TRI-UNITY OF GOD

TRI-UNITY OF GOD

INTRODUCTION

For centuries, the doctrine of tri-unity of God has been a stumbling block to many non-Christians around the world. Really, criticism of tri-unity of God is a debatable doctrine among Christians and non-Christians. Even too many Christians lack a solid understanding of the triune God. Some are holding their own opinions dogmatically on what they believe. So therefore it is much important for everyone to get the clarity of the doctrine from the biblical perspective. A careful research or study favors a person to comprehend the doctrine because the scriptures support it.


Definition of the Term Tri-Unity

“The tri-unity of God means that the divine essence subsists wholly and indivisibly, simultaneously and eternally, in Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God in three persons in one essence”.[1] It means that Father is God, Son is God and Holy Spirit is God. But Father is not the Son or Holy Spirit. Son is not the Holy Spirit or the Father. Holy Spirit is not the Father or Son. So therefore “Tri-unity means three in one. God is trinal, not triple. He is three in one, not three and one”.[2] The doctrine states that God is the Triune God, existing as three distinct persons in one essence, equal in power and glory.[3]

The Athanasian creed implies the Trinitarian belief that “we worship one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in unity; we distinguish among the persons, but we do not divide the substance.”[4]


Importance of this Study

Although the term “Trinity” or “Tri-unity” does not appear in the Bible or nor is the doctrine explicitly taught in the Word of God, foundations of the concept of the Tri-unity of God can be seen in the New Testament. The word trinity derived from Latin word Trinitas which means threeness.[5] In the Bible, the Trinitarian idea can be seen, because it is exclusively a truth of revelation.[6] This is clarified in the New Testament and intimations of it may be found in the Old Testament[7] (Isa 61:6; 63:9, 10). It is taught implicitly in various statements in the Bible. While affirming monotheism,[8] it explains the divinity of Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit. So God’s Word is clear to understand the doctrine of Tri-unity of God.


Purpose of this Study

Many believe that trinity or tri-unity means only one God but not three persons. Contrary to the scriptures, the doctrine of Tri-unity has been misrepresented and misunderstood by oneness writers such as David K. Bernard.[9] Oneness theologians explain the oneness view of God as opposed to the Trinitarian view point in the following way:


…oneness adherents hold that the one and only true God – who manifests himself in any way he chooses, including as Father, Son and Holy Spirit – became man. Oneness believers view “Father” “Son” and “Holy Spirit” as titles reflecting different manifestations of the one true God in universe. Oneness Pentecostals are regarded by orthodox Christians as subscribing to
the heresy of modalism, teaching that God displayed himself in the Old Testament as Father, in the Gospels as the Son, and after the Ascension as
the Holy Spirit, which is not the orthodox doctrine of three distinct and
eternal persons in one divine essence. Rather, oneness teaches that there is only one being, revealing himself in different ways.[10]Christian monotheism is not tritheism,[11] and tripersonality of the Christian monotheistic God’s nature is immanent and eternal.[12] The tri-personality of God is exclusively a truth of revelation.


HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE DOCTRINE OF TRI-UNITY OF GOD

The doctrine of the Tri-unity of God took centuries to develop, but one can understand the roots of this doctrine are from the first century. Many denied the deity of Christ and the deity of Holy Spirit in those days so this caused the New Testament Church to formally crystallize the doctrine of Tri-unity. However, the clearest early expression of this concept came with Tertullian in 215 A.D., who used the term Trinity.[13] Nevertheless, by 325 A.D., the Council of Nicea in response to the controversial teachings of Arius, established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy.[14] Moreover the council described Christ as “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousious) with the Father.”[15]

Until present day many attempts to illustrate the Trinity fall into the error. Many explanations has been brought and wrankled against the doctrine of Tri-unity in contrast to God’s Word. Now thus became a focus of serious controversy. Since Trinitarianism is central to so much of church doctrine, non-Trinitarians were mostly groups that existed before the Nicene creed was codified in 325 A.D. Such groups developed when many church had question about the doctrine of Tri-unity. The non-Trinitarians had liberty to preach more easily their false beliefs, so the Christianity saw the establishment of several non-Trinitarian groups.[16]


Anti-Trinitarian Concepts

It should be realized that many disbelieve Tri-unity of God because of their confusion in “the separate persons of God”. This happened because of the misunderstanding of the definition and doctrine of Tri-unity in the light of scripture. The doctrine of the Tri-unity states that there is one God as three distinct persons in one essence.[17] The theological usage of the term essence refers to “the intrinsic or indispensable, permanent and inseparable qualities that characterize or identify the being of God.”[18] But anti-Trinitarians failed to comprehend this so their misconceptions and misconclusions about tri-unity of God led the church to doctrinal battles. It is fact that it has been subjected to numerous explanations.

Arianism[19] preserved a strict monotheism but denied trinity by arguing that God created son. “Christ the highest mediator, neither is consubstantial nor coeternal with the father…. Holy Spirit was viewed as a quality or an attribute of God”.[20] The important controversial teaching of this group is to show the relationship between God the Father and the person of Jesus. This conflicts with other Christological positions held by church theologians.[21]

Monarchianism viewed God as indivisible without any personal distinctions and claimed that the three persons are only the names for the numerous manifestations of the one God, assumed two forms.[22]

Jehoah witness, a group rejects the doctrine of the Trinity. Its false teachings are similar to that of Arius in the fourth century. “Christ is the Son of God a special being, created by God before the beginning of time, but not equal with God.”[23]

Socinians failed to distinguish between “essence” and “person”. They argued that if there are three persons in Godhead, there also must be three essences. They viewed Jesus as a man supernaturally conceived and adopted by God to serve as a moral teacher and Holy Spirit, only a power or influence from God.[24]

Sebellius never believed that Son and Holy Spirit are distinct persons.[25]

Mormanism[26] believe that “the Godhead is made up of three distinct beings who are one in purpose but not in being. Jesus is affirmed as Son of God, but not God himself. He is a created spirit”.[27] Moreover, they emphasized that the three individual members of Godhead being a distinct being of physical form (God the Father, Jesus Christ) or spiritual form (the Holy Ghost).[28] Modalism try to provide that God is expressing himself in three different ways which results denial of the Trinity.[29]

Patripassianaism held that “Father descended into the virgin, was born of her and himself suffered on the cross”.[30] Multiplicity within divine unity is really denied by many groups.


Trinitarian Concepts

Many attempts to prove the tri-unity of God through the illustrations by presenting Godhead like water or comparing Godhead to three human beings. Ruckman states an illustration to manipulate the doctrine. “… Illustration of ‘a business firm, Smith and Company, composed of three brothers, Bill Smith, Henry Smith and John Smith… they three work together without friction as a single unit (as does the Lord), and all three have the same power.”[31] This is really very contrary to the biblical doctrine of tri-unity because the three human beings can never be compared to the triune God. One should understand that creator-creature distinction. God is immutable, but man is not. In Trinity three persons work together without any discrepancies. But man cannot be like that.

Even the Trinitarians who believe God in three persons, exemplifies such inadequate illustrations to manipulate the doctrine. So it is necessary to look at what the Bible talks about one God in three persons who is eternal.


The One God

Bible specifically seems to say that there is only one true God. But it is also saying with equal clarity that Jesus is God who is eternal and Holy Spirit is God who is eternal. Hence, there is one God but three distinct persons. Three are inseparable, equal, indispensable and intrinistic but one in Godhead. No one member of the Tri-unity, in His essential being, is subordinate to another member. In Scripture, the three persons are shown to act in harmonious unity in all the mighty works that are wrought throughout the universe[32] (Gen 1:1 cf with Col 1:16).

The doctrine of Tri-unity is unique to Christianity because of the oneness and Unity of God in three persons. The term oneness defines that Unity of God. The Old Testament uses the term in reference to one people or one nation. Oneness stress unity. So, Lewis Demarist affirms that “When the Jewish writers of the Old Testament taught that God is “one, they stressed God’s unity while recognizing diversity within that oneness”.[33] So therefore God is “one in essence three in personhood”.[34]

The teaching regarding the oneness of God is not restricted to the Old Testament (Deut 6:4-5). James 2:19 commands belief in one God. Paul also underscores the uniqueness of one God (I Cori 8:4, 6). The strong declaration of monotheism can be found in the Bible (Deut 6:4; 4:35; 32:39; Isa 45:14 and 46:9). The New Testament also emphatically states that there is only one true God (I Cori 8:4-6; Eph 4:3-6 and James 2:19).

Though Bible clearly teaches that there is only one God, it does not conflict in any way with Trinitarian beliefs.[35] So, God is one and the Godhead a single being. It has been stated that three persons exist in God as one unity. Traditionally Christian theology talks about God in three persons but one in essence.


God in Three Persons

God is one who is also three distinct persons in Godhead. It demonstrates that the Father is God, the Son is God, Holy Spirit is God. Many theologians have struggled to use the term “person”, because in its ordinary usage it means “an identity completely distinct from other persons”.[36] Some used the terms “subsistence” or substances. “The word substance speaks of God’s essential nature or being and subsistence describes His mode or quality of existence.”[37]

The term essence refers to “the intrinsic or indispensable, permanent and inseparable qualities that characterize or identify the being of God”.[38]

The terms Trinity and Tri-unity are used to state that there is only one true God about whom Bible speaks but attributes the characteristic of God to three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.[39]

The three persons of Godhead are linked together in unity and apparent equality in several places of scripture[40] (Mtt 28:19, 20; 2 Cori 13:14). There are three manifestations of one God but they are the manifestations of a single indivisible power. There is a distinction but no division or separation. They cannot be divided. God in three persons is said to be co-equal and co-eternal, one in essence, nature, power, action and will. All three are eternal with no beginning. It means that Father is uncreated, Son is uncreated, Holy Spirit is uncreated. Three members of Tri-unity of God are distinct persons. Matt slick gives some of the verses that support the difference of roles among the three persons of the Trinity. They are helpful to see differences in functions and roles.

Father sent the Son (Jn 6:44; 8:18). The Son came down from heaven not to do his own will (Jn 6:38). The Father gave the Son (Jn 3:16), who is the only begotten (Jn 3:16), to perform the redemptive work (2 Cori 5:21; I Pet 2:24). The Father and Son send the Holy Spirit. The Father who chose us before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), predestined us (Eph 1:5; Ro 8:29), and gave the elect to the Son (John 6:39).[41]

There are differences in functions and roles, but there is no separation or divisions. If there are no distinctions there is no trinity.[42] So therefore God is one in His essential being but in this one being there are three persons who are known as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.


Eternal God

God is immutable and eternal. This means he is changeless from all eternity in his will and being. Since God is triune God (Father, Son and Holy Spirit). He cannot be changed from tri-unity in all the eternity. Father is always Father, Son is always Son and Holy Spirit is always Holy Spirit. It means that Father is not transforming as a Son or Holy Spirit. Son is not transforming as a Father or Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit is not transforming as the Father or Son. The three distinct of persons Tri-unity are not interchangeable but unchangeable in their nature and attributes though they have different roles and functions. So therefore God is God in all the eternity in one essence. “The essence exists only as in the persons of the Trinity; it exists only as trinalized. The one essence is simultaneously three persons and is eternally so.”[43] God has no beginning and no end, he is alpha and omega. He is the only one God who is existing eternally, indivisibly and wholly in one essence as three persons (Ps 90:1-2; 102:11, 12; Heb 1:12 cf. Job 36:26; Rev 1:8; 4:8). God sees all the time equally hence His existence cannot be measured by time. “The past, present and future of God’s existence is possessed by Him in one indivisible present. He transcends all temporal limitations and is without beginning or end because He is eternal God.”[44]


CLAIMS OF OLD TESTAMENT PREFIGURATIONS

Many doubts that whether the Old Testament passages prefigured the doctrine of tri-unity or not. However, there are some suggestions of three persons of Godhead in certain texts to prove trinitarianism, though the Old Testament prefigurations or intimations of three divine persons may not have sufficient basis for the doctrine of Trinity. Furthermore, the writer do believe that Old Testament prefigurations of the triune God in the Old Testament are the confirmation of doctrine of triune God who is explicitly, clearly, accurately, substantially stated or proved in the New Testament. Nonetheless the writer does not agree with most of the theologians who use, Isa 6:3 “Holy, Holy, Holy” to affirm the doctrine of tri-unity because it is expressed as Epizeuxis[45] not with the context of Tri-unity of God.


Confirmation of Trinity

The Old Testament Theophanies were seen as Christophanies which is known as a pre-incarnate appearance of the Messiah (Gen 12:7 and 18:1; Gen 26:2 and 26:24; Ex 3:16 and 4:5; Ex 6:3; Deut 31:15; I Sam 3:21; 2 Chro 7:12). God appeared in the form of a man, and spoke like God and is referred to God.[46]

Father is God. During Mosaic period, God is called Father. “…is He not your Father, who bought you” (Deut 32:6. NKJV). During pre exilic period, God was called Father “…you are our Father” (Isa 63:16; 64:8. NKJV). “Have we not all one Father?” (Mal 2:10 NKJV), it is used here at the time of post exilic period. Through these intimations one can easily understand Father is God. Christ is God (Isa 40:3 and Mtt 3:3; Isa 6:1 and Jn 12:41; Ps 68:18 and Eph 4:7, 8; Isa 8:13 and I Pet 3:15). Holy Spirit is God. The deity of the Holy Spirit is emphasized in the Old Testament (Job 33:4; Ps 104:30; 139:7). His words are called the words of God (I Sam 10:10; 2 Sam 23:2).

Zechariah 12:8 equates God and the Angel of Yaweh[47] so the references to the Angel of Jehoah prepare the way for Christian doctrine of a distinction in the Godhead (Gen 28:2, 17; 28:22; 19:1; Joshua 5:13-15 with 6:2; Judges 13:8-21). The Old Testament also describes uniquely a human-divine Son. So the scriptures are foreshadowings of Jesus as God the Son. Daniel Chapter Seven describes that “the Son of man” (Daniel 7:13-14). The text informs the background behind Christ’s use of the messianic title “Son of man”.[48] “…one like the Son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven…to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations and languages should serve Him…” (Dan 7:13-14 NKJV). Here the Son of man is identified with the Jesus Christ because the worship can only be ascribed to God. So the Son of man is identified with Jesus (Mtt 26:64-65; Jn 10:33; Rev 1:3).

Psalm 2 is prophetically describing the Messiah (the anointed one). This Psalm manifests that the relationship between father and son, who is Messiah. The coming of Messiah is also foretold in Isa 9:6 as a mighty God.

Holy Spirit is linked with God and given attributes of personality. “But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit” (Isa 63:10 NKJV). All the three persons of Tri-unity of Godhead can be seen here (Isa 63:8-10).

The noun Elohim is a plural noun is Gen 1:1, so many try to refer this to the plurality in the Godhead but it is not numerical plural as MacArthur reflects that Elohim with its plural suffix (im) “presents a singular God who is expressed as a plurality.[49] The fact is that Old Testament dwellers have never ever recognized that God as three distinct persons in one essence.

Although Old Testament saints have never seen God as three distinct persons in Godhead, it is writer’s conclusion that as stated above, the intimations or pre figurations of the triune God in the Old Testament are the confirmation of doctrine of triune God who is explicitly, clearly, accurately, substantially stated or proved in the New Testament (emphasis mine).



THE NEW TESTAMENT TESTIMONIES CONCERNING THE TRI-UNITY OF GOD

The New Testament explicitly states the doctrine of tri-unity and its evidence is overwhelming. The New Testament evidence is quite clear and explicit.

The Father is recognized as God (Jn 6:27; I Pet 1:2). Son is also recognized as God (Jn 20:28; 1:1) a true God (I Jn 5:20), the blessed God (Ro 9:5), the great God (Titus 2:13). Christ did the things which only God can do Mk 2:1-12; the healing of parlaystic proves that Christ had power to forgive sins which was acknowledged as something only God can do. Holy Spirit is also recognized as God (Act 5:3-9; 2 Cori 3:17).


Baptism of Jesus Christ

The three persons of Tri-unity participated here (Mtt 3:13-17). This is the glorious manifestation of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.[50] The Son who was baptized now is anointed by the Holy Spirit and also proclaimed by Father as beloved Son.[51] It does not mean that Jesus is not eternal Son of God.[52] Jesus anointing with the Holy Spirit was that He was anointed by Spirit for His kingly service as Isaiah predicted in 61:1 “The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me” cf with Act 10:38, because the Lord has anointed me…” (NASB). If Holy Spirit anointed Jesus Christ, did he lost his divinity? No. If Father proclaims Jesus is his beloved Son in whom he is well pleased, Is Jesus not eternal Son? Then why this happened? It is identification, “a visible confirming sign to John the Baptist and to everyone else watching. Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the great king whose coming the Lord had called John to announce and to prepare men for”.[53]


Baptismal Formula

The strongest statement for the Tri-unity of God is revealed in Matthew 28:19, 20. The unity of God is strongly indicated here in the singular “name” rather than “names” in Baptismal Formula.[54] Really this expression of 28; 20 has caused endless controversy among exegetes about baptism and Trinitarian formula.[55]

So, “In believers’ baptism, Christians publically identify themselves with the Triune Godhead”.[56] It means that believers are baptized not by the authority of men but by the authority from heaven. So His ministers act by God’s authority (i.e. the authority of the three persons in Godhead).[57] All the three persons of Godhead involved in the event of Jesus baptism (Mtt 3:16-17).[58]


The Apostolic Benediction

Here Paul thinks of one God as three persons. Triune references are quite common in Paul (I Cori 12:4-6; Eph 1:3; 3:14-17; 4:4-6).

This Trinitarian benediction forms the doctrine of tri-unity of God which is the fundamental - the doctrine of Christianity.[59] It is significant because of its triadic formulation.[60] There is no fixed numerical order in the association of the persons of the Godhead.[61] Barnes argues,

There is a distinction in the divine nature; or there is the existence of what is usually termed three persons in the Godhead. If not, why are they mentioned in this manner? If the Lord Jesus is not divine and equal with the Father, why he is mentioned in this connection?[62]


CHRISTOLOGICAL, PNUEMATALOGICAL CONTROVERSIES

The people often opt to introduce new thoughts and argument about triune God in order to disprove the tri-unity of God. The groups which arose against the doctrine have no solid understanding of the Word of God. They misunderstood some biblical passages for their unbelief about tri-unity of God. Among them, some critical and problematic texts are treated with clear expression according to His word.


Was God Praying to Himself?

The bible clearly states that Jesus is God. If He is God, then why he was praying to himself, asks many people frequently. If there is no distinction in tri-unity, why Jesus was praying to His father? There is only one God as three distinct persons. In tri-unity, there are distinctions but no deviations or separations. In Christian theology, Jesus is the Son of God. In Mtt 26:39; Mk 14:36; Luk 22:42, Jesus prayed to His Father, not to himself. The second person of tri-unity was praying to the first person of Tri-unity. So he address “My Father”. Mark used a similar term in Aramaic form Abba which has the same meaning and Luke has simply Father.[63] Jesus in His prayer was to accept the Will of the Father, not seeking to impose His will on the Father.[64] This was the communication of the Son of God with God the Father. His prayer clearly shows that His will is not in the opposition to that of Father, but “this is a strong affirmation of his desire that the Father’s will may prevail”.[65] He came in this world to carry out the Will of Father (Jn 6:38). It does not mean that Jesus did not have a will of His own but His own will was in perfect agreement with the will of God.[66]


Is Christ inferior to God?

There is misunderstanding about the deity of Jesus Christ so many argue with this question asking, Is Christ inferior to God? They asked in such a way because they misunderstood. Jn 14:28, “…The father is greater than I” (NRSV) and I Cori 11:3 “…and the head of Christ is God” (AKJV).

If Jesus said that the Father is greater than Him, is He equal to God? If the Head of Christ is God means, how can Christ be a God?

Unitarians and anti-Trinitarians uses these texts and deny the doctrine of unity.[67] Moreover people argue frequently to support their doctrine of the creaturely subordination of the Son to the Father. Father and Son are equal. He was greater as to His position but not His person. Because he never died on the cross or suffered, Christ came into this world and suffered and died for human beings, so comparing to His present position, Father is greater than Him not His person.[68] The text does not said that “Father is better than I” but Father is greater than I”. So Father and Son are equal.

Equality with God is claimed for Jesus in Jn 5:18 “…but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God” (NRSV).

There is also a problematic text about Jesus equality with His Father. “Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God…but emptied himself…” (Phil 2:6, 7, NRSV). If Jesus is not God, he is a deceived or is self-deceived. Christ existed in the form of God (V. 6) means that he has the nature of God and eternally continues as God.[69]

“Christ has never been – before, during, or after His incarnation – in any way inferior in essence to the Father”.[70] Jesus Christ, himself willingly subordinated to the Father in His role as Savior and Redeemer.[71] Hodge expresses Christ subordination in I Cori 11:3 in this way “It is the incarnate Son of God, who, in the great work of redemption, is said to be subordinate to the Father, whose will he came into the world to do.”[72]


Is Holy Spirit a God’s active force or a person?

One should understand that Holy Spirit is not an impersonal force but he is a person and he has the characteristics of a person (Eph 4:30; Act 13:2). He is not inferior to either the Father or the Son. Moreover Holy Spirit’s fellowship with the persons in a Trinitarian benediction implies that he is a person, not a “force” or “influence” (II Cori 13:14).[73]

Holy Spirit posses the same attributes as God. Omniscience – I Cori 2:10; Omnipresence – Ps 139:7; Eternity – Heb 9:14; Holiness – Eph 4:30; Love – Ro 15:30; Omnipotent – Ro 15:19.

“The Holy Spirit is a person in the same sense that the Father and the Son are persons. Therefore His power, activities and ministry should not be understood in quantitative dimensions but rather in terms of personality and personal relationships.”[74]


Was Christ Created by God?

The Son is begotten not made. Anti-Trinitarian argues with the Verse Colo 1:15 “And he is the image of the invisible God, the first born of all creation” (TRSB). They concluded that if Jesus is created, he cannot be a God. They emphasize that here, “first born” means he is the first created being. Here the “first born” expression has nothing to do with the birth rather it tells that He is God’s Son by an eternal relationship.[75]

Paul does not use the term Protoktioti (first created), he used the term prototokos as a title of sovereignty and pre-eminence.[76] “Prototokos can mean either first in time or first in priority and it is the context which determines meaning.”[77]


Christ’s Eternal Sonship

The term Son of God implies that the personality of the second person of the trinity. It does not imply inequality. The term Son is the Hebraic term which means to partake of the qualities of whatever one is said to be a Son.[78] The Sonship of the second person is eternal. “The eternal generation and eternal sonship make the Logos the Son”.[79]

Only begotten means that alone only, which is in Greek monogenes. The Christ did not become the Son of God but eternally is the Son of God.[80] Jesus is God’s unique Son who is eternal, not created. Peter S. Ruckman states “New American standard version in Jn 1:18 teaching the ancient Arian heresy of two Gods, an uncreated God, God the Father, and created God Jesus Christ.

This heresy is called “Russellism” or “Arianism” and was supposedly settled at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325”.[81]

Jesus Christ is uncreated God who is primacy over all creatures, and is eternal Son of God and equal to God and the second person of tri-unity.[82]


Is I Jn 5:7-8 trustworthiness and truthfulness?

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one”. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one” (I Jn 5:7-8; AKJV).

Many do believe that the so called Johannine comma (also called the comma Johanneum) is a sequence of extra words which appear in I Jn 5:7-8 in some early printed editions of the Greek New Testament. Modern Bible translations such as NIV, NASB, NRSV and others tend to either omit the comma entirely, or relegate it to the footnotes. The resulting passage is an explicit reference to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. “The comma proves that the doctrine of the Trinity that these are three persons in the Godhead: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance equal in power and glory”.[83]

The text was not absent in all pre sixteenth century Greek manuscripts and New Testament translations because it is found in eight extant Greek manuscripts, and five of them are dated before sixteenth century.[84] Tertullian also supported the Trinitarian view by quoting John 10:30, thought the comma provided the stronger support.[85] Some of the very old Latin manuscripts contain the comma, and Jerome in his prologue to the Canonical Epistles wrote “Irresponsible translators left out this testimony (i.e. I Jn 5:7f) in the Greek codices.”[86]

Yet there are some people says Johannine comma did not come from John but from an unknown person who invented and included in I John 5 in order to affirm the Trinitarian doctrine. But until this time no one could find this mysterious person who helped the church?

John uses the term “word” to identify Christ (cf Jn 1:1, 14). So he could have used the same term when he wrote I Jn 5:7-8. So therefore Jeffrey Khoo concludes that by saying

There is nothing in the Johannine comma that goes against the fundamentals of the Christian faith. It is thoroughly Biblical and theologically accurate in its Trinitarian statement. There is no good reason why we should not regard it as authentic and employ it as a clearest proof-text in the scripture for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity.[87]

There is also argument that Erasmus added the comma into the text. So the central figure in the sixteenth century history of the comma Johanneum is the humanist Erasmus. He included them in the third edition of the text.[88] Metzer writes that “these words are spurious and have no right to stand in the New Testament is certain.”[89] Moreover Stott argues that these threefold testimony of Verse 8 is to Christ; and the biblical teaching about testimony is not that Father, Son and Holy Spirit bear witness to the Son through the Spirit.”[90]

Despite all the arguments against this antiquity and authenticity of the text I John 5:7-8, Erickson writes “If there is a biblical basis for the trinity it must be sought elsewhere.”[91] This is the text traditionally appealed for documenting the doctrine of tri-unity of God.


CONCLUSION

So, Trinity a fact or fiction? Absolutely it is a fact exposed in the inspired Word of God. Therefore one can understand that God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, are three persons in Godhead. For nearly two thousand years, the church has taught the doctrine of trinity. Yet there are many misunderstandings in realizing the great fact about triune God.

The doctrine of tri-unity of God is in fact beyond human comprehension, but it is also clearly stated in the Scripture. God’s Word is perspicuity. Each person of tri-unity functions harmoniously in an unbroken fellowship of love. There is no contradiction in their fellowship or communication, rather they functions harmoniously with eternal purpose for history determined from eternity.

Though three distinct persons are equal essentially, their interrelationships may reflect a distinctive ordering of activities.[92]

Concerning the interpersonal relations in the trinity there is an unbroken fellowship of love among the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Their equality of essence and fellowship is not affected by the administrative ordering of relationships among themselves in creative (Jn 1:1-3) and redemptive activity. In that functional order, the first person creatively initiates, the second person brightly exhibits, and the third effectually brings to fulfillment.[93]

The Word of God expose in such a way that God in three persons is unity, eternally, wholly and indivisibly. Apart from God’s Word, no one can understand the tri-unity of God. God’s Word is perspicuity in order to comprehend God’s tri-unity. If there is no distinction in Trinity, there is no tri-unity. If there is deviation in Trinity, that is not tri-unity.” (Italics mine).


________________________


[1] Rolland D. McCune, Systematic Theology I (Class notes: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Fall 1998), p. 162.Bancroft also explains that “The tri-unity of God is His tri personal existence as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the nature of one God, there are three eternal distinctions which are revealed to us three equal persons.” See Emery H. Bancroft, Christian theology, rev. and ed. Ronald B. Mayers (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 85. Chafer clarifies that Bible is neither polytheistic, nor tri-theistic, nor Unitarian but monotheistic doctrine of one God subsisting in a plurality of three persons, no less and no more. Moreover, for a better discussion on the definition of the term Tri-Unity of God, see Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1 (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1953), Pp. 282-310.

[2] McCune, Systematic Theology I, p. 161.

[3] Loraine Boettner, Studies in Theology (Pennsylvania: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1964), p. 84; Patrick Zukeran, Jehoah’s Witness and the Trinity (2002): par. 2. [www.Jw_trin.html]; Dennis J. Mock, Bible Doctrine Survey (Course Manual, Bible Training Centre for Pastors, Fall 1999), Pp. 75-79; Mock states that “The Lord is one God in three persons and three persons in one God. The persons are distinct but not separate and are all equally of the same essence or nature”. Mock, Bible Doctrine Survey, p. 75.

[4] Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 90; Thiessen states that “The entire three persons are coeternal and coequal with one another, so that… We worship complete unity in Trinity and Trinity in unity.” He also correctly concludes that In Christian Theology, the term trinity means that three eternal distinctions are in one divine essence, who are respectively known as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 90

[5] James Montgomery Boice, “Foundations of the Christian Faith”, A Comprehensive and Readable Theology, rev. in 1 Vol. (England: Intervarsity, 1996), p. 109.

[6] Bancroft, Christian Theology, P. 85.

[7] Ibid. p. 85.

[8] There are many religions believing in monotheism (one God) but Christian monotheism is a unique kind of monotheism which holds that God is one, but “three distinct persons” constitute one God, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This means that Christian monotheism has a clear picture about the Tri-unity of God in the Bible expressed as “one God, three persons.” (emphasis mine).

[9] David Bernard believes that “The Bible does not teach the doctrine of trinity, and Trinitarianism actually contradicts the Bible. It does not add any positive benefit to the Christian message… the doctrine of the trinity does detract from the important biblical themes of the oneness of God and the absolute deity of Jesus Christ.” See David K. Bernard, The Oneness of God (Hazelwood, Missouri: Word Aflame Press, 1985), p. 298, quoted in James White, The Trinity, the Definition of Chalcedon and Oneness Theology (2009): par. 1 [www.chalc.html.].

[10] Quoted in “Trinity from Wikipedia”, part of a series on Christianity, 8:1 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity].

[11] Tritheism which holds to three distinct gods and denies the tri-unity of the divine, and same or equal essence of God.

[12] See Bancroft, Christian Theology, p. 86. He states that the tri-personality of the divine nature is not merely economic or model in manifestation or temporal, but immanent and eternal. Ibid., p. 86.

[13] Fast Facts on the Trinity, Par. 5 [www.religionfacts.com/Christianity/ beliefs/trinity.htm].

[14] Arianism (2009): pars 13-14 [www.wiki-Arianism.html].

[15] William Placher, Readings in the History of Christian Theology, p. 53, quoted in “Fast Facts on the Trinity”, par. 6.

[16] Non Trinitarian groups differ from one another in their views of Triune God. Some see Yaweh of the Old Testament in human form (not eternally God) and Christ as inferior to the Father or a prophet, and Holy Spirit as not a person but only a power. (emphasis mine).

[17] God is not one in person, not one in three essences but as three distinct persons in one essence are together eternally united in one divine being (emphasis mine).

[18] Daniel Santhosh Kumar, The Trinity (Tri-unity of God), (Unpublished Paper, Grace Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), p. 7.

[19] Arianism is the theological teaching of Arius (A.D. 250-336), a Christian priest who was condemned at the famous Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

[20] Gordon R. Lewis and Bruce A. Demarest, Integrative Theology, 3 vols. In 1 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002). 1:252. The Anti Trinitarian belief system taught by Arius is that “Christ was created and changeable being, who, while superior to humans, is not of the same order as the one God” see “Fast facts on the Trinity”, par. 18.

[21] Arianism, par. 2.

[22] Lewis and Demaest, Integrative Theology, p. 252. The two forms are: (1) Dynamic, which said that Son was a man taken up into the Godhead, a form of adoptionism held by Theodotus. (2) Modal, which said that the Father was manifested as Son and Spirit, Held by Sebellius. See McCune, Systematic Theology I. p. 665.

[23] Witnesses regard Arius as a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell, their movement founder. The followers of Pastor Russell and Judge Rutherford try to pretend the Father is one God and the Son is another God. This ancient heresy was known as Arianism. Peter S. Ruckman, Theological Studies, Vol. I (Pensacola: BB Book Store, 1995), p. 53. “The followers of the watch tower society have never yet corrected the false teaching, nor they have analyzed it, nor can they discuss it”. Ruckman, Theological Studies Vol. I, p. 53. Jehoah witness’ followers do not want to see what the scriptures says about the tri-unity of God rather than believing their heresies which are presented unbiblically in a special way (out of context) and more easily without studying accurately by Charles Taz Russell (emphasis mine).

[24] Lewis and Demarest, “Integrative Theology”, p. 252. For a better discussion, see Ibid., Pp. 252-257.

[25] Ibid., p. 252. “Sebellianism claimed that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are simply designations for three different phrases under which the one undivided essence operationally manifest itself.” See also McCune, Systematic Theology I, p. 167.

[26] Mormans draw their understanding of the Godhead primarily from the First Vision of Joseph Smith, Jr., who claimed to have actually seen God the Father and Jesus Christ. Mormans have their own Bible. Their church is known as the church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. See www.wiki/Trinity.html, 7.

[27] Fast Facts on the Trinity, Par. 23.

[28] Wiki/Trinity. Non Orthodox Trinitarianism. 7, quoted in Jeffry R. Holland, Ensign. 2007 November (1).

[29] Bob Burridge, The Trinity (1997): Par. 3 [www.girs.com/the03.html]. Modalism suggests that some times God expresses himself as a “Father”, sometimes as a “Son” and sometimes as a Spirit of Holiness. See Ibid., par. 3.

[30] Lewis and Demarest, Integrative Theology, p. 252. Father Suffers…. God could not be three persons but three modes of manifestation. See McCune, Systematic Theology I, p. 165.

[31] Ruckman. Theological Studies, Vol. I., p. 61. Proclaiming such examples as H2O three units, and man himself can be a Father, Son and husband are unbiblical and irrational or illogical because the tri-unity of God is very different from the unity of human beings (emphasis mine).So McCune writes to explain that “Godhead is not one person who is a Father, Son and Spirit, such as a Seminarian may be a father, student and employee. The Trinity is three persons, not one person in three modes.” McCune, Systematic Theology I, p. 166.So the distinction of the persons in God is not one of changing states of being because God is not transforming himself from one person to other. In such a way, the illustration of water cannot be compared to trinity because the same substance changes into other stages (emphasis mine).Modalism manipulates the doctrine by speaking of a threefold nature of God in the same essence in which a man may be an artist, a teacher and a friend or as one may be a father, a son and a brother. But this is very contrary to biblical doctrine as emphasized above. See Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, p. 90.Louis Berkhof clarifies that Tri-unity is the doctrine of revelation, it is not revealed in the nature, so it could not be discovered by human reason. See his Manual of Christian Doctrine, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmas, 1997), p. 75.In Romans 1:20, “…invisible attributes are clearly seen by the things that are made, even His external power and Godhead,…” (NKJV). Scriptures never teaches that the doctrine of Tri-unity can be understand by observing the general revelation. If one can understand the doctrine of tri-unity of God through general revelation, then why don’t the billions of people until the present age never understood cleary, accurately the doctrine of Tri-unity? (emphasis mine). So, why General Revelation? It is for condemnation of unbelievers. See McCune, Systematic Theology I, p. 24.

[32] A.W. Tozer, The Knowledge of the Holy, (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1992), p. 23. Other passages include Lk 1:35 and Mtt 3:16, 17; Heb 9:14; Act 2:32; Jn 10:17, 18; Ro 1:4; I Pet 1:2 and Jn 14:15-23.

[33] Lewis and Demarist, Integrative Theology, Pp. 270-272.

[34] For the excellent discussion of the oneness of God’s being, see Ibid., Pp. 270-272.

[35] Peter wise, “The Trinity in the Old Testament”, (1999): Par 5 [www. trinityot.html]. Wise states that one of the most compelling examples in the Old Testament of the composite sense of “one” is found in Gen 2:24. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh” (NASB). He also tells that the people who created in the image of God become one flesh in the union of marriage (and thus a sense of the “image” in a composite sense). Moreover “the Hebrew word for “one” (exad) in other passages similarly demonstrates that this word means “one entity” rather than a strictly single, solitary thing.” Ibid., par. 5. See also Kumar, The Trinity (Tri-unity of God), Pp.9-10.

[36] Kumar, The Trinity (Tri-unity of God), p. 7.

[37] Kenneth Boa, Unraveling the Big Questions About God, Lamplighter Books, p. 12, quoted in Ibid., p. 7.

[38] Kumar, The Trinity (Tri-unity of God), p. 7.

[39] Ibid., p. 7. Usually, theologians distinguishes between the ontological trinity and the economic trinity. “The ontological trinity describes the inter-relationships of the three persons of the trinity as they have existed without change from all eternity. The economical trinity describes how those essential inter-relationships have come to concrete expression in the devise and complementary roles that each person has undertaken to play in the great Trinitarian work of redemption.” Mlabus, How the Doctrine of the Trinity shapes the Christian Mission (2009): P. 1 [http:// themissionalmissionary.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-doctrine-of-trinity-shapes. html]. It means that in ontological trinity God is one in essence but functions as three distinct persons in economic Trinity (Italics mine). More simply ontological trinity deals with who God is and the economic trinity with what God does. See Matt Slick, The Ontological and Economic Trinity (2009): par. 2 [http://www.carm.org/ Christianity/Christian-doctrine-ontological-and-economic-trinity]; [www.wiki/trinity], 4:4

[40] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), p. 329.

[41] Slick, The Ontological and Economic Trinity, par. 6; He argues that It was not the Son who sent the Father. The Father was not sent to do the Will of the Son. The Son did not give the Father, nor was the Father called the only begotten. The Father did not perform the redemptive work. The Holy Spirit did not send the Father and Son. It is not said that the Son or the Holy Spirit chose us, predestined us, and gave us to the Father. Ibid., par. 7; He goes on to say that “Furthermore, the Father calls Jesus the Son (Jn 9:35), not the other way around. Jesus is called the Son of man (Mtt 24:27); the Father is not. Jesus is called the Son of God (Mk 1:1; Lk 1:35; the Father is not called the Son of God. Jesus will sit at the right hand of God (Mk 14:62; Act 7:56); the Father does not sit at the right hand of the Son. The Father appointed the Son as heir of all things (Heb 1:1), not the other way around. The Father has fixed the time of the restoring of the Kingdom of Israel (Act 1:7), the Son didn’t. The Holy Spirit gives gifts to the church (1 Cori 12:8-11) and produces fruit (Gal 5:22-23). These are not said of the Father and Son. Slick, The Ontological and Economic Trinity, pars. 6-7.So, there are differences in functions and roles. The Father sends, directs and predestines. The Son does the will of the Father, becomes flesh, and accomplishes redemption. The Holy Spirit indwells and sanctifies the church. Ibid., par. 8.

[42] Ibid., par. 9.

[43] McCune, Systematic Theology I, p. 159. The Unity of God is one essence wholly, equally and eternally pervades each of the three persons of the Godhead without division or multiplication. See, Ibid., p. 158.

[44] Ibid., p. 131.

[45] Epizeuxis means that it is a crucial word repeated in order to emphasize it. See Samuel Dawson, Hermenutics, (Class notes: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Fall 2001), Pp. 120-121; Moreover “this is very tenuous and extremely remote piece of evidence for trinitarianism in the Old Testament”. McCune, Systematic Theology I, p. 163. So therefore the “Trisagion” is denied to prove trinity.

[46] Wise, The Trinity in the Old Testament, par. 6.

[47] Rolland D. McCune, Systematic Theology II (Class notes: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Fall, 1997), Pp. 79-82. The Angel is called Yaweh and Elohim (Gen 16:7; 21:17; 22:11, 12, 15, 16; Judge 13:13; 15, 16; Ex 3:2; Gen 31:11-13).

The Angel demands worship whereas other Angel forbid it (Ex 3:1-5; Josh 5:15 cf Rev 22:8, 9). The Angel is distinct from God the Father (Zech 1:12-13). Only Christ is visible in the Trinity.

[48] Wise, The Trinity in the Old Testament, pars. 7-9.

[49] See McCune, Systematic Theology I, p. 162.

[50] Arno C. Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew, (New Jersey: Loizeaux brothers, 1961), p. 75.

[51] Gaebelein, The Gospel of Matthew, p. 75.

[52] Ibid., Pp. 75-78; R.T. France, “Matthew” Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984), Pp. 95-96 (hereafter cited as TNTC); F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983), p. 55; John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary “Matthew 1-7”. (Pune: Grace to India, 1985), p. 81 (hereafter cited as TMNTC).

[53] TMNTC. Matthew 1-7, p. 81.

[54] Chafer, “Systematic Theology”, Vol. I. Pp. 303-304. He argues here the baptism should be administered in the name, not names. It is the strong declaration of the Tri-unity of God, see, Ibid., Pp. 303-304.There are three persons but the phrase “name” (to onoma) is singular. “Tou patros kai tou kuriou kai tou hagiou pneumatos is a most concise and unambiguous representation of the co eternality of the three distinct persons in being, authority and honor”. Lewis and Demarist, Integrative Theology, p. 263.

[55] For a better argument see Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, (England: Inter-varsity Press, 1992), p. 749; Morris clearly expose that the mentioned of singular “name” should be noticed “Jesus does not say that his followers should baptize in the “names” of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but in the “name” of these three. It points to the fact that they are in some sense one”. Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, p. 748; TNTC, “Matthew”. Pp. 414-415; TMNTC “Matthew 24-28” Pp. 343-345; William MacDonald, Believers Bible Commentary, ed. Art Farstad (London: Thomas Nelson, 1995), p. 1313 (hereafter cited as BBC); Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, ed. Rev. Leslie F. Church and F.R. Hist. S. (Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library, 1960), p. 1362 (hereafter cited as MHC).

[56] BBC, p. 1313.

[57] MHC, p. 1362.

[58] TNTC, Matthew, p. 414.

[59] Charles hodge, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), p. 314.

[60] Colin Kruse, TNTC “2 Corinthians”, ed. Rev. Canon Leon Morris, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 224.

[61] McCune, Systematic Theology I, p. 167; Simon J. Kistemaker, II Corinthians, New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), Pp. 459-460, Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament “I Corinthians,” ed. Robert Frew, (Grand Rapids: Baker, reprinted from 1884-85), p. 274.

[62] Barnes, I Corinthians, p. 274.

[63] Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, p. 668.

[64] Ibid., p. 669; TNTC “Matthew”, p. 373; TMNTC, “Matthew 24-28”, Pp. 173-175; Kenneth S. Wuest, Mark in the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), Pp. 265-266. Pronoun used with each verb in the expression of “not what I will; but what thou wilt.” The idea is that not what I myself desire, but what yourself desire. Wuest, Mark in the Greek New Testament, p. 265; Ralph Earle, “Mark”, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1970), p. 113.

[65] Leon Morris, Luke, TNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), p. 340.

[66] BBC, p. 1503.

[67] Arno Clemens Caebelein, The Gospel of John, (Illinois: Van Kampen Press, 1936), Pp. 290-291; An ancient creed says, “Christ is equal to the Father as touching His Godhead and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood”. See Caebelein, The Gospel of John, p. 291; F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John, Pp. 306-307.

[68] MHC, p. 1593; BBC, Pp. 1548-1549; Zukeran, Jehoah’s witnesses and the Tirnity, pars. 14-21.

[69] McCune, Systematic Theology II, p. 86; BBC, p. 1965; Arian subordinationism which teaches that the Son is not eternal and divine, not equal to the Father in being and attributes. This is in contrast to the Economic Trinity which does not deny the equality of nature and attributes. See Slick, The Ontological and Economic Trinity, pars. 11-12; The Arian heresy taught the emphatic subordinationism which asserts natural inequality existed between the persons of Trinity by virtue of their essential differentiation and the temporal derivative character of the second and third. Economic subordinationism teaches that the “Son is no less than Father, but has voluntarily submitted himself to the Will of the Father”. See Slick, The Ontological and Economic Trinity, pars. 11-24.

[70] TMNTC, I Corinthians, p. 254.

[71] Ibid., p. 254.

[72] See his An exposition of the First epistle to the Corinthians, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959), p. 207.

[73] Barnett, The Second Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 619; Berkhof, Manual of Christian Doctrine, Pp. 80-82.

[74] For a better treatment, see McCune, Systematic Theology II, Pp. 185-189.

[75] BBC, p. 1994.

[76] Zukeran, Jehoah’s witness and the Trinity, par. 9.

[77] Kumar, The Trinity (Tri-unity of God), p. 13.

[78] McCune, Systematic Theology I, p. 168.

[79] Ibid., p. 168. Eternal generation of the Son means that it is an “eternal act whereby the Father “communicates” or makes common the divine essence to the Son; the eternal “sonning” of the Son”. See Ibid., p. 168.

[80] Kumar, The Trinity (Tri-unity) of God, p. 12; McCune, Systematic Theology I, p. 172. McCune discusses that God has other Sons such as Christians (Ro 8:14; Heb 2:10), angels (Job 30:7), the nation of Israel (Hos 11:11), the Davidic King (2 Sam 7:14), etc. But Jesus has the qualities that set Him apart from these other Sons. He is God’s only begotten Son, they are not. See Ibid., p. 172.“Few people (primarily Moslems) who have taken this to mean that the Son is the result of a sexual relationship between God and Mary”. Since God is a pure spiritual being, this is impossible. See “more about Christian beliefs” Trinity, par. 24. [www.moreaboutchristianbeliefs/trinity-html].

[81] Ruckman, Theological Studies, Vol. I., p. 54; Ruckman argues the meaning
of John 1:18 because the term “only begotten God” is used in NASB; McCune discusses that the older manuscript evidence favors “only begotten God” (monogenes theos). Jesus is the unique God in the bosom of the Father. McCune, Systematic Theology I, p. 173.

[82] For discussion on “the second person of Tri-unity”, see Lewis and Demarist Integrative Theology, Pp. 275-279.

[83] Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q6, quoted in Jeffrey Khoo, Johannine Comma – 1 John 5:7-8. Logos Resource Pages (2000): Par. 1 [www.logosresource pages.org/versions/Johannine.htm].

[84] Khoo, Johannine Comma – I Jn 5:7-8, par. 3.

[85] Comma Johanneum [www.wiki/comma-Johanneum] par. 4.

[86] Khoo, Johannine Comma – I Jn 5:7-8, par. 3.

[87] See Ibid., par. 6.

[88] John R.W. Stott, The Letters of John, TNTC, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 183.

[89] Bruce M. Metzer, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, (Stuttgart: Biblia-Druck, 1971), p. 647.

[90] Stott, TNTC, p. 183.

[91] Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 327.

[92] Lewis and Demarest, Integrative Theology, Pp. 275-279.

[93] Ibid., p. 279.


BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED


Bancroft, Emery H. Christian Theology, revised and edited by Ronald B. Mayers. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.

Barnes, Albert. Notes on the New Testament “I Corinthians”. Edited by Robert Frew. Grand Rapids: Baker, reprinted from 1884-85.

Barnett. The Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Edited by Ned B. Stone house, F.F. Bruce and Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

Berkhof, Louis. Manual of Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997.

_______. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.

Bernard, David K. The Oneness of God. Missouri: Word Aflame Press, 1985; p. 298. Quoted in James White “The Trinity, the Definition of Chalcedon and Oneness Theology” (2009) [www.CHALC.html].

Boa, Kenneth. Unraveling the Big Questions About God. Lamplighter Books, P. 12. Quoted in Daniel Santhosh Kumar, Trinity (tri-unity) of God (unpublished paper, Grace Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009.

Boettner, Loraine. Studies in Theology. Pennsylvania: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1964.

Boice, James Montgomery. Foundations of Christian Faith. A Comprehensive and Readable Theology. Revised in one volume. England: Intervarsity, 1996.

Bruce, F.F. The Gospel of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983.

Burridge, Bob. The Trinity (1997) [www.girs.com/theo3.html]

Caebelein, Arno Clemens. The Gospel of John. Illinois: Van Kampen Press, 1936.

Cambron, Mark G. Bible Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954.

Chafer, Lewis Sperry. Systematic Theology Volume I. Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1853.

Dawson, Samuel. Hermeneutics. Class Notes: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Fall 2001.

Earle, Ralph. Mark. Chicago: Moody, 1970.

Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Evens, Williams and Coder, S. Maxwell. The Great Doctrine of the Bible. Chicago: Moody, 1974.

France, R.T. “Matthew” Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Gospel of Matthew. New Jersey: Loizeaux brothers, 1961.

Grudem, Wayne. “Systematic Theology”. An Introduction to Bible Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Intervarsity, 1994.

Henry, Matthew. Matthew Henry’s Commentary. Edited and Revised by Leslie F. Church and F.R. His. S. Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library, 1960.

Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950.

________. An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959.

Khoo, Jeffrey. Johannine Comma – I John 5:7-8 “Logos Resource Pages” (2000): Par. 1 [www.Logosresourcepages.org/versions/Johannine.htm].

Kistemaker, Simon J. “II Corinthians” New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997.

Kruce, Colin. “2 Corinthians” Tyndale New Testament Commentaries. Edited by Canon Leon Morris. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Kumar, Daniel Santhosh. The Trinity (Tri-unity) of God. Unpublished Paper: Grace Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009.

Lewis, Gordon R. and Demarest, Bruce A. Integrative Theology. 3 Vols in 1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002.

MacArthur, John. “Matthew 24-28”. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Pune: Grace to India, 2003.

________. “Matthew 1-7”. The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Pune: Grace to India, 2003.

________. “1 Corinthians”, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary. Pune: Grace to India, 2003.

MacDonald. Believers Bible Commentary. Edited by Art Farstad. London: Thomas Nelson, 1955.

McCune, Rolland D. Systematic Theology I. Class Notes: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Fall 1998.

_______. Systematic Theology II. Class Notes: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Fall 1997.

Metzer, Bruce M. A textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Stuttgart: Biblia Druck, 1971.

Mlabus. How the Doctrine of the Trinity shapes the Christian-Mission (2009) [http:// themissionalmissionary.blogspot.com/2009/08/how-doctrine-of-trinity-shapes. html].

Mock, Dennis J. Bible Doctrine Survey. Course Manual, Bible Training Centre for Pastors, Fall, 1999.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel according to Matthew. England: Intervarsity, 1992.

________. “Luke” Tyndale New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.

Placher, William. Readings in the History of Christian Theology. P. 53. Quoted in Fast Facts on the Trinity [www.religionfacts.com/Christianity/beliefs/trinity.html].

Ruckman, Peter S. Theological Studies Volume I. Pensacola: BB Book Store, 1995.

Ryrie, Charles C. A Survey of Bible Doctrine. Chicago: Moody, 1972.

________. Basic Theology. England: Victor, 1992.

Slick, Matt. The Ontological and Economic Trinity (2009) [http://www.carm.org/ Christianity/Christian-doctrine/ontological-and-economic-tri-unity].

Stott, John R.W. The Letters of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

Thiessen, Henry C. Lectures in Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Torrey, R.A. What the Bible Teaches. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1933.

Tozer, A.W. The Knowledge of the Holy. New York: Harper San Francisco, 1992.

Wiersbe, Warren W. “The Bible Exposition Commentary”, New Testament Volume I. Secundarabad: Om Books, 2001.

Wise, Peter. The Trinity in the Old Testament. (1999) [www.trinityot.html].

Wuest, Kenneth S. Mark in the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971.

Zukeran, Patrick. Jehoah’s witness and the Trinity (2002) [www.Jw_trin.html].


AUTHORS UNKNOWN
______________

Arianism (2009) [www.wiki/Arianism.html].

Comma, Johanneum. [www.wiki/comma-Johanneum].

The Fast Facts on the Trinity (2007) [www.religionfacts.com/Christianity/beliefs/ trinity.html].

“Trinity” from Wikipedia, Part of a series on Christianity. [http://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Trinity].

THE CHURCH DISCIPLINE

THE CHURCH DISCIPLINE

 INTRODUCTION

In the early life of the church, the church was conquering the world but in this time, the world is conquering the church. Once, the church was persecuted by others but now it became persecuting others. The reason for this situation is, there is no discipline in the churches as was in the New Testament Church.

Reasons for the Present Study

The great commandment of the church is to carry His revelation for the people who are living in darkness. The church should have such burden to evangelize the souls, perishing in sins. To fulfill this, every pastor and the believer of the church should change their lives according to His word. They should recognize that why the church disciplines are so important today. As they apply the Word of God in their practical lives, the church would have disciplines. For that, the church needs fully dedicated persons to achieve God’s will on this earth. The main reason for the present study of this paper is that present day church should be reformed as the early church.

Statement of the Problem

The church discipline is very difficult area of doctrine to practice in today’s churches. Though it rests upon the divine authority of scriptures, the Christians neglect the doctrine of church discipline. It is often said by people that discipline in the church is punishment. They forget to remember that it is not punishment, but is discipline, and is designed to train and restore the guilty person.

“The purpose of church discipline is to confront sin  so that believers can be corrected, purified and the sinning member restored to fellowship.” But many forgot this concept and still now is neglecting the church discipline, thus have led to a weak, sinfilled church. The subject of the church discipline is for the purpose of training in righteousness. The basic purpose of discipline is to maintain the church pure by purging from sin. But it is very sad to say that the Christians of this time, ignored about these all the things, because it is not pleasant to administer and, abused because it is misunderstood.

Throughout the past years, when apostasies and heresies arose in the world, many began to teach and preach their own ideas so the disciplines of the church had overshadowed. The people, who were leading the church, were giving priority to their own doctrines, because of the lack of preaching in the church. Many arose to minister in the church as pastors not for preaching His word but for earning the money. As the conditions of the church went on these situations, people who are newly saved were ignored about the zeal and disciplines of the church. The main problem of this statement is lack of preaching and lack of training in righteousness. If there is a sound doctrine in the church, there will be disciplines also.

Method of Study

The church discipline is very important thing in God’s ministry. All the people who are redeemed by God are joined together in the body of Christ. So the church should be holy. To be holy, discipline is needed. For the clarification of the church discipline, the author gives various methods. First, he moves to explain the teachings of church discipline in the biblical perspective. He clarifies that the purpose, practice, reasons for the church discipline on the basis of New Testament church disciplines. He also explains the teachings of the church disciplines through some biblical passages. Finally, the author clarifies that why the church discipline is so important and with concluding session.

Limitations of the Present Study

There are many things to study in church discipline. But in this subject, how the church should be governed with disciplines is indicated. The background of the New Testament church disciplines are exemplified to the present day church situations. The disciplines of the church are explained through only a few passages of the scriptures. There are many passages in the Bible about the church discipline, but only a few important areas are covered for practicing the church disciplines. The process or procedures of church disciplines are not much explained in this paper. The discipline of church leaders and the results of disciplines are not mentioned in this paper.

Statement of this Paper

God-glorifying activities are much important in the ministry of the Church. So the church should be encouraged to live a holy life. Church discipline is a means by which the purity of the church is advanced and holiness of life is encouraged through practicing God's Word accurately. The church discipline is confrontive and corrective measures taken by the church concerning the matter of sin in the life of believer. The responsibility of the church is not only involving in the ministry of reconciliation but also in the ministry of nurturing. The ministry of nurturing includes discipline. It is basically set upon evangelism and edification. So the church discipline as a part of edification process ministers to those within the church who are caught in sin so they can be restored through fellowship with Christ.

THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH DISCIPLINE

The activity of church discipline is to produce a holy character because God’s purpose for the church is to be holy[1] (Eph 5:26-27). The church discipline aims at promoting the spiritual edification of the members of the church by securing their obedience to the laws of Christ.[2] They should comprehend that “the discipline of the church rests upon the fact that God Himself disciplines His children”[3] (Heb 12:6). So the church should always remember that primary consideration of the discipline is the maintenance of holiness of the church.[4] “The removal of sin restores the honor of God and enables the testimony of the church to shine brightly in the world.”[5] Failure to discipline evidences a lack of awareness of the holy character of God because it has to be witness to the world.[6] If the church is failure in exercising this ministry of discipline, it can only lead to weaker (though probably larger) churches.[7] So the church should exercise the Ministry of discipline as was in the New Testament.

The purpose of the Church Discipline

The purpose of the church discipline is not to throw the people out of the church, but to restore a sinning believer to holiness and bring him back into a pure relationship within the assembly. It is for gaining back of something of value that is lost like an erring one. The valuable treasure which is lost (It means when a believer astray) should be recovered and restored, and such is the purpose of discipline.

The primary purpose of church discipline is to pursue the twofold goal of restoration and reconciliation. Thus encourages the offended one to get the right behavior and fellowship between the believers, and with God.[8] The purpose of discipline is also to keep the sin from spreading to others otherwise it would spread to many others who were not awareness about sinning[9] (Heb 12:15, 1 Tim 5:20). Such discipline brings honor to Christ by protecting the purity of the church. If the church is failed in maintaining her purity, will result dishonor to Christ and blaspheme God’s name among non-believers[10] (Rom 2:24; 1 Cor 6:6).

Discipline is needed doctrine for the church to uphold the purity and good name of the church. “It was to serve as a warning to others and to demonstrate that the church regards such sinful behavior as contrary to its nature and therefore completely unacceptable.”[11]

Ø Discipline is needed for restoring, healing and building up sinning believers (Mtt 18:15; Gal 6:1-2; I Thess 3:14-15).

Ø Discipline is necessary for producing a healthy faith, one sound in doctrine (Tit 1:13; 1 Tim 1:19-20).

Ø Discipline is much important for winning a soul to Christ, if the sinning person is only a professing Christian (2 Tim 2:24-26).

Ø Discipline is needed to set an example for the rest of the body and promote godly fear (1 Tim 5:20).

Ø Discipline is to silence false teachers and their influence in the church (Tit 1:10-11).

Ø Discipline is necessary because it brings the glory to God and enhances the testimony of the flock.

The examples of sins subject to church discipline in the New Testament are extremely diverse: divisiveness (Rom 16:17; Tit 3:10), incest (1 Cor 5:1), laziness and refusing to work (2 Thess 3:6-10), disobeying what Paul writes (2 Thess 3:14-15), blasphemy (1 Tim 1:20), and teaching heretical doctrine (2 Jn 10-11). The discipline should be taken at the present churches when the believer astray from God’s Word.

The practice of Church Discipline

New Testament church practiced the church discipline. It is disciplined for the purity of the church. It must be practiced with great care. Paul affirms that the practice of discipline should be in the cases of covetousness, idolatry, abusive speech, drunkedness, and swindling (1 Cori 5:11). 1 Cori 6:9-10 adds more sins for which discipline is needed such as adultery, effeminate – perversion, homosexuality, theft.

So, when such sin appears, the church ought to do its duty in summoning the sinner and correcting him according to his fault. In the ancient church, discipline applied to all offenders. For if any one had committed a crime that caused offense, he was ordered first to abstain from partaking of the sacred supper, then to humble himself before God and witness his repentance before the church. Because, Paul not only rebuked the Corinthian in words but banished the erring one from the church, and chided the Corinthians for bearing with him so long (1 Cori 5:1-7).

If the guilty one is not repent, the church is to apply the procedures of excommunication as directed in Matthew 18:17. The New Testament church believers were to be gathered together in order to take action against the offending brother (1 Cori 5:4-5; Rom 16:17; 2 Thess 3:6-15).

Ø Discipline must be done in a spirit of humility, gentleness and patience, lest no one be tempted (Gal 6:1-2; 2 Tim 2:24-25).

Ø Discipline must be done without partiality (I Tim 5:21).

Ø Discipline must be done by the spiritual people for restoring the erring one (Gal 6:1).

Ø The disorderly walk must be admonished, warned and appealed to in love by the person who is spirit controlled and spiritually minded (Gal 6:1; 1 Thess 5:14-15; 2 Tim 4:2).

Ø The discipline should be practised with forgiveness when the person repents. The congregation of the church must eager to forgive, comfort, and reaffirm their love to the sinning person (2 Cori 2:6-8).

Ø Discipline must be practised as told in Matthew 18:17 to create the fear among the rest of the believers as warning against sin (1 Tim 5:20).

The Reasons for Church Disciplines

“Discipline concerns those who clearly have a harmful effect upon the congregation in one way or another.”[12]

Ø Discipline is to remove the defilement and leaving influence that sin brings (1 Cori 5:6-8).

Ø Discipline is to protect other believers from sinning and challenge them to godliness (Gal 6:1; 1 Tim 5:20).

Ø Discipline is to produce soundness in faith (Tit 1:13).

Ø Discipline is to reclaim and restore the erring brother (2 Cori 2:5-11).

True fellowship within the local church also involves discipline. Discipline promotes the spiritual welfare of the church. So therefore, Disorderly conduct (2 Thess 3:6-15) must be disciplined. Divisiveness (Rom 16:17-18; Tit 3:9-10) – Divisions contrary to biblical doctrine demand discipline. Gross sins must be disciplined (1 Cori 5:1-13; 1 Tim 5:20).

While disciplining the guilty one, the church should not be hasty but with deliberate steps (Matt 18:15-20), there should not be any partiality (1 Tim 5:21). It has to be exercised with the goal of correction and eventual restoration (2 Cori 2:6-8).[13] The church must be protected from moral decay and impure doctrinal influences. Discipline should be taken when the purity is lost, because there must be difference between the church and the secular world in attitudes, values, morals and life style. J. Carl Laney divides the sins necessitating church discipline into four categories.

(1) Violations of Christian love. This includes private offences against a brother or sister (Matt 5:23-24). (2) Violations of Christian unity. This includes divisive actions which disrupt the meaning of the local church (Rom 16:17; Tit 3:10). (3) Violations of Christian law or morality. This is breaking the ethical codes or sin lists of the Old Testament and New Testament. (4) Violations of Christian truth. This is the rejection of the essential doctrines of the faith, heresy, etc. (1 Tim 6:3-5; Tit 3:10; 2 Jn 7-11).[14]

The church also should have these attitudes while disciplining. (a) Meekness (Gal 6:1), (b) Uncompromising stand against sin (Tit 1:13), (c) Love (2 Thess 3:9-15), (d) Forgiving spirit at repentance (2 Cori 2:5-11).

Biblical expositions about Church Disciplines

The discipline of the church is a neglected doctrine in the church. When the church followed false doctrine on disorderly walk or immorality, she needs discipline.

“The basis of discipline of a local church is the holiness of God.”[15] It should be practiced in the church. “To discipline is to penalize an individual for breaking the laws of a unit of society to which he belongs with the view of restoring him back to those laws.”[16] The discipline of the church is to take the believer back to “obedience to the Word of God”[17] and “removal of the defilement of sin”[18] or “restoring the erring brother.”[19]

There should be sound doctrines in the church. The church should be faithful to God.[20] The undisciplined people who disobey or deny the great doctrines of the faith, having an immoral life, should be disciplined by the church.

While disciplining the church, her attitude should not be vengeance and arrogance. She should look the individual as an erring person not a bitter enemy. If the person comes to repentance, the church should be ready to forgive him. The person should be approached with sorrow not sarcasm by the church.

The church should remain that the discipline is to maintain the standards of the church to a watching world. It should help the guilty person to find a right way back to God. The discipline should be maintained to keep the sin from spreading throughout the church. To come back to God, the guilty person should ask question “what have I done wrong?” if he or she examines with this question and finds the answer biblically, thus will help to draw near God.

Matthew 18:15-17

Discipline needs the person when he sins. “The responsibility to seek reconciliation rests with the offened, not the offender.”[21] Here, the passage talks about the guilty person “is to be refused fellowship until he repents of his sin and gives evidence of his subjection the Word of God.”[22] Gal 1; Jam 5:19, 20 indicates the same procedure. The discipline of the church should be handled prayerfully, carefully, justly.

The very first step is to be taken to the guilty one who sins against God and offences contrary to the doctrine is a private meeting with him. The believer should try “to get the offender to see his sin for what he is.”[23] This is not to punish “but with the attempt to rescue a ‘brother’ whose sin has put him in danger.”[24] It is for “the spiritual restoration of fallen members and the consequent strengthening of the church and glorifying the Lord.”[25]

The second step is “if he will not hear you, take with you one or two more…” V. 16 (NKJV). This implies that the goal of the discipline is not to throw the people out of the church. So “by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established” (V. 16 NKJV). “It is not only to confirm that the sin was committed but, in addition, to confirm that the sinning believer was properly rebuked and that he or she has not repented”.[26] And also this step is for his or her restoration and they “must have the same spiritual characteristics.”[27]

The third step is to tell it the church. It should be followed when the first two steps of disciplines process fails to bring repentance. “This is the ultimate level of persuasion to lead to repentance.”[28]

If the guilty person fails to repent in this process, then, the Bible tells about the fourth stage that he will be like “a heathen and a tax collector.” (V. 17 NASB). “The fourth step in the discipline process is therefore to put out and to call back – keep the sinning brother out of fellowship until he repents, but also to keep calling him back in the hope that he will.”[29]

1 Corinthians 5 and 6 Chapters

The Chapter five talks about sexual immorality. Here the occasion is an act of impurity. “Immorality is the Greek porneia, from which we get pornography, and refers to any illicit sexual activity.”[30] Here Paul warns about a man who had such sexual relationship with his father’s wife (step mother). It implies such sexual relations in the same category as relations between him and natural mother.[31]

Paul affirms that sexual immorality should be judged. In Chapter 6, there was the problem of litigation before Heathen judges. And also he wrote the problem of the fornication. “It is a sin that affects the man’s own personality; it destroys the holy, supernatural union between him and Christ.”[32] Fornication is the immoral thing which makes the members of Christ as the members of harlot.[33] “Fornication involves the Christian in a degrading physical solidarity, incompatible with the believer’s spiritual solidarity with Christ.”[34] So, the believers should be very careful about sexual matters. Because immorality is declared to demand reproof and refusal of fellowship as long as the sin is continued or unconfessed.

For this the method of discipline which is explained in Matt. 18:15-17, should be practiced by believers. 1 Corinthians 6 and 7 Chapters implies that the believers should not be mean with the immoral people of this world or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, revilers, drunkards, thieves, adulterers, fornicators. For they should remind that they are washed, sanctified, and separated from the world by God. The church discipline should be implemented over such cases very carefully and biblically.

Hebrews 10:25

Neglecting the church discipline is despising the church. “Assembly and fellowship are two evidences of vital faith.”[35] The absence of one believer discourages others “to careless ways.”[36] The believers should not neglect the church for the worship meetings. The assemblies of Christians are to have fellowship and encourage one another. They are to strengthen and stimulate one another.[37]

But “the vast majority of professing Christians wishes to be petted and flattered, rather than exhorted and cautioned.”[38] Such Christians should be taught with biblical doctrines and should be disciplined by the church. Unhesitatingly and courageously when believers encourage one another, the faith and witness will more vigorously flourish in the fellowship of Christianity.[39]

If the Christians are neglecting the general assemblies of the church more than four months, they should be excommunicated by the church. If the pastors, deacons or deaconess are not qualified biblically, they should not be in such positions. The Christians should be with full submission and dedication to the glorious ministry. They should have the zeal, passion and burden heart to lead the congregation spiritually unto God, and to teach the congregation with sound doctrines.

Unless clergy or laity teaches the sound doctrine, how they will realize the church discipline? The discipline will be in the church when the church know, that the Bible is only the supreme authority over everything. If there is sound doctrine in the church, she will be separated from the world and false doctrines. There the discipline will be implemented.

Is Excommunication corrective?

Excommunication is much important in discipline. Paul shows when he not only chastises the incestuous Corinthian with words but punishes him with excommunication, as soon as he has been apprised of the crime (1 Cori 5:3). In excommunication, the intent is to lead the sinner to repentance and to remove bad examples from the midst, lest either Christ’s name be maligned or others be provoked to imitate them. So therefore, the final step of excommunication is still with hope that repentance will result.[40]

Matt 18:15-20 clearly states that the procedure and authority for the church to practice “excommunication”. ‘Excommunication is the removal of an individual (offended person) from the membership of the church, and also to be separated from that individual for a period of time’. It instructs that the ultimate goal of the excommunication/discipline is for the restoration of the individual to full fellowship with both God and co-believers. So the church should know that excommunication is to be done in love toward the individual with godly fear in the church for the sake of others. Of course, many times when the disciplinary action has done in the churches of this time with love and correct manner, it is not successful in bringing the guilty one to the genuine repentance. Nevertheless it should be followed by the churches because it is commanded in God’s Word. Hopefully the disciplinary action of the church is successful in bringing about godly sorrow and genuine repentance. If this happens, the repentant sinner can be restored to the fellowship. Paul encouraged to be restored to fellowship in the church (2 Cori 2:5-8).

The purpose of excommunication is not to throw the offended ones out of the church, so the Bible says that such people should be warned, rebuked, excommunicated and restored for a wide variety of offenses. The concept of discipline which implies the authority over individual members, because the church needs clearly defined ideas of faith and conduct which must be applied.

CONCLUSION

So, what’s been lost? The discipline of the early church and their practices. The early church was practiced with the disciplines. They battled with the world doctrinely and successed. Despite many persecutions they brought the good news everywhere and maintained disciplines. Afterwards, Roman Empire got the authority over the church and it became more and more institutionalized, less and less dependant on God. The church became a persecutor for others. The disciplines became indiscipline, still it continuing in the world. After the reformation also the Protestant Popes lead the church to indiscipline. “Charismatic have never done anything but strip suckers of their money.”[41]

So, the church needs discipline today. For that the “pastors and leaders of other ministries must resolve to be consistent with scripture in separating from false doctrines and false teachers.”[42] If they separated from the false doctrines, then the believers also will be separated like them. Because the “pastor and people are bound together by spiritualities”[43] as members of the body of Christ.

As was the disciplines of the early church, the church now should be practiced. It is very sad to see the state of today’s church and its destination. The high charismatic non conformist teachings of the radical groups of this century should be condemned with pure doctrine.

The purpose of all truly scriptural discipline is the correction of errors and sins and the restoration of the offenders. The discipline accordingly cannot be punitive, but must always be loving and redemptive. The church should consider true discipline as one of the marks of the true church. The goal of church discipline is thus the restoration of erring believers to the way of discipleship the realization of a sanctified church, and the enhancement of the church’s witness in the world. So, Is the church discipline corrective / confrontive? Or punitive / redemptive? For the resolution of the discipline of the church, the writer simply tells that it is corrective not a confrontive, and redemptive not a punitive. It must be implemented in the churches of this age, until her rapture. It can be only by committing to the New Testament church disciplines.

______________________

[1] Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, (England: Victor, 1994), p. 433.

[2] L. Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969), p. 599.

[3] Robert L. Saucy, The Church in God’s Program, (Chicago: Moody, 1972), p. 119.

[4] Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 599.

[5] Saucy, The Church in God’s Program, p. 126.

[6] Ibid, p. 120.

[7] Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 435.

[8] Grudem, Systematic Theology, Pp. 894-895.

[9] Ibid, p. 895.

[10] Ibid., Pp. 895-896.

[11] Rolland D. McCune, Systematic Theology III, (Class notes, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, Fall, 1998), p. 168.

[12] Saucy, The Church in God’s Program, Pp. 120-121.

[13] Ryrie, Basic Theology, p. 433.

[14] J. Carl Laney, A Guide to Church Discipline, (Bethany, 1985), p. 47, quoted in Rolland D. McCune, Systematic Theology III, (Class notes, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, 1998), Pp. 169-170.

[15] Ibid, p. 201.

[16] Ibid, p. 201.

[17] Paul R. Jackson, The Doctrine and Administration of the Church, (Illinois: Regular Baptist Press, 1975), p. 77.

[18] Ibid, p. 77.

[19] Ibid, p. 78.

[20] Ibid, p. 81.

[21] Jackson, The Doctrine and Administration of the Church, p. 80.

[22] Ibid, p. 75.

[23] Leon Morris, The Gospel according to Matthew, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), p. 467.

[24] R.T. France, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Matthew, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), p. 247.

[25] John MacArthur, The MacArthur New Testament Commentary, Matthew 16-23, (Chicago: Moody Press, 2002), p. 132.

[26] Ibid, p. 133.

[27] Arno C. Caebelein, The Gospel of Matthew, (New Jersey: Loizeaux Brothers, 1961), p. 386.

[28] France, Matthew, p. 275.

[29] MacArthur, Matthew 16-23, p. 136.

[30] MacArthur, 1 Corinthians, p. 123.

[31] Ibid, p. 123.

[32] Thomas Charles Edwards, A Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, (Minnesota: Klock and Klock, 1979), p. 148.

[33] Edwards, First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 148.

[34] F. Godet, Commentary on the First Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians, Trans. Rev. A Cusin, Vol. 1, Ch. 1-8, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1957), p. 315.

[35] Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison, The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1971), p. 1420.

[36] J.C. Macaulay, Devotional Studies in the Epistle to the Hebrews, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1949), p. 164.

[37] Donald Guthrie, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Hebrews, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), p. 216.

[38] Arthur W. Pink, An exposition of Hebrews, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989), p. 608.

[39] F.F. Bruce, The epistle to the Hebrews, Rev. ed., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), p. 256.

[40] Gradum, Systematic Theology, p. 894.

[41] Peter S. Ruckman, The Local Church, (Pensacola: BB Book Store, 1989), p. 23.

[42] Fred Moritz, Be Holy, (South Carolina: Bob Jones University Press, 1994), p. 101.

[43] Ernest Pickering, For the Hurting Pastor, (Illinois: Regular Baptist Press, 1987), p. 46.