THE TRINITY

Why continue to address this highly divisive issue? Can we be saved without this belief? I think so! For my first several years as a Christian, I didn’t believe in the Trinity. I hadn’t heard sermons on this doctrine; nor had I studied it. Nevertheless, I am confident that I was saved.

Why then raise this issue? Because it is a very important doctrine, one that is critical to our life in Christ and one that our Lord wants us to understand:

·       but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God. For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. (Romans 5:8-10)

While many non-Trinitarians will acknowledge that fact that the Cross proves God’s love for us, they can only give lip-service to it. Here’s why – The Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, believe that Christ was a created Being. However, if this is true, His death fails to show God’s “love for us.” Why not? If Jesus was merely created, God could have created a hundred thousand Jesus’ in a moment, without any cost to Himself. Therefore, Jesus dying on the Cross would fail to show God’s love for us. Why not? Because it cost Him zilch, nada, not a cent!

Other non-Trinitarian groups are modalists, who believe that Jesus is no more than an appearance or a reflection of God, as when we see ourselves in the mirror. Consequently, if a mere appearance, manifestation, or a reflection of God had died for our sins, this too would fail to prove that God had loved us when “we were still sinners.”

Instead, Jesus was an actual man (and also eternal, uncreated God) who had died for us. He therefore had prayed with tears:

·       “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.” (Matthew 26:39)

If Jesus had merely been created, the Father could have easily said, “No problem! I will just call a look-alike into existence to die for humanity’s sins.” Or the Father could have responded, “Don’t worry. You are no more than a manifestation. The Cross won’t hurt you.”

However, there was no other way than for the God-man Jesus to die on the Cross. Nothing short of this would have demonstrated God’s love for the world.

We need this demonstration of God’s love and to thoroughly grasp His love. I had been in desperate need of this. I had felt rejected and unloved by the world. After a very brief honeymoon period, I began to also feel that God didn’t love me. I was a bomb ready to explode on everyone around me. I wanted to believe in His love, but through my eyes of hatred and rejection, it felt as if He was a sadist who enjoyed watching the suffering of His tormented creations.

However, one night, as I was praying, the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to the Cross. It suddenly became plain to me that if God Himself had died for my sins, even while I was His “enemy,” He could not be a sadist, but, instead, Someone who loved me beyond anything I could imagine (Ephesians 3:19). Besides, if He loved me while I was His enemy, how much more now that I have become His friend!

After this, the Trinity became alive for me.

Jay-Z, Satanism, and Spiritism

I don’t know much about Jay-Z, but it seems that we have several things in common. We agree that, for the most part, God doesn’t answer our prayers immediately. Abraham had to wait 25 years for his promised child, Isaac. Moses had to wait 40 years before his original dream of leading his people, Israel, out of captivity in Egypt was realized.

We also agree about the existence and power of Satan and his demonic hoards. Like any drug dealer seeking to build up his clientele, according Jay-Z,  Satan delivers on the spot:

·       “There is real spirituality and guidance in the Church of Satan that you just don’t get in Christianity, because Christianity is a fake religion, built by assholes,” Jay-Z said. “Hands up, how many Christians here have prayed to God for years and aint gotten nothing back, just silence and emptiness? Be honest. It’s OK.”

·       “I’m telling you this because I know you guys look up to me and want to emulate me. I will give you this one guarantee, if you start following the doctrine of Lucifer, you will taste success. The secret of the universe opens up to you. It is immediate and glorious.” https://newspunch.com/jay-z-jesus-fake-lucifer/

Jay-Z and I are alike in another way. We both want to see immediate results. However, this pursuit overlooks the long-range costs. One immediate cost is deception:

·       For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds. (2 Corinthians 11:13-15)

Satan is a master marketer. He presents himself as a compassionate friend, while he is a fiend who delights in deception and destruction.

The way we believe is ultimately the way we will act. The chicagotribune.com had reported:

·       Satanism celebrates human selfishness and violent behavior. Its adherents attempt to subvert Christian values by encouraging sexual experimentation, ritual sacrifice and the seven deadly sins of greed, pride, envy, anger gluttony, lust and sloth. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1986-04-27-8601300405-story.html

The Tribune then went on to document how Satanism had inspired many acts of violence, especially among the youth who are very drawn to the power and respect Satanism offers. One cite offers parents a list of indications that their youth are heading in this destructive path:

·       Attitudes of extreme isolationism, hatred, vengeance, and personal destructive power, all seemingly without remorse.

·       Obsession with death, violence, evil, the mysterious, and the occult.

·       Concurrent drug, alcohol, and sexual activity.

·       Reputation among peers as someone to be feared or catered to because of his/her personal power. (Or, appears to follow someone with such a reputation.) http://www.answers.org/satan/teens_satanism.html

However, the pop-stars who are captured by Satanism/Demonism are either barely aware or quiet about the side-effects. In “The facts on Spirit Guides,” John Ankerberg and John Weldon sound the alarm about this often ignored world, which carries such a high price tag. They warn of the strong association between Spiritism/Demonism/Satanism and mental illness:

·       “One discovers many mental patients who are mentally ill precisely because they are demonized. This is born out by the research of German psychiatrist and parapsychologist Hans Bender who coined the term “mediumistic psychosis’; by theologian and psychologist Kurt Koch; and by clinical psychologist and Swedenborgian Wilson Van Dusen, who has examined thousands of patients and noted the parallels to spiritistic experiences and phenomena.” (27)

However, the spirits do not gain a foothold by advertising the costs, one of which is suicide. According to Ankerberg and Weldon, there have been:

·       “…innumerable cases where the ‘loving’ spirits have deliberately induced emotional dependence upon their advice and then at a moment of weakness encouraged their contact to commit suicide. And this has been occurring for decades, probably even centuries. In the 1920 text The Menace of Spiritualism, case after case of tragedy is listed.” (37)

The authors have compiled their own list of horrors that have stalked mediums:

·       “Arthur Ford became a morphine addict and alcoholic…Bishop Pike died a tragic death…The biography on [Edgar] Cayce by Joseph Millar reveals the extent of suffering Cayce’s occultic involvement cost him—from psychic attacks to mysterious fires…Many channelers seem to succumb to various vices later in life.” (39)

Although they describe the medium M. Lamar Keene as “fraudulent,” from his book, “The Psychic Mafia,” the authors cite:

·       “All the mediums I’ve known or known about have had tragic endings. The Fox sisters, who started it all, wound up as alcoholic derelicts. William Slade…died insane in a Michigan sanitarium. Margery, the medium, lay on her deathbed a hopeless drunk….Wherever I looked it was the same: mediums, at the end of their tawdry life, dying a tawdry death.” (39-40)

Violence was another price to be paid:

·       “Spiritist and guru Sri Chinmoy, a spiritual advisor at the United Nations observes, ‘Many, many black magicians and people who deal with spirits have been strangled or killed. I know because I’ve been near quite a few of these cases.’” (40)

·       “Dr. Kurt Koch observed after 45 years of counseling the occultly oppressed that from his own experience ‘numerous cases of suicide, fatal accidents, strokes and insanity are to be observed among occult practitioners…Anyone who has had to observe for 45 years the effects of spiritism can only warn people with all the strength at his disposal.” (40)

These observations parallel our more global observations regarding the fate of spiritistic cultures. In “Whence the ‘Noble Savage’,” Patrick Frank, summarizes the research regarding analysis of ancient burial sites of spiritistic cultures. The findings, for instance, demonstrate that the violent death rates of British Columbian Native Americans (27-33%) far exceeded even the violent death rate of 20th century Europe and the US (1%). Frank also adds,

·       “The Southwest is dotted with finds of people killed en masse…These indications of war, violent deaths, mutilations and cannibalism are from tribal societies that experienced no European or modern contact, thus contradicting the idea that peoples who were free from European influence lived relatively peaceful lives.” (Skeptic Mag. Vol 9, #1,2001, 54-60)

Spiritistic societies build no hospitals, establish no universities, and build no enduring institutions. Instead, according to their own reports, they have been spirit-ravaged. Ankerberg and Weldon and also list some books by spiritists who have found refuge in Christ:

·       Victor Ernest, “I talked with Spirits”

·       Ben Alexander, “Out from Darkness”

·       Raphel Gasson, “The Challenging Counterfeit”

They conclude, “What is amazing is that the evidence is there for all to see and yet it is ignored” (38). Even worse, what had once been hidden is now being promoted by our celebrities with alluring glitter and charm.

BERTRAND RUSSELL AND THE NATURAL LAW PROOF

The mathematician, Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature (1950). As an atheist, he wrote against various theistic proofs. One of them was the proof from natural laws, claiming that these laws require a law-Giver.

However, Russell fails to engage the theistic argumentation. He cites an example of a “natural law,” which no apologist would cite as such:

·       There is, as we all know, a law that if you throw dice you will get double sixes only about once in thirty-six times, and we do not regard that as evidence that the fall of the dice is regulated by design; on the contrary, if the double sixes came every time we should think that there was design.

This is not a “natural” law, but a logical law of chance and probability. No one would claim that “the fall of the dice is regulated by design,” unless they were trying to argue that logic is a matter of design.

Russell then obfuscated:

·       but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave, and being a mere description of what they in fact do, you cannot argue that there must be somebody who told them to do that, because even supposing that there were you are then faced with the question, ‘Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?’ https://users.drew.edu/jlenz/whynot.html

Of course the laws describe “how things do…behave,” but they are more than that. They also identify causal agents.

Russell then asked an irrelevant question: “Why did God issue just those natural laws and no others?” He assumes that if we cannot answer this in any comprehensive manner, our theory must be wrong. Well, let’s apply this same standard to Russell and ask: “What are time, space, light, and matter?” No one can answer this definitively. However, we do not dismiss science because of this. Nor should we dismiss the proof of God from “natural” laws.

However, Russell never engages the heart of the “natural” law argument. A law-Giver is necessary to account for:

·       The universal and uniform impact of the laws throughout the universe. Their effect is not localized as are radio waves, suggesting that they emanate from the Transcendent.

·       Their immutability in a universe of molecules-in-motion.

·       Their elegance, which reveals incredible design.

·       Their precise fine-tuning. 

·       The origin of the natural laws even before there was such a thing as natural.

However, Russell and the other atheists claim that the many theistic proofs have been rendered invalid over recent years. Instead, the findings of science have revivified them.

BERTRAND RUSSELL AGAINST THE FIRST CAUSE ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

Bertrand Russell, the author of Why I am not a Christian, had been regarded as the most brilliant mathematician of his day.

·       [The First Cause argument for the existence of God] maintains that everything we see in this world has a cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God…If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument…There is no reason why the world could not have come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause. https://users.drew.edu/jlenz/whynot.html

There are many problems with Russell’s argument. Even as he had stated, “everything we see in this world has a cause” leaves God out of this assessment. In fact, the argument from the First Cause posits that something or Someone must be eternal and uncaused, and without the uncaused (doesn’t require a prior cause), there can never be a rational explanation for anything. Why not? Because cause “C” requires a prior cause “B,” and “B” requires an “A,” and this goes on infinitely – a logical impossibility.

Russell even acknowledged that there is a need for something to be eternal and uncaused, and so he suggested that it could easily be the universe. However, this suggestion violates both science and reason. Now science acknowledges that the time-space-matter universe had a beginning.

Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias, Nobel laureate in physics, had initially believed in the “Steady State Theory,” which maintained that the universe had always existed. Consequently, the question, “Who created it,” became unnecessary. However, as the evidence accumulated against it, Penzias admitted:

·       “The Steady State theory turned out to be so ugly that people dismissed it. The easiest way to fit the observations with the least number of parameters was one in which the universe was created out of nothing, in an instant, and continues to expand.” https://crossexamined.org/god-and-the-astronomers/

Robert Jastrow was the founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a professor at Columbia University, and the director emeritus of the Mt. Wilson Observatory.  Jastrow observed:

·       When a scientist writes about God, his colleagues assume he is either over the hill or going bonkers. In my case it should be understood from the start that I am an agnostic in religious matters. My views on this question are close to those of Darwin, who wrote, "My theology is a simple muddle. I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance, yet I see no evidence of beneficent design in the details." (God and the Astronomers (1978), Ch. 1: In the Beginning)

Yet, he does see scientific evidence for the existence of God.  In one interview, after strongly asserting his agnosticism, Jastrow admitted:

·       …that scientific evidence (including Hubble’s discoveries) pointed quite clearly to the existence of a supernatural Creator. Yet, the materialistic philosophy he had long embraced rebelled at such a conclusion. He ended with an admission I’ll never forget: “I’m in a completely hopeless bind.” https://thejohn1010project.com/blog/2018/05/17/god-and-the-astronomer/

Why the bind? Jastrow remains committed to a naturalistic world view but sees the evidence pointing to ID. In God and the Astronomers, Jastrow also acknowledged that naturalism had failed to account for the evidence:

·       At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. (116; p. 107 in 1992 edition)

This seems to rule out the possibility that the universe or any part of it could serve as our first cause. However, I think that the logical evidence against an always-existing-universe is even more dismissive. If the universe is eternal, it means that an infinite number of years would have needed to be fulfilled to ever arrive in the now, the present, and this is a logical impossibility. Therefore, whatever is eternal (the first cause) must lie outside of the time-space-matter package. He must transcend time, and this is exactly the portrait that the Bible presents of the Creator God.

As a last resort, Russell concluded, “The idea that things must have a beginning is really due to the poverty of our imagination.” Perhaps there is a reality beyond our feeble imagination and even our logic. However, we live, believe, and make our decisions based upon the very limited knowledge that we do have. We have nothing else. To be responsible with our limited knowledge, experience, and science, we are coerced to conclude  that the phenomena of this world does have a beginning and a cause.