How 1 Peter 3:15 Teaches The Deity of Christ

It is a verse that all of us who are involved in apologetics have grown to love and cherish. 1 Peter 3:15 is the New Testament’s mandate for being always ready to offer a rational defense for the Christian worldview. It is unfortunate, however, that we have come to be so familiar with this verse that we miss its full significance, for the text teaches far more than the need to provide a defense of the faith. This is best seen when read in the context of verse 14 which precedes it. Here’s the text of 1 Peter 3:14-16. Take particular note of the underlined text.

“But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled, but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect, having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.”

Verse 14 in fact contains a quotation (the underlined text) from Isaiah 8:12, in which we read, “Do not call conspiracy all that this people call conspiracy, and do not fear what they fear, nor be in dread.” Verse 15 of 1 Peter 3 continues the quotation into verse 13 of Isaiah 8, but with a subtle change. Isaiah 8:13 reads, “But the Lord of hosts, him you shall honor as holy.” Compare this to the start of 1 Peter 3:15: “…but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy.” Peter has replaced “the Lord of hosts” from Isaiah 8:13 with “Christ the Lord”, asserting that it is He whom we are to regard as Holy. In so doing, the Apostle Peter has here effectively identified Jesus as being of the same essence as Yahweh, another Biblical proof of the deity of Christ.

The Truth about the Council of Nicaea

Why Did Jesus Say, "The Father Is Greater Than I" (John 14:28)?

What Really Happened at Nicea?

For many years, the council of Nicea has been the subject of much confusion among laypeople. The misapprehensions which have come to be associated with the council of Nicea have, in part, been fuelled by popular fictional novels such as Dan Brown's notorious The Da vinci Code. No matter what group you are dealing with in your apologetic exploits (including atheists, Muslims, Jehovah's witnesses and unitarians), you are almost guaranteed to encounter some of these misconcepts. For this reason, it is important for Christians to study and learn church history, so that they might correct common myths and falsehoods.

The council of Nicea was famously convened on May 20, 325 AD, at the request of Emperor Constantine (pictured above). What did the council of bishops meet to discuss? Contrary to common misconception (popularised particularly in Muslim circles) that has been widely circulated via the internet, the council of Nicea did not meet to discuss the canon of Scripture -- that is, the decision about which books should make up the New Testament. In fact, there is not a shred of evidence that the canon of Scripture was even brought up at Nicea. Another misconception is that the council of Nicea, at the encouraging of Constantine, "invented" the deity of Christ or, at the very least, that the bishops in attendance at Nicea were significantly divided on the issue, the matter being decided with a vote. This too, however, is completely inaccurate. In 325 AD, when the bishops convened at Nicea, the deity of Christ had been affirmed almost unanimously by the Christian movement for close to three hundred years!

Response to the New Atheist Rosa Rubicondior - Christians! Be Sensible Now And Tell Me This.

 I recently found myself reading the blog of a UK based  New Atheist who blogs and Tweets alot about problems they have have with Christianity here. Most of the content is actually pretty good and the author seems pretty well read in the atheistic literature from what I can see. I subsequently stumbled upon a post that posed several questions for Christians to respond to. So being Christians, a few of us got together and offer a few brief points in response to Rosa Rubicondior. They are not exhaustive responses, and some of the questions touch upon very similar points so it wasn't necessary to go over them again. Anyway, below are our thoughts on the questions posed to Christians, hopefully the response will be helpful for both Christians and Atheists.

 Hopefully these questions are genuine and if this is the case I hope that these short responses help to correct any misunderstandings, and help people to better understand what Christians actually believe. There is often a tendency for many New Atheists to come up with questions about theism or Christianity specifically that are meant to rock the theistic boat. However the answers are usually a little thought or book away. I think its important as a Christian to better understand the New Atheism and see where their coming from so I take the time to read their books. Perhaps if I can humbly suggest that the New Atheists occasionally pick up a book on the basics of Christian Theology (I know after reading Dawkins you think its a non-subject). Stranger things have happened. Most of us are products of the books we read, most atheists read books that support their case or assumptions and the minority of Christians who do pick up a book generally do the same. Its good to mix it up a little.

Do Islamic Arguments Against the Deity of Jesus Hold Water? James White Responds To Joshua Evans

Part 1:



Part 2:



Part 3:

Does the Qur'an Misrepresent the Trinity? James White vs. Bassam Zawadi

Part 1:



Part 2:

Did Jesus Deny His Deity When He Said He Didn't Know The Day or Hour of the Second Coming?

Who is the Angel of the Lord?

Throughout the Old Testament, we routinely encounter the mysterious character who goes by the title "The angel of the Lord." By looking at the numerous appearances of this individual, we can piece together clues as to His identity. The first time the angel of the Lord is introduced, he makes an appearance to Hagar, the servant of Abraham's wife Sarai. In Genesis 16:7-13, we read,

⁷ The angel of the LORD found Hagar near a spring in the desert; it was the spring that is beside the road to Shur. ⁸ And he said, “Hagar, slave of Sarai, where have you come from, and where are you going?”

“I’m running away from my mistress Sarai,” she answered.

⁹ Then the angel of the LORD told her, “Go back to your mistress and submit to her.” ¹⁰ The angel added, “I will increase your descendants so much that they will be too numerous to count.”

¹¹ The angel of the LORD also said to her:

“You are now pregnant
and you will give birth to a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.
¹² He will be a wild donkey of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone’s hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers.

¹³ She gave this name to the LORD who spoke to her: “You are the God who sees me,” for she said, “I have now seen the One who sees me.” ¹⁴ That is why the well was called Beer Lahai Roi; it is still there, between Kadesh and Bered.

What is of particular interest here is that the angel of the Lord speaks as though He is distinct from Yahweh yet also presumes Himself to be the very mouthpiece of God. In fact, he speaks in the first person and says "I will increase your descendants." This is very peculiar. What's more, in verse 13, Hagar identifies the Angel of the Lord as "the God who sees me."

The Meaning of John 10:30 and its Relevance to the Trinity: James White

Did Muhammad Properly Understand the Trinity?

In a recent post, I explained and defended the historical Christian concept of the Trinity. In this blog post, I want to consider the conception of the Trinity held by the writer of the Qur'an -- whom I presume to be Muhammad -- and examine whether this individual properly understood the view he so strongly repudiated.

Firstly, let's briefly recap. What is the historic definition of the Trinity? In a nutshell, the doctrine states that within the one being or essence that is God, there exists three co-equal and co-eternal (yet distinct) divine persons -- namely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- who share that essence fully and completely.

Let's turn our attention to the Qur'an to find out whether its author properly understood this doctrine which is central to the Christian faith. If he did not, then it may be concluded that the Qur'an's author was not (as Muslim's allege) the infallible Allah. Rather, it is demonstrably a work of fallible human authorship.

The doctrine of the Trinity is relatively frequently repudiated in the Qur'an, either directly or indirectly. In what follows, I will list the main instances and examine whether they manifest clues in regard to Muhammad's understanding of what the Christian concept of the Trinity entails.

Surah 2:116 - "They say: 'God hath begotten a son': Glory be to Him, Nay, to Him belongs all that is in the heavens and on earth: everything renders worship to Him.

Surah 6:101 - "To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: How can He have a son when He hath no consort? He created all things, and He hath full knowledge of all things."

Surah 19:35 - "It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be', and it is."

Surah 19:88 - "They say, '(God) Most Gracious Has begotten a son!'"

Surah 37:151-152 - Is it not that they say, from their own invention, 'God has begotten children'? But they are liars!"

Surah 39:4 - Had God wished to take to Himself a son, He would have chosen whom he pleased out of those whom He doth create: but Glory be to Him! (He is above such things.) He is God, the One, the Irresistable.

Surah 16:51 - "God has said: 'Take not (for worship) two gods: For He is just One God: Then fear Me (and Me alone)."

Surah 9:30 - "Then Jews call Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the Son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the Unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!"

Surah 23:91 - "No son did God beget, nor is there any god along with Him: (if there were many gods),

From the examples given above, we can clearly see two things. Firstly, Muhammad misunderstood the relationship of the Son with respect to the Father. The Sonship of Christ is not like earthly human relationships. The Son never came into being. In fact, he is co-eternal with the Father. Moreover, the Son is not the offspring of the Father in the sense that the latter took to Himself a consort and physically impregnated her. No Christian has ever claimed this. Second, it appears that Muhammad misunderstood the Trinity as encompassing multiple gods. Again, however, this is not what the Christians now -- or of Muhammad's day -- believed. Rather, they believe that there is one divine essence and three distinct divine persons.

However, I saved the best bit for last. Consider Surah 5:72-76:

"They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers. They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away! Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. Say: Serve ye in place of Allah (min dooni Allahi) that which possesseth for you neither hurt nor use? Allah it is Who is the Hearer, the Knower." [emphasis added]

There are two interesting things to notice about this passage. Firstly, there is the statement that Christians claim that "Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God." This is especially telling since -- as I stated previously -- Christians believe in one God and only one God! Christians believe that there is one God but that He is complex in His unity: That is, within the one divine essence there exists three co-equal divine persons. This is not the same as claiming that there are three gods.

The second curious thing about this passage is its statement that "The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food." Why would the Qur'an state that Jesus and Mary "both used to eat earthly food"? Could it be that Muhammad believed that the Christians were proclaiming Mary to be part of the Trinity and thus elevating her to the status of deity?

We are given an important clue in this regard when we turn to Surah 5:116, in which we read,

"And behold! God will say: 'O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah?' He will say: 'Glory to Thee! Never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, thou I know not what is in Thine. For thou knowest in full all that is hidden."

From this, we can deduce that Muhammad not only misunderstood what Christians meant by the Trinity, but He believed Mary to be a part of it! By the time the Qur'an was written, the Triune concept of God as understood by the Christians was well known. If the Qur'an really is the inspired word of God, why was it unable to correctly represent this view?

Why I Love Jesus But Reject Islam: Ivey Conerly

Note: If you are unfamiliar with the background to this, please watch:

Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus

Why I Hate Religion But Love Jesus (Muslim Version)

A Christian Response to Kamal Saleh's Islamic Video

The Trinity Defended

The doctrine of the Trinity has come under increasing attack over recent years from a variety of groups. Some of these groups (such as Muslims and Jehovah's witnesses) deny that this doctrine is even found in Scripture. They are often quick to point out that the word "trinity" is to be found nowhere in the Bible. This is correct. While the phraseology is not found in Scripture, however, the concept most certainly is.

In this article, I want to provide a definition of this important doctrine, explaining what exactly the Trinity is, as well as what is isn't. I shall then examine the Scriptures to see whether they provide adequate substantiation of this concept.

So, what exactly do we mean when we talk about the Trinity? Writing in the early third century, in his Against Praxeas, Tertullian is credited with first employing the words "Trinity", "person" and "substance" to convey the idea of the Father, Son and Spirit being "one in essence -- but not one in person". Indeed, Tertullian writes,

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are, one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number."

This concept was established as church orthodoxy at the famous Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. The Nicene Creed speaks of Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father."

It is this definition that I am going to assume in the discussion that follows. Succinctly, then, the doctrine of the Trinity may be defined thusly: Within the one being or essence that is God, there exists three co-equal and co-divine distinct persons -- namely the Father, Son and Holy Spirit -- who share that essence fully and completely. This concept is not to be confused with polytheism, which maintains that there are multiple gods. While orthodox Christianity emphatically holds there to be only one God, we nonetheless understand God to be complex in his unity. The concept is also not to be confused with the ancient heresy of modalism, which maintains that God exists in three different modes. The Son has never been the Father and the Holy Spirit has never been the Son or the Father. Modalism is refuted by the picture given to us in all four gospels (Matthew 3:16-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22; John 1:32-34) in which the Holy Spirit descends on Jesus in the form of a dove and a voice is heard from Heaven "This is my beloved Son. With him I am well pleased." Similarly, it should be noted that the Father, Son and Spirit do not each make up merely a third of the Godhead. Rather, each of the three persons is God in the full and complete sense of the word.

Having shown that Scripture emphatically rejects the notion that the Father, Son and Spirit are synonymous persons, only five propositions remain to be demonstrated in order to provide Biblical substantiation for the concept of the Trinity. Those propositions are:

1. There is only one eternal God.
   
2. The Father is the eternal God.
3. The Son is the eternal God.
4. The Holy Spirit is the eternal God.
5. Although the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are non-synonymous persons, the concept of the Trinity does not violate the law of non-contradiction.

Let's take a look at each of these in turn.