're similar is that they create a grammatical rule. And as such, these rules have to be understood how they play a part. But I'm going to get I'm going to gamble sharks next because it's important to.

All right. Look, if you look at your Bible, John one one in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. John one one. John one two says he was in the beginning with God.

All things were made through him and without him was nothing or rather was not anything made that was made. This creates a question. If Jesus was made, this sentence would not make sense because it says without him was nothing made that was made.

Well, if Jesus was made, if he was created, then the sentence breaks down because it becomes false, because if he was made without himself, because he would have to be if if there was if there was a time when he didn't exist, there has to be something to bring him into existence.

And if God brought him into existence, does he becomes a made or created thing? And if he was a made or created thing that came into existence by God without himself, and this has nothing that was made came into existence without himself, then this sentence is by necessity incorrect.

Hope I didn't lose you on that. I hope that makes sense. What I was trying to say, this sentence clearly says he made all things that were made. And if he was made, he made himself. And that is a logical impossibility.

Got it. Hopefully. We get it. They don't get it. We get it. What if it might? Oh, there. OK. Now, sometimes understanding Greek helps us understand things that we might otherwise miss. This is the Granville Sharpe rule.

Turn your Bibles to second Peter one one. By the way, do we have anyone who is sporting a King James tonight? King James Bible. Nobody. OK. Anybody who has anything other than ESV or NASB? New King James.

OK, then I would I'm interested in how that one will read. So I'm going to ask you to read it in just a moment. Second Peter one one. Oh, I put these on the board. Second Peter one one. I'm going to read it in the ESV and then I'm going to see what other translations we have.

ESV says Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

What's the key word in that sentence in regard to what we're talking about? Thank you. OK, in regard to this sentence, the key word would be God, because in this construction in English, God is speaking is to be pointed at Jesus Christ.

It says our God and Savior. Both of these would be pointing towards the person of Jesus Christ, thus referring to Jesus as God. Now in the New King James, what does it say? It says our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

OK, because in the King James Bible, which I understand is held up by many to be the the single perfect translation. Of course, I would disagree with that. But that is held up by many in the King James Bible.

It is translated. That's well, it's much different. So let me just write it out. It says through the faith or through, excuse me, through the righteousness of God and our Savior, Jesus Christ. All right.

Now, just from an English point of view, are those two sentences much different from English? Yeah. How are they different? It makes a distinction between this person and this person, right? In English, we would say it would be through the righteousness of God, comma, and our Savior, Jesus Christ.

It would make a distinction between this use of the word God and then Savior, Jesus Christ would all be one idea together. Right. Connected by the and. But it's still two different people. And this one, it is two terms that are used to describe this person.

It is two names, God and Savior, which are used to describe Jesus Christ. Now, according to the what you mentioned, the Granville Sharpe rule. I'll read it to you. It's pretty simple. When you have two nouns which are not proper names and we have that God and Savior, neither one are proper names.

Cephas, Paul, Timothy, Yahweh. These would be proper names. So these are not these are not proper names, which are describing a person. And the two nouns are connected by the word and. And the first noun has the article and the second noun does not.

Now, you can't see the article because you're not looking at Greek. OK, but if you were looking at the Greek, you would see that that chaos has an article and this word does not have the article. So here's where the rule comes into play.

If you see two nouns. All right. And the first noun has the article. They are connected by Kai, which is and then they let me finish. It says both nouns refer then to the same person. This is why all of the new translations do not translate it like the King James.

The King James translated through the righteousness of God and our Savior, Jesus Christ. But all of your modern translations understanding the Granville Sharp rule of grammar in the Greek translated as our God and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Which is a strong reference to the deity of Christ, because it tells us he is our God and Savior. Now, are there other places where we see this? Yes, there are. There is Titus to 13. You got to go there.

I'll read it to you. It says waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. Again, Granville Sharp construction demonstrates this. By the way, why did they get it wrong here?

Why did the King James translators get it wrong? Why did they translate it wrong? Because the Granville Sharp construction did not. It did not come into understanding. Remember, we are reconstructing a dead language.

We have been doing this for hundreds of years. Greek, as it is spoken today, is not Koine Greek. Koine Greek is the Greek that was spoken or written by the apostles. Right. We understand that the Greek of today is not the same as the Greek of then.

So we are reconstructing an ancient language. And as such, rules are understood. It's sort of an evolution of understanding how these rules work, rules of grammar work. And the Granville Sharp construction or the rule of understanding this type of grammar did not come into play until 1798.

Now, when was the King James written? 1611. So the translators of the King James are working under rules and sets of grammar that predate this particular understanding of how this sentence structure is supposed to stand.

So it's not at all difficult to understand how they would make this mistake. But we can't miss the fact that it was a mistake. All right. It's not about punctuation. That sentence wouldn't be based on punctuation.

Now, I put the comment just to demonstrate how it would be said in English. But no, the punctuation didn't make the point. The point was whether or not it is God and our Savior Jesus Christ or our God and Savior.

And according to Granville Sharp's rule, it would be our God and Savior, not God and our Savior. And see, that's how the it's really where you put the hour, whether it's our God and Savior or it's God and our Savior.

All right. Just for fun, if you're still in first Peter or second Peter, did you stay there? You start your Bible search. Just very quickly run down to verse 11. I want to show you something. If you run down to.

Where is it? I have it here. Second Peter, one eleven. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And I see that that is another example of the Granville Sharp construction.

Nobody would argue that that should be translated our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Right. I mean, that's we use that term all the time. That term is used throughout the New Testament. However, if you take that phrase and you compare it to the phrase of second Peter one one, you will see that they are exactly the same as far as their construction.

The only difference is in one one. We have the word fast and in one eleven. We have the word Kodiak's Lord. It said he is our God and Savior. In verse one, it says he is our Lord and Savior. In verse eleven.

But both of them indicate the same construction in the Greek. That's very important to understand, because actually second Peter has five Granville Sharp constructions throughout. And you can see his use of this over and over and over, describing Jesus as God and Savior.

So it's important to make mention of that first page. Time is never my friend. If you guys can indulge me for five more minutes, I just want to say something really quick. I'm going to skip a lot of what I have here.

I went way far into this. There are a lot of passages that speak about the deity of Christ. There are a lot that say Jesus is God. Jesus is divine. Jesus is a deity. But what are the objections? Because really, we can make all the case in the world on our side.

But what are the objections that people normally ask? I kind of was sitting in my office today and I was trying to think, what are the objections that I often hear about the deity of Christ? Number one, Jesus prayed to God so he can't be God.

You heard that? That's one objection. How about this? Jesus didn't know the time of his return and he has to know the time of his return of his omniscient because God's omniscient, he can't be God. That's two.

Jesus was forsaken by God, thus separated from God. God can't separate from himself. As such, Jesus can't be God. Jesus denied that he was good when the rich young ruler came and fell down before him.

He says only one is good and it is God. And as such, denied himself as being God and thus is not God. Have you heard these before? I'm going to say, if you've ever had a Jehovah's Witness come to your door, you've heard them.

If you've ever tried to engage somebody who doesn't believe in the deity of Christ, these are the questions. I remember particularly one person who said, well, if Jesus prayed to God, he can't be God.

And they held to that. That was their lightning rod. Beloved, it is not enough to believe in the deity of Christ. You must understand the economy of the Trinity. What I mean when I say economy of the Trinity, that there are one.

There is one essence or being that is shared by three distinct persons. And these persons are in a relationship with one another. Thus, when Christ is on earth, he can communicate with the Father in such a way that we would look at that and say there are two persons in relationship.

You see, it is not enough just to say we believe in the deity of Christ. We have to also affirm the Trinity. Because the Pentecost, the United Pentecostals believe in the deity of Christ, but they put away the Trinity.

Without the Trinity, there is no relationship between the Father and the Son. However, the Bible clearly teaches a relationship between the Father and the Son. And one of my favorite verses is John chapter 17.

And let me give you the citation on this. John chapter 17 and verse five. Jesus said, And now, Father, listen to listen to words and just think with a Trinitarian mind, because all of you have that think, just think what he said.

And now, Father, glorify me. Remember, he's praying. Glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed. What did he say? He said, I was with you before the world existed.

We had a shared glory. Who is the only one to be glory? God. Only God is to be glory. But the Son is referencing the Father and saying before the world was, we shared a glory. And now I have humbled myself.

I have come to the earth. I have in the book of Philippians. It says that though he was in the image of God, he did not count equality with God something to be grasped, but yet made himself nothing, taking the form of a bond servant and coming in the likeness of sinful man.

He came like look like us. He had he had the same nature. He had a human nature, not a simple nature, but a human nature. And in coming to the earth, he came and in. He came to the earth. Submitted himself.

To the father. Gave himself on the cross. And in doing so. There's a question about did Christ give up his deity? No, he did not give up his deity. He assumed a human nature. He did not give up the divine nature.

The logos became flesh. It doesn't say the logos gave up being the logos. It says the logos became flesh. And in assuming that human nature, he took on the limitations of humanity for a season. That's an important idea because people say, well, if he's God, how come he got thirsty?

How come he got tired? How come he got hungry? Because he assumed the full nature of humanity. Thus, we can ask the question, well, how come he did not know the time of his return? Because at that reference, he is touching his humanity, not his deity.

The same way it says he grew in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and with man. How can he grow in wisdom if he is omnipotent, omniscient? Because it's touching his human nature. There is something in theological terms that we call the hypostatic union.

And that is basically this. Hypostasis is essence. Christ is the joining of the divine with the human essence. There is a human nature and a divine nature joined into one person of Christ. God is one being with three persons.

Christ is one person with two natures. Absolutely. Absolutely. The redemption story is without. It would be terrible. Absolutely. Absolutely. But this is what they teach. This is what they teach. But we understand the deity of Christ.

We believe the deity of Christ. And we teach that Christ is divine. Last verse of the night. Write it down if you want. Most important for me on this subject. This is the one I like to go to. Like I said, you go to John 1.

They're going to know that one. And they'll probably know this one. But this one is so important. And it is Colossians 2 .9. In him dwells the fullness of deity bodily. Four important words. Katoike means dwells.