Jehovah's Witnesses: Trinitarian?

THERE can be no compromise with God's truths. Hence, to worship God on his terms means to reject the Trinity doctrine. It contradicts what the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians believed and taught. It contradicts what God says about himself in his own inspired Word. Thus, he counsels: "Acknowledge that I alone am God and that there is no one else like me."—Isaiah 46:9, TEV.

God's interests are not served by making him confusing and mysterious. Instead, the more that people become confused about God and his purposes, the better it suits God's Adversary, Satan the Devil, the 'god of this world.' It is he who promotes such false doctrines to 'blind the minds of unbelievers.' (2 Corinthians 4:4) And the Trinity doctrine also serves the interests of clergymen who want to maintain their hold on people, for they make it appear as though only theologians can understand it.—See John 8:44.

Accurate knowledge of God brings great relief. It frees us from teachings that are in conflict with God's Word and from organizations that have apostatized. As Jesus said: "You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."—John 8:32.

By honoring God as supreme and worshiping him on his terms, we can avoid the judgment that he will soon bring on apostate Christendom. Instead, we can look forward to God's favor when this system ends: "The world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever."—1 John 2:17.

Obviously not. This was the conclusion to an article I found posted on the Watchtower's website (the Jehovah's Witness official website), answering the question, Should You believe in the Trinity? You can find the full length article here.

http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/article_09.htm

The article is rather lengthy and to deal with each issue I found within it would take far too much space. So I will attempt to condense my thoughts in interacting with their concluding statements.

The author starts out bold and in the first few lines I can only agree, there can be no compromise with God's truths. However, this is where he/she and I will invariably begin to part ways. He cites that the prophets, Jesus, the apostles, and the early Christians all taught against the Trinity. He argues this in his article. However, his treatment of the Jesus' own words alone lead me to believe the author has not properly investigated the gospels well. The article affirms that Jesus never claims to be God. The author dismisses many of the utterances of Christ as the Son of God to be merely titles for His work when these claims many times offended the 1st century Jewish context He was apart of (cf. John 5.19, 25; 8.58) The rejection of the Deity of Christ is where most of their rejection of the Trinity comes from. In this article, most of their denial of Christ comes in light of his service and humility in fulfilling the work of the Father. They interpret this as God the Father being a Superior being and Jesus his subsidiary. This is not a new development, the JW only follow in the footsteps of Arius in their denial of the deity and eternality of Christ. Due to poor exegesis, most famously of John 1.1, their rejection of that orthodoxy, without even dealing with their view of the Spirit or the words of Paul, is enough to deem their movement as unorthodox.

Another aspect of their argument hinges on the idea that "Trinity" is never found in the actual text but was a term which described the doctrine later. But to presuppose that this denies the doctrine is again a poor investigation of the Apostles teaching, especially Paul. While Ryan argued on a previous post that Paul was at least binitarian in his greetings and salutations, we both fully affirm that he was Trinitarian through out the whole of his letters. Especially with respect to his work in Galatians dealing with the fruit of the Spirit and in the Spirit's role in the giving of gifts in 1 Corinthians 12. Furthermore, to suggest that because some of the early Christians denied the pre-incarnate Christ and did not hold to a Trinitarian perspective only proves their agenda rather than being objective enough to see all those who fought steadfastly for its establishment as orthodoxy (Irenaus, Tertullion, Athanasius, The Cappadocean Fathers, etc.). Of course their were some who denied the Trinity, and not surprisingly, it was usually due to poor Christology.

Lastly, one of the most frustrating arguments here is their nonacceptance of the mystery of God. They ask, is God a God of confusion? No, therefore the Trinity does not exist for its tenets are too confusing for the Christian. I think this is only an excuse to be negligible and lazy with the text. If something is too difficult, it must not be true, for God ought to only reveal Himself to be simple. In many cases He does, but to expect a God so vast, transcendent, holy, pure, perfect, the list could go on, to only remain easy to understand for the simple mind is philosophically foolish. When contemplating the mysteries of God I enjoy the words of N.T. Wright in his book Simply Christian,

"people often grumble as soon as a discussion about the meaning of human life, or the possibility of God, moves away from quite simple ideas and becomes more complicated. Any world in which there are such things as music, sex, laughter and tears, mountains and mathematics, eagles and earthworms, statues and symphonies and snowflakes and sunsets - and in which we humans find ourselves in the middle of it all - is bound to be a world in which the quest for truth, for reality, for what we can be sure of, is infinitely more complicated than simple yes-and-no questions will allow. there is appropriate complexity along with appropriate simplicity. The more we learn, the more we discover that we humans are fantastically complicated creatures. Yet, on the other hand, human life is full of moments when we know that things are also very, very simple."

I accept the mystery the Godhead presents in the doctrine of the Trinity. Do I have it all figured out? No. But I have enough of an understanding to reject the JW worldview that sees no Trinity in the text. It may not be an open and closed case in understanding all the complexities surrounding it, but it certainly does not warrant a poor investigation of the theology that the text directs us to. Read the article first, then interact with my response. As always, I probably left some things unsaid or in need of further explanation. I always enjoy good dialogue and further discussion.

-j