The Trinity

by Robert A. Morey

The most thorough examination and study of the Trinity available today. This book discusses in detail all the controversy, heresy and theological issues that surround and have surrounded this heated debate over the centuries. The author, Dr. Morey, is an internationally recognized scholar and the executive director of the Research and Education Foundation. He is the author of 29 books including How to Answer a Jehovah's Witness and Reincarnation and Christianity.

Genres: Theology

587 pages, Paperback

First published September 30, 1996

About the author

Robert Morey is a Christian apologist and pastor who has written a number of books and pamphlets. He strongly criticizes Islam, Wicca, and non-Evangelical Christian beliefs. He is the founder of the California Biblical University and Seminary, an unaccredited school offering distance education programs under Morey and adjunct faculty. Currently, the school is being led by Dr. Martin.

Education

Dr. Robert A. Morey is the author of over 45 books, some of which have been translated into French, German, Italian, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Spanish, Arabic, Farsi, Polish, and Finnish. He is listed in The International Authors and Writers Who’s Who and Contemporary Authors. Many of Dr. Morey’s books are also available in electronic library format from Logos Bible Software.

He earned a B.A. from Covenant College, an MDiv. and DMin. from Westminster Seminary, a PhD. from Louisiana Baptist University and an honorary D.D. from Faith Theological Seminary.

1969 B.A. (Philosophy) Covenant College
1972 M.Div. (Theology) Westminster Theological Seminary
1989 D.Min. (Apologetics) Westminster Theological Seminary
1996 D.D. (Islamic Studies) Faith Theological Seminary
2004 Ph.D. (Islamic Studies) Louisiana Baptist University

Reviews

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A THOROUGH DEFENSE OF THE ORTHODOX DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY

Robert Morey (1946-2019) was a Christian apologist and pastor who wrote a number of theological books and pamphlets, such as ‘Death and the Afterlife,’ 'How to Answer a Jehovah's Witness, How to Answer a Mormon, The Truth About Masons, Reincarnation and Christianity]], etc.

He wrote in the introduction to this 1996 book, “The biblical basis of the Trinity in the context of the progressive revelation of God’s mighty deeds and words in the history of redemption as recorded in the Bible is the focus of this work. We are beginning with the a priori assumption that is it possible to know, discuss, and debate the nature of God. We are assuming that we can know if the doctrine of the Trinity is true or false. Since relativism is so dominant today, many people assume that no one can really know anything about God. It is assumed that any and all views of God are acceptable because they are only personal preferences and not objective truth. As long as your view of God makes you happy, then it is correct for you. But you should not try to convert others to your view of God because it really does not matter in the end.” (Pg. vii)

He continues, “Given the universality of general revelation, it would seem theoretically possible to argue from the creation and the conscience to the Creator and Law Giver of the universe. The only [problem]… is that Paul … tells us that all men by nature ‘suppress the truth by their wickedness.’ (Rom 1:18)… While general revelation is sufficient to condemn all men in that it leaves them ‘without excuse’ (Rom 1:20), it is not sufficient to save anyone… Thankfully the God who is there has not been silent … In Scripture we have the very mind and heart of God revealed in human language… God has given us propositional statements in Scripture which enable us to understand His very nature.” (Pg. x)

He explains, “we will be using the ANALYTIC, A PRIORI, DEDUCTIVE method… Most evangelical Christians have heard the principle, ‘Do not interpret the Bible according to experience, but experience according to the Bible.’ This principle is the very heart and soul of ‘a priori’ deductive reasoning. Instead of beginning with human experience as the measure of all things including God, we should begin with God as the measure of all things including human experience… we will begin with the Trinty as the ‘given’ of special revelation and then deduce various theoretical implications from it.” (Pg. 6)

He argues, “the non-Christian begins with his own set of presuppositions. He assumes that his first principles are ‘a priori’ rules… The Christian’s ‘a priori’ is based on God’s revelation in the Bible just as surely as the non-Christian’s ‘a priori’ is based on his experience in the world. Thus the real question is not who has a priori concepts, but whose assumptions pan out in the real world.” (Pg. 9)

He continues, “If we begin with the Trintiy as an ‘a priori’ concept, then we must ask ourselves it the Trinity is true, what kinds of things should we expect to find in the Bible? Then, if we go to the Bible and we do in fact find those very things which ‘must be’ in order for the Trinity ‘to be what it is,’ then we have all the proof we need that the Trinity doctrine is true. The only alternative is to begin with the ‘a priori’ assumption that the Trinty is not true.” (Pg. 18)

He suggests, “Non-essential doctrines are those issues over which good and godly Christians can disagree… The word ‘heresy’ should be reserved for contradictions of clear biblical truths… We must be careful not to be too narrow or too broad in our definition of orthodoxy. First, we must not confuse orthodoxy with salvation. While you can be saved without being orthodox, you can be orthodox without being saved.” (Pg. 54-55)

He states, “Trinitarians do not mean to imply that God is irrational or illogical when they speak of His incomprehensibility. They simply mean that God is beyond man’s capacity to understand or explain EXHAUSTIVELY. In this sense, God is BEYOND human reason without being contradictory of it… Incomprehensibility allows God to be GOD. It reveals that God is infinitely better and greater than man.” (Pg. 73-74)

He explains about John 1:18 [‘No man has seen God at any time’], “Since God is multi-personal, it is possible for one of the Persons within the Godhead to be seen while the others are not seen. John 1:18 is only saying that no one has ever seen God the Father although they have seen God the Son. Thus, there is no contradiction as long as you accept the multi-personal nature of God.” (Pg. 107)

He argues, “how can the Holy Spirit be anything less than divine when we are told in Zechariah 12:10 that He is the Source of grace and prayers?... Can an impersonal ‘it’ be the Giver of grace? No! Can a mere ‘force’ be the Director of all prayers? No! In order for the Holy Spirit to decide when, where, and to whom to give grace, He has to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent… He has to be GOD.” (Pg. 195)

He acknowledges, “Evangelical theologians also assume that progressive revelation does not mean contradiction, but development… Progressive revelation is…the basis of the continuity WITHIN and BETWEEN the Testaments. This is so fundamental to biblical Christianity that those who deny it invariably also deny the progressive nature of special revelation itself.” (Pg. 246)

He admits, “The words we use to describe the ‘attributes’ of God are not found in the Bible… Nowhere in the Bible do we find such words as ‘omnipotent, ‘omnipresent,’ ‘omniscient,’ and ‘immutable.’ Thus, these words are not BIBLICAL words per se. They are THEOLOGICAL terms which developed over the centuries. Does this fact mean that we cannot believe in the ‘attributes’ of God? Of course not! It simply means that as history has progressed, the Christian Church has coined new words to express the old truths of Scripture… The same situation holds true when we deal with the theological … term ‘Trinity.’ The word ‘Trinity’ is no more found in the Bible than the word ‘attribute.’ It is a theological term coined by the Christian Church to express the biblical truth that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” (Pg. 433-434) He continues, “the post-biblical formulations of the Trinity must be viewed as part of a historical progression of a doctrine which was originally revealed in the New Testament.” (Pg. 435)

He asserts, “One frequent question [from Unitarians and Arians] is: ‘If Jesus is equal to the Father, then how can Jesus submit to the will of the Father?’ [Mt. 26:39] … This question if an example of … a ‘categorical’ fallacy. The first part of the question has to do with the ontological Trinity while the second half has to do with the economical Trinity. To mix the two categories together is a logical fallacy.” (Pg. 439) Later, he adds, “Such questions arise only if you fail to distinguish between the categories of the economical and ontological Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and the three persons in the Trinity.” (Pg. 480)

He also acknowledges, “Trinitarians readily admit that the Trinity is beyond our finite capacity to understand or explain Him in an exhaustive sense. There is simply nothing in this world which is one and three at the same time, in the same sense in which God is One and Three. The Trinity is incomprehensible… Trinitarians admit that they do not have all the answers. But neither does anyone else. When anti-Trinitarians ask ‘Why should God be Three Persons instead of One Person?’ Trinitarians can just as easily ask, ‘Well, why should God be One Person instead of Three Persons?’ The sword cuts both ways.” (Pg. 483)

He concludes, “We have demonstrated the biblical basis of the Trinity from the book of Genesis to the book of Revelation. There is more than sufficient evidence from both Testaments to prove the multi-personal and triune nature of God to those who are willing to will the will of God. The Holy Trinity is not a product of pagan religions or Greek philosophies, but of Holy Scripture… All that remains is to move from theology to doxology, from theory to practice. It is not enough to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.” (Pg. 438)

This book---by a renowned apologist---will be of great interest to Christians wanting to understand the doctrine of the Trinity in more detail.

[Dwayne Abney · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the definitive book on the subject!

[Jorge DeJour · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is the most comprehensive book about the Trinity.

[Skylar Burris]

I picked up this book because I desired a detailed explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity and a logical and scriptural argument in support of it. I am a Trinitarian, but somewhat by default; I don’t fully understand the doctrine and find it logically contradictory, while, at the same time, it is the best explanation I have yet heard for my experience of God.

That is, I know (or feel) myself to be a monotheist, and yet I believe in the divinity of Jesus while approaching and conceiving of Him somewhat differently than I approach and conceive of Yahweh. I am also aware of the Holy Spirit and sometimes sense It at work. So I have distinct conceptions of all three of these entities, and yet I do not consider that there can be more than one God. When I think on them, I feel they are somehow all the same being and yet not the same being. How is that possible?

I have not heard a better explanation than the paradoxical doctrine of the Trinity. But nor have I found this doctrine to be stated explicitly in the Scripture itself. The verse that comes closest to making this explanation we know to be a later extrapolation. Yet the Scripture certainly talks about these three entities as though all were somehow different, and God as though He were One. But how can it be that God can be One and yet consist of three different persons? And what precisely is the relationship between these persons? And does my conception really match the Trinity, or do I perceive a somewhat different relationship between the entities than what is considered orthodox? There have been divisions in church over tiny matters of perception which I hardly understand – for instance, the East and the West splitting over whether the Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son or just the Father. What does that difference mean? Why is it important? Is it important?

In other words, I want to know why I think as I do about God, and how close what I think is to the orthodox Trinitarian view. Thus I picked up The Trinity: Evidence and Issues. Unfortunately, almost immediately I found the author’s tone to be off-putting, severe and overly self-assured. Then I could not really follow his logic.

He begins with a priori assumptions, which I do not fault, for all reasoning must – but then he makes deductions that he claims must logically follow from the assumptions, and I do not see how they must follow at all. For example, beginning with the existence of God as his a priori, he says we should find that man, among other things “does horrible and wicked things to other men.” Why, beginning simply from the existence of God, should we assume this? Surely he did not do so in Eden. Surely God could, if He so chose, make men who did not do so. Starting with the Fall as our a priori assumption we might expect to see this, but not starting merely with the existence of God.

Ultimately, I decided this book wasn’t going to help me in my quest to better grasp the Trinity and better define my own beliefs within an orthodox doctrinal context. If anyone can recommend a good book justifying the central place of the doctrine of the Trinity in orthodox Christian theology and explaining its scriptural basis, I would be interested in reading it.

[R.K. Goff · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm not going to do a long critic of this book because I'm not even close to qualified to question most of his information and postulations.

But I do want to say a few things.

The book is a fantastic and very comprehensive defense of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. It covers everything from the basic assumptions and philosophies, through the Old and New Testament, and the evidence to consider from non-Biblical sources. He approaches it in such a structured way that it can sound a little repetitive, but you won't be lost in a long train of logic (which is a great point).

However, the author . . . well, in my humble opinion Morey will probably not be inheriting the earth. He tends to talk with hard and harmful words towards those who don't agree with him, and he seems to pass off their perspectives as only-too-stupid while stating emphatically how clear and impossible to escape are his own conclusions (even if they maybe aren't so cut and dried).

That being said, he presents a vast amount of evidence and he has excellent arguments. I would recommend this book to anyone, and just caution them to be aware of his particular tone.

[Daniel Gutierrez · Rating 1 out of 5]

Robert Morey was a weird guy. He would imply that he had an ultra-genius level IQ and showed signs of a strong memory. His ability to debate issues was very mixed and his personality was difficult to deal with. His scholarship and reliability are so mixed in this work that it's better to avoid the work completely.