compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. The Lord is good to all; he has compassion on all he has made” (Psalms 145:8–9). Furthermore, God says in Malachi, “I the Lord do not change” (3:6).
While it is true that the Old Testament contains more stories of God’s judgment (cf. the flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, the Sons of Korah, etc.) than the New Testament, God is said to be both loving and holy throughout the Bible.
You might ponder two points. First, the Old Testament covers a period of about four thousand years; the New Testament covers less than one hundred. Second, God is as serious about sin in the New Testament as he was in the past. The New Testament tells of a time when God’s judgment will come upon all who have not accepted Christ. Using the Old Testament account of the flood, Peter writes, “They deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word . . . the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and the destruction of ungodly men” (2 Peter 3:5–7).
Email “Messages”
Inbox [6/70]
To: Dr. Crane [eaglechristianchurch.com]
Subject: Isn’t the Belief in the Trinity Contradictory?
---Original Message---
Isn’t the very doctrine of the Trinity contradictory?
Reply:
The first thing we should probably acknowledge is that the word “Trinity” appears nowhere in the Bible, and yet the concept is inescapable. Christians knowingly use the word to try to make sense of what is taught in Scripture. Having clarified that, I need also admit—I struggle with the doctrine of the Trinity (the tri-unity of God), while firmly believing that it is both scriptural and rational. On the surface, it would seem that God must be one and not three, or conversely, three and not one—but how could God be both three and one at the same time? The very idea seems at first blush to be a violation of the most fundamental law of thought—the law of noncontradiction.
But a closer examination shows that a Christian belief in unity of “three persons” in “one God” is not a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when something is both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same sense. God is both three and one at the same time, but not in the same sense. God is three persons, but one in essence. God is three persons, but only one in nature.
It would be a contradiction to say that God had three natures in one nature, or that God was three persons in one person. But it is not a contradiction to claim that God has three persons in one nature.
I have heard many helpful (and yet still lacking) explanations. For example: God is like a triangle. At the same time it has three distinct corners and yet it is only one triangle. With a scalene triangle, each corner is not the same as either of the other corners, or the same as the triangle as a whole, but it is a part of the whole triangle. They are distinct and different, but the same.
Or, for the mathematicians among us, maybe God is like “one to the third power” (13), 1 x 1 x 1 = 1. One thing is for sure, God is not 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, which is tritheism or polytheism. God is one God—completely, simultaneously, congruently in three distinct persons. God is: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Another illustration of the Trinity uses man (formed in God’s image) as an example: man is body, mind, and spirit. There is obvious unity between them, yet they are distinct from each other. (This is not to suggest that God is a “person” in the same way we are persons.)1
I have heard other examples as well. Water takes three forms: vapor, liquid, and ice. Eggs contain three parts: white, shell, and yolk. The problem with all of these illustrations is that they fall short of providing an adequate explanation. If I’m honest (and I try to be), the Trinity goes beyond any explanation I can give it. It goes beyond reason without going against reason. It can be apprehended, but not fully comprehended. I believe in the Trinity, not because I understand it, but because it is biblical.
If I thought it would help, I would give an explanation of the differences in thought between those who hold an ontological view of the Trinity and those who hold an economic view of the Trinity—but I’m not even sure which one I hold.
Someone once said, “If we try to understand God completely, we may lose our mind. But if we do not believe in the Trinity, we may very well lose our soul.”
Scriptural references: Matthew 1:21–23; 3:3 (Isaiah 40:3 of God), 16–17; 11:25; 12:31; 16:16–17; 17:5; 28:18–20; Mark 1:9–11; 2:7–10; 12:36–37; 14:33; 15:39; Luke 1:30–35; 3:21–22; John 1:1–3, 14, 18; 3:16, 18; 5:21–26; 8:24, 28, 58; 10:30; 11:25; 14:1, 9–10, 16; 16:15; 17:5, 21–23; 20:28, 31; Acts 2:21 (Joel 2:32 of Jesus), 33–36, 38; 5:3–9; 7:59; 10:36; Romans 5:1–5; 8:9–11; 9:5; 15:6, 30; 1 Corinthians 1:24; 2:4–16; 3:16–17; 6:11, 19–20; 8:6; 12:4–6; 16:22; 2 Corinthians 1:20–21; 3:17; 5:19; 12:8; 13:14; Galatians 1:1; 3:20; 4:4–6; Ephesians 1:22; 2:18; 3:14–17; 4:4–6; Philippians 2:5–11; Colossians 1:3–8, 15–17 (Psalms 89:27 calls the Messiah the “first-born,” i.e. highest of all kings); 2:9; 1 Thessalonians 3:11–12; 5:18–19; 2 Thessalonians 2:13–14; Titus 1:3; 2:13; 3:4–6; Hebrews 1:1–4, 5–10 (Psalms 45:6–7); 8:58; 9:14; 10:30; 13:8; 1 Peter 1:1–2; Jude 20–21; 1 John 4:13–16; 5:20–21; Revelation 1:4, 8; 3:13; 4:8; 5:8–13; 17:14; 19:16; 21:5–6; 22:1–5, 13.
1. I am not suggesting that God is a person in the same sense as we are persons. It is intended to indicate three modes of being (subsistence) within the Godhead that are distinct and distinguishable, but not separate or separatable. When we speak of God’s “being,” or “existence,” or “personhood,” it can only be by way of analogy. In reality, God is like nothing else in the universe. God’s reality is eternal, uncaused, and necessary. To apply these types of terms (being, existence, personhood) to God who stands outside of time and space will always fall short.
Email “Messages”
Inbox [7/70]
To: Dr. Crane [eaglechristianchurch.com]
Subject: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?
---Original Message---
I believe in God and most of the Bible, but I have trouble with the miracles. Its seems illogical to believe that Jesus could walk on water. Do you really believe the miracles of the Bible?
Reply:
If you believe in God, it is only logical to believe in miracles! To demonstrate this, I would love to ask you three questions. First, is your God able to act? Second, if he is able to act, what do you call acts of God? Third, from our perspective, wouldn’t all acts of God be miracles? Logically, miracles are only impossible if there is no God.
I’d like to tell you a fable. In order for this story to work, you need to pretend inanimate objects and animals can talk. A dog and a hunter were out by a tree near a lake on a warm, fall day. The dog was resting under the tree when the hunter called for the dog to come. The tree said to the dog, “You can’t go over there, it’s impossible.” For the tree to get up and walk—that would be impossible. But the dog got up and walked over to the hunter (there is nothing problematic about a walking dog).
The man told the dog, “I am going to get a gun,
