Modern Trinitarians do not hold to the Nicene Creed
The video below is an attempt by Dr. William Lane Craig to explain and justify the modern Evangelical interpretation of the Trinity. My comments are below.
The problem with Dr. Craig’s argument is threefold:
1. Scripture calling Jesus “God” does not establish a divine nature nor His being 1/3 of a tri-personal being. The same words (Heb. -Elohim, Grk. – Theos) are commonly used of pagan gods, human rulers, antichrist, and even Satan (the god of this age). The error is the false presupposition that the noun “God” describes a particular kind, nature, or essence. It absolutely does not, otherwise it would mean that the pagan “gods” (who are demons) and even Satan himself share the “divine nature.” The term “God” points exclusively to one holding SOVEREIGNTY, not divinity, just as the word “king.” Jesus can rightly be called “God” because He shares in the sole Monarchy. His sovereignty was extended and delegated to Him by His Father (Matt. 28:18; John 17:2). Jesus’ exercises the sovereignty of His Father. As the “Messenger of Yahweh,” God placed His name / titles (Yahweh, God) upon Him (Exod. 23:20-23). Therefore, the Son was “God” to those with whom He interacted as Yahweh’s personal Agent, “the image of the invisible God” (Col. 1:15; Heb. 1:3).
2. Dr. Craig’s explanation cannot account for Scriptures which apply the “one God” statements exclusively to the Father, such as 1 Cor. 8:6 & Eph. 4:6. Jesus referred to His Father as “the only true God” in John 17 which distinguished Himself from the “one God” statements. Therefore, the claim that “one God” refers to a tri-personal being is falsified by these statements.
3. The singular personal pronouns and singular verbs used in the many “one God” passages require a singular mind, not necessarily a singular “body” (being) as in the example of the 3-headed dog. One has to violate the grammar or invent new rules of grammar to make singular personal pronouns and verbs refer to a tri-personal being. Singular personal pronouns always require a singular PERSON/MIND thus cannot refer to a being with three distinct PERSONS/MINDS.
The earliest Christians after the Apostles, such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Theophilus, etc., had it exactly right. There is one eternal, unbegotten, all Sovereign PERSON who is the Father. He alone is the source of everything including His own Son. The preincarnate Son was “only-begotten” out of the Father’s Person as “the Beginning” (Prov. 8:22-31; Col. 1:15-18; Rev. 3:14). Since “kind” always begets like “kind,” the procreation language (“only-begotten of the Father”) and the familial terminology (“Father” & “Son”) prove the divinity of the pre-incarnate Son. Yet the very same language proves that the Son had a beginning of existence as a distinct Person. He was “begotten, not made” as the Nicene Creed plainly states. Jesus Himself said that He “issued forth out of God …” (Jn. 8:42 Gk.). Again, the “divinity” of the preincarnate Son is established biblically by His procreation, not by Scriptures that refer to Him using the title “God.”
Dr. Craig, like almost all modern Trinitarians, denies the plain sense of the Nicene Creed (325, 381) which reflected the earlier Christian writers.
“We believe in ONE GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, Maker of heaven and earth and all things visible and invisible.”
(The creed defines “one God” as one Person, the Father alone, not three Persons).
“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made.”
(Note that “only-begotten” refers to the source of the preincarnate Son, not to the incarnation).
Modern Trinitarians have adopted the much later Roman Catholic evolution of the doctrine of God as defined in the sixth-century Athanasian Creed. They do not truly believe that Jesus is “only-begotten of the Father,” the literal “Son of God” as Scripture plainly declares and the Nicene Creed affirms.