Decepto-Meter

Deceptive quote & False Dilemma: Trinitarian

Too many to number here. See below.

Since the majority of Jehovah's Witnesses are former Catholics, they quote profusely from Catholic sources. We take issue with several aspects of Catholicism, but Jw's deliberately misrepresent what Catholics do say. This section is so important and large, we have given it special consideration. It is a large section, but that is because the Jw's quote from 19 different places from three main sources listed below in their booklet, "Should you believe in the Trinity". We have tried to reproduce the bulk of the text from these articles. An honest reading will expose watchtower dishonesty.

These three sources quoted in "Should you believe in the Trinity", Watchtower booklet:

1. The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912
2. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965
3. A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, 1960

What the Watchtower quoted:

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

"The Trinity is the term employed to signify the of the Christian religion . . . Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: 'the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God.' In this Trinity . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, Trinity, p 47, As quoted in "Should you believe in the trinity?", Watchtower booklet)

The Catholic Encyclopedia also comments: "In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. . . . Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, Trinity, p 47, As quoted in "Should you believe in the trinity?", Watchtower booklet)

"A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, Trinity, p 47, As quoted in "Should you believe in the trinity?", Watchtower booklet)

I. THE DOGMA of the Trinity-The Trinity is the term employed to signify the central doctrine of the Christian religion-the truth that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons the Father the Son, and the Holy Spirit, these three Persons being truly distinct one from another. Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." In this Trinity of Persons the Son is begotten of the Father by an eternal generation, and the Holy Spirit proceeds by an eternal procession from the Father and the Son'. Yet, notwithstanding this difference as to origin, the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This the Church teaches is the revelation regarding 'God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system. In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom" ("Ad. Autol.", 11, 15, P. G., VI, 1078). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian. ... It is manifest that a dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation. When the fact of revelation, understood in its full sense as the speech of God to man, is no longer admitted, the rejection of the doctrine follows as a necessary consequence. For this reason it has no place in the Liberal Protestantism of today. The writers of this school contend that the doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the Church, is not contained in the New Testament, but that it was first formulated in the second century and received final approbation in the fourth, as the result of the Arian and Macedonian controversies ... In view of this assertion it is necessary to consider in some detail the evidence afforded by Holy Scripture. (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, p 47-49)

Our comments:

1. The Watchtower sets up a straw man then tears it down. Biblical trinitarians adhere to no creeds, including the Nicene and the Athanasius creeds.
2. The fact that the word trinity is not found before 180 does not mean it was not used earlier. We simply have no record of it in the same way we have none of the original "autograph copies" of the New Testament books. Using Jw logic, most of the New Testament books were written after 100 AD!

What the Watchtower quoted:

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

The Catholic Encyclopedia: "Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, Trinity, p 47-49, As quoted in "Should you believe in the trinity?", Watchtower booklet)

B. Old Testament.-The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made known even to the Patriarchs. ... Some of these, however, admitted that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the Prophets and Saints of the Old Dispensation ... It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the revelation in some of the prophecies. The names Emmanuel (Isa., vii, 14) and God the Mighty (Isa ix, 6) affirmed of the Messias make mention of the Divine Nature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the Gospel revelation was needed to render the full meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself. ... Nor indeed can it be said that the passage even though it manifests some knowledge of a second personality in the Godhead, constitutes a revelation of the Trinity. For nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person. ...The matter seems to be correctly summed up by Epiphanius, when he says: "The One Godhead is above all declared by Moses, and the twofold personality (of Father and Son) is strenuously asserted by the Prophets. The Trinity is made known by the Gospel" (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1912, Vol. 15, p 47-49)

Also see additional quotes immediately below.

1. "Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of a Third Person." (Should you believe in the trinity?)
2. "Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of baptism, the Lord's supper."
3. "Nowhere in the Bible do we find any indication of the Watchtower organization" or that Christians called themselves "Jehovah's Witnesses."
4. "Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication of the second coming. In fact none of the apostles believed in the second coming during Jesus ministry!"
5. Nowhere in the Old Testament do we find any clear indication the Jews understood that the Messiah would raise from the dead after being killed!

What the Watchtower quoted:

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

THE New Catholic Encyclopedia offers three such "proof texts" but also admits: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. In the N[ew] T[estament] the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13 [verse 14 in some Bibles], and 1 Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, "Trinity, in the Bible", p306, As quoted in "Should you believe in the trinity?", Watchtower booklet)

"The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT. In the NT the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13, and I Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19. ...In many places of the OT, however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity. ... The revelation of the truth of the triune life of God was first made in the NT, where the earliest references to it are in the Pauline epistles. The doctrine is most easily seen in St. Paul's recurrent use of the terms God, Lord, and Spirit. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, "Trinity, in the Bible", p306)

Also see additional quotes immediately below.

"The doctrine of the Lord's Supper is not taught in the O[ld] T[estament]. In the N[ew] T[estament] the oldest evidence is near the very end of Jesus 3 year ministry. In the Pauline Epistles, the evidence is found only in 1 Corinthians 10 and 11."

What the Watchtower quoted:

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

"The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. . . . Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300, As quoted in "Should you believe in the trinity?", Watchtower booklet)

"Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. ... From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. ... If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)

Also see additional quotes immediately below.

1. This discussion about the relationship between Catholic Dogma, Elemental Trinitarianism and Primitive revelation, is way over the head of most Jehovah's Witnesses, but the Watchtower deliberately deceives the reader by mashing it all together in one lump.
2. In short, while all Trinitarians admit that trinity, as defined in the 4th century is not in the Bible, all Trinitarians do believe that the Bible clearly teaches there are three persons in the Godhead and the full deity of Christ.
3. We agree with the Watchtower, that "the formulation" of the trinity as defined in Nicea is not in the Bible. The Bible does clearly teach the full deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. We don't defend Nicea or any creed, we defend the Bible!

What the Watchtower quoted:

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

"There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, 'But how does one preach the Trinity?' And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Trinity, p304, As quoted in "Should you believe in the trinity?", Watchtower booklet)

And a Catholic authority says that the Trinity "is not . . . directly and immediately [the] word of God."-New Catholic Encyclopedia. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Trinity, p304, As quoted in "Should you believe in the trinity?", Watchtower booklet)

TRINITARIAN PROBLEM AS POSED TODAY This article may now return to the contemporary scene in an attempt to pinpoint problem and perspective. The Pastoral Question. There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, "But how does one preach the Trinity?" And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors. If "the Trinity" here means Trinitarian theology, the best answer would be that one does not preach it at all ... If "the Trinity" means, however, as more often it will, Trinitarian doctrine, particularly the fundamental dogma "one God in three Persons," what should be said in reply has not always been too clear. The 4th-century articulation of the triadic mystery is at least implicitly the word of God, hence part of the Christian credo. On the other hand, it is not, as already seen, directly and immediately word of God. And today, it is becoming more and more recognized that the direct and immediate word of God, the Biblical message speaking for itself, should be the heart and substance of the communication both in preaching and in catechesis. Up to a point, of course, this has always been the case. Even that famous pastor's manual, the 16th-century Catechism of the Council of Trent referred to in the introduction, had embellished its dogma-based and dogma, orientated presentation of the Trinitarian mystery with a wealth of scriptural quotation. ... take up directly and immediately the Biblical revelation and to postpone any explicitly consideration of the dogma to the very end. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p304)

Also see additional quotes immediately below.

1. Again the Watchtower deliberately deceives the reader by mashing different elements together into one lump.
2. Similar to our comments above, the Trinitarians agree that the "Nicene defined" trinity is not IMMEDIATELY and DIRECTLY in the word of God. But the full deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit are!
3. A careful reading shows that the quote distinguishes between THREE THINGS with corresponding advice: First: Trinitarian theology don't preach it! Second: Trinitarian doctrine, (the fundamental dogma "one God in three Persons) maybe preach it maybe not. Third: the Scriptural witness to the full deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. preach it!
4. Notice the antithesis: The 4th-century articulation of the triadic mystery is not directly and immediately word of God" BUT the Biblical revelation about the trinity is directly and immediately in the word of God.
5. We find the concluding words of this Catholic Authority to be refreshingly "un-Roman Catholic" namely to directive to "take up directly and immediately the Biblical revelation and to postpone any explicitly consideration of the dogma to the very end." This is the whole point of our work to stick with what the Bible says. If the Catholics had been content to do this from the beginning, cults like the Jw's wouldn't come along and promote their false doctrine by refuting false Catholic dogma that is not found in the Bible!

What the Watchtower quoted:

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The O[ld] T[estament] clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person . . . God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly." It also says: "The majority of N[ew] T[estament] texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Spirit of God, Vol 13, p574-576, As quoted in "Should you believe in the trinity?", Watchtower booklet)

This article treats the spirit of God as it is presented in the OT and Judaism, and in the NT. Consideration is given in each of these sections to the spirit of God as a power and as a Person. ... In other OT passages, God's spirit is conceived more as a teacher or guide-the source of all intellectual and spiritual gifts-than as an efficacious force [Ps 142(143).10; Neh 9.20; Dn 5.15]. God's Spirit Not Presented as a Person. The OT clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly (Is 48.16; 63.11; 32.15). Very rarely do the OT writers attribute to God's spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Is 63.10; Wis 1.3-7). ... As a result of the teaching of Christ, the definite personality of the Third Person of the Trinity is clear. However, in most cases, the phrase "spirit of God" reflects the OT notion of "the power of God." ... The Spirit of God as a Person. Although the NT concepts of the spirit of God are largely a continuation of those of the OT, in the NT there is a gradual revelation that the Spirit of God's a Person. In the Synoptic Gospels. The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God. ... The only passage in the Synoptic Gospels that clearly speaks of the person of the Holy Spirit is the Trinitarian formula in Mt 28.19. ... The statement in Acts 15.28, "the Holy Spirit and we have decided," alone seems to imply full personality. ... However, the Trinitarian formulas employed by St. Paul (e.g., 2 Cor 13.13), indicate a real personality. ... So clearly does St. John see in the Spirit a person who takes Christ's place in the Church, that he uses a masculine pronoun (Greek) in reference to the Spirit even though [spirit] is neuter in gender ( 16.8, 13-16). Consequently, it is evident that St. John thought of the Holy Spirit as a Person, who is distinct from the Father and the Son, and who, with the glorified Son and the Father, is present and active in the faithful (14.16; 15.26; 16.7). (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Spirit of God, Vol 13, p574-576)

Also see additional quotes immediately below.

1. If ever their was a typical Watchtower deception, this is it! They prove man has no conscious existence after death by quoting a tiny section of a Greek dictionary that states, "spirit means wind, breath" then they proceed to ignore the rest of what the dictionary says and dishonestly apply this single definition to every passage that says man has a spirit. But in utter hypocrisy they then add another definition found in the same dictionary when they refer to God's spirit, namely: intelligent conscious life and being. (God is a Spirit = God is a breath, doesn't work) Jw's are hot air not God!
2. As you can see, the watchtower commits the same "offence to truth" when they deliberately and deceptively select one tiny thing the Catholic encyclopedia says, but ignores the fact that it clearly does state that the Bible outright teaches the personality of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.
3. Yes the word spirit means breath in some places, but not always. Yes the Holy Spirit is associated with God's power, but is often attributed clear personality.
4. Notice that the article says, "Consideration is given in each of these sections to the spirit of God as a power and as a Person" Jehovah's Witnesses deceptively selected what they wanted and ignored the larger body of data that utterly refutes their false doctrine.
5. They deliberately mislead the reader into thinking that the Catholic authority has no Bible basis for their belief in the deity of Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit.

What the Watchtower quoted:

What they left out to deliberately misrepresent the source and deceive you:

A Catholic Dictionary: "On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the spirit as a divine energy or power." (A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, 1960, p 822-830, As quoted in "Should you believe in the trinity?", Watchtower booklet)

A Catholic Dictionary notes: "The third Person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362 . . . and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381" (A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, 1960, p 822-830, As quoted in "Should you believe in the trinity?", Watchtower booklet)

2. The Spirit of God.-On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the Spirit as a divine energy or power particularly in the heart of man. ... This divine Spirit is clearly distinguished from the Spirit or conscience of man (Rom. viii 16), and the authority of the Spirit is identified with that of God Himself (Mt. xii. 31 ; Acts v. 3, 9 ; I Cor. U 16 ; but of. Exod. xvi 8 ; 1 Thess. iv. 8). But is a personal existence clearly attributed to the Spirit? No doubt, all through the N.T. his action is described as personal. He speaks (Mk. xiii 11 ; Acts viii. 29), bears witness (Rom. viii. 16; 1 Jn. v. 6), searches (I Cor. ii. 10), decides (Acts xv. 28), helps and intercedes (Rom. viii. 26), apportions the gifts of grace (1 Cor. xii. 11). Most of these places furnish no cogent proof of personality. ... In the fourth Gospel, however, this personal existence is stated more fully and plainly ... I will ask the Father and He will give you another advocate, that Her may be with you for ever, the Spirit of truth. I will not leave you orphans, I will come to you " (v. 16-18). "Advocate " is the same name given in 1 Jn- to Christ Himself, our advocate with the Father, and in each case the name is a personal one. ... Trinitarian formulae occur throughout the N.T. books. ... The persons of the Trinity are further mentioned together by St. Paul (2 Cor. 13:13) and by St. Peter (I Ep. i. 1-2). Considering the strict Monotheism of the NT.,-such language implies the divinity, as well as the personality, of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and they are sufficient warrant for refusing to believe that N.T. writers did not know the doctrine, because they did not, like St. John, state it explicitly. ... The true divinity of the third Person was asserted at a Council of Alexandria in 362, by two. synods at Rome under Pope Damasus, and finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381, in a decree accepted by the whole Church. (A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, 1960, p 822-830)

Also see additional quotes immediately below.

1. More of the same deception and selective quoting as noted in the section above.
2. They deliberately mislead the reader into thinking that the Catholic authority has no Bible basis for their belief in the personality of the Holy Spirit. "Most of these places furnish no cogent proof of personality. ... In the fourth Gospel, however, this personal existence is stated more fully and plainly" What the dictionary is saying is that many places indicate personality, but some offer no "cogent proof" (convincing proof) , but the Gospel of John does!
3. They prove man has no conscious existence after death by quoting a tiny section of a Greek dictionary that states, "spirit means wind, breath" then they proceed to ignore the rest of what the dictionary says and dishonestly apply this single definition to every passage that says man has a spirit. But in utter hypocrisy they then add another definition found in the same dictionary when they refer to God's spirit, namely: intelligent conscious life and being. (God is a Spirit = God is a breath, doesn't work) Jw's are hot air not God!
4. As you can see, the watchtower commits the same "offence to truth" when they deliberately and deceptively select one tiny thing the Catholic encyclopedia says, but ignores the fact that it clearly does state that the Bible outright teaches the personality of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament.
5. Yes the word spirit means breath in some places, but not always. Yes the Holy Spirit is associated with God's power, but is often attributed clear personality.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965: Trinity in the Bible:

"The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught in the OT. In the NT the oldest evidence is in the Pauline epistles, especially 2 Cor 13.13, and I Cor 12.4-6. In the Gospels evidence of the Trinity is found explicitly only in the baptismal formula of Mt 28.19. In the Old Testament. The mystery of the Holy Trinity was not revealed to the Chosen People of the OT. On account of the polytheistic religions of Israel's pagan neighbors it was necessary for the teachers of Israel to stress the oneness of God. In many places of the OT, however, expressions are used in which some of the Fathers of the Church saw references or foreshadowings of the Trinity. The personified use of such terms as the *Word of God [Ps 32(33).6] and the *Spirit of God (Is 63.14) is merely by way of poetic license, though it shows that the minds of God's people were being prepared for the concepts that would be involved in the forthcoming revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity. In the New Testament. The revelation of the truth of the triune life of God was first made in the NT, where the earliest references to it are in the Pauline epistles. The doctrine is most easily seen in St. Paul's recurrent use of the terms God, Lord, and Spirit. What makes his use of these terms so significant is that they appear against a strictly monotheistic background." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, "Trinity, in the Bible", p306)

1. "It is difficult, in the second half of the 20th century, to offer a clear, objective, and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal evolution, and theological elaboration of the mystery of the Trinity. Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, presents a somewhat unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say, the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be called the definitive Trinitarian dogma "one God in three Persons" became thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought. Herein lies the difficulty. On the one hand, it was the dogmatic formula "one God in three Persons" that would henceforth for more than 15 centuries structure and guide the Trinitarian essence of the Christian message, both in the profession of faith and in theological dialectic. On the other hand, the formula itself does not reflect the immediate consciousness of the period of origins; it was the product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development. But current preoccupation and current emphasis is far less with the subsequent articulations of Christian dogma than with the primitive sources, chiefly the Biblical. It is this contemporary return to the sources that is ultimately responsible for the unsteady silhouette. Thus in present-day theological literature, relatively little is being written on Trinitarian theology as commonly categorized, although a significant number of studies, in various New Testament categories, are devoted either in whole or in part to what might justly be called the elemental Trinitarianism of the period of Christian origins." (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p295)
2. "Question of Continuity and Elemental Trinitarianism: From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-century invention. In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma. Triadic Consciousness in the Primitive Revelation. The formulation "one God in three Persons" was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective; among the 2d-century Apologists, little more than a focusing of the problem as that of plurality within the unique Godhead. Not before Tertullian and Origen, early in the century following, had an attempt been made to solve the problem once raised by replying to the double question: in what sense is God one, in what sense three? And even then, results had been far from decisive. It is also true that, especially in the first decades of the 20th century, an excessively cautious Roman Catholic apologetics tended to whittle down these dividing lines by demonstrating another way of saying the same thing. "One God in three Persons" was simply a restatement, a legitimately condensed and compact version of the more loosely organized NT teaching. Key texts were cited in support, particularly the well-known mandate put on the lips of Christ in Mt 28.19-"baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." From the vocabulary and grammar of the Greek original, the intention of the hagiographer to communicate singleness of essence in three distinct Persons was easily derived. In the second half of the 20th century, with serious consequences for the ecumenical dialogue, two factors have combined to effect a significant change in attitude. First, NT exegesis is now accepted as having shown that not only the verbal idiom but even the patterns of thought characteristic of the patristic and conciliar development would have been quite foreign to the mind and culture of the NT writers. As Lonergan (De Deo trino 2:7--64) has interpreted the general transcultural phenomenon, but frequently appealing to the as a particular instance, the revealed truth, while remaining the same ultimate truth and mystery, had nevertheless undergone transformation, and this, not merely in verbal or literary expression, but in concept and understanding. Second, as already suggested, a far more candid principle of doctrinal development has been incorporated and is now operative in Roman Catholic historical and systematic theology (see DOCTRINE, DEVELOPMENT OF). Another way of saying the same thing, however, is not the only oversimplified interpretation possible in this matter. If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the stricter sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries' reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-and hence an elemental Trinitarianism-went back to the period of Christian origins. Contemporary studies on the ancient Christian creeds have done much to bring this out. In a famous monograph, Les Premieres confessions de foi chretiennes, 0. Cullmann argued his thesis of Christocentrism as against Trinitarianism in the NT revelation. Seven years later, in a study (Early Christian Creeds 25-29) destined to become equally well-known, J. N. D. Kelly, whose companion volume on the development of Christian doctrines has been used extensively in the preceding historical survey, contested this thesis. What is of interest at the moment, aside from the fact that neither of these theologians is a Roman Catholic, is that a strictly elemental Trinitarianism is not at issue in the controversy, but presupposed by both parties. Cullmann's point is not at all that there is no inclusion of Father and Spirit in the NT, nor even that a deliberately triadic ground plan is lacking in the quasi-creedal forms incorporated by the sacred writers at least into this literature's later compositions. True, he insists that these triadic formulas are liturgical, and not to be counted among confessions of faith in the stricter sense. But the distinction does not affect elemental Trinitarianism. For Cullmann would not dispute A. W. Wainwright's neat rejoinder (The Trinity in the New Testament, 246) to the effect that the same tripartite forms, even if not strictly confessional, nevertheless demonstrate the primitive community's belief in Father, Son, and Spirit. Cullmann's point is rather that both Father and Spirit are introduced in function, so to speak, of the Son. This is what is most ancient and most prevailing. When the Father is revealed, it is as the Father of His Christ. When the Spirit is revealed, it is as the Spirit of Christ. But the center, the NT center of gravity, is first, last, and always Christ. For Cullmann, then, triadic consciousness throughout the period of origins and as reflected in the entire NT literature is and remains, on closer view, Christological. Kelly, on the other hand, does not see the need for this qualification. Strictly triadic formulas and the triadic frame of mind so clearly mark at least later NT compositions, that the exegete and the historian must recognize a quasi-independent Trinitarianism coexisting with the purer and simpler forms of NT Christology. From the way Kelly speaks, one may see suggested that elemental Trinitarianism is actually more than that. At the level of a priori requirement, the continuity and apostolic authenticity of Trinitarian doctrine would rest securely on simple triadic consciousness. It would not matter, so to speak, if a formally Trinitarian problem arose only in the late 2d or early 3d century. Wainwright (3-14, 237-267), however, asks directly after the question of fact, and concludes that three of the sacred writers-Paul and the author of Hebrews, in part; John, fully-were aware of a Trinitarian problem and at least attempted, though without formalized statement, a Trinitarian solution. The exegetical question cannot be explored here, nor the effect of Ingo Hermann's recent revival (Kyrios und Pneuma) of the problem of spirit in Paul. Where the Johannine writings are concerned, however, Wainwright argues shrewdly that the attempt to express specifically and consistently the relationship of Christ and Spirit to the Godhead is not merely the raw material for a Trinitarian problem, but actual consciousness of such a problem together with a solution that merits to be called a Trinitarian doctrine. The insight, if valid, underscores the care that should be taken to avoid a too neat and simplified view of the continuity that exists between historical development and the primitive revelation. Wainwright does not suggest, however, that John had anticipated the later problem of plurality within unity: in what sense is God one, in what sense yet three? This problem, moreover, leading to the formulation of Trinitarian doctrine in the historically stricter sense, would have been posed by, not in, John's account of relationships. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p299-300)
3. TRINITARIAN PROBLEM AS POSED TODAY This article may now return to the contemporary scene in an attempt to pinpoint problem and perspective. The Pastoral Question. There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, "But how does one preach the Trinity?" And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors. If "the Trinity" here means Trinitarian theology, the best answer would be that one does not preach it at all -not, it should be added, because the audience is insufficiently prepared, but because the sermon, and especially the Biblical homily, is the place for the word of God, not its theological elaboration. In this strictly pastoral context, and for the far greater part in catechetical instruction as well, the purpose of theology is to give the preacher's exposition a pedagogical control, but hardly to supply its content. If "the Trinity" means, however, as more often it will, Trinitarian doctrine, particularly the fundamental dogma "one God in three Persons," what should be said in reply has not always been too clear. The 4th-century articulation of the triadic mystery is at least implicitly the word of God, hence part of the Christian credo. On the other hand, it is not, as already seen, directly and immediately word of God. And today, it is becoming more and more recognized that the direct and immediate word of God, the Biblical message speaking for itself, should be the heart and substance of the communication both in preaching and in catechesis. Up to a point, of course, this has always been the case. Even that famous pastor's manual, the 16th-century Catechism of the Council of Trent referred to in the introduction, had embellished its dogma-based and dogma, orientated presentation of the Trinitarian mystery with a wealth of scriptural quotation. ... take up directly and immediately the Biblical revelation and to postpone any explicitly consideration of the dogma to the very end. (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p304)
4. "To End of 2d Century. Among the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome, for instance, writing to the Church of Corinth in the final decade of the 1st century, bears witness to God the Father, to the Son, to the Spirit, and mentions all three together (ch. 58, ch. 46). Some few years later, Ignatius of Antioch portrays in a famous passage (Eph. 9) the Christian's incorporation into the divine temple as becoming one with Christ in the Spirit unto sonship of the Father. Yet, neither Clement nor Ignatius nor any other writer of this most ancient period raises the question that would turn out to be decisive: precisely how are Son and Spirit related to the Godhead? Before the 2d century had run its course, however, this question, and with it the Trinitarian problem, began to take form. It happened quite naturally. With the Apostolic Fathers, Ignatius certainly, the center of gravity in the Christian message had ever been Christ: in this, if 0. Cullmann is correct (The Christology of the New Testament), they did no more than preserve the authentic rhythm of the New Testament. With their successors the great Apologists, however, the proclamation of Christ and the defense of the Christian gospel had first to contend with pagan polytheism. The God of the Christian, like the God of the Israelite, was unequivocally one. Nevertheless, if, as Justin notes (I Apol. 13), Christians worship Christ in the second place and the Spirit in the third place, there is still no inconsistency; for Word and Spirit are not to be separated from the unique Godhead of the Father. But why not? The Apologists at least attempted a reply. For Justin, the Godhead was very clearly a Triad, though it was Theophilus (Ad Autol. 2.15) who first introduced this expression. For Justin, the Word is no less than something numerically other (Dial. 128) in relation to the Father, and also, though more loosely affirmed (e.g., I Apol. 6063), to the Spirit. In the very same passages, however, neither Word nor Spirit, the former more explicitly, are to be separated from the Father, from the being of the Godhead, since both Word and Spirit are God. To explain how this can be, to give at least an incipiently theological account of how the Word can be one with the Father but still other, Justin pictures the preexistent Word as the Father's rational consciousness (I Apol. 46; 2 Apol. 13), as emerging, therefore, from the inferiority of the Godhead while nevertheless remaining inseparable from the Godhead. Tatian employs much the same explanatory machinery (Orat. 5), likewise Theophilus (Ad Autol. 2.10; 2.22). So also does Athenagoras (Legat. 10), who extends the imagery to the third member and speaks of the Spirit here as God's effluence. Irenaeus, writing at the same time, presents a paradox. This great pastor of souls reflects indeed the theological heavy print of his day, but has far less confidence than the Apologists in the mind's ability to explore the Godhead through finite analogies (e.g., Adv. haer. 2.28.6). On the other hand, with a better recognition of the Spirit's role in the economy of salvation, and a rather more emphatic insistence on the co-eternity of the Word with the Father, it may well be, as J. N. D. Kelly suggests (Early Christian Doctrines 107), that Irenaeus's understanding is the most complete, and the most explicitly Trinitarian, before Tertullian. To Eve of Nicaea I. In the last analysis, the 2d century theological achievement was limited. The Trinitarian problem may have been clear: the relation of the Son and (at least nebulously) Spirit to the Godhead. But a Trinitarian solution was still in the future. The Apologists spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one might say too impersonally. The emerging thought figure as employed by them to explain at once the unity and otherness of Father and Son was little more than suggestive. The device, in fact, closed only partially with the problem of otherness. The Word existed before all creatures. But the Word came forth within the Godhead as the Father's agent with a view to creation. Is the Word's distinct existence, then, unequivocally eternal? (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Trinity, p296)

SPIRIT OF GOD SPIRIT OF GOD IN THE OT The expressions "the spirit of Yahweh" [Greek] and "the Spirit of God" [Greek] are common in the OT. "His holy spirit" and "Your holy spirit" (in reference to God) are also found. The absolute use, "the spirit" or "spirit," seldom occurs. In late Judaism it was a practice to avoid use of the divine name by means of circumlocutions. Thus in the Greek versions of the OT there are found such expressions as "divine spirit," "the holy spirit," or simply, "holy spirit." The most common expression in the NT is "the Holy Spirit" [Greek] - "Holy Spirit" [Greek] and simply "the Spirit" [Greek] or "Spirit" [Greek] are also found. God's spirit was originally called "holy" in the same way as His word [Jer 23.9; Ps 104(105).42], His arm [Is 52.10; Ps 97(98).1], and His name (Am 2.7; Ez 36.20) were called holy, because God is by nature holy. "Holy spirit," therefore, means "divine spirit." This article treats the spirit of God as it is presented in the OT and Judaism, and in the NT. Consideration is given in each of these sections to the spirit of God as a power and as a Person. The specific implications of the phrase "Spirit of God" must be deduced from the operations ascribed to it in the OT. God's Spirit as a Power. "Spirit of God" is used in the OT to signify "God's breath" (Jb 33.4). Just as the ancient Israelites spoke anthropomorphically of God's arm, hand, and face, so they also spoke of His breath, i.e., His vital power or spirit, which was as active and as efficacious as God Himself. This use has its foundation in the original meaning of the word ruah- "breath" or "wind." The breath, which was regarded by the ancients as the vital force in man and animals, and the wind, which in Palestine can blow with sudden violence, were looked upon as mysterious, powerful, and terrifying forces. Consequently, it is not surprising that they attributed to the breath or spirit of God the manifestations of extraordinary mysterious powers in man or in nature. A Power Affecting Man's Soul or Mind. Certain individuals manifested occasional extraordinary power (e.g., Jgs 14.6, 19), heroic courage (e.g., Jgs 3.10), or the gift of prophecy (e.g., I Sm 10.6-13). These transitory phenomena were regarded by the Israelites as manifestations of God's spirit. In other cases God's spirit appeared as a permanent force bestowed on individuals because of their office. This was true of the great founders of the nation: Moses (Nm 11.17, 25), Josue (Dt 34.9), David (1 Sm 16.13; 2 Sm 23.2). It was particularly the messianic king upon whom the spirit would rest (Is 11.2; 42.1). Finally, the spirit of God was the organ that, through the Prophets as intermediaries, constantly delivered Yahweh's orders to His people (Za 7.12; Neh 9.30), and for the same purpose it was imparted also to the sages (Wis 7.7). It is noteworthy that the psychic rather than the moral activity of God's spirit was emphasized. However, there are moral overtones, for by these transitory or permanent gifts God made fit His chosen instruments to establish and preserve His covenant. There is a similar substratum in Acts ch. 1-2. A Life-giving and Creative Power. The concept that the breath of life comes from God is very old (Gn 2.7; 6.3). However, it is only in relatively late texts that one finds God's spirit as the cause of man's normal life and activity (Ez 37.1-14; Jb 27.3; 33.4; 35.14-15). God's spirit as a creative force is more commonly found in poetic passages where it is synonymous with "wind" (Ex 15.8, 10; Jdt 16.17). A Morally Effective Force. According to the OT, the chief characteristic of the future new covenant would be a religious and moral transformation of all mankind. So the Prophets, particularly Isaia (61.1-4; 32.15-20), frequently spoke of God's spirit accomplishing this work in the coming new age. Not only the community, but every individual would be morally recreated by the spirit of God (Is 59.21; Ez 36.25-27). The Psalmist [Ps 50(51).121 prayed that this inner re-creation should be accomplished in his own time; however, as in Wis 1.4-5, this renewal was asked for only the just man. In Ezekiel and in the NT a change from a sinner to a just man was envisaged. In other OT passages, God's spirit is conceived more as a teacher or guide-the source of all intellectual and spiritual gifts-than as an efficacious force [Ps 142(143).10; Neh 9.20; Dn 5.15]. God's Spirit Not Presented as a Person. The OT clearly does not envisage God's spirit as a person, neither in the strictly philosophical sense, nor in the Semitic sense. God's spirit is simply God's power. If it is sometimes represented as being distinct from God, it is because the breath of Yahweh acts exteriorly (Is 48.16; 63.11; 32.15). Very rarely do the OT writers attribute to God's spirit emotions or intellectual activity (Is 63.10; Wis 1.3-7). When such expressions are used, they are mere figures of speech that are explained by the fact that the [Greek] was regarded also as the seat of intellectual acts and feelings (Gn 41.8). Neither is there found in the OT or in rabbinical literature the notion that God's spirit is an intermediary being between God and the world. This activity is proper to the angels, although to them is ascribed some of the activity that elsewhere is ascribed to the spirit of God. Spirit of God in Judaism. In Judaism God's spirit was generally called "the holy spirit" (without capital letters because no personification is indicated). It was regarded primarily as the divine power that gave the Prophets insight into the future and knowledge of hidden things (Sir 48.24-25), and inspired the writers of sacred books (4 Esdras 14.22-48). To it were ascribed also extraordinary psychic phenomena, such as ecstasy and prophetic vision (Enoch 71.11, 4 Esdras 5.22). God's spirit was frequently the divine power that was granted to the Pious Patriarchs to strengthen them in the exercise of virtue (Testament of Simeon 4.4); it will be poured out on all Israelites at the messianic renewal (Testament of Juda 24.2; Testament of Levi 18.11 ). It was generally thought that the holy spirit belonged to the past, having been withdrawn from Israel at the close of the ministry of Aggai, Zacharia, and Malachia (see 1 Mc 9.27). The sins of Israel were assigned as the cause of this disappearance of the spirit. It was hoped that the messianic age would bring with it prophecy and the renewal of heart. SPIRIT OF GOD IN THE NT As in the OT, so also in the NT, the spirit of God comes down from on high (Mk 1.10). He "falls" Or is "poured out" upon those who believe in Christ (Acts 10.44-45; 11.15), for He is "sent" or "given" by the Father (1 Jn 3.24; Gal 4.6). He "fills" a man (Lk 1.15) and He "dwells" in him (Rom 8.9). God's Spirit as a Power. As a result of the teaching of Christ, the definite personality of the Third Person of the Trinity is clear. However, in most cases, the phrase "spirit of God" reflects the OT notion of "the power of God." God's Spirit Acting on Man's Soul. In the NT, the holy spirit effects such wonders as the expulsion of devils (Mt 12.28) and a miraculous pregnancy (Mt 1. 18,20; Lk 1.35). He also effects such supernatural phenomena as the *charisms, and the miracle of Pentecost (I Cor 12.4-11; Acts 2.4; 19.6; Lk 1.67). Such manifestations of the spirit, however, are usually transitory. The holy spirit is especially instrumental in the right exercise of certain offices, and in these cases the recipients are permanently endowed with the divine spirit. This is especially true in the case of the Apostles in fulfillment of the promise of Christ (Jn 14.16-17, 26; see also, Acts 1.8: 6.5-11; 1 Cor 12.28). Indeed, by the Apostles, the Holy Spirit governs the Church (Acts 1.8; 13.2; 15.28; 1 Tm 4.14; 2 Tm 1.6). A focal point in Biblical history, given prominence in the summaries of Jesus' work (e.g., Acts 10.36-41), was His baptism. It was then that He was solemnly in-stalled in His office as the "anointed" and "chosen" by the descent of the Holy Spirit (Mt 3.16; Mk 1.10; Lk 3.22; Acts 10.38). (At Christ's baptism, the Holy Spirit was symbolized by a dove.) His work began and remained under the influence of the Holy Spirit (Jn 1.33; Mt 4.1; Mk 1.12; Lk 4.1, 18). All this was in fulfillment of the words of the Prophets and the expectations of His contemporaries (Is 11.2; 42.1; 61.1). God's Spirit as a Sanctifying Power. John the Baptist is presented in the NT as the link between the Old and New Testaments. He prepared a faithful remnant of Israel for the messianic baptism (Mt 3.1 l)-a baptism by the Holy Spirit and fire (baptism by fire meaning a great messianic purification). The messianic baptism brought about the moral and religious recreation of the people of the new covenant that was promised by the Prophets (Ez 36.35-27; Jer 31.31-34). The actual out-pouring of this Holy Spirit at the first Christian Pentecost was a sign for the Apostles that the final days had come (Jl 2.28; Is 44.3; Acts 2.17) and that Jesus, who had bestowed on them power from heaven, was revealing His royal power at the right hand of the Father (Acts 1.8; 2.33). It is especially in the theology of St. Paul and St. John that the possession of the spirit is a sign that the old relationship to God had been abolished and that an entirely new world had been born. The Holy Spirit had not been given previous to Pentecost, for Jesus was not yet glorified (Jn 7.39). But, from the day of Pentecost onward, the Spirit has been active (I Cor 2.12-16), primarily as the one who brings eternal life (I Cor 6.11; Jn 3.5-8). The Spirit is said to be the [Greek] the "pledge," that guarantees our full inheritance, eternal glory (Eph 1.13; 2 Cor 1.21-22). The new covenant is characterized by this Spirit, not by the letter of the law (2 Cor 3.6). A Christian has the Spirit of Christ (Rom 8.9) and the love of God that is poured forth in his heart by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5.5); God dwells in him (Rom 8.9, 11), and he is led by the Spirit (Rom 8.14). There is such an intimate connection between Christ and the Holy Spirit in the act of sanctification that they can be spoken of interchangeably (cf. I Cor 1.2 and Rom 15.16). There is conferred on man a new life by Baptism (Rom 6.3-11). Man, however, who is flesh and blood, cannot be elevated to this life, unless he is born again from on high of a divine principle, namely, the Spirit (Jn 3.3, 5; Ti 3.5). The Holy Spirit also comes upon the baptized by the laying on of hands (Acts 8.17; 19.6) in order to confer special charismatic gifts (cf. I Tm 4.14). The Spirit of God as a Person. Although the NT concepts of the spirit of God are largely a continuation of those of the OT, in the NT there is a gradual revelation that the Spirit of God's a Person. In the Synoptic Gospels. The majority of NT texts reveal God's spirit as something, not someone; this is especially seen in the parallelism between the spirit and the power of God. When a quasi-personal activity is ascribed to God's spirit, e.g., speaking, hindering, desiring, dwelling (Acts 8.29; 16.7; Rom 8.9), one is not justified in concluding immediately that in these passages God's spirit is regarded as a Person; the same expressions are used also in regard to rhetorically personified things or abstract ideas (see Rom 8.6; 7,17). Thus, the context of the phrase "blasphemy against the spirit" (Mt 12.31; cf. Mt 12.28; Lk 11.20), shows that reference is being made to the power of God. The only passage in the Synoptic Gospels that clearly speaks of the person of the Holy Spirit is the Trinitarian formula in Mt 28.19. In the Acts of the Apostles. In Acts, the use of the words "Holy Spirit," with or without an article, is rich and abundant. However, again, it is difficult to demonstrate a personality from the texts. The Spirit continues the work of Jesus and is the link between the earthly and heavenly Jesus. The same Spirit that descended upon Jesus at His baptism is given to the Apostles "in parted tongues as of fire" (Acts 2.1-4) and is transmitted beyond these original witnesses to all members of the Church by means of chosen leaders such as Paul, Barnabas, Stephen, and Philip. Reception of this power by the faithful is the principal testimony to the truth of the apostolic preaching. The Spirit is manifested by "tongues," prophecy, and other unusual phenomena. Emphasis is placed on the role of the Spirit in the spread of the Church (Acts 1.8). The statement in Acts 15.28, "the Holy Spirit and we have decided," alone seems to imply full personality. In the Pauline Epistles. St. Paul uses the word [spirit]= 146 times. Sometimes it means man's natural spirit, but more often it signifies the divine sanctifying power (2 Cor 3.17-18; Gal 4.6; Phil 1.19). However, the Trinitarian formulas employed by St. Paul (e.g., 2 Cor 13.13), indicate a real personality. In the theology of St. John. St. John's theology of the Holy Spirit is very rich in meaning. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of truth (Jn 14.17; 15.26; 16.13; cf. I Jn 4.6; 5.6), and "another helper," the "Paraclete" (Jn 14.16). The Spirit is "another" helper because, after Christ's Ascension, He takes Christ's place in assisting the disciples, in teaching them all that Jesus Himself had not yet told them, in revealing the future to them, in recalling to their minds that which Jesus had taught them, in giving testimony concerning Jesus, and in glorifying Him (14.26; 16.12-16; 15.26; 1 Jn 2.27; 5.6). So clearly does St. John see in the Spirit a person who takes Christ's place in the Church, that he uses a masculine pronoun (Greek) in reference to the Spirit even though [spirit] is neuter in gender ( 16.8, 13-16). Consequently, it is evident that St. John thought of the Holy Spirit as a Person, who is distinct from the Father and the Son, and who, with the glorified Son and the Father, is present and active in the faithful (14.16; 15.26; 16.7). (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1965, Spirit of God, Vol 13, p574-576)