Abusing "Righteousness" at the Expense of the Trinity: A Reply to Marc Peter Jacobsson, Sovereign Redeemer Books

By Sonny Hernandez

Introduction

The so-called Sovereign Grace movement, as the idiomatic expression goes, is truly a mixed bag. Among them were two notable figures, the late pastors Henry Mahan and Don Fornter. Though they taught many truths, Fortner affirmed a heresy known as the “Christ-made-sin apart from imputation” doctrine. In addition, Mahan, rather than anathematizing this view, defended several men who held this doctrine, even though it unquestionably attacks the one divine essence and the sinless human nature of the impeccable person of Christ. Yet, to this day, many sovereign grace pastors, with sufficient and detailed knowledge of Mahan's compromise, will never say anything about his defense of heresy from their pulpits. Instead, they remain loyal to their sovereign grace buddy club oath and won't break their spiritual omertà, like good fanboys.

Another issue in many Sovereign Grace assemblies is their approach to “God's righteousness.” In these circles, many have a wistful affection for how both Fortner and Mahan superfluously loved to talk about "righteousness." While the doctrine of imputed righteousness is the heartbeat of the gospel when explained biblically, some of Mahan's most trusted fanboys have used the term "righteousness" as a meaningless mantra or shibboleth. This leads many to think that saying "righteousness" a thousand times in a sermon, figuratively speaking, is a gospel message. In reality, this approach stems from biblical illiteracy, seemingly intended to downplay other essentials of the Christian faith, likely because many preachers whom Mahan taught do not know how to expound the whole counsel of God. This practice precipitates devastating implications.

To further elaborate, their stance on righteousness can be summarized as follows: As long as one affirms righteousness, nothing else matters, and so keeps one from adding to the gospel. By disregarding other gospel essentials, the practice of highlighting, indeed, isolating ‘righteousness’ language is nothing more than a gimmick or mental sleight of hand. Precisely this approach has thereby led to the proliferation of cultists like annihilationists, full Hyper Preterists, and many other heretics in their churches with much ease and no discomfort. In response, some will claim to welcome these cultists into their assemblies to witness to them. Yet, none of these pastors or useless pawns for the cultists have anathematized these doctrines. For example, they have never biblically defined Hell. They have never preached full exegetical sermons on the nature and duration of Hell, nor have they ever taught full in-depth sermons on the future second coming, resurrection of the dead, and the final judgment—how convenient!

Sovereign Grace in Your Face

Marc Peter Jacobsson (MPJ) would certainly fit in well with many so-called Sovereign Grace assemblies. According to his Facebook page, Sovereign Redeemer Books, he claims to affirm the doctrine of Christ's imputed righteousness alone, free and sovereign grace, and Supralapsarianism, while speaking out against Arminianism.

His writings have led many members of Sovereign Grace assemblies to praise some of his social media articles, even referring to him as a "brother" in Christ. This camaraderie may stem from the fact that most Sovereign Grace pastors whom they follow have never taught detailed sermons on the ontological Trinity. If some do exist, they are merely shoddy sermonettes, like needles in a haystack, compared to their other sermons on Christ. Nonetheless, true Christians are Trinitarians, not functional Unitarians.

While only giving lip-service to Trinitarianism, most Sovereign Grace ministers would have to, according to their own standard, welcome MPJ into their assemblies as a brother, since they maintain that as long as one upholds the doctrine of righteousness, nothing else matters—so they claim—otherwise one would be adding to the gospel. But, for the record, even though he gives lip service to Christ alone as his righteousness, MPJ outrightly rejects the biblical Trinity. Thus, he is not a brother in Christ; he is a blasphemer and a cultist!

This article examines Mr. Jacobsson's beliefs and arguments against the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. Specifically, after addressing his a priori commitment to anti-Trinitarianism, this work will demonstrate how he relies heavily on cultist tactics, fallacies, and strawman arguments to rebut the Trinity, often targeting some positions that no true Trinitarian holds.

Marc's Modalism?

At the outset, in his lengthy social media post, roughly 2,095 words, MPJ did not shy away in the least from discussing his denial of the Trinity. He admitted, "That which is known in theology as traditional trinitarianism, (which I've not fully embraced in over 30 years,)..." (bold emphasis mine). To explain what specifically he was denying, MPJ laid out what he believed was a "fair and honest evaluation..." of Trinitarianism. In one excerpt, he noted, "...the one true God exists eternally as three distinct persons. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All three are said to share fully and equally in the one undivided divine essence or substance, in a manner that each person is fully God, yet not three gods, but one God." Again, MPJ boldly disavows this summary of the Triune God.

According to MPJ, the definition of the Trinity—which includes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three distinct, coequal, coeternal, and co-glorious hypostases (persons) united inseparably in one being (one God)—is not biblical. He argues that this concept "undermines the Bible's clear affirmation of both the absolute oneness of God and the full, undiminished deity of Jesus Christ." Since he does not believe the Trinity emphasizes the one true God existing in three distinct persons, how does MPJ define the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? The following two excerpts outline his position:

God is revealed as eternally ONE, and yet distinctly as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. These are not three gods, but the one true GOD revealing himself in a threefold manner (bold emphasis added).

The Bible reveals one indivisible God who has made Himself known as Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in illumination, not three eternal distinctions, but one true God revealed fully in Jesus Christ, the express image of His person and the only Saviour (bold emphasis added).

Not surprisingly, his stance on the oneness of God would receive a resounding "amen" from cultists in the United Pentecostal Churches International (UPCI) as they, too, reject the Trinity. As proof, David Bernard, a leading figure in this denomination, defined Modalism as a term "used to describe a belief in early church history that Father, Son, and Spirit are not eternal distinctions within God's nature but simply modes (methods or manifestations) of God's activity. In other words, God is one individual being, and various terms used to describe Him (such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) are designations applied to different forms of His actions or different relationships He has to humans…" (Bernard, The Oneness of God, vol. 1, 2001, p. 318, bold emphasis added). Although MPJ does not admit to being a Modalist, if the shoe fits, what can he do?

Person and Being

Throughout the ages, faithful bastions of Christianity have taught the saints how to mark and avoid cultists. Two notable instances, for example, occur when one either divides the essence or conflates the persons. MPJ is, in his own words, seemingly proud of the latter. Yet, in his rejection of three distinct persons, MPJ never once offered a biblical definition of a person.

Biblically, in the Trinity, a person is a logical, moral, and rational individual who speaks in the first person and is referred to by others in the second and third person. As proof, the Father spoke in the first person in Matthew 3:17. In this text, the first-person genitive μου, denoting possession, coupled with υἱός (my Son), proves that the Father and the Son are distinct persons. John 14:16 highlights Christ speaking in the first person ("I") about the Father ("and he shall give you another Comforter") and the Holy Ghost ("that he may abide with you for ever") in the third person. And, the Holy Ghost spoke twice ("me," "I") in the first person in Acts 13:2. Further, God's Word distinguishes the Trinity of persons by their personal properties. To explain, while the Son did not send the Father, the Father did send the Son (1 John 4:14). Concerning the Spirit, John 14:26 and John 16:7 underscore the Holy Ghost as proceeding from both the Father and the Son during and after Christ's pilgrimage on earth. Thus, God's Word underscores the Trinity of distinct persons. 

As a modern-day Sabellian, MPJ thinks that "introducing eternal distinctions of 'persons' within the Godhead, inevitably compromises the fundamental biblical truth that God is one, not merely in essence, but in undivided identity." He further added, "'The Lord our God is one Lord.' Deuteronomy 6:4. This is not a unity of three persons, but a singular, indivisible Being." In reality, MPJ is merely relying on a melodramatic critique of the three distinct persons, a common practice among cultists, to demarcate his anti-Trinitarian view from what he considers a "committee of divine beings" in the Trinity.

In response, Scripture undeniably highlights the one true God, not three independent divine beings (Deut. 32:39; Is. 43:10; 44:6; 45:5-6, 21-22; 46:9). However, MPJ seemingly thinks "one" in Deuteronomy 6:4 stresses solitary oneness because he thinks the one true God is unipersonal, and does not exist in a Trinity of distinct persons. He is grievously mistaken! The Hebrew Bible never assigns yachid (יָחִיד), denoting solitary oneness, to the LORD. Rather, in Deuteronomy 6:4, the author used echad [אחד], not yachid [יָחִיד], to emphasize compound unity. As evidence, Genesis 2:24 mentions two distinct persons, Adam and Eve, and further adds, "they shall be one, echad flesh." In Exodus 26:6, the "one, echad tabernacle" contains numerous parts. And the "one cluster of grapes" highlights echad as the singular cluster, containing multiple grapes (Num. 13:23). Similarly, echad in Deuteronomy 6:4 highlights the absolute unity of Being between the Trinity of persons—namely the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

Cultist Talking Points

Like most cultists, in desperation, MPJ seemingly depends heavily on a constellation of Jehovah's Witnesses (JW) talking points to disprove the Trinity. Starting with the first, MPJ thinks defenders of the Trinity operate under the guise of fidelity to Scripture to "obscure the record that God gave to His Son" (1 John 5:10). This position exposes, at best, his slander and, at worst, his ignorance.

Moreover, in another act of desperation, MPJ asserts, "Trinitarianism often presents the Son as a second person within the Godhead, subordinate in role, and, in practical emphasis, sometimes viewed as derivative or lesser in majesty. This depersonalizes and obscures the glory of the incarnation by suggesting the Father sent another divine person, but Scripture says God came Himself. 'And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh.' I Timothy 3:16."

Cultist Claims Corrected

A few observations are in order. First, biblically, referring to Christ as the second person does not indicate a hierarchy or derivation in the eternal Trinity. Instead, Trinitarians call Christ the second person to distinguish Him from the Father and the Holy Spirit. Nonetheless, in the Triadic formula, the Father is mentioned first (Matt. 28:19). John 14:26 highlights the Holy Ghost first, followed by "the Father" and the Son. And, here is the order in Paul's apostolic benediction in 2 Corinthians 13:14: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen" (bold emphasis added).

Second, MPJ takes issue with Christ's subordination to the Father. While no passages describe the Son as subordinate to the Father in eternity, God's Word does emphasize the Son's submission to the Father during the incarnation. For instance, Jesus said, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise" (John 5:19). Most notably, He claimed, "...my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). These texts point to Christ's earthly pilgrimage, not to the eternal Trinity. Christians should thus understand these texts as the Son's submission to the Father concerning the economy of salvation, but should never read them into the eternal (ad intra) Trinity.

Third, MPJ also has a problem with the biblical teaching on the Father sending the Son. Yet, the Greek New Testament (GNT) reads: "καὶ ἡμεῖς τεθεάμεθα καὶ μαρτυροῦμεν ὅτι ὁ πατὴρ ἀπέσταλκεν τὸν υἱὸν σωτῆρα τοῦ κόσμου" ("And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world," 1 John 4:14, bold emphasis added). Notice how both nouns, πατὴρ and υἱὸν, include a preceding article ("the"). In addition, while "the Father" is the subject of ἀπέσταλκεν ("sent"), "the Son" is the object of this perfect verb. Hence, 1 John 4:14 proves that the Father did, in fact, send the Son.

Fourth, in a questionable attempt to challenge the clear biblical teaching that the Father sent the Son, MPJ claims, "...but Scripture says God [Christ] came Himself. 'And without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh.'” (1 Tim. 3:16). This argument is relatively easy to counter. Although MPJ insists that 1 Timothy 3:16 supports the idea that Christ sent "Himself," it is important to note that Paul did not include the reflexive pronoun ἑαυτὸν ("Himself") in the text. Also, this passage does not suggest that the Father did not send the Son. Every Christian understands that Christ "came in the flesh," but it was indeed the Father who sent the Son (1 John 4:14).

On another note, MPJ raises an interesting point. In his post, he noted, "By asserting that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal, co-equal persons with distinct centers of consciousness or will, Trinitarianism introduces a form of plurality into the divine nature that the scriptures nowhere supports." Again, this is countered by the clear biblical teaching. Let us examine some passages.

Three Persons are the One God

Concerning the three distinct persons who share the same divine nature, the Word describes the Father as "God" (1 Cor. 8:6), the Son as "God" (Rom. 9:5), and the Holy Ghost as "God" (Acts 5:3-4). Although Scripture describes all three as God, there is only one God because the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (three persons) are inseparably united in one being (one God). Accordingly, a biblical defense of the Trinity does not obscure the coessential deity of the Son; instead, this doctrine highlights the Son, the ultimate agent of creation (John 1:3; Col. 1:16), as "God" (John 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1).

As God the Son, Christ is omnipotent (Matt. 8:27; 28:18; Luke 21:15; John 10:18; 1 Cor. 1:24; Eph. 1:22; Phil. 3:21; Col. 2:9-10; Heb. 7:25; Rev. 1:8), omniscient (Matt. 9:4; 12:25; Luke 6:8; 9:47; 10:22; John 2:24-25; 6:64; 10:15; 16:30; 21:17; Rev. 2:23), omnipresent (Matt. 28:20; John 3:13; 14:23; Eph. 1:23; Col. 1:16-17), self-existent (John 8:58), and immutable (Heb. 1:11-12; 13:8). He is also equal with the Father (Luke 10:22; John 5:17-23; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9), and is thus worshipped (Matt. 14:33; John 5:23; Heb. 1:6; Rev. 5:12-14). Hence, Jesus is Jehovah!

ERAS not Essential or Needed

To be clear, some creedal theoreticians, while professing belief in one God in three persons, do egregiously maintain that there are multiple wills or centers of consciousness within the eternal (ad intra) Trinity. This perspective is likely influenced by their support for the following doctrines: eternal functional subordination (EFS), eternal subordination of the Son (ESS), and eternal relations of authority and submission (ERAS).

Nevertheless, for the record, many Trinitarians throughout the years, including myself, have rightly condemned EFS, ESS, and ERAS for the following reasons. A will, by definition, is a function of nature; therefore, since there is one divine being, there can only be one divine will. Consequently, when scholars of EFS, ERAS, or ESS claim that the Son's will submits to the Father's will in eternity (rather than during the incarnation), they are, in effect, teaching that the Son's being is subordinate to the Father's nature.

While it seems fair for MPJ to critique the multiple wills or centers of consciousness views, his supposed cure (outright denial of the Trinity) is far worse than the illness itself (EFS, ESS, ERAS). The only cure for the subordinationist views held by EFS, ESS, and ERAS advocates is to proclaim a fully coequal Trinity. Since the one divine nature exists in three distinct, coequal, coeternal, and co-glorious persons, there is no hierarchy, superiority, subordination, generation, or derivation in the eternal ad intra Trinity.

Grasping at Straws

MPJ loathes the concept of the Trinity so much that he created a straw man to argue against it. He slavishly claimed, "Christ is not merely a divine person among others; He is the express image of the invisible God, Hebrews 1:3, the Alpha and Omega, Revelation 1:8, and the full embodiment of the Godhead in bodily form, Colossians 2:9, in whom dwells all the fullness of Deity, making Him not a part of God but the very revelation of God Himself. Any doctrine that draws eternal lines between Father and Son as separate persons inherently clouds this glorious truth and risks relegating Christ to a partial or representative deity, rather than fully affirming Him as the one true God…"

According to MPJ, holding to the Father and the Son as distinct persons leads to a view popularly known as Partialism. Once again, ad nauseam, MPJ has exposed his ignorance of the Trinity and is thus forced to rely heavily on these ridiculous strawman arguments. Partialism is heresy! This doctrine suggests that each person of the Trinity is one-third of God, implying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are merely components of the one true God, coming together to constitute the whole of God. Yet, each person is in every way God because the Trinity, biblically defined, underscores the three distinct persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—indissolubly united in one being.

Depersonalizing the Spirit

Furthermore, in a last-ditch effort to explain his belief about the Holy Spirit, MPJ noted,

Just in case anyone is wondering, yes, I wholeheartedly believe in the Holy Spirit, but not as regulated to a third independent person that somehow eternally proceeded from the Father, but as GOD Himself. This describes what God is, John 4:24, as it emphasizes God in action or God's own divine essence in active expression. The Spirit is not a distinct person within a triadic committee, but the very breath of God, Genesis 2:7, the power of God, Luke 1:35, the mind of God, I Corinthians 2:11, and the presence of God in and among His people. John 14:17,23. To assign the Holy Spirit a separate "personhood" as defined by these confessions is to fragment the indivisible oneness of the only true God. The Spirit is the Lord Himself at work, and wherever He is, God is. "Now the Lord is that Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." II Corinthians 3:17. This is not a third party; this is God. The Scriptures know nothing of a tritheistic hierarchy where the Spirit is cast as a coequal being beside the Father and the Son…. (bold emphasis added).

A distinguishing characteristic of a heretic is the attempt to conflate the three persons of the Trinity. In this regard, MPJ is guilty, as he does not recognize the Holy Ghost as a person. This is contradictory, especially since the Holy Ghost spoke in the first person twice in Acts 13:2, using the words "me" and "I."

Rather than believing in the Holy Spirit as a person, MPJ, like the cultists, depersonalizes the Spirit. In his own words, the Spirit is "the very breath of God," "the power of God," and "the Lord Himself at work." Clearly, MPJ takes copious notes from the JWs because this is precisely what they affirm as well. To illustrate the similarities, one can compare MPJ's beliefs with the New World Translation (NWT), the spurious Bible used by JWs. For instance, while MPJ claims that the Spirit is "the Lord Himself at work," the NWT describes the Spirit as "...God's active force" (Gen. 1:2).

Lastly, his abuse of Scripture—specifically John 4:24, Luke 1:35, 1 Corinthians 2:11, John 14:17, 23, and 2 Corinthians 3:17—exposes his fallacious arguments as part of his endeavor to depersonalize the Spirit. The main error he makes is relying on a single possible meaning of a term and applying it consistently every time the word is used. This mistake is known as a word-study fallacy. Specifically, the illegitimate totality transfer or illegitimate sensibility transfer are common ways of committing “word study” missteps.

Regardless of MPJ's approval, the Holy Ghost is a person and, in every sense, is God. In the Bible, the Holy Ghost speaks in the first person twice in Acts 13:2, while Christ refers to the Holy Spirit in the third person in John 14:16 and 26. According to Scripture, the Holy Ghost performs various tasks: He teaches (John 14:26; 16:8, 13-14), testifies (John 15:26), commands (Acts 10:19-20), bears witness (Rom. 8:16), and intercedes for the elect (Rom. 8:26-27). Only a rational, logical, and moral individual can carry out these tasks. The Holy Spirit has also declared things that only God could state (Acts 28:25-27; Heb. 3:7-11; 10:15-17). Moreover, as the Apostle Peter points out, lying to the Holy Ghost is essentially lying to God (Acts 5:3-4).

Closing

This article has analyzed Marc's position and slavish arguments against the biblical doctrine of the Trinity. 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.