From birth to age twenty-eight, I was a practicing Catholic. Whenever God in His three parts was referred to (by teachers, fellow believers, priest, sermons etc.), it was with the word ‘Trinity’. At the age of twenty-eight, I converted to being a christian only.  Since that time, when God is spoken of in His three parts, it has been with the word ‘Godhead’. Both seem to be talking about the same mysterious thing - one God but three distinct persons – Father (Jehovah), Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit (dove at Jesus’ baptism). When I look in the concordance, I can find the word ‘Godhead’ used by several different versions of Bible translations but never find the word ‘Trinity’. The only way I can research ‘Trinity’ is to use secular or Catholic sources. Can you please tell me where the differences/similarities are between the two words? Thanks for your time and effort to sort this out.

Gratefully, Then and Now

Dear Then and Now,

The words ‘Trinity’ and ‘Godhead’ are both attempting to grapple with the idea that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are unique individuals and yet also one. The word ‘Godhead’ comes from a Greek word used in Col 2:9 which means ‘the state of being God’. Some translations use the word ‘Deity’ instead of ‘Godhead’.

If we were to get technical, and this IS a technical question, ‘Trinity’ is a word created by theologians to describe the interactions among the three deities of the Bible. Alternatively, ‘Godhead’ is a direct Bible description of how all three individuals are equally God. ‘Trinity’ was first recorded as being used in 170 AD by Theophilus of Antioch. ‘Godhead’ is first recorded as being used by the apostle Paul.

‘Trinity’ is correct terminology, but it is man-made terminology. Once again, we are being technical, but technically speaking, ‘Godhead’ is the most Biblically accurate descriptor of the relationship among the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

I am a christian and was attending services this past Sunday when the man leading the Lord's Supper referred to the cross as a "very ugly thing." I understand why it would be "ugly" to us; it represents our sin which separates us from God, but it also represents Christ's death which reunites us with God. So why then do Christians tend to refrain from wearing jewelry in the shape of crosses, etc? I understand that it would be wrong to worship a piece of jewelry (like Catholics with their rosaries), but wouldn't it be fine to wear a reminder of His sacrifice? Or even have a cross (not a crucifix) in the church building?

Sincerely, Cross About The Whole Subject

Dear Cross About The Whole Subject,

The problem with crosses as jewelry is that God tells us how He wants us to remember the death of Christ – through the weekly observance of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor 11:25). Furthermore, christians are supposed to be known by their character, not their clothes (1 Pet 3:3-4). WWJD bracelets, crosses, religious bumper stickers, etc. are often used as a substitute for actually living a faithful life.

Having said all that, wearing a cross isn’t inherently wrong. The Scriptures don’t condemn that kind of clothing, but they strongly caution us against the attitudes that are often portrayed and involved with such outward adornment. Ultimately, the jewelry is unnecessary. The apostles and first century christians certainly didn’t need such ‘holy hardware’ to remember who they were. They found the cross a scary, inhuman, and terrifying way to die. I sometimes wonder… if Christ had died in an electric chair, would we all be wearing golden electric chair charms around our necks and putting giant electric chairs on top of our church buildings? For me, that analogy keeps the issue in proper perspective.

I was reading a question to a priest, and I asked him why we call him ‘father’ when it specifically says not to in the Bible (Matt 23:8). His response was that it is for the same reason a child calls their parent ‘father’; they are the natural father and the priest is the spiritual father. While I believe calling a priest ‘father’ is wrong, why is it okay to call our birth parent ‘father’?

Sincerely, Paternal Nomenclature

Dear Paternal Nomenclature,

Calling a priest ‘father’ is wrong because, as the priest said, it is referring to ‘father’ in a spiritual sense. That is what Christ is condemning in Matt 23:8-10. Christ is rebuking people who elevate themselves above others within the church. Catholic priests place themselves in a position of spiritual superiority and authority above others. That is wrong and exactly what Christ told His disciples never to do.

On the other hand, the term ‘father’ is perfectly fine when used to refer to a physical parent. The Bible itself uses the word ‘father’ almost 1,000 times, and the vast majority of those times refer to fleshly parents. Gen 2:24, Gen 9:22, Lev 20:9, Pr 17:25, Mk 10:29, Lk 11:11 are just a few examples. Our fathers are a blessing from God given to us for a time to guide and discipline us (Heb 12:9-10). They are worthy of honor and the title ‘father’ (Eph 6:2).

You have already given an excellent answer to a question about the NIV version, but I have another question. Someone once told me that the NIV was sinful because it supported babies going to hell. If so, where and how?

Sincerely, Truth In Translation

Dear Truth in Translation,

The chapter in question is Romans chapter 8, and the phrase in question is ‘sinful nature’. The New International Version (NIV) translators use the phrase ‘sinful nature’ throughout Romans chapter 8 when all the major strict translations use the word ‘flesh’. The Greek word is ‘sarkos’ which literally means ‘flesh’. The transdenominational council (see previous post for more details) felt that ‘sinful nature’ better represented the idea that all human beings are born in sin… thus unbaptized babies would go to hell.

This blatant abuse of power by the NIV translators is used to propagate a denominational doctrine. When viewed through the NIV translation, Romans chapter 8 seems to specifically endorse the idea that all humans are born with a sinful nature - when in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Sin is a choice, not a genetic flaw (Gen 4:6-7).

 

A few weeks ago you answered a question about inter-faith marriages.  You listed four possible outcomes to the described situation; three of which you labeled as "BAD" and only one as "GOOD."

The first two outcomes are below:

1. She eventually converts and obeys the gospel, becomes a christian, and is saved (GOOD).
2. You eventually convert and obey the Catholic church, and you are both lost (BAD).

Your response implies that Catholics are not Christians and that Catholics are not saved.  I realize that there is only one truth, but many denominations obey the gospel.  Truth is not limited to one denomination.

Where in the Bible do you find that there is only one church that is "properly" Christian?

Sincerely, Accepting Our Differences

Dear Accepting Our Differences,

Where in the Bible do you see there being more than one church that is properly Christian? The burden of proof lies upon those who wish to add churches to God's design. Paul said there was only one church, one doctrine, and one God (Eph 4:4-5). Jesus always referred to His church, not His churches (Matt 16:18). Jesus is head of the church – one head, one body (Eph 5:23). The truth is nobody even fathomed the idea of anything but one church in the first century.

When you write that ‘truth is not limited to one denomination’, you treat that assertion as an established fact… when in reality the opposite is true. Multiple religions are condemned in the New Testament. Any practices other than New Testament practices are condemned (2 Thess 2:15). Christians are warned against warping, altering, and perverting God’s established teachings for His church (Gal 1:6-9, Rev 22:18-19). Furthermore, we are promised that many will claim to have served Christ in this life and will be turned away as false Christians on the Judgment Day (Matt 7:21-23).

The practices of the New Testament church are laid out simply in the New Testament. Any congregation that wants to serve Christ need merely look at the church of the Bible and mimic its behavior (see our post here for further details on finding a faithful church). If a congregation wants to ensure its place as part of Christ’s body, it must submit to Christ’s teachings alone. There can be no man-made creeds, no human ideas and theologies, no statements of faith – just the Bible.

The Catholic church is not the same as Christ’s church, therefore Catholics are not Christians. The Catholic church accepts the pope as it’s head, placing his authority above the Bible. Their practices fit perfectly with Paul’s definition of what false religion looks like: forbidding marriages and abstaining from certain foods (1 Tim 4:1-3). Catholic priests expect to be called ‘father’, a practice in direct contradiction to the Scripture (Matt 23:9). The church of the Bible looks nothing like the Catholic church – you cannot be both a Catholic and a Christian.