Argument:

The Trinity is rejected because it is “beyond the grasp of human reason.”

How could such a confusing doctrine originate? The Catholic Encyclopedia claims: "A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation."  Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their Theological Dictionary: "The Trinity is a mystery...in the strict sense..., which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible."

However, contending that since the Trinity is such a confusing mystery, it must have come from divine revelation creates another major problem.  Why?  Because divine revelation itself does not allow for such a view of God:  "God is not a God of confusion."--1 Corinthians 14:33, Revised Standard Version (RS).

In view of that statement, would God be responsible for a doctrine about himself that is so confusing that even Hebrew, Greek and Latin scholars cannot really explain it?

Response:

There are many things confusing about the nature of God.  This alone is not a valid reason to reject the Trinity.

One of the more common arguments Witnesses bring against the deity of Christ is their assertion derived from the Revised Standard translation of 1 Corinthians 14:33—“God is not a God of confusion but of peace.”  The argument goes something like “The concept of the Trinity is so confusing that it couldn’t possibly be true.  It’s against the nature of God to be beyond our ability to understand.” 

This argument is incorrect for a few reasons: 

First, there are aspects of God’s nature that may "confuse" the human mind.  It is difficult to imagine that God has always existed. Even more difficult to grasp, many prominent 20^th century scientific minds have suggested that time itself has a beginning and the origin (or originator) of the universe finds its roots within a kind of timeless existence.  Such a view was originally proposed by the ancient Greeks and it now seems scientifically certain that our view of the universe must embrace the understanding of a God who has always existed yet in a realm which is itself outside time.  The fact that one may become "confused" by the nature of God doesn’t mean, “They couldn’t be true.” 

A second objection to the Witnesses’ argument is that God describes his thoughts and ways as much higher than our own:  “My thoughts are higher than your thoughts and my ways higher than your ways…” (Isaiah 55:9) So it should come as no surprise that a study of God’s nature would bring us to conclusions that are difficult or even confusing when embraced. 

Third, Jehovah Witnesses themselves admit that we cannot dismiss attributes of God that are difficult to understand.  In the Witness' own book, Reasoning from the Scriptures, we find this statement (p. 149):

"...it is well known that scientists do not fully comprehend the functioning of the genes that are within living cells and that determine how these cells will grow.  Nor do they fully understand the functioning of the human brain.  Yet, who would deny these exist?  Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that he could bring into existence the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?"

Fourth, 1 Corinthians 14:33 doesn't have anything to do with God's nature or confusion.  The passage is about Church order.  Paul was telling the Corinthians that if their Church services were disorderly such disorder wasn't from God because, "God is a God of order..."  What the Revised Standard translates as "confusion" is translated more accurately by today's versions as "disorder."  Even the Witnesses own Bible properly translates the word here as disorder and not confusion.

Finally, most modern translations do not render 1 Corinthians 14:33 to read, “God is not a God of confusion” but rather “God is not a God of disorder but of peace.”  Even the Witnesses own Bible follows the same rendering, as do most modern translations.  The problem isn’t that Witnesses quote the Revised Standard, but that with one hand they claim it to be an inferior translation to their own (the NWT) while at the same time using it in support of anti-Trinitarian doctrine.  If you are going to make the claim that the NWT translation of the Bible is superior to the Revised Standard, then you should not use the Revised Standard in support of doctrinal views that your own translation doesn’t support.  That’s dishonest.

Argument:

The Bible does
not offer a clear teaching of the Trinity
 

If the Trinity were true, it should be clearly and consistently presented in the Bible.  Why? Because, as the apostles affirmed, the Bible is God's revelation of himself to mankind.  And since we need to know God to worship him acceptably, the Bible should be clear in telling us just who he is. [page 5]

...neither the 39 books of the Hebrew Scriptures nor the canon of 27 inspired books of the Christian Greek Scriptures provide any clear teaching of the Trinity. [page 6]

Response:

Although the Bible does not use the term Trinity or expressions like "three in one," these things are clearly taught and are the only possible explanation for the interactions between the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit.

Contrary to Witness claims, we do have explicit statements from Scripture that support every one of the Nicene Creed assertions.

The verses on Christ's deity are so clear it is difficult to deny them.

Scripture
would read nonsensically if we didn't believe that the Holy Spirit was God. 

Officially, the term “Trinity” comes from Tertullian who used it to describe “the three” who are God, hence “tri-nity”. Tertullian was more the father of the name than the doctrine as we in the church hold it today. The modern verbiage of Trinitarian doctrine took its substance later in the formation of the Nicene Creed during the fourth century. Prior to 165 AD we do find Trinitarian theology. For example, Justin Martyr, in his Dialogue with Trypho, makes some of the same assertions confirmed by the Nicene Creed:  "Now I have proved at length that Christ is called God," ^[1] Justin writes on one occasion. In affirming the separate nature of Christ from the Father, Justin says, "[Christ] who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things."^[2] It would be inaccurate to call Trinitarian doctrine post-biblical theology as the Nicene Creed, along with previous Church fathers, drew from the passages through both Old and New Testament, for, as the early church understood, the Testaments describe Christ as God, that he was equal to God, that he took on human nature, that he prayed to the Father and was filled with the Holy Spirit. What Scripture did not do was to explicitly state the nature of such dynamics or how Christ is the Father’s servant yet is equal to Him at the same time. These things were inferred and plainly seen from Scripture from very early on and added to the words of the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene and later creeds basically conclude with the following teachings

1) The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God
2) The three are coequal
3) The three are separate persons
4) The Bible teaches that there is only one God
5) Therefore, the three persons are one God

The creeds move on to explain how this is possible such as stating that the three are one in the same ousia, that is, "substance."  However, Scripture never clarifies how it is possible that the three are one God but it does clearly show that this is the nature of God.  Our main task today is to demonstrate that, contrary to Witness claims, we do have explicit statements from Scripture that support every one of the Trinitarian assertions.

The Scriptures and the Trinity
If the Trinity is true, we must demonstrate that:

1) the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God
2) the Father, Son and Holy Spirit act and are written to be separate    
    persons
3) that the doctrine is inferred and confirmed in Scripture.

For purposes of expedience, we will not cover the topic of the Father’s deity as both Christians and Witnesses already agree to His divine nature.

The Son is God
The Son is declared to be God. Some of the most persuasive passages are those that directly call Jesus God. The Greek word for God is theos. Some of the passages referring to Jesus as theos include:

John 1:1

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

From verse 14 we know that the Word is Christ who “became flesh.” The Greek word (the original language of the New Testament) used for God here is theos. It is the same word the Father is called. Wherever God is referred to in the New Testament, the word theos is used. It is by no means insignificant that John uses theos to describe Jesus.

John 1:18

“No one has ever seen God [theos], but God [theos] the One and Only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.”

The Witness bible (NWT) does not contain the phase “but God the One and Only.” Many post-KJV version bibles lack the phrase as well. The reason is that most English translations from the 17th century until more recently have been based on less accurate Greek texts. The KJV version, for example, is predominantly based off of a compiled Greek text from a man named Erasmus in the 16th Century. This text, today known as the Textus Receptus (TR), was based "on two rather inferior manuscripts from a monastic library at Basle, on of the Gospels...and one of the Acts and Epistles, both dating from about the twelfth century."^[3] The TR reads monogenous huios (only begotten son). More recent research, beginning in the 20th century, has shown that the earliest texts prior to the 4th century contain monogenous theos (only begotten God).^[4] Modern translations, such as the NIV, reflect this research and interpret accordingly. Ireneaus (before 200 A.D.) appears to have known this translation as he quotes it to read, "The only-begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]..."^[5] 

John 5:18

“For this reason the Jews tried all the harder to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was calling God [theos] his own Father, making himself equal with God [theos].”

Here the Bible comments on why the Jews were upset with Jesus—he was making himself equal with God. The commentary here is John’s. Again we see the word for God, theos, being used to describe Jesus. In Greek the last portion of the verse literally reads, “…making himself equal with the God.” The occurrence of the definite article (the word “the”) emphasizes his God status. Christ is not just “a god” but “the God.” This is important because Witnesses believe that Jesus is never referred to as God using the definite article.

John 20:28

“Thomas said to him, ‘My Lord and my God’”

Thomas doubted the reports that Christ had resurrected. Appearing to him, Christ said, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” It is to this that Thomas replied, “My Lord and my God.” The term used here is theos, but theos is written in a theologically significant way. In the Greek the expression literally reads, “The Lord of me and the God of me.” To Thomas, Christ is not just “a god” but “the God.” If Thomas were incorrect for having called Jesus "God", we would expect Christ to correct him but Jesus doesn't. Rather, Christ affirms Thomas as believing, though he desires him to believe without seeing: “Then Jesus told him, ‘because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.’” (vs. 29) Thomas understood without error that Jesus was "the God."

Luke 8:38-39

“…Jesus sent him away, saying, ’Return home and tell how much God has done for you.’ So the man went away and told all over how much Jesus has done for him.”

Authors of the New Testament often use Jesus and God interchangeably. Here Christ commands a man to “tell how much God [theos] has done for you” who proceeds to tell “how much Jesus [had] done.” The three significant factors of this verse include: (1) Jesus and God are used interchangeably, (2) the use of theos and (3) the use of theos with the definite article (i.e., “the God”).

Matthew 1:22-23

“All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel’—which means, ‘God with us.’”

Matthew is actually quoting Isaiah 7:14—a prophecy concerning the coming messiah. It is probably for those who are not familiar with the Hebrew name Immanuel, that Matthew explains its meaning. It is significant to note Matthew’s words which would literally translate, “the God with us.” The use of the definite article preceding theos emphasizes that this is not just “a god” but “the God.”

Luke 19:41-44

“As he [Jesus] approached Jerusalem and say the city, he wept over it and said, “…They will dash you [Jerusalem] to the ground, you and the children within your walls. They will not leave one stone on another, because you did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” (Emphasis added)

Christ refers to himself as God. As Christ comes to Jerusalem he wept saying, “…you [Jerusalem] did not recognize the time of God’s coming to you.” In other words, he is referring to his own coming as the coming of God. Here we also have theos preceded by the definite article.

Isaiah 9:6

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.”

This argument takes a few steps to make its point since the passage here is not originally in Greek. Isaiah is written in Hebrew and the word for God here is ‘El. While ‘El has a number of possible meanings (what is called a scope of meaning) all of these meanings refer to something divine or godlike. Interestingly modern Jewish translators, who have no intention of supporting the deity of Christ, translate Isaiah 9:6 to read:

“For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and the authority was placed upon his shoulder, and called his name: Wondrous Adviser, Mighty G-d, Eternal Patron, Ruler of Peace;”

It is important to note that the very word God is sacred to the Jews and rendered “G-d” in reverence. Modern Jewish translation show that the very God of the world is understood in this passage.

The Holy Spirit is God
If it is true that the Holy Spirit is a person we would expect to find references to personality or person-like qualities in the Scriptures.  We would also expect that if the Holy Spirit is God we would find references to his deity as well. This is exactly what we find. 

Person-Like Qualities of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit has qualities of a person such as emotions, knowing, and having moral character.  The Holy Spirit knows things like a person.  Paul writes

“The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.  For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him?  In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”  (1 Corinthians 2:10b-11)

The Spirit is able to grieve like a person as Ephesians 4:30 demonstrates by saying

“And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.”

The Holy Spirit can will or desire something to be done.  1 Corinthians 12:11 says

“All these [gifts] are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.”

By using “determines” the NIV here does a poor job translating the Greek word boulomai which means will or desire.  Boulomai is found also in Mark 15:15 in its participle form where Pilot is “wanting [boulomenos] to please the crowd.”  In Acts 25:20, Paul is asked if “he would be willing [bouloito] to go to Jerusalem.”  Just as Pilot and Paul are able to will or want, so also is the Holy Spirit.

Person-Like Actions of the Holy Spirit
The Holy Spirit also performs actions like a person.  He is more than just a power or force of God, he teaches (John 14:26), bears witness (John 15:26, some translations say “testifies”), leads and guides (Romans 8:14), intercedes on our behalf (Romans 8:26) and he sends out and directs human activity (Acts 13:4).  The Holy Spirit directs Philip (Acts 8:29) and also forbids Paul (Acts 16:6-7).  All of these are the actions of a person and require consciousness to perform.

The Holy Spirit is Treated like a Person
No thing is ever said to be blasphemed, but the Holy Spirit can be blasphemed (Matthew 12:31).  The Holy Spirit can be lied to—Acts 5:3 Ananias is said to have “lied to the Holy Spirit.”  People resist the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:51). Hebrews 10:29 says that the Holy Spirit can be “insulted.”

The Deity of the Holy Spirit Clearly Stated
The name Holy Spirit is used interchangeably with God.  Acts 28:25-26 is a quote from Isaiah 6:8-10.  The writer of Acts says that it was the “Holy Spirit” that said, “…be ever hearing, but never understanding,” where Isaiah attributes this quote to “the Lord”.  Clearly the writer of Acts had no qualms in thinking that the “Holy Spirit” was the same as “Lord.”  A similar interchange occurs in Hebrews 3:7-11 which is a quote of Psalms 95:7-11.  The writer of Hebrews attributes the quote to the Holy Spirit where the Psalmist has the quote coming from God.  Hebrews 10:15-17 and Jeremiah 31:31-33 have another similar interchange of names.  If the Holy Spirit was not the same as the Lord, it would be dishonest to quote God and then say the Holy Spirit said it.

Peter uses “Holy Spirit” and “God” interchangeably in one of the most popular passages used in support of the deity of the Holy Spirit, Acts 5:3-4. It reads

“Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit…You have not lied to men but to God.” (Emphasis added)

2 Corinthians 3:18 has this rather blunt statement

“[We] are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit.” (Emphasis added)

The Holy Spirit and the Triadic Statements
At the closure of Matthew 28 we find this triadic expression in verse 19

“There for go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…”

If the Holy Spirit is not a person the expression “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” would not make any sense.  If, as Jehovah Witnesses believe, the Holy Spirit is merely the energy of God and not a person but just a thing, the passage would be just as nonsensical as if it read, “…baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of a brick…”  Throughout history, the Christian Church has always understood this expression to equate the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son.  If the Father is God (John 6:27), and the Son is God (John 5:18; 20:28), then why include the Holy Spirit in this statement if he too is not God.  Another triadic statement is found 2 Corinthians 13:14.

The Son is Distinct From the Father
We have already demonstrated that the Son and the Holy Spirit are God, but are they (a) separate gods, (b) distinct modes in which God demonstrates himself or (c) three distinct personages within a single God?  While the first possibility is indicative of polytheistic religions such as Mormonism, our immediate concern has to do with how we respond to Witnesses who maintain a one person in one God view.  The first accusation of Witnesses is that classic Trinitarianism forces its proponents to become polytheistic.  But simply because one says you cannot be consistently monotheistic and classically Trinitarian at the same time doesn't mean that they are correct.  This accusation is simply that--an accusation and no more.  What Witnesses ignore (willfully or not) is the fact that within Trinitarian doctrine is the statement that there is only one God and within the one God are three distinct personages.  Nicene doctrine never attempts to explain how this is so, only that it is so.  The Bible itself isn't concerned to resolve how it can be true that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God while at the same time there exists only one God.  We simply affirm that both teachings are true: (1) there is one God and (2) the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all called God.  How can it be so?  We don't know, it simply is. 

The next point we hasten to add is this: the statement of three distinct persons within one God is not self contradictory.  It does not contradict itself anymore than (to use an ancient analogy) to say that a river has three parts: (a) an beginning, (b) A mid-section and (c) a mouth yet all within one river system. Just as three distinct persons exist within one God, so three distinct parts of the river exist within one river. Just as to say that the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God does not force you to be polytheistic, so also saying that a river's origin is the Mississippi, the mid-section is the Mississippi and the mouth is the Mississippi does not force you to believe that there are three rivers.  I am not "poly-riveristic" to stand in Minnesota and say in Itasca National Forest, "This is the Mississippi" while later standing in New Orleans and saying, "This is the Mississippi." So we can say with assurance that no contradiction is inherent within Nicene Trinitarianism.

Jesus can be distinct from the Father and still be called God without contradiction. But is Jesus distinct of just another manifestation of God? Modalism, or to use a modern name for it, Oneness Theology believes this is the case.  The problem with this view is that Jesus is quite distinct from the Father. While God the Father is the one "from whom" all things come, Jesus is the one "through whom" all things come (1 Cor. 8:6).  The roles of the Father and Son are distinct.  The Father does not judge the world, but the son does (John 5:22).  If Jesus and the Father are the same, why does Jesus say, "No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God..." (John 6:46)?  Jesus prayed to the Father (Hebrews 5:7) which can only make sense if the Father is distinct from him.   Why would Jesus pray to himself? Jesus is said to be "with God" in John 1:1, 3 ("God" is the usual designation for the Father while "Lord" is the usual designation for Christ).  How can you be with someone while at the same time be that person? A person does not say, "I am with myself."  A distinct difference between "the Word" and "God" is implied in John 1:1, otherwise it does not make sense.  That said, Jesus is declared to be God in John 1:1--"...the Word was God." (the Greek implies that he is distinct from God yet the same nature as God at the same time). 

No reasonable Witness is going to deny that the Father and son are distinct from each other.  When a Witness points out these passages to me and says, "You can clearly see that the Father and Son are separate from each other," I reply, "I have no disagreement.  You just proved half of the Trinity doctrine with your statement."  The Witnesses' attempt to disprove the Trinity by showing distinction only bolsters the Trinitarian point--The Trinity is one God comprised of three distinct persons!

The Inference of Scripture
In conclusion, we do not have the exact wording of the Nicene creed in Scripture, but the teachings of divinity and distinction between the persons of God is clearly evident.  The Nicene Creed never claims to have knowledge of the nature of God other than that which Scripture already reveals.  This distinction of persons and oneness of God is so easily understood that church leaders prior to 325 AD already expressed Trinitarian doctrine hundreds of years prior to the more unified expression we see in the Nicene creed (see EARLY CHURCH EVIDENCE FOR THE TRINITY).  The notion that one must stretch Scripture beyond its theological limits to form the Trinitarian doctrine is merely empty rhetoric and avoids having to address the evidence. The evidence is plain and clear.

footnotes
3. Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 3rd Ed. (New York, 1992), p. 99
4.  F.F. Bruce, The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids, 1983), pp. 44-45--Bruce makes the following comment: "The weight of the textual evidence here favours the reading monogenes theos, 'God only-begotten' or 'the only begotten, (himself) God.'  Not only is it attested by early authorities, including two earliest known (the Bodmer papyri 66 and 75); the tendency would inevitably be to replace it by the commoner monogenes hyios ('only-begotten son'), whereas, if the commoner reading were original, it is difficult to see what could have impelled any scribe or editor to replace it by the unparalled monogenes theos."