Category: Trinity

In the previous part we observed the Scriptural answer to Mr. Burch’s first “difficult question” regarding Jesus dying on the Cross and being God at the same time. If we do not let human rationalism cloud our thinking, we realize that this “paradox” of the One Who is divine becoming incarnate and dying is not only acceptable but rather definitional to the orthodox Christian faith. On the heels of this first question comes Mr. Burch’s second “difficult question” concerning the resurrection of a divine Christ.

Thus far we have seen a systematic Biblical case for the Trinity and against Mr. Burch’s attempts to resurrect the corpse of Arianism. However, Mr. Burch provides a list of questions that he posits are a challenge to the deity of Jesus Christ as co-personal with God the Father.[1] He emphasizes this list by repeating it later in the section.[2] In this part we will begin to examine these questions and demonstrate that they pose no challenge to the doctrine of the Trinity, primarily because they demonstrate that Mr. Burch does not quite understand exactly what he is denying.

In this part we will shift gears from the usual focus on defending the deity of Jesus Christ. We will look at the Person of the Holy Spirit. According to the Trinity, the One Being of God exists in Three co-equal, co-eternal persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Most of the debate over trinitarianism and unitarianism centers on the Person of the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Indeed, most of the heat of trinitarianism is in its insistence that the very God Who created the universe took upon Himself flesh and lived as the God-Man historically known as Jesus of Nazareth. Much ink has been spilled arguing over whether a transcendent God can condescend so as to

In this part, we will look at an important yet simple Greek rule of thumb that provides more inscrutable evidence that the Apostles believed that the Person of Jesus Christ was just as divine as the Father Whom He served. The rule of which I speak is called Granville Sharp’s rule. Unitarian henotheists (such as Mr. Burch) will do all in their power to refute Granville Sharp’s rule because, if it is allowed to stand, the case for the deity of Christ is shut closed, locked, and the key thrown into the depths of the sea.

In this part, we will look at the challenges of Christ being subservient to the Father. Scripture clearly tells us that Christ was (and even still is) under the Father. He is subject to the Father. The Father has authority over Him. In fact, we are told that the Father is His God in several passages. These passages abound in the Bible, and those who deny the Trinity are drawn to them like a magnet. Mr. Burch is no exception. We will examine these Scriptures and understand how they fit into the trinitarian perspective.

In the last part, we saw how Jesus Christ as the Son of God created all things with the Father, and they both took different roles in creation. We saw that Yahweh said that He is the sole creator, forcing us to accept that the Father and the Son must be the same being of God. We saw that the writer to the Hebrews quoted words directed to Yahweh as the Creator in the Psalms and said that the Father spoke them to the Son. We also saw that “this day” that the Son was “begotten” was fulfilled when Christ was resurrected to assume His inheritance as being the One to reign over the nations from His throne in heaven.

Next, we will see the roles of the Father and the Son in creation. We will examine the challenges of Les Burch regarding Jesus Christ as a separate being who is essentially “less” than the Father, and see if the Scriptures actually teach this Arian position. Is Jesus Christ the “created creator” of all (other) things?

In this post, we will examine Mr. Burch’s assertion that Jesus can be “the image of the invisible God” while being a finite, created being of Yahweh. Mr. Burch uses a lot of flowery language to get the reader to appreciate his henotheistic view of a God and His created Son. We will see, rather, how beautiful it is to know that God of very God did, in fact, invade His own Creation and satisfy His own demands for justice by which He pours out His mercy. We will see that the Image of the Invisible God cannot be a creature of the One True God.