MPJ argues that theological explanations of God's nature, while potentially helpful, should not be elevated to the status of gospel essentials or used as tests of spiritual life and death. He distinguishes between biblical confession—affirmed testimony about God as Father, Son, and Spirit—and philosophical theological systems designed to explain how these truths cohere, cautioning that when explanatory frameworks replace direct biblical testimony, they risk replacing faith in Christ himself with adherence to doctrinal formulations. Drawing on Deuteronomy 29:29 and John 17:3, MPJ contends that Scripture prioritizes knowing the living God as revealed rather than resolving every metaphysical question, and expresses concern that selective quotations of his work have been misinterpreted through theological frameworks he does not hold.
Outline
I. Introduction
- Purpose of the article
- Response to accusations regarding denying the Trinity
II. Context of the Controversy
- Quote from an article condemning MPJ
- Immediate reflections on accusations
III. Concerns for the Weaker Believers
- Emphasis on the impact of strong theological language on newer believers
- The importance of pastoral care in theological discussions
IV. Concerning the Accusations
- Clarifications on doctrinal stance
- Affirmation of the Trinity and the nature of God
- Distinction between theological formulations and Scripture
- Importance of Scripture over philosophical constructs
V. The Danger of Elevating Explanations
- The risk of treating theological frameworks as essential to faith
- Faith should focus on Christ as revealed in Scripture, not on human explanations
VI. Historical Context of Doctrinal Formations
- Development of theological terms in historical context
- Mention of Arianism and the necessity for clarity
VII. Call for Greater Discernment
- Encouragement not to bind consciences to specific confessions
- Scriptural focus on knowing God rather than philosophical precision
VIII. Conclusion
- Encouragement for pastoral wisdom in theological discussions
- Reminder of hope in Christ, regardless of doctrinal clarity
Key Quotes
“My heart is much more with the weak, the young believer, and the one who is simply trying to look to Christ and rejoice in Him…”
“The real disagreement then comes down to this…whether post-biblical metaphysical language…should be regarded as part of the gospel itself.”
“When those structures are elevated to the level of gospel boundary markers, the focus subtly shifts from trusting Christ as He is revealed in Scripture…”
“Scripture places eternal life not in mastering explanatory schemes but in knowing the only true God and Jesus Christ whom He has sent.”
“Revelation is always a gift, never a possession.”
Scripture References
- I Corinthians 8:2: Discusses knowledge and humility in theological understanding.
- Deuteronomy 29:29: Emphasizes God’s revelation and unknown mysteries.
- Psalms 119:18: A plea for divine illumination and understanding of Scripture.
- II Timothy 2:7: Encourages contemplation of the Lord’s wisdom.
- John 17:3: Defines eternal life in the context of knowing God and Christ.
Doctrinal Themes
- The nature of salvation rooted in Christ rather than theological formulations.
- Importance of Scripture as the final authority over human explanations.
- Caution against binding Christian identity to specific theological jargon or explanations.
- The historical development of Christian doctrine in response to heresies.
- The need for theological discernment that prioritizes personal faith over systemic theology.
What does the Bible say about the Trinity?
The Bible affirms the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit but does not define them using later philosophical terminology.
The Scripture clearly reveals God as one, encompassing the Father, Son, and Spirit. While traditions have developed specific philosophical language, such as three distinct co-equal persons sharing one divine essence, the Bible itself does not use these terms. Instead, it focuses on God's self-revelation, inviting believers to know Him as He is described in His Word. Thus, while concise theological formulations can be helpful, they should not replace or redefine the gospel itself, which centers on the testimony of Christ.
John 17:3, Deuteronomy 29:29
How do we know the Trinity is essential to the Christian faith?
The essentiality of the Trinity arises from the biblical testimony rather than from later philosophical definitions.
The necessity of the Trinity for the Christian faith stems from the revelation of God as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within Scripture. While distinct theological constructs have been developed to elucidate this relationship, the centrality of God's self-revelation takes precedence. Any framework that insists on a particular philosophical description as gospel boundary risks shifting faith from Christ alone to human definitions. Thus, while we affirm God’s triune nature, it is critical that our understanding remains anchored in the Scriptures and not in extrabiblical formulations.
Matthew 13:11, John 17:3
Why is understanding the Trinity important for Christians?
Understanding the Trinity is vital because it helps Christians grasp the nature of God and His work of salvation.
Comprehending the Trinity is key, as it encompasses the relationship and roles of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in salvation and in the believer’s life. This understanding honors God's self-revelation and informs how believers engage with the divine. Removing or altering the understanding of the Trinity risks distorting the gospel message itself, as it dilutes the unique contributions of each person in the Godhead to our redemption and relationship with God. Therefore, while discussions can be nuanced, the fundamental belief in the Trinity must shape all aspects of Christian faith and worship.
Ephesians 1:4-5, Romans 8:28-30
What is the danger of philosophical definitions in relation to the gospel?
Philosophical definitions can obscure the gospel by turning explanatory frameworks into tests of spiritual life.
The danger in relying too heavily on philosophical definitions of the Trinity is that it can elevate these frameworks to a status where they seemingly become tests of one's faith. This shift can cause believers to focus more on affirming particular theological constructs rather than anchoring their faith in the person of Christ as revealed in Scripture. The moment elaboration on God's nature becomes a condition for salvation, it risks conflating understanding with faith, potentially alienating those who may not grasp every doctrinal nuance yet genuinely seek Christ.
Galatians 1:6-9, John 17:3
Editor's note: I am a Trinitarian. But the article I'm sharing with you below is something I agree with 100%. Trinitarianism is not the Gospel. - brandan
Trinitarianism: “And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know.” I Corinthians 8:2.
“Thus, he is not a brother in Christ; he is a blasphemer and a cultist!” — “Although MPJ relies heavily on cult-like tactics, logical fallacies, and strawman arguments to challenge the Trinity, the only cure for the heretic MPJ is the true gospel of the Triune God.” — “MPJ loathes the concept of the Trinity so much that he created a straw man to argue against it.” Those lines, taken on their own, fairly capture the spirit of a lengthy article written about me, in which I was charged with denying the Trinity, or at least a particular formulation of it, and on that basis declared outside the faith. I cite it not to answer the accusation itself, but because it illustrates the manner in which the entire case was framed.
The name of the article was, “Abusing ‘Righteousness’ at the Expense of the Trinity: A Reply to Marc Peter Jacobsson, Sovereign Redeemer Books.” It was written roughly two months ago, though I only became aware of it yesterday, and that only because someone felt compelled to direct me to it. In one sense, I wish I had never seen it. I am generally content to walk quietly, to labor in my own corner, and to leave controversy where it lies. And yet, having now seen it, I find myself conflicted. Not because my confidence has been shaken, nor because I feel a need to vindicate myself, but because I cannot help but think of how such words might land on others, particularly on those who are weak, new to the faith, or simply trying to learn Christ without being caught in the crossfire of theological hostilities.
My primary concern has never been for those who feel firmly established in the faith, or for those who are confident in their theological systems and well-versed in doctrinal distinctions. My heart is much more with the weak, the young believer, and the one who is simply trying to look to Christ and rejoice in Him, without yet understanding many of these finer points of doctrine. It is to those that my thoughts continually gravitate, and with them in mind, I can’t help but wonder how such strong warnings, accusations, and condemnations might sound to ears that are not accustomed to sifting theological controversy. Such warnings are not light matters, and they ought to make all of us cautious, myself included.
My wife remarked, when I mentioned these things to her, “why does he even waste his time on you? Doesn’t he have anything better to do?” If these questions touch the heart of the gospel as he understands it, then to ignore them would feel irresponsible. In that sense, I do not doubt his sincerity, nor do I assume his motives are petty or personal. He believes he is contending for Christ, and that is no small thing. Seen from that angle, his words are not born of indifference, but of earnest conviction. I do not doubt that the author loves what he understands to be the truth, nor do I question his zeal for guarding the faith once delivered to the saints. Such concern, when rightly ordered, is commendable. I’m reminded of Calvin's words: “A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God's truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.” The church has always needed men who take doctrine seriously and are genuinely concerned about error where Christ is at stake.
If I am honest, what keeps me careful in moments like this is a sober awareness of my own frailty. I do not stand on any imagined ground of infallibility, nor do I presume a clarity that others must share. I have wavered before, and I have misunderstood the Scriptures more than once. There is much I do not see clearly. At times, the thought even crosses my mind, what if they are right in some way? Not in the accusations made, but in seeing something I have missed. I am no theologian. I do not pretend to possess a comprehensive grasp of these matters. There are things others claim to see with clarity that I struggle to see at all, even when I labor to set aside my own assumptions and preconceived notions. It is a mercy to remember that our hope does not rest in our theological clarity, but in the Lord’s kindness to preserve us, even from ourselves, and to keep us from serious error, even when we’re blind to it. Psalms 119:18.
Further, if I am to be consistent with what I believe about God’s sovereignty in salvation, then I must also accept that understanding itself falls under that same sovereignty. II Timothy 2:7. God may have opened my eyes to some things, and He has left me blind to others for reasons known only to Him. I trust that there are brethren who see more clearly where I remain unsure. Revelation is always a gift, never a possession. And if God is to be known, He must make Himself known. Matthew 13:11.
With those opening thoughts, I want to briefly and plainly clarify something, not as a rebuttal, and certainly not as a defense of myself, but for the sake of those who may be confused by the charges that have been made. I know that I am not a denier of the Trinity in the sense in which that charge is commonly understood. I do not deny the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit. I do not deny the full and undiminished deity of Christ. I do not deny the Spirit of God, nor do I treat Him as an impersonal force. And I do not deny the testimony of Scripture concerning God’s self-revelation.
At bottom, the difference between myself and this critic is not whether the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are divine. On that point, there is no dispute. I affirm Christ’s full deity without reserve. I affirm the Father, the Son, and the Spirit without hesitation. I affirm the Scriptures without embarrassment or apology. The difference at hand is not whether God is revealed as Father, Son, and Spirit, but in how far we are willing to press certain theological formulations beyond the language and testimony of Scripture itself, and then bind consciences to them as tests of spiritual life and death.
Theological systems do not arise out of thin air, nor are they born merely of pride or speculation. They are often formed in earnest attempts to safeguard truth, to answer real errors, and to give structure to the church’s understanding of Scripture. In that sense, they can be genuinely helpful. They provide language, categories, and guardrails that assist teachers and learners alike, especially in times of controversy. But systems, by their very nature, are secondary things. They help us speak about what Scripture teaches, but they are not themselves the measure of faith, nor the ground of our acceptance with God. Trouble arises when what was meant to serve understanding begins to govern conscience, when explanatory frameworks are pressed beyond Scripture’s own testimony and then treated as definitive tests of spiritual life and death.
Scripture invites clear and reverent confession, but it does not urge us beyond what God has revealed. It leaves unexplained things in His hands, where they belong. Deuteronomy 29:29. Its concern is not that we master metaphysical categories, but that we know the living God as He makes Himself known. John 17:3. Biblical confession centers on testimony: God is one; the Father sent the Son; the Word was made flesh; the Spirit gives life; Christ is Lord. Philosophical precision seeks to explain how these truths fit together. These can be helpful, but the danger is when an explanation replaces the confession, so that agreeing with a certain way of describing God is treated as equal to believing in Christ Himself. Scripture calls us to believe the testimony God has given of His Son; it does not require that we resolve every philosophical question that testimony raises.
One additional concern I feel compelled to note is a recurring pattern in how my words have been handled. Portions of my writings are quoted selectively, extracted and then interpreted through “oneness” or “modalist” frameworks that I have never adopted. It’s as though questioning certain doctrinal formulations automatically places me within those camps. It may help to say plainly what I have not said, and what I do not believe. I have never claimed that the Son is the Father, nor that the Spirit is merely a force. I have never taught that Christ is a created being, nor that the Son did not exist prior to the incarnation. Those ideas are rightly rejected because Scripture itself rejects them. What I have questioned is not the scriptural testimony itself, but the necessity of adopting later philosophical descriptions as though they were Scripture’s own speech.
The real disagreement, then, comes down to this, whether post-biblical metaphysical language, phrases such as “three eternal persons sharing one divine essence,” or carefully articulated distinctions like the Father as unbegotten, the Son as eternally begotten, and the Spirit as eternally proceeding, should be regarded as part of the gospel itself, or whether it represents a theological model developed to safeguard and summarize biblical truth? My contention has never been with the biblical testimony. It has been with the elevation of a particular explanatory framework to the status of gospel boundary. At this point, faith is no longer anchored in Christ as He is revealed in Scripture, but in one’s ability to articulate or affirm a particular theological construct. When those structures are elevated to the level of gospel boundary markers, the focus subtly shifts, from trusting Christ as He is revealed in Scripture, to affirming particular explanatory schemes as measures of spiritual life and death.
The Bible names the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, and bears faithful witness to each. It does not, however, speak in terms of three distinct, co-equal, co-eternal persons subsisting within one divine essence. That language developed later, particularly in the fourth century, as the church faced internal disputes over the person of Christ and the nature of God, (most notably in response to Arianism,) and began to employ philosophical terms drawn from Greek metaphysics to clarify and defend what it believed Scripture taught. If others wish to speak in that kind of protestant or confessional language, they are free to do so. I have no desire to police vocabulary, nor to silence those who find such formulations helpful. But neither do I feel compelled to follow where Scripture itself does not lead, or to labor to disprove systems I do not believe in. No believer, as far as I can see, is bound to accept a particular philosophical vocabulary simply because it became traditional.
And it remains an open and serious question, one that has not been demonstrated from that critique, how salvation itself is made to hinge upon affirming Nicene metaphysics rather than upon believing the testimony God has given of His Son. Scripture places eternal life not in mastering explanatory schemes, but in knowing the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent. John 17:3. MPJ
Topics:
Theology:
Comments
Your comment has been submitted and is awaiting moderation. Once approved, it will appear on this page.
Be the first to comment!