Home » Posts tagged 'Deity of Christ'

Tag Archives: Deity of Christ

The Trinitarian Bible Society and Its Position on Scripture

Four days ago the Trinitarian Bible Society launched this video, called, “Upholding the Word of God.”

I appreciate their stand on scripture.  What they present is what, I believe, many Christians across the world say they believe.  What the above video explains is also why they believe it.

Scriptural Presuppositions

The Trinitarian Bible Society starts with scriptural presuppositions.  Their practice of Bible publication arises from their biblical beliefs about the Bible.  This is how it should be.  It’s also what we do not see with those on the critical text side.  They do not emphasize or most often even teach at all what is the scriptural basis of their position.   Their position does not have a biblical mooring.

Someone who appears and speaks often in the above video is Jonathan Arnold, who is also pastor of the Westminster Baptist Church in London.  My wife and I visited that church twice on trips to England.  I appreciate this younger man’s stand on the Word of God in a time of much attack on the doctrine of scripture.  He is now the General Director of the Trinitarian Bible Society.

Many pastors across the world use the Greek New Testament, textus receptus, printed by the Trinitarian Bible Society.  They also print an entire original language Bible in the received text of the Old (Hebrew) and New (Greek) Testaments.

Separatist Heritage

The Trinitarian Bible Society is by history and, therefore, by definition a separatist organization.  It started from a split from the British and Foreign Bible Society over spreading Unitarianism, hence, Trinitarian, and over scripture, therefore, Bible.  As an indication of how significant people thought that was, two thousand gathered for the first meeting at Exeter Hall in London in 1831.  Could they get that many to gather for that separatist purpose today?

The British and Foreign Bible Society allowed a Unitarian as an officer.  Unitarian at the time became the doctrinal position du jour.  It’s a familiar theological term now, unitarian, but it really does encapsulate almost every major theology error in the history of heresy.  It was essentially Socinianism, which taught works salvation and anti-Trinitarianism.  Unitarians denied not only the deity of Christ but also the miracles of the Bible.  They did away of the authority of scripture.

For a long period of time, we would call Socinianism or Unitarianism theological liberalism.  Most liberal churches in whatever denomination are Socinians or Unitarians.  In many ways, we would say they don’t believe anything.  They are drawn together by their denial of scriptural and historical doctrine, which is to say, they deny the truth.

Overall

I have attended many churches affiliated with the Trinitarian Bible Society (TBS) in England.  Some strong churches exist who would not fellowship with the Trinitarian Bible Society, but very few.  A majority of the strongest churches in England, where the best representation of New Testament Christianity exists, associate themselves with the TBS.  This says much about the outcome or consequences of the received text of the original languages of scripture and the King James Version, which these churches support and propagate.

I differ from most of these Trinitarian Bible Society affiliated institutions in ecclesiology, eschatology, and dispensationalism versus covenant theology.  That saddens me, but it does not take away the joy I have for what they do believe.  I rejoice in that.  I have more in common with these churches than I do most other Baptist churches today.

The churches affiliated with the Trinitarian Bible Society believe an orthodox, true position on the Trinity and about the Lord Jesus Christ.  They preach a true gospel, including repentance and Lordship.  TBS type churches utilize reverent worship.  They are active in their evangelism of the lost.  Their churches are not worldly churches.  Their preaching of scripture is dense and thorough.  They rely on scripture for their success.  I am not saying these doctrines and practices are all that matter, but they do distinguish the Trinitarian Bible Society affiliated churches.

“Q,” the Son of Man, and Christ’s Deity

The alleged document “Q,” according to critical or anti-supernaturalist scholars, underlies the New Testament Gospels. As explained in my study on the New Testament and archaeology, there is no reason to believe that “Q” ever existed.  However, even if one granted, for the sake of argument, that “Q” did exist, it still provides evidence that Christ is Divine, for the Lord Jesus clearly identifies Himself as the Son of Man.In Daniel 7:13-14; the “service” the Son of Man receives is that which pertains only to Jehovah [see the other Biblical references to the Aramaic word plaḥ in: Daniel 3:12, 14, 17–18, 28; 6:16, 20; 7:14, 27; Ezra 7:24; the word means to “pay reverence to, serve (deity),” (Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon [Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977]) and is translated in the LXX as latreuo, the word for the service/worship of God]). Thus, when Christ claims to be the Son of Man, He is claiming a Divine title.According to the skeptical, anti-supernaturalist criteria for evaluating the authenticity of Christ’s sayings about Himself known as the principle of dissimilarity, sayings of Jesus are recognized by skeptical scholars as authentic when they disagree with what early Christianity taught and what the Judaism of the time taught. In other words, the Christians were not making up sayings of Jesus and putting them into His mouth if they themselves did not employ them.  This is a foolish skeptical criterion, for the likelihood that the Christians would teach what Christ had taught them and so there would be tremendous overlap is only natural. However, if one accepts this criterion as true for the sake of argument, the “Son of Man” sayings by the Lord Jesus pass it. Skeptical scholars recognize that Jesus’ “Son of Man” sayings are attested to by multiple sources. As Gary Habermas points out, even though “Son of Man” is Jesus’ favorite self‐designation in the Gospels, none of the New Testament epistles attribute this title to Jesus even a single time. So skeptical scholars, using their own critera, should accept the legitimacy of the Son of Man sayings in the Gospels.The real Jesus of history is a supernatural one who claims He is God in the flesh, the Divine-human Son of Man predicted by Daniel the prophet.  A “Jesus” who was just a good teacher is entirely absent from the pages of history. Thus, my question in my debate with Shabir Ally on the accuracy of the New Testament picture of Jesus (on YouTube here):If, for the sake of argument, I granted that “Q” existed, does not the fact that “Q” still specifies a Jesus who has the attributes of God (Q 10:22 cf. Matthew 11:27; Luke 10:22), gives the Holy Spirit Divine status (Q 12:10; cf. Matthew 12:31; Mark 3:28-29; Luke 12:10), and who is the Divine Son of Man who shares Jehovah’s throne, glory, and worship[1] (Q 6:22-23; 7:34; 9:58; 11:30; 12:8-10; 17:22-23; cf. Matthew 8:20; 9:6; 10:23; 11:19; 12:8, 32, 40; 13:37, 41; 16:13, 27–28; 17:9, 12, 22; 18:11; 19:28; 20:18, 28; 24:27, 30, 37, 39, 44; 25:13, 31; 26:2, 24, 45, 64; Mark 2:10, 28; 8:31, 38; 9:9, 12, 31; 10:33, 45; 13:26, 34; 14:21, 41, 62; Luke 5:24; 6:5; 7:34; 9:22, 26, 44, 56, 58; 11:30; 12:8, 10, 40; 17:22, 24, 26, 30; 18:8, 31; 19:10; 21:27, 36; 22:22, 48, 69; 24:7; John 1:51; 3:13–14; 5:27; 6:27, 53, 62; 8:28; 12:23, 34; 13:31; Acts 7:56; Hebrews 2:6; Revelation 1:13; 14:14) show how impossible it is to reduce the Lord Jesus to the mere prophet or teacher affirmed in Islam and secular humanism, since even in the anti-supernaturalist myth “Q” Christ still is the God-Man?TR

AUTHORS OF THE BLOG

  • Kent Brandenburg
  • Thomas Ross

Archives