Is the New Testament or Qur'an a Better Successor to the Hebrew Bible? Dr. Jonathan McLatchie vs. Bashir Vania

Here is my latest debate, with Islamic scholar Bashir Vania, on whether the New Testament or Qur'an is a better successor to the Old Testament. This debate was recorded at South African Theological Seminary in January. Enjoy!

The Trinity in the Old Testament (Part 4): The Divine Logos

In three previous articles (part 1, part 2, part 3), I laid out the beginnings of a case for the Triune nature of God in the Old Testament Scriptures. I also showed how the intricate harmonies found in the Hebrew Bible point cumulatively to its divine inspiration. In this fourth installment, I want to talk about Jesus as the divine Word, or Logos, a concept that will be familiar to readers who have read the gospel of John, where John in his prologue (John 1:1-4,14) states that,

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it...14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John begins his gospel by asserting Jesus' identity as being the very essence of God incarnate. The transliteration of the Greek of verse 1 reads, "En arche en ho logos kai ho Logos en pros ton Theon kai Theos en ho Logos." You will notice that the noun "Theos" for God at the end of verse 1 lacks a definite article "ho" ("the") but precedes the verb "en" ("was"). In Greek grammar, this renders it a qualitative. Thus, John 1:1 is most accurately translated, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and all that God was the Word also was." Moreover, this divine Word has existed from eternity past. "In the beginning was the word" indicates that in the beginning (as far back as you want to push it) the Word already was in existence. And yet even although the Word is the very essence of deity, "He was in the beginning with God" (verse 2). In other words, in some other sense the divine Logos was distinct from God. This is what Trinitarians believe with respect to the Son's relationship to the Father -- the Son is in very essence deity (possessing all of that which makes God God) and yet in some other sense He is distinct from God.

Just to drive the point home, John then continues in verse 3 by telling us that "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." Nothing exists that has not been created and fashioned by the divine Logos. Thus, the divine Logos is the very essence of God. He cannot Himself be a creature.

What is the origin of John's concept of Jesus as the divine Word? I maintain that he got this idea directly from the Old Testament. It is to this subject that I turn in this article.

The Trinity in the Old Testament (Part 3): The Divine Messenger of Yahweh

In previous blog posts (part 1, part 2), I began a series exploring the expression of God's Triune nature in the Old Testament, an oft-neglected subject among Christians today. In this article, I will discuss the divine messenger of Yahweh, who shows up numerous times in the Old Testament.

Before we dive into the relevant Biblical texts, however, let me say a word about the translation of the Hebrew phrase malak Yahweh, often translated as the "angel of the Lord" in our English Bibles. The truth is that the word malak does not necessarily refer to angelic creatures such as Gabriel or Michael, but can refer to anyone who is a messenger. Even human messengers are identified by the word malak. Indeed, the name of the last prophet prior to Jesus, Malachi, literally means "my messenger". Below is a table, excerpted from a doctoral dissertation by Gunther H. Juncker entitled "Jesus and the Angel of the Lord: An Old Testament Paradigm for New Testament Christology," in which he lists cases where the word malak is used of human, angelic, or divine messengers (as well as instances where the identification is uncertain).

As can be seen, the phrase malak Yahweh can be correctly translated as "messenger of the Lord", and does not by itself tell us whether the messenger is human, angelic or divine. This must be discerned from the surrounding context. However, since the word "angel" is how the term is translated in our English Bibles, I will from henceforth be using the expression "the angel of the Lord" or "the angel of Yahweh" throughout this article. It is my contention that when this expression is used with the definite article in the Hebrew Bible, it always refers to a divine person who, as I will show, turns out to be the awaited Messiah Himself.

The Trinity in the Old Testament (Part 2): The Deity of Israel's Messiah

In a previous article, I began a series exploring the nature of God in the Old Testament, and the continuity of the Jewish Scriptures with God's revelation in the New Testament. We looked at several texts that communicate a plurality of divine persons within the being of God. In this article, I want to consider the deity of Israel's Messiah. Numerous texts could be brought to bear on establishing the deity of the Messiah from the Hebrew Bible, and justice cannot possibly be done to all of them here. However, I will consider a few examples. 

"Is the Trinity consistent with the Old Testament?" Jonathan McLatchie vs. Yusuf Ismail

I recently engaged in a public moderated debate in South Africa with Muslim criminal defense lawyer and apologist, Yusuf Ismail. Our subject was the concept of God in the Hebrew Bible -- specifically, whether God reveals Himself as Triune in the Old Testament. Here is the recording of the debate.

Answering Islam 11: Where Does the Bible Call Jesus the "Son of God"?

Here's Episode 11 of our "Answering Islam" series, where I answer the question: "Where does the Bible call Jesus the 'Son of God'?" For the rest of the series, click on the playlist.

Here's the full text of the video:

Where Does the Bible Call Jesus the Son of God?

Christians and Muslims disagree about the identity of Jesus. Christians claim that Jesus is the divine Son of God, but the Qur’an denies this. In Surah 9, verse 30, Allah maintains:

The Jews say, “Ezra is the son of Allah”; and the Christians say, “The Messiah is the son of Allah.” These are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before. May Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!

According to this verse, when Christians call Jesus the Son of God, we’re imitating “those who disbelieved before.” We’re imitating the pagans.

But this is just nonsense, because Jesus was identified as the Son of God by an unparalleled cloud of witnesses. Let’s consider a few of these witnesses.

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. And in Matthew 3, when Jesus comes out of the water, the Spirit of God descends as a dove and a voice out of the heavens declares, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased.”

A voice out of the heavens says, “This is My beloved Son,” which means that the voice was the voice of the Father. But how do we know whom the Father was talking about? How do we know he wasn’t talking about John the Baptist or someone else? Well, the Holy Spirit descended from heaven and landed on Jesus. Notice: the Father and the Holy Spirit together identify Jesus as the Son of God.

And Jesus repeatedly identifies himself as the Son of God. At his trial, for instance, in Mark 14, the high priest asks him, “Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” Jesus answers, “I am; and you shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”

So, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in complete agreement that Jesus is the Son of God.

In Luke 1, the Angel Gabriel says to Mary,

Do not be afraid, Mary; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High.

Jesus is to be called “Son of the Most High,” according to Gabriel, chief spokesman of the angels.

What about the prophets? John the Baptist was a prophet, according to both Christianity and Islam. In John 1, he tells his followers about Jesus and says, “I myself have seen, and have testified that this is the Son of God.”

That’s the testimony of the prophets. How about Jesus’ apostles?

At the end of John 1, the Apostle Nathanael says to Jesus, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God; You are the King of Israel.”

In Matthew 16, Jesus asks his disciples, “Who do you say that I am?” Peter answers, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Now if Jesus were just a prophet, this would have been a really good time to rebuke Peter. Instead, Jesus says to him, “Blessed are you . . . because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”

In Matthew 14, Jesus walks on water during a storm. After stepping into the boat, the wind stops, and the disciples bow down and worship him, crying out, “You are certainly God’s Son.”

But it’s not just his male followers who call him the Son of God. In John 11, Lazarus dies, and Martha, the sister of Lazarus, meets Jesus on his way to raise Lazarus from the dead. We read:

Jesus said to her, “Your brother will rise again.” Martha said to Him, “I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” She said to Him, “Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”

Martha and the Apostles and John the Baptist were all Jews. But even some of the Romans called Jesus the Son of God. When Jesus died by crucifixion, there was an earthquake, and the Roman centurion and those who were with him shouted, “Truly this was the Son of God!”

Interestingly, demons would call Jesus the Son of God, as he was casting them out of people.

Now think about the diversity of witnesses we have. The Father identifies Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus identifies himself as the Son of God. The Holy Spirit identifies Jesus as the Son of God. The Angel Gabriel identifies Jesus as the Son of God. The prophet John the Baptist identifies Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus’ Apostles identify him as the Son of God. Martha identifies him as the Son of God. The Romans identify him as the Son of God. Demons identify him as the Son of God.

Everyone who could possibly identify Jesus as the Son of God identifies him as the Son of God. Six hundred years later, Muhammad comes along and tells his followers that Jesus was not the Son of God. And this proves that Muhammad was a false prophet.

Zakir Naik, Muhammad, and the Comforter: An Examination of John 14:16

One of Dr. Zakir Naik's favorite topics is "Muhammad in the Bible." Dr. Naik claims that when Jesus spoke about the "Comforter" in John 14:16, he was referring to Muhammad. But there's a problem for Dr. Naik here. Jesus said, in John 16:7, that if he goes away, he will send the Comforter. So Jesus is the one who sends the Comforter. According to Islam, however, Muhammad was sent by Allah. So if Jesus sends the Comforter, and Allah sends Muhammad, and the Comforter is Muhammad, Jesus must be Allah!

The Psychology of Islam, Part Three: Theology of the Fatherless

In "The Psychology of Islam, Part 1: The Defective Father Hypothesis," we learned that Muhammad's traumatic childhood experiences would produce three psychological results: (1) he would rebel against authority and tradition; (2) he would have a problem with father figures, and especially with viewing God as a heavenly father; and (3) he would have some difficulty forming normal relationships with other people. In "The Psychology of Islam, Part 2: Muhammad's Rebellion," we examined the historical evidence to see if our first expectation was confirmed, and we found that it was completely confirmed. Now, in "The Psychology of Islam, Part 3: Theology of the Fatherless," we test our prediction that Muhammad's childhood experiences would affect his view of father-figures and his view of God.

The Trinity in Acts 2: A Refutation of Dale Tuggy

Biblical Unitarian Dale Tuggy published an article at his blog in which he argues that belief in the doctrine of the Trinity and deity of Christ are not definitional to the gospel, and are not essential for salvation. After all, Tuggy, points out, Peter in his proclamation to the Jews in Acts 2 makes no mention of those doctrines.

Tuggy's argument fails for a number of reasons. For one thing, Peter's sermon in Acts 2 also makes no mention of Christ's death being an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Extending Tuggy's logic further, therefore, would require also abandoning that doctrine as definitional to the gospel.

The second problem is that, while Peter's sermon (being addressed to a Jewish audience) does not use the philosophical categories that would be developed later to convey the idea of the Trinity, Peter's sermon is thoroughly Trinitarian. Consider verses 16-21, in which Peter quotes from Joel 2:

But this is what was uttered through the prophet Joel: “‘And in the last days it shall be, God declares, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; even on my male servants and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit, and they shall prophesy. And I will show wonders in the heavens above and signs on the earth below, blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke; the sun shall be turned to darkness and the moon to blood, before the day of the Lord comes, the great and magnificent day. And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’

Notice that in verses 17 and 18, Yahweh states that "I will pour out my Spirit". Yet what does Peter go on to state in verses 32-33?

This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing.

Thus, the one who has poured out the Spirit, according to Peter, is Jesus Himself! Peter thus has identified Jesus as none other than Yahweh. Jesus, moreover, is clearly distinct from the Father, since Peter says that He has "received from the Father."

Furthermore, in Acts 2:21, Peter quotes Joel as saying,

And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

 And yet what does Peter state in verse 38?

Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Thus, while Peter has quoted Joel as saying that all who call upon the name of Yahweh will be saved, he goes on to instruct the people to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Indeed, Peter goes on to say to the Jewish council in Acts 4:11-12,

This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.

Again, the name given by which we must be saved is that of Jesus.

We thus have clear evidence in this text that Peter is proclaiming the deity of Jesus. But what of the Holy Spirit? In Acts 2:17, Peter has quoted God in the book of Joel as saying "I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh." What properties would the Holy Spirit have to possess in order to simultaneously be poured out on all flesh all over the world? Clearly, omnipresence, an attribute of deity.

The book of Acts actually affirms the deity and personal identity of the Holy Spirit a number of times. For example, in Acts 5:3-4, we read,

But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”

Thus, the Holy Spirit is here taken to be a personal agent who can be lied to -- in fact, the Holy Spirit is identified as God Himself in verse 4.

Acts 5:32 also has another affirmation of the personal identity of the Holy Spirit:

And we are witnesses to these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

Thus, the Holy Spirit is a witness in the same sense that the apostles were witnesses. This again strongly implies the personal identity of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit is identified as both divine and personal in Acts 13:2:

While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” 

Here, the Holy Spirit speaks as a person and sends Barnabas and Paul. The Holy Spirit says it is the work He has called them to do. This again implies strongly the deity of the Holy Spirit.

The personal identity of the Holy Spirit also comes through in Acts 15:28 at the Jerusalem council:

For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements.

The phrase "it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit" (which is taken to be in the same sense that it seemed good to the apostles) implies strongly that the Holy Spirit is a personal agent.

Another affirmation of the deity of the Holy Spirit occurs in Acts 28:25-27:

And disagreeing among themselves, they departed after Paul had made one statement: “The Holy Spirit was right in saying to your fathers through Isaiah the prophet: “‘Go to this people, and say, “You will indeed hear but never understand, and you will indeed see but never perceive.” For this people's heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed; lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.’

Thus, according to Paul, the one who spoke to Isaiah in Isaiah 6:9-10 was the Holy Spirit. Yet according to Isaiah 6:8 it is the Lord God himself speaking.

In conclusion, we have seen that, contrary to Dale Tuggy's assertions, Peter's sermon in Acts 2 is profoundly Trinitarian.

Christian-Muslim Dialogue The Oneness of God: Trinity or Tawhid? Tony Costa vs. Farhan Iqbal

The video of the dialogue between myself and Farhan Iqbal has now been posted. The topic was on the Trinity and Tawhid. I begin speaking at 27:42.

Is the Trinity Biblical? Jonathan McLatchie on the One Minute Apologist

Here is the seventh video in my recent series of interviews for the One Minute Apologist video podcast with Pastor Bobby Conway in North Carolina. Here, I discuss the subject "Is the Trinity Biblical?" Enjoy! :)

"Tawhid or Trinity: Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?" Jonathan McLatchie & Rehan Khan vs. Bashir Vania & Ahmed Pandor

In April of this year, I participated in a panel debate in Alberton, South Africa, involving two Christians and two Muslims. On the Christian side were myself and ex-Muslim Rehan Ali Khan. On the Muslim side were Bashir Vania and Ahmed Pandor. The topic under discussion was "Tawhid or Trinity: Do Muslims and Christians worship the same God?" I have now uploaded the complete recording of the debate to YouTube, and you can view it at the link below -- enjoy! :)

This is the True God

Muslims are fond of citing John 17:3 in an effort to deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ. Since their own exegetical abilities are quickly taxed upon being challenged, they often appeal to various unitarian scholars in the hopes that they will be able to prop up their tottering position. One person often cited in this connection is Sir Anthony Buzzard, a contemporary advocate of the Socinian heresy. Since I was recently drawn into a discussion with Buzzard by a Muslim who solicited his help, I am providing some of my thoughts on the issue here so that others might also benefit from them.

In my conversation with Buzzard he repeatedly made the claim that John 17:3 identifies “the Father alone as the only true God,” and since Jesus is not the Father, Buzzard concludes that Jesus cannot be the only true God. In response to this I made two points:

1) The text does not say, as Buzzard did, “the Father alone is the only true God”; rather, it says, “This is eternal life, that they might know you, the only true God…” The difference here is significant. On the former reading, which adds the word alone to the English translation even though it does not exist in the Greek text, one could conclude that Jesus is asserting unitarianism; on the latter reading, which is based squarely on the Greek text, all one can conclude is that the Father is the only true God, which comports perfectly well with the Trinitarian position. According to Trinitarianism the Father IS the only true God, not a false god. Indeed, this affirmation is a critical plank in the Trinitarian position.

2) What is said about the Father being the only true God in John 17:3 is complemented in 1 John 5:20 where Jesus is also referred to as the true God:

“And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.”

οἴδαμεν δὲ ὅτι ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἥκει καὶ δέδωκεν ἡμῖν διάνοιαν, ἵνα γινώσκωμεν τὸν ἀληθινόν, καὶ ἐσμὲν ἐν τῷ ἀληθινῷ, ἐν τῷ υἱῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ. οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς καὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος. (1 Jn. 5:20 NA28)

Since there is only one true God, it follows from John 17:3 and 1 John 5:20 that both the Father and the Son are the only true God.

In response to the first point I raised Buzzard simply repeated his terribly inaccurate paraphrase, which adds the word “alone” to the text. This maneuver – really, propaganda technique –can be ignored for obvious reasons.

In response to my second point, Buzzard asserted that 1 John 5:20 is not referring to Jesus but to the Father. But note the following reasons for concluding that 1 John 5:20 does, in fact, refer to the Lord Jesus Christ:

[Nota Bene: 1 John 5:20 is clearly relevant here for at least three reasons: 1) Both passages were written by the same author, the apostle John; 2) both passages use the phrase aleithinos theos, "true God"; and 3) these two passages are the only passages where this phrase occurs in the entire New Testament.]

1) If John is referring to the Father in the latter phrase, then the verse results in a redundancy: “…and we are in [God] who is true…he is the true God.” In other words, John would then be saying what he just said…what he just said. Pardon the redundancy.

2) Ordinarily in the Greek New Testament the near demonstrative οὗτός [houtos], “this [one],” refers back to the nearest antecedent, which in this case is “Jesus Christ.” An example of this can be seen in this very chapter: “Who is the one who overcomes the world, but he who believes that Jesus is the Son of God? THIS is the One who came by water and blood…(1 John 5:5-6).” Since this is the ordinary usage — one exemplified in this very context— it also ought to be the assumed usage in 1 John 5:20 unless some necessary reason for thinking otherwise can be supplied from the context. To my knowledge no anti-Trinitarian has ever supplied any contextual reason(s) why we should depart from ordinary usage here.

3) Moreover, as Greek professor Daniel Wallace has pointed out, “The demonstrative pronoun, οὗτός, in the Gospel and Epistles of John seems to be used in a theologically rich manner. Specifically, of the approximately seventy instances in which οὗτός has a personal referent, as many as forty-four of them (almost two-thirds of the instances) refer to the Son. Of the remainder, most imply some sort of positive connection with the Son. What is most significant is that never is the Father the referent.” (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, p. 327; emphasis original.)

4) Furthermore, both ἀλήθεια [alētheia], “truth,” and ζωή [zōē], “life,” are used for Christ elsewhere, most notably in John’s writings (e.g. John 14:6). In fact, while John uses the latter term in his writings for Jesus (q.v. John 11:25, 14:6, etc.), he never uses the term for the Father.

5) Finally, 1 John 5:20 not only identifies “this [one]” as “the true God” but also as “eternal life”: “This is the true God AND ETERNAL LIFE.” This title is one that John has already used in this epistle for Jesus: “What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the Word of Life-- and the Life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the Eternal Life, which was WITH the Father and was manifested to us--” (1 John 1:1-2). By opening and closing this epistle in this way John has created an inclusio, a literary device where both statements are mutually interpretative and reinforce one another. Anyone who reads John’s First Epistle who does not come away knowing that John has identified Jesus as the true God and Eternal Life has missed John’s point from beginning to end.

I have invited Anthony Buzzard over to continue the dialogue in the comments section. For the sake of Muslims who are counting on him, I hope he accepts the invitation.

Rudolph Boshoff Comments On the Encounter Between Jonathan McLatchie and Mansoor Ahmed in Hyde Park

Pastor Rudolph Boshoff, from South Africa, has released a short 12-minute video weighing in on the encounter between myself and Mansoor Ahmed in Hyde Park, with particular comment on my explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity. He also mentions Ijaz Ahmed's deceptive misrepresentation of his comments on Skype which I alluded to in a blog post earlier today.

Ijaz is still claiming to have accurately represented the contents of his conversation with Rudolph on Skype yesterday. In order to prove both Rudolph and myself wrong, all Ijaz has to do is make the recording available. Simple. I am not holding my breath.

Were Ignatius and Justin Martyr Trinitarian? Paul Williams Refuted

A video was released yesterday featuring a dialogue at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, London, involving myself, and Muslim apologists Mansoor Ahmed, Paul Williams, and Abu Ismail Al Farsi. Speaker's Corner is not my preferred venue for participating in such dialogues. I much prefer formal moderated debate where we can focus on a specific topic (instead of jumping from topic to topic) and where each side has equal time to fully articulate and defend its case. To-date, Mansoor and Paul have refused to participate in such a debate, despite invitations to do so.

I note that notorious Muslim blogger Ijaz Ahmed is already claiming that Mansoor "stumped" me -- I will allow viewers to be the judge of that. Ijaz claims that I became "increasingly frustrated and angry with being asked to explain [my] reasoning and beliefs." Actually, I became increasingly frustrated at being asked the same questions repeatedly even though I had already given answers multiple times. Mansoor was repeatedly asking me whether the Father, Son and Spirit are each 100% God as opposed to a third of God. As discussed in an earlier blog post, both are in a sense true. The Father, Son and Spirit are indeed each 100% God if by "God" you mean that they possess all of the divine attributes, prerogatives, qualities, and privileges. But each is a third of God if by God you refer to the totality of the being of God -- i.e. the Godhead or Trinity. To state otherwise would be to entertain the heresy of tritheism. The divine essence is a qualitative infinite; It therefore cannot be divided. I tried to explain this to Paul and Mansoor multiple times during the course of the discussion. Since they were evidently not listening to the answers I was giving and instead persisting in repeating the same questions, I decided it was time for me to move on.

Anyway, there are a number of points that came up in the discussion that can be fleshed out further. Besides clarifying Mansoor's and Paul's misconception in regards to the Trinity, there is also Paul William's mishandling of the various texts in the New Testament that speak of Jesus having a God over him and God working through the person of Jesus -- see my article here for a thorough refutation of Paul's claims on this.

I want to respond here to another claim that Paul made during the course of the discussion. Paul made the assertion that the early church fathers were not Trinitarian. He made particular allusion to Ignatius of Antioch and Justin Martyr, the works of both of whom I have read in their entirety.

Does Ignatius Affirm the Trinity?

Here is an excerpt from Ignatius' letter to the church of Ephesus:

“There is only one Physician --
Very flesh, yet Spirit too;
Uncreated, and yet born;
God-and-Man in One agreed,
Very-Life-in-Death indeed,
Fruit of God and Mary’s seed;
At once impassible and torn
By pain and suffering here below;
Jesus Christ, whom as our Lord we know.”  

[…]  

Deaf as stones you were: yes, stones for the Father’s Temple, stones trimmed ready for God to build with, hoisted up by the derick of Jesus Christ (the cross) with the Holy Spirit for a cable; your faith being the winch that draws you to God, up the ramp of love.”

In this text, we have allusion to the Father, as well as the Son (who is identified as God) and mention is made of the Holy Spirit. In the very same epistle, he later writes,

“As for me, my spirit is now all humble devotion to the Cross: the Cross which so greatly offends the unbelievers, but is salvation and eternal life to us. Where is your wise man now, or your subtle debater? Where are the fine words of our so-called intellectuals? Under the divine dispensation, Jesus Christ our God was conceived by Mary of the seed of David and of the Spirit of God; He was born, and He submitted to baptism, so that by His passion He might sanctify water.”

Again, this text refers to Jesus Christ as God and speaks of the Holy Spirit as being the "Spirit of God". Since Ignatius affirms monotheism, and affirms the deity of the Father, Son and Spirit while distinguishing them from each other as individuals, how can one assert that Ignatius does not affirm the Trinity?

Does Justin Martyr Affirm the Trinity?

Justin Martyr, contrary to the assertions of Paul Williams, likewise affirmed the Trinity. Here is an excerpt from chapter 6 of his First Apology:

"Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes to learn, as we have been taught."

Now, Justin Martyr tells us in both chapters 16 and 17 of the same letter that God alone is to be worshipped. Since Justin Martyr affirmed monotheism, and that God alone is to be worshipped, and that the distinct individuals of the Father, Son and Spirit are to be worshipped, how can one assert that Justin Martyr did not affirm the doctrine of the Trinity?

To conclude, Paul Williams is simply mistaken in his assertions concerning the beliefs of second-century church fathers Ignatius and Justin Martyr. Will Paul, I wonder, be willing to retract those assertions, or refute my interpretation, on his blog? Better still, will he be willing to engage me in a formal moderated debate on the historical roots and/or Biblical basis of Trinitarianism? I am certainly very willing to engage with him.

Jesus is Fully God, but God is Not Fully Jesus: Clarifying a Common Misconception About the Trinity

Yesterday, I was present at Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park in London. Hyde Park is not the most conducive environment for edifying debate, and typically the force of one's rhetoric is at least as important as the soundness of one's arguments. Nonetheless, since I happened to be in London this weekend for the "Unbelievable?" apologetics conference, I decided to go along and talk to some of the local Muslims.

During the course of the afternoon, I got into a discussion with Muslim polemicists Paul Williams and Mansur Ahmed regarding the doctrine of the Trinity. Paul and Mansur were attempting to corner me into committing the heresy of partialism. Mansur wanted to know whether the Son is 100% of God or a third of God. If one asserts that each member of the Triune Godhead is 100% of God, this leads to a logical conundrum. On the other hand, if one asserts that each member is only a third of God, this commits a heresy in regards to the nature of God, since the essence of God cannot be divided. Here is the relevant section of the Athanasian creed:

"[W]e worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons; nor dividing the Essence."

The conversation prompted me to write this short blog post to clarify a common misconception held by many, and evidently held by Paul and Mansur.

So, what is the answer to the question "Is the Son 100% of God or a third of God?" The proper answer is a qualified "both", depending on the sense in which one uses the word "God". Christ is 100% God in the sense that He possesses the fullness of the divine essence, prerogatives and attributes. There can be no division of a qualitative infinite. On the other hand, I believe that the Son can legitimately be said to be a third of the Triune Godhead. Put another way, Jesus is fully God but God is not fully Jesus; God is more than Christ but Christ is absolutely and completely God.

Of course, the nature of God is something that we will never fully understand or comprehend, and there is probably a limitation on human language which prohibits us from being able to adequately express these truths. Nonetheless, I hope that this clarifies a common misconception about the nature of the Trinity.

Monotheism and the Doctrine of Trinity

Here is the recording of a recent presentation I delivered in England, on "Monotheism and the Doctrine of Trinity." Enjoy!

By the way, the image you see in the thumbnail is me sitting in Ahmed Deedat's office chair at the IPCI in Durban, South Africa.

For more of my videos, please be sure to check out (and subscribe to) my YouTube channel.

Turning Tables on Muslim Objections to the Trinity: The Recording

On popular demand, I have started recording my Saturday "Advanced Apologetics" group for public consumption, and will from henceforth be uploading them to a dedicated YouTube Channel.

Here is this past Saturday's session, on "Turning tables on Muslim objections to the Trinity", with Sam Shamoun. Enjoy!

In this coming Saturday's session, we will be discussing the problem of evil with atheist Cory Markum (one of my former debate opponents). Click here for instructions on how you can join and participate in the conversation. 

Two of My Debates on the Trinity vs. Tawhid

Below are two debates of mine that I have done on the subject of the doctrine of the Trinity vs. the Islamic concept of Tawhid (oneness of Allah). The first of these aired on Premier Christian Radio in the UK back in May of last year. My opponent was Abdurraheem Green, director of the Islamic Education and Research Academy (IERA).

 

The second one is a more recent debate, with a formal structure, which took place in London in August of 2015. My opponent was Muslim scholar Dr. Shabir Ally, president of the Islamic Information and Dawah Centre International in Toronto. For my responses to commentary on this debate by Ijaz Ahmed of Calling Christians, see my articles here and here.

 

Enjoy!

Is the Son of Man the Nation of Israel? A Reply to Yahya Snow

Muslim polemicist Yahya Snow has published a response to my recent article regarding the Son of Man (apparently without linking to the article he is addressing). It is curious that Yahya Snow exemplifies the very same attitude that I often observe among the "new atheist" community that I engage with. He can't imagine that someone who is as informed and rational as him could possibly disagree reasonably. Thus, those with whom he disagrees must have been subject to indoctrination, or some other impediment to clear thinking. As I noted previously, he had earlier stated that the reason for my "superficial and misleading spin" on Daniel 7:13-14 was because I "may well have been indoctrinated...in [my] youth." This time, he has another reason why I don't see things the way he does: Pride. He writes,

"I’d like you to make a concerted and conscious effort to put pride and any other hindrance to objective analysis to one side and reflect on the points in the video as well as the supplementary material in this blog post." 

Further,

Being led by emotion and pride in order to defend an idea (Trinity) which is described as idolatry by Jewish rabbis is really playing with fire -- regardless of who you are [...] Please look into it sans pride and the emotional baggage surrounding it.

To Yahya, it is inconceivable that someone could have taken the time to watch his video and read his blog post and yet fail to be persuaded by his argumentation. When I recently suggested a debate on the identity of the angel of the LORD in the Old Testament, Yahya was sure that this must be the reason I don't see things the way he does. He said,

"I'd rather encourage you to reflect further on this issue as opposed to jumping into a debate to defend your personal view on the angel of the Lord. Acting upon the impulse of pride can blind one from seeing the the [sic] truth."

 Now, let's turn to the issue at hand.