Sometimes we have big questions, but we don't want to read a 400-page book, or sit through a three-hour lecture to find out the answer - or at least, an answer. Below are questions I've been asked throughout the years, and some that I myself have asked. I've attempted to offer short answers to these questions. While my answers will be brief, my goal is to do them justice. I, of course, will cite any sources for any necessary reference to which I use - lest I be guilty of plagiarism - but my goal here is to offer little answers to big questions.

If you don’t see a question that you want a short answer to, or you wish clarification for an answer that has already been provided please feel free to contact me via any of the methods provided below. Also take note that this page will be always updated as questions come; so your question may be asked and answered in the future. Therefore, be sure to check back to this page, from time to time.

God, Evil and Pain

Is God not immoral for punishing Adam and Eve for sin when he a) put them in the position to sin by putting them in the garden with the forbidden tree, and b) doing the aforementioned action knowing that that they will sin?

If God is “God”, doesn’t He have the right to do what he wants, such as forgive people?

Why did he not just forgive Adam and Eve their sins and avoid all the pain and suffering that their transgression caused themselves, every person that has ever lived since them and also Himself through the death of Jesus on the cross? 

God is not immoral for punishing Adam and Eve for their free-will choice to disobey Him. God wanted to be loved by them willingly. He didn't want automatons. In order for Him to be freely-loved via obedience or freely hated through disobedience, He had to give them an actual choice to act upon. That is an actual choice to love Him, or hate Him.

However, God chose to offer them a choice when He knew what option they would take; namely, to disobey him; and then He punished them for that choice. This is the key; He punished them for their choice to disobey Him. God's foreknowledge of their actions doesn't negate that their actions were still their actions.

However, so much pain and suffering has been caused because of Adam and Eve’s free-will choice to sin. God himself suffered, through Christ's death on the cross. Wouldn't it have been better not to have given Adam and Eve free-will? Or couldn't God have just chosen to forgive them without any punishment? After all He is all-powerful and sovereign right?

God is all-powerful and sovereign, but His choice to put Adam and Eve in the position to be able to sin, knowing that they would sin against Him, set the stage for Him to be able to show Himself to His creation, namely His nature of being love (1 John 4:8), and justice (cf. Hebrews 12:14). God demonstrated His love for us sinful people in that while we were violating His moral laws, He paid the consequences that accompanied them so we don't have to (Romans 5:8). This is the demonstration of His nature of love, as the greatest expression of love is self-sacrifice, (John 15:13).

However, God's nature requires justice to be met and justice requires a consequence be paid. True justice is when the criminal is sent to prison for a crime that they really did commit. Someone had to pay for the sins committed by us human beings; that someone had to be either: A) us as individuals, and we had to pay for our own sins (that is, I can’t take the punishment for your sin nor can you take the punishment for my sin) or B) God. God is able to forgive all those who repent (1 John 1:9) because justice was met through Christ's death.

Moreover, omnipotence, better known as the attribute of being all-powerful, doesn't mean that God can do anything illogical, such as violate His nature, (2 Timothy 2:13). God is Holy (cf. Isaiah 5:16) that is, separate from sin, and so complete separation from sin is something that God must do. Not being separate from sin is not an option for Him. God cannot be in part, sinful, anymore than you or I can be, in part, a rhinoceros.

In summary, the choice to put Adam and Eve in the position to sin, knowing what the outcome will be, allowed God to show, at least, two of His natural attributes. He showed His attribute of love, through Christ's death on the cross, and His justice by punishing sin via Christ's death on the cross.


For additional information on this issue read: https://www.gotquestions.org/if-God-knew-Adam-Eve-sin.html

Is God not immoral for punishing us for Adam's and Eve's choice to sin against Him? 

No. We suffer the consequences of our sin, not the sins of Adam and Eve. They suffered for their own sin. However, their sins did more than sever the human being's relationship with God. It completely destroyed this entire creation, physically and metaphysically, (Romans 1:18-32, 2:1-29, 3:1-31, 8:22). Just as the law of biogenesis describes why we are homo sapiens, because Adam and Eve were homo sapiens, it also describes why we are natural born sinners. Adam and Eve's choice to disobey God changed their natures from being sinless to sinful. So this is the simple case of: from sinful creatures comes sinful creatures. You and I didn't choose to be born sinful anymore than we chose to be born homo sapiens. Sinfulness is just as much of our ontologies as being homo sapien is. Namely, being sinful is not who we are, it is what we are. Everything about us, physically and metaphysically, is naturally a violation to God's nature.

This, however, doesn't undermine God's nature which is wrathful, just and righteous. God hates imperfection - that is, imperfection according to His nature; and irregardless of whether or not this sinful nature is a reality that someone was born with, or an intellectual choice, God has to make things right and punish sin. The fact is however sin is not mere intellectual choice we make; we are all born outlaws - as we naturally break God's law, (1 John 3:4) in how we act and think - and all violations of God's law must be punished. We naturally and willingly disobey him, therefore, we all are being punished for our sins. We as individuals are not being punished for the sins of Adam and Eve, the sins of our friends, or parents, or anyone else; we are suffering our own choices to disobey God.

Why did God have to come down as the man Jesus to so save the world from its sins?

The effective sacrificial substitute for sin had to be one that was human (so animal sacrifices were insufficient), as it was human beings who did the evil deed, and thus it is to be them who pays for their crimes. However, the effective sacrifice had to be God, as the sacrifice had to be one who would be sacrificed, not for their own sins, but for the sins of the criminal. However, this sacrifice also had to be one who would also be able to live through it so to tell the tale. Jesus’ death paid the consequences of sin, while His resurrection conquered the effects of sin.

How can you say God is all-loving when he sees someone’s development in the womb going awry, which will end in them being born disabled in some way, and not do anything to prevent it from happening?

There are a lot of reasons why some people are disabled and others are not. Some are disabled after birth due to pure stupidity, e.g. they drive while intoxicated, of which results in them getting in an accident, of which causes them to be disabled; or one can be disabled from the stupidity of another, such as being the victim of an intoxicated motorist. Others are struck by a disease that slowly eats away at their bodies, such as ALS. While others are born physically or mentally disabled. As the question is dealing with the last reason given, I will concentrate on that phenomena only.

One reason why someone might be born disabled, is to show God's nature through them. John's Gospel account records Jesus healing a blind man, (John 9:1-12). Jesus' disciples asked Jesus why the blind man was unable to see? They hypothesized that perhaps it was some sort of punishment, (John 9:2). Jesus said that it had nothing to do with sin, (John 9:3a), but rather it was a part of God's long term plan. John writes:

"Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world.” (John 9:3-5)

God allowed this man to be born blind and live his childhood and - up to that point - adulthood as a blind man so that on that day God could demonstrate, through Jesus His love for him, and to the rest of us.

However, this man must have suffered greatly due to God's choice to not heal him while he was in the womb. What rationale can be given to explain God's actions? God doesn't need to explain Himself. He has His reasons. We don't know what they are, but our ignorance of them doesn't negate their existence, nor does it negate their goodness. In sum, God's reasons are His own. They are good and they justify His actions.

If God is all-good, all-powerful and all-knowing, as Christians assert, please explain all the evil that is going on in our world!

One would have to be living on planet oblivious to not know that there is pain and suffering going on in this world; that is, pain and suffering at the hands of human beings, such as criminals, and even by our imperfect friends and family members who hurt us once in awhile; and then there is pain and suffering by natural devastation, such as hurricanes and earthquakes; and then there is the perception of injustice; that is, we have real pain and experience genuine suffering because of confusion as to why we are going through what we are going through at a time. It is this reality that often gives birth to questions like:

If there is, in reality, a God who is all the characteristics that Christians attribute to Him - omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence - how can pain and suffering still exist?

The foundational reason for all pain and suffering, in all of its ways is due to the choice to sin. Adam and Eve chose to disobey God which, as a result, destroyed this creation, (Romans 5:12). We humans are of the same nature as Adam and Eve, namely sinful, ergo, we naturally sin against God, bringing more suffering into our own lives, and into the lives of others.

However, lying, cheating, theft, murder, sexual infidelity, etc. don't cause earthquakes and hurricanes. The consequence of murder is prison; it is not the destruction of a community of people living on an island by a tsunami - that's all on God, correct?

From one angle everything is all on God. God has the ability to stop things like hurricanes from brewing, and evil people from doing evil acts, and, for whatever reasons, He doesn't stop them.

However, let's not forget the non-reported stories of God actually stopping such incidences from happening. We never hear about these stories because they never happened to be written about. They didn't happen because God, in His sovereignty and wisdom, put a stop to them before they had the chance to become anything.

However, why doesn't God stop everyone from causing pain? We are given what we need to know, such as the knowledge that we are free-will agents who choose to violate His laws and, thus, suffer His wrath. Why doesn't He override the free-will of people who want to cause pain and suffering, and prevent them from causing suffering and pain? Free-will is a metaphysical rope that you can either pull yourself along with or hang yourself with. God doesn't want to take away the free-will from anyone. He wants us all to obey Him willingly; and if we choose to disobey Him, He wants our defiance to be, likewise, a willful choice thus making His wrath warranted.

However, why doesn't He stop natural disasters? God has secrets (Deuteronomy 29:29) and we don't know what they are. We all have to accept that we won't know why God does the things that He does from time to time. Scripture can give us possible insight to possible reasons for why He does the things He does. For example: "why God allows some people to be disabled and not others?" God allowed the man recorded in John 9 to be born blind, and Jesus explains why:

Jesus answered, “It was neither that this man sinned, nor his parents; but it was so that the works of God might be displayed in him. We must work the works of Him who sent Me as long as it is day; night is coming when no one can work. While I am in the world, I am the Light of the world. (John 9:3-5)

In sum, God allowed that man to be disabled so He could show His love through the act of healing him. However, this may not be the reason why another person today was born disabled in some way. There are reasons why people are born disabled. We may not know medically speaking what those reasons are, but we can take comfort in that there are reasons for why God permits someone to be born disabled in some way. We may never know what the reason is, but our ignorance of God's reasoning, doesn't negate that He actually has a reason. In the same way, we may not know why God allowed a hurricane to brew in some tropical area of the earth, or to allow the earth to shake in another, and in both cases killing many people and maiming others as a result; but our lack of knowledge of His rationale, and understanding for His rationale doesn't negate that that He has a reason, and the purpose was for good.

The Apostle Paul instructs slaves to obey their masters (cf. Ephesians 6:5), does that mean he is for human slavery?

No. Paul's ministry was evangelical, not political; his concern was to ensure that people, in all walks of life, slave, free, slave-master, etc. all knew about the saving grace of Jesus. This task was hard enough to do, so he had to pick his battles. Not spearheading an anti-slavery campaign, like the way William Wilberforce is known for having done, doesn't mean that Paul was pro-slavery.

Why, however, would God allow Paul to encourage slaves to maintain their slavery status, instead of making a plea to the slave masters to stop owning human beings?

  1. The economics of slavery in the first century was not something that can be toppled in a day.
  2. Slavery and slave-owning in the first century was a completely different animal than it was in the time of William Wilberforce. Slavery was, for many people, a lifesaving option. Many first-century people opted into slavery, and became dependant upon someone to look after them. They gave their entire autonomy and being, as legal property, to that other human being so to stay alive.

With this in mind, passages like Ephesians 6:5 make more sense. Since Paul was not on a political campaign, but an evangelical one, his instructions to slaves was:

[Be] obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. (Ephesians 6:5-8)

What is Paul's message? "Slaves, represent Jesus through your submission to your earthly master. Do good work, not for your master but for Jesus; but work for your master as you would work for Jesus, (cf. Matthew 25:31-46). Show your earthly master that you respect him as your earthy master, and that it is Christ in your life that has encouraged this attitude."

Then Paul addresses the slave-masters:

And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him. (Ephesians 6:9)

In sum: "Hey, slave masters. Your slave may cook your meal and scrub your toilets as your legal property, but the truth is, you and that person who you call your slave are equals. Show your slaves the love of Jesus."

Paul is trying to change the way people look at each other.  This is very apparent in his letter to a slave master named Philemon, about his runaway slave, Onesimus. Paul encourages Philemon to take Onesimus "back forever, no longer as a slave, but more than a slave, a beloved brother," (Philemon 1:15-16) in Christ.

Paul is trying to change minds, not change policies; it, however, is the perspectives on things that make changes in the political arena. Paul is trying to encourage people to see each other as how God sees them and that other person: a beloved creation of His, and then to treat themselves and that other person as if it were actually true - because it was and still is!

Isn't Jesus being narrow-minded for making salvation only through him?

Many Christians are accused of being narrow minded for asserting that their version of Jesus is the true version and, thus, the only way to eternal salvation. Why do they say such things? The answer is simple: Jesus declared that He is God and the only way to receive salvation, (John 14:6). He is clear that unless someone actively accepts that He is the son of God, (John 1:14, 8:24, 58) they will not receive salvation; in sum, they will die in eternal separation from God in Hell.

Assuming for a moment, then, that this is true, perhaps another question should be asked instead:

If Jesus truly loves the world as John states (John 3;16) then why wouldn't He accept all those who recognize him and follow his morals and values, such as loving one's neighbour, irregardless of how they see Him? In other words: Why is Jesus being so narrow minded by declaring that an active belief that He, as God, is the only way to heaven?

One could be give a glib response by arguing that Jesus is the creator (John 1:3), and thus isn't it His prerogative to design how things are done? Logically, yes. If parents are allowed to say to their children: "while you are under my roof you'll obey my rules," then doesn't God get at least the same amount of freedom over His creation? Yes. How about more freedom than a parent? Yes. The parent is subject to His rules, but there is nothing, or no one to whom God is subject to; that is except for His nature.

However a better response would be to argue that it must only be through Jesus' shed blood on the cross, (Hebrews 9:22) where we can receive eternal salvation. There is more to it than Jesus acting on his right to do things His way, as Jesus didn't have a choice to be the doorway to eternal salvation, (John 10:9) for His creation - if He wanted to reconcile His creation back to Himself, of which He did. Jesus is God, (John 8:58) and, therefore, He is holy, which means He is separate from sin. God doesn't merely choose holiness as if it were a standard that He holds himself to but doesn't have to; rather, He is, by nature, holy and He cannot not be His divine nature, (2 Timothy 2:13).

In sum, neither Jesus nor the Christian, are narrow-minded by asserting that Jesus is the only way to eternal salvation. Jesus, as God, is the only way to heaven because the only standard by which His nature allows Him to accept is holiness, and He is the only way to ensure that our natures eventually become holy, as He is holy, (1 Peter 1:16).

Don't the authors of the Gospel, and the New Testament letters have an agenda, namely to push their worldviews onto others solely based on the fact that they believe their views are true? How can we know that their views are in fact "true" despite the fact that they believed them to be true?

Yes, the authors of the four Gospels and the New Testament letters do have an agenda. However, all writings push an agenda. The agenda of a news article is to inform the reader of the story. The author of a piece in the "opinion" section of the newspaper wants to show their distaste or approval for something that happened in some way - that is their agenda. A student in a history course will write an essay on a historical figure so to convey to their professor what they've learned about that particular historical person, and they write their essay with great care so to get a high mark on their work. This is the student's twofold agenda. This is how reality works and so, of course, the authors of the Gospels had an agenda. Their agenda was simply to inform their respective readers (as all the authors had a different targeted audiences) about the: "who, what, why, when, where and how" of Jesus' ministry (and the aftermath of His ministry, as seen in the book of Acts.)

However, it is true that a belief in something and a recording of events that surround that belief doesn't mean that the beliefs and events are true. Therefore, let's ask a question:

  • “How many early recordings for the belief and associated events are there?" Scholars from across the religious spectrum, (that is, from
    religious to skeptical) all agree that the New Testament is the most attested work of antiquity. So, we have many recordings of the same events.

However - putting highly supporting resources aside - how can they be shown to be true? In other words, "How can it be shown that Christianity is indeed true?" There are several ways to show that Christianity is, in fact, either true or false.

  1. "Are the Christian teachings - to which are considered to be  divinely inspired - internally consistent or do at least some of the teachings clash with each others?" Taking into account a lot of factors, such as 1st century Jewish culture, the messages that are within Scripture, literary genre, the application of hermeneutics and some basic reading skills, the Bible is shown to be internally consistent.
  2. Are Christianity's doctrines consistent with objective logic? Albeit, there are some teachings within Scripture that are strange, downright unpleasant, and many which rub against our modern day consciences. Christian doctrine, however, is consistent with logic when looked at objectively - that is, without a strong desire for it to be true or false.
  3. Is Christianity's doctrine of God's nature logical? What does it mean to be God? There are thousands of theistic religions which offer an answer to this question. The God of the Bible is love, holy, omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, totally sovereign, just, righteous and wrathful. These characteristics are logically consistent with the claim of being a God.
  4. Do the tenets of Christianity conflict with the outer world? An objective and logical look at the rest of academia shows that God is the author of all we get to study, ranging from ethics to science. Christianity is consistent with a logical look at reality.
  5. Does the Christian doctrine of sin accurately and reasonably explain the human condition? Are we human beings merely imperfect beings or are we failures of a perfect standard? If humans are merely "imperfect", then we have no choice but to put telling a lie to get out of trouble and going on a murderous rampage in the same moral camp; as they are just on different points on the "imperfect" scale. However, if sin (missing God's standard) is true, then telling a lie and murder must likewise be put in the same 'sin' camp; however, sin is a failure to meet a standard and that failure must come with discipline and/or punishment. Jesus took the punishment for both the liar's moral crime of lying, and the murderer's moral crime of murder as both "crimes" are against Him. Why? Both “crimes” warrant the same consequence - separation from Him for eternity.

Christianity is a testable worldview. If the test results show that all the early accounts support history, the sciences and logic and are internally consistent and offer a logical explanation for the human condition and the nature of God, then it is a safe bet that Christianity is true.

However, everyone says that their worldview fits all the criteria above. However, two or more messages that are in conflict can't be both true. Every theistic religion offers an explanation for the nature of God, but since all descriptions of the deity are all necessarily in conflict, only one view can be rendered true. Orthodox Christianity for example asserts the existence of a monotheistic triune God (there is only 1 God and His nature is 3 persons [cf. Isaiah 46:9]); while there are many monotheistic religions who believe in one God, but whose nature is unitarian (1 being who is by nature 1 person). If God is not triune, then Christianity is necessary false. If God is triune, then Christianity is correct about God's nature.

The New Testament writers had an agenda to push forward their views; and their agenda was based on their conviction that their views are correct; and their convictions are established on observances (cf. Acts 9). It is important however that we too have an agenda; namely an agenda to look at what they are saying objectively and allow the results of our analysis to be what they are irregardless of our emotional response to their views.

One issue that plagues an objective look at facts is emotion. When we are content with our views that helps make our world round, and as such we feel good and happy. Distress however comes into play when confusion enters the situation; and as a result the mere proposition that someone is wrong can send them into the place of wounded pride; and wounded pride can result in denial that they are wrong. Therefore in order to see the truth of the facts, one's allegiances or passion for their position cannot overshadow their analysis. We ought to look at our claims objectively for what they are, irregardless of our desires that they be right and apposing views are wrong. This way we can take comfort with reality even if we don't like what we find.

To conclude: the "who, why, where, what, when and how" of the New Testament documents are shown to be true when analyzed carefully, and objectively.

Faith and scientific interpretations

How can Christians who believe in the Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory, as a correct explanation for the origin of life and this universe, maintain the words recorded in Genesis 1:1? 

The Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are the two leading theories that attempt to explain the origins of our universe and all life on this earth; and many Christians accept these two theories as valid "origin explanations", while many others Christians and non-Christians simply assume that they are true. Assuming, then, that these theories are true, how can a Christian who believes: "In the beginning God created" (Genesis 1:1) also accept that some unknown cause - to which in the future may be scientifically explained - gave birth to our universe, billions of years ago? If the Darwinist and the Big-Bang theorist want their Darwinian theory and their Big-Bang, they first need to have a Big-God. Charles Darwin's theory of evolution needs God as the first cause even if, in the future, we were to find another factor that is shown to have been responsible for the Big-Bang; it stands to reason to demand an explanation for that scientifically explainable factor. In sum, no matter how far you push the causes that lead up to our existence you will always need to have a supernatural first cause to start the first natural-cosmic ball rolling.

Can someone be a true Christian and accept Darwinian Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang theory?

What does it mean to be "a Christian"? A Christian is someone who is called to holiness by God. A Christian is someone who has accepted that they are violators God's law, and rightfully deserves eternal punishment as a result. As a result of this revelation they will repent from their sins and follow God, who is Jesus Christ. One’s salvation does not hinge on their acceptance or rejection of a position on creationism. The notable exception, of course, is that their position on creation requires a necessary belief that there is an intelligent creator behind everything and that intelligent designer is Jesus Christ.

Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory are taken for granted to be fact; as such, the view that the universe is many billions of years old is likewise assumed to be true. Why do some Christians assert, then, that the universe is actually 6,000-10,000 years old when so many scientists and scholars suggest otherwise? 

Through a plain reading of the genealogies (cf. Matthew 1; Luke 3:23-37) written in the Christian Bible the origin of our universe can be dated back to roughly 6,000 years ago. Even with a large margin of error dedicated to missing genealogies, there may be a factor of a few thousand years missing. In sum, the Young-Earth-Creationist, (YEC) believes that no matter how badly one may want to see billions of years between, "Day 1", and "Day 7" in Genesis 1, such a task cannot be done without taking creative liberty on the text of Scripture. The YEC, therefore, considers that the billions of years that are officially attributed to the natural data is a mere interpretation, an interpretation that has a foundation to which, thusly, gave birth to a flawed conclusion. Ergo, they reinterpret the data in light of Scripture. The YEC concludes that when viewing the natural data through the proper lens, to which they assert is the lens of Scripture, the true interpretation of the natural data will be apparent.

Isn't, however, the YEC putting their religious bias ahead of an objective look at the natural data? Keep in mind that the multi-billions of years or the deep-time conclusion also has a non-scientific foundation that overshadows the natural data. The result of this foundation is what gives birth to our deep-time interpretation of the natural data. So both parties are alluding to positions on the natural data that is established in non-scientific foundations. To conclude, an objective look at the natural data is important, but looking at the aforementioned data through the right lens is of equal importance.


For further research on the Young Earth Creationist position see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pN4YR_1kwL0&list=PL11166601CA0FB279

I’m confused!

The Trinity! Huh?

The Trinitarian doctrine is one of the most confusing tenets of the Christian faith. However, when applying the basic laws of logic the
Trinitarian doctrine is quite easy to understand. So, first, what are the basic laws of logic?

  1. The law of identity: A is A. For example, an apple is an apple. It is not a pear, or a banana, or an orange, or any other kind of fruit. It is an apple.
  2. The law of excluded middle: Something will either be A or B. A piece of fruit will be either an apple or a pear (or any other kind of fruit). It has to be one or the other. If it is an apple, it is not a pear, or a banana (or any other kind of fruit).
  3. The law of noncontradiction: "A" cannot be "A" and not "A" at the same time. An apple cannot be an apple and not an apple at the same time.

Since now we've established the three basic laws of logic, let's see how they apply to the nature of God. The Trinity is as follows:

One being, whose nature is three divine persons: The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. God is not three beings in one being, nor three persons in one person. He is one divine being, who is three divine persons; and each person is their unique and separate person and is 100 percent of the one being of God.

Jesus is the Son of the Father and the totality of the one being of God. His identity is The Son (law of identity). He is not the Father, nor The Holy Spirit, (law of excluded middle). He is The Son and will always be The Son. He will never not be The Son at the same time He is The Son (law of non-contraction). Ergo, Jesus is The Son of God for everyone, irregardless if He is accepted, as such, by anyone.

The Holy Spirit is The Holy Spirit, and the totality of the one being of God. His identity is The Holy Spirit (law of identity). He is not the Son, nor The Father, (law of excluded middle). He is The Holy Spirit and will always be The Holy Spirit. He will never not be The Holy Spirit at the same time He is The Holy Spirit (law of non-contraction). Ergo, The Holy Spirit is God for everyone irregardless if He is accepted, as such, by anyone.

The Father is The Father to Jesus, The Son, and the totality of the one being of God. His identity is The Father (law of identity). He is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit, (law of excluded middle). He is The Father and will always be The Father. He will never not be The Father at the same time He is The Father (law of non-contraction). Ergo, The Father is God for everyone irregardless if He is accepted, as such, by anyone.

One argument, however, made against the Trinitarian view of God is that Scripture doesn't have the word "Trinity" in it. This is true. However, one doesn't need to have a title of a doctrine in order to recognize the doctrine. The Trinitarian Doctrine is one of the many threads that appear through Scripture, such as:

"For I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is no one like Me." (Isaiah 46:9)

The first use of the phrase "For I am God" is "el", which is the singular use for God. As such, there is "no other" God or gods. While the use of the second phrase: "I am God", is Elohim which is the plural description of the one God of Christianity, thus making him unique  - "there is no one like Me". Ergo, God is both singular and plural simultaneously.


For further reading on the Christian Trinitarian doctrine see the following:

How can Jesus be completely God and completely human at the same time?

Jesus is, by nature, the one God of Israel. He, however, entered into His own creation as a human male. Jesus didn't just put on a human costume; he took on human nature, thereby, making himself to be completely human, no more or less than you and I are human. His divine nature, however, wasn't affected. At the time of his physical conception Jesus became fully human while remaining completely divine.

If God cannot sin and Jesus is God, thus He cannot sin, how can He be tempted if He couldn’t actually fall for the temptation?

Jesus was completely human in His earthly ministry. Human nature is subject to temptation, and the ability to fall for that temptation. However, the nature of God is not subject to temptation, nor is He able to fall short of His divine standard. Ergo, Jesus could be completely tempted by His human nature to which He chose to take on; however, His divine nature disabled Him from falling for any temptation. God entered creation and fulfilled God's perfect law to which the human nature broke. He was able to do this because He was also divine, a nature that cannot sin.