Debating the Trinity
June 1st, 2008 by Sean
Presented by Brant Bosserman and Sean Finnegan at the One God Conference, Seattle WA June 1st 2008, commentary by Sean Finnegan. Click here to listen the entire 2 hour debate or click on one of the parts below.
The debate was over whether God is a single individual (the Father of Jesus) or if he is a Trinity (three persons in one essence). The debate followed this format:
Introduction by Ken Westby and Tom Bosserman [10 min] listen or download
Sean’s Opening Statement [20 min] listen or download
Brant’s Opening Statement [20 min] listen or download
Sean’s Rebuttal [15 min] listen or download
Brant’s Rebuttal [15 min] listen or download
Sean Cross-Examine Brant [10 min] listen or download
Brant Cross-Examine Sean [10 min] listen or download
Sean’s Closing Statement [5 min] listen or download
Brant’s Closing Statement [5 min] listen or download
The discussion was lively and considerate and I thank Brant for his willingness to engage us on this issue. Unfortunately the recording has some microphone interference during the concluding statements but most of what was said can be understood. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Just finished listening and found the debate thought provoking.
I’m not sure what Mr. Bosserman was implying in his closing comments. Is he hypothesising that Unitarians are elevating man equal to God because I believe Christ Jesus (as a man) is now seated at the right hand of God? How is that likened to Adam’s sin in the garden? I am not trying to be equal to God. I am worshiping God in his true position and bowing down to his son Christ Jesus as God’s representative at his right hand. Was he quietly towing the line that a belief in the triune god is true Christianity? I thought he was going to try and convert the whole conference but decided to end with a prayer.
On the subject of Jesus’ death: Jesus died. All of Jesus died! How else then can he say in John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.
If Jesus had not yet ascended, then where was his second essence waiting to re-animate the dead body? If it was the ‘god’ part of Jesus, then why wasn’t it already in the presence of the other ‘god’ parts? Is Jesus conscious of both his ‘parts’? Do these two ‘parts’ communicate?Doesn’t equate to me. Has anyone ever evaluated John 20:17 under trinitarian dogma?
According to trinitarians, Jesus is eternal. How many times has he phsically changed and still remained god? Was he god for nine months in Mary’s womb? Was he god as he was growing up? Did he come into realization that he was god at 12 years old? Did he stop being god for three days and three nights in the tomb? Or did he receive power from the one true God after being baptized by John the Baptist?
More questions to follow…
Progressive revelation, a slippery slope.
I’m un-informed here so please explain to me where Christians can apply progresive revelation to the understanding of the Bible and where we can’t.
Mr. Bosserman’s stand is: the theology of the triune-god has been revealed after the Old Testement and troughout the New Testement (my paraphrase). If this is true, then how does he know the count stops at 3? How many more ‘persons’ are yet to be revealed in their ‘god-head’? What else has God yet to reveal? Where in history (which he never answered) was the progressive revelation of trinity theology complete?
Mr. Bosserman would like all to believe that the trinity theology rose up by the power of God and was established unapposed. But, that is not the historical case. Alex does a gret job debunking that at http://www.godfellas.org in his article “A Close Run Thing”.
Also, How can progressive revelation be accepted for the trinity theology but Joseph Smith is labeled a heratic? Who has the right to label changing bible interpretation as ‘progressive theology’ and who can claim it is swayed by platonic influence? Who can stand up and say “I have a new word of God” and who cannot? A slippery slope!
Thanks for the comments Frank, and for taking the time to listen. Regarding what you have said about progressive revelation, I would refer you to the fine job that Gary Fakhoury did (at the same conference) demonstrating that just because we are under the New Covenant (i.e. the Old has been fulfilled), we do not need to change our God.
click here to listen to Gary’s talk or click here for JohnO’s summary.
Hey Sean,
I listened to it to day and just wanted to say you did an excellent Job. You were very diplomatic and was glad to hear you keep your cool so well. Your opponent, while very intelligent failed to follow a lot the the frame that you had set up in the debate, one important thing was the getting the trinity out of Scripture rather than finding it in scripture. I loved your statement in the end regarding the trinity being the answer to a question that isn’t really there.
Progressive revelation??? I can think of one example of this being so in the case with the gentiles being part of the promises- but the catch there is that it was always in the old testament. The trinity is not there, there is nothing to be revealed about it. God never says I am three. Why would God have to clearly state the same statement that he has said since the beginning. If it had changed “progressed” then it would need to be stated otherwise.
To say that we are using terms that are from another time and that it is foolish to ask for them to be in scripture, is the actual foolishness. The only word in the question of “Is God one or three essences?” is essence and that can be taken out of the question and clearly answered. There are plenty of scriptures that state God is one- and none that state that God is three.
What is this about God “acting?”
I have always wondered about God changing his mind- but I didn’t understand the relevance to the argument.
I have definitely thought about Jesus’ ability to sin now… he must still have free will, therefore he can sin- and yes that is scary, although not so much because he is not God therefore God is greater than him and will always win, as well as those who love God.
So many times the point behind his argument is only good if Jesus was really God. If he is not God then Sean’s points stand firm. There are questions that we have to be content with not knowing until the end, but why settle for that when we can see clear statements in scripture? I definitely do not see this as a mystery and nice comment about reasoning Sean!
It is funny how his point in the end was that he is scared that we are making it all about man just like others who have fallen in the scriptures, when our whole point is that Jesus- a man- is not God! To worship Jesus as God is to do the very thing that he is scared will condemn us.
Frank D.,
Good questions. Christians can apply the biblical doctrine of “progressive revelation” and avoid the pitfalls of post-biblical progressive revelation by having a clear understanding that the Canon was closed when the book of Revelation was complete. Joseph Smith, Islam and other post-biblical heresies are not allowed because they assume that other holy texts have come down after the New Testament was closed. This puts an end to the slippery slope problem. Even Sean agreed during the debate that with the notion of biblical progressive revelation when he agreed that Old Testament saints did not know that Jesus’ body would some day replace the Jewish Temple.
It is impossible to answer your question about where in history was the revelation of the Trinity complete. I cannot give you an exact date any more than anyone else can give me an exact day of when the Shema was first recited. However, this does not mean that it is not clear that the Trinity was not fully revealed at some point. I believe that when God became incarnate in human flesh and walked among his creation the doctrine was fully revealed- though to date it has not been fully comprehended or accepted. There is difference between the truth of a doctrine, the widespread acceptance of that doctrine and the existence of a comprehensive detailed explanation of a doctrine. Ultimately, the Trinity is not some mere fact that exists in history- it is behind all of history and is actually the foundation of all reality. For this reason alone we cannot reason about it or question it in the same way we might question other non-foundational facts. Thanks.
By the way- as Trinitarians we fully expect that God would refer to Himself as one God. Only Tri Theists and other heretics would expect God to call Himself anything other than one. Please keep this in mind as we discuss our differences- it’s simply not helpful to try and defeat our position by implying that we believe in three gods.
Frank wrote:
“According to trinitarians, Jesus is eternal. How many times has he phsically changed and still remained god? Was he god for nine months in Mary’s womb? Was he god as he was growing up? Did he come into realization that he was god at 12 years old? Did he stop being god for three days and three nights in the tomb? Or did he receive power from the one true God after being baptized by John the Baptist?”
Trinitarians would answer, as Mr. Bosserman did, that he was God at all of those times, but also man. They explain away all of the important differences between God and His Son by saying that Jesus had two natures. And this is a mystery which can’t be explained. My answer to that would be, “Show me that in Scripture.” The whole notion of two natures is post-Biblical and not found anywhere in the New Testament, much less the Old.
And as Frank also said, this “new revelation” did not arise unopposed, but caused great turmoil and bloodshed. Compare that to the real revelation that Gentiles could now be partakers of the promises, as Erica mentioned. There was some opposition which was dealt with in a godly fashion, but no one was forced to accept it under threat of excommunication, torture or death.
It is interesting to note that the dual natures of Jesus was the last thing to be worked out (not coming to its fullest expression until the Creed of Chalcedon in a.d. 451). Yet, this last development is the first answer to any criticism of the much repeated assertion that Jesus is deity.
Good points about the ‘two natures’ of Christ. It’s useful to note that not only does this violate the law of non-contradiction (X cannot be p and not-p simultaneously), but also that most trinitarians present the ‘two natures’ of Christ as constituting two separate persons.
This has historically been condemned as heretical, even by trinitarians.
If Trinitarians held that Christ is both God and not God (or man and not man) at the same time and in the same way that would violate the law of non-contradiction. However, we have asserted nothing of the sort. In fact we assert the opposite- Jesus was (and is) both fully man and fully God. The negation of both is never asserted. Please let me know when a Trinitarian has ever said that Jesus was God and not God at the same time and place or when they said Jesus was man and not man at the same time and place.
Finally, I do not believe Brant ever asserted that Jesus was anything but one person. Don’t confuse two natures with two persons. Thanks.
I was really surprised while at the conference and how the “debate” took on two different spirits. One seemed interested in truth the other seemed interested in trickery and accusation. There are ways where “professional” people do things in the “debate play game”. Politicians (hm ploy?) do it all the time. It soon becomes a rash of rushing mixed match flying meaning and terms… leaving virtually all integrity and logic aside. Thus the tricky verbal statue and idol appears to be a winner though … I think, only in his own mind/eyes. Truth is truth weather you, me or anyone else knows it or is aware of it. It’s just the way it is.
True science examines evidence and stands fairly true with the facts, … debates over biblical truth should be similar in nature. David told Solomon to worship Yehowah with a pure heart and a willing mind. Doubtful disputation is quite different than calling a spade a spade or calling hot cold, light dark or bitter sweet. Debate for debate sake makes it a game. Exchanges and discourse with yielding to truth as it occurs is where a real man stands. To side step and badger is just a childish prank. It took out from a real intellectual debate. I grew up with a witty writing brother and to this day he thinks his mental and verbal skills is “god like”. Truth has no room in his path.
I think the trinitarian speaker at the seminar lost because it virtually was presenting argument and a bickering type of spirit. It even claimed things not true about the monotheistic view and because of the tone and mastery presentation; it looked like a show …. stupendous at that … but the context was dismal.
There are sheep people and snake people in scripture, both of their ways with people and truth are deeply shown in biblical context.
Scott,
Are you the Scott I met on Sunday–the pastor? Thanks for jumping in, it is absolutely pointless to argue against a straw man, so I’m glad you came on to defend the orthodox position. May I engage you in a couple of points?
You said that the Trinity was revealed when God became incarnate in human flesh. Two problems here. (1) The incarnation and the Trinity are two distinct doctrines. JWs believe in the incarnation and are not trinitarian. So, to say the Trinity was revealed at Jesus’ birth is simply false. (2) Secondly, there is no Scripture that says God became flesh. In John 1.1. it is the word (God’s mind, intent, plan, etc.) that became flesh. The word “word” was never a person in all of the 42 preceding books of the Bible. To assume that the word is a person when we arrive at John 1.1 is a special pleading, based on later theology not on pure exegesis.
Furthermore, if Jesus or the apostles were the first trinitarians, as Brant said, where do you find Jesus or the apostles ever teaching the Trinity. Jesus explicitly confessed faith in the Jewish understanding of God when he agreed with the non-trinitarian scribe in Mark 12.29 on who God is. This amounts to a denial of the Trinity, which in turn, makes Jesus a non-trinitarian. Furthermore, the apostles never spell out anything close to the Trinity. Even if we take John 20.28 as a proof-text for the deity of Jesus, this is still not the Trinity (naturally we take it as another instance of representational deity). The Trinity if fearfully complex and no one articulates it until after the biblical cannon is closed. Even as late as a.d. 380, Gregory of Nazianzus said that Christians were divided on the question of whether or not the holy spirit was in fact a distinct member of the Godhead (Orations, 31.12).
This is a very assumptive approach to asserting the Trinitarian model of understanding God. I could just as well say that the unity of God is behind all of history and is the foundation of all reality, etc., and that we should not question it. But, you would immediately reply, that’s not fair, we have to be able to question whether or not the unitarian model of theology is correct. If we cannot use our God-given reason to understand how many God is, then how can we even have this discussion?
Ok, let’s just take a step back here…you said “only tritheists and other heretics…” Let’s not call people heretics because of their difference in understanding who God is. They may be wrong, but calling someone a heretic is to dehumanize them and has been used for centuries as the basis for executing them. The trinitarians have a poor track record when it comes to “heretics.” After all, heresy is merely the view that the majority does not hold. Even so, thank you for pointing out that trinitarians do not believe in three Gods. This is an accurate statement, and it does not do justice to the intricacies of the Trinity. Our issue with the trinitarian model of understanding God is that it is unbiblical and contra-reason.
Scott,
‘If Trinitarians held that Christ is both God and not God (or man and not man) at the same time and in the same way that would violate the law of non-contradiction. However, we have asserted nothing of the sort. In fact we assert the opposite- Jesus was (and is) both fully man and fully God. The negation of both is never asserted.’
I think you misunderstand the law of non-contradiction. It states that X cannot be P and not-P simultaneously, where not-P means anything other than P.
Let God be P. The moment you assert that Jesus is God, then you assert that he is P. This means that the moment you try to assert that Jesus is ALSO anything other than God, you assert that Jesus is simultaneously P and not-P.
The moment you assert that ‘Jesus was (and is) both fully man and fully God’, you assert that he is P (God), and not-P (man). The terms ‘God’ and ‘man’ are not synonyms. They are not interchangeable. They are not speaking of the same entity. They are mutually exclusive.
‘Please let me know when a Trinitarian has ever said that Jesus was God and not God at the same time and place or when they said Jesus was man and not man at the same time and place.’
That’s not what I actually said. If you need a primer on the law of non-contradiction, you can go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_contradiction
‘Finally, I do not believe Brant ever asserted that Jesus was anything but one person. Don’t confuse two natures with two persons. Thanks.’
I am certain that Brant never asserted that Jesus was anything but one person. However, the moment trinitarians attribute THOUGHTS and ACTIONS of Jesus to one nature or the other, they are treating the natures as two persons. Many trinitarians do this all the time.
The Lutheran and Reformed churches have historically been divided over this issue. The Reformed explanation of the ‘two natures’ of Christ is defined as Nestorianism by Lutherans, and that’s basically what it is.
For a modern Lutheran paper on this issue, see here:
http://www.wlstheologia.net/node/33
Sean- yes we did meet on Sunday but no I am not the pastor. I was the guy who brought up infant baptism. I am glad to defend the trinity and engage on some points. Thanks for responding.
I agree that they are two separate doctrines and my point was never to conflate them. However, they are related but here we see our fundamental disagreement over the exegesis of the Greek. As the NIV Study Bible states (I remember you like this version) in John 1:1 the Word is identified as God. Later that Word becomes flesh so here is God becoming flesh. Once God incarnated in the person of Jesus Christ the revelation of the Trinity was well under way (as was the plan of salvation of which the specifics would not have been known before that time). The Word is never identified in this text as God’s mind, intent, or plan either so I fail to see how you are relying on “pure exegesis”. I do not really want to argue about when the Trinity was fully revealed- the issue of when does not determine whether or not it is true. In logical terms I might call this the chronological fallacy.
If Brant said that they apostles were the first Trinitarians then I would disagree with him. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit were the first Trinitarians. The scribe did not say anything that Jesus the Trinitarian disagreed with- as a Trinitarian He agreed that there was only one God. Again only tri theists and other polytheists would have disagreed with the scribe’s statement.
The strength of the Trinitarian argument does not rely on the fact that the apostles spelled out a clearly organized, succinctly stated formulaic paragraph on the doctrine. It is true because the Bible affirms at least 4 things- there is one eternal God, the Holy Spirit is God, Jesus is God and the Father is God.
By the way, your Unitarianism cannot even meet your standard. Where does the Bible ever state that God is one and He is one is such a way that He has not eternally existed as three persons?
I agree that a presuppositional defense of the Trinitarian worldview does appear to be a very assumptive assertion. However, I believe this can be backed up and I believe Brant began to explain this in the debate. I will have to review the debate to point out when he made that argument. I also know that you can say that the unit of God is behind all of history and the foundation of all reality and I would love to hear you defend it. Please tell me how reality as we know cannot exist if God is anything but a Unitarian God. I am willing to hear how you would work this out.
Also I do not recall saying that we can’t use our God given reason to have this discussion. Clearly we are. My point is that the only explanation of our reason is that we are created in the image of the Trinitarian God and to deny Him is to deny the foundation for reason itself. It comes down to one of two options- our reason submits to God or we submit God to our reason.
I am fine with not using the “H” word and apologize for any offense. Though, to be fair I know hundreds of Trinitarians and not one of them has ever killed a person over heresy. Also please note- I was calling tri theists and other polytheists heretics- I was not calling you one. However, I will not use that word since it clearly is a distraction. I am glad you grant that Trinitarians are not tri theists- not to be rude but in the debate it did seem that you assumed that we were. I understand that you believe that our understanding of God is unbiblical but of course I disagree.
Finally, in order to know if the trinity is against reason I need to know the standard of reason it violates- can you tell me the standard? Thanks.
Sean,
I am having problems formatting my response so I know my last one is very hard to follow- if you have time and don’t mind it would be great if you could clean it up so people can follow who is saying what. Thanks.
Scott,
‘The strength of the Trinitarian argument does not rely on the fact that the apostles spelled out a clearly organized, succinctly stated formulaic paragraph on the doctrine. It is true because the Bible affirms at least 4 things- there is one eternal God, the Holy Spirit is God, Jesus is God and the Father is God.’
This is not a strength but a weakness. It is an acknowledgment that the central premise of the trinity is nowhere taught in Scripture. Rather, the entire doctrine is derived syllogistically from a number of different statements.
This makes it an implied doctrine at best, somewhat strange if it is supposed to be the foundation of Biblical theology. Furthermore, the syllogism which trinitarians use to derive the doctrine is logically flawed, as previously demonstrated.
In contrast, the Unitarian position is declared and taught explicitly in Scripture, time and time again.
‘By the way, your Unitarianism cannot even meet your standard. Where does the Bible ever state that God is one and He is one is such a way that He has not eternally existed as three persons?’
Every time God uses a singular pronoun to describe Himself. Note, this is not simply ‘the Father’ referring to Himself as one person, but GOD being referred to as one person. Yahweh is referred to as one person, so Yahweh cannot be three persons. A trinitarian has the option of designating either the Father, son or Holy Spirit ‘Yahweh’, but Yahweh cannot be all three.
‘Finally, in order to know if the trinity is against reason I need to know the standard of reason it violates- can you tell me the standard? Thanks.’
The law of non-contradiction for a start. You have three meaning one, and one meaning three in one. You also have X being P and not-P simultaneously.
Scott,
I hope to respond to you when I get some time (Wed. is a busy day for me). Anyhow, I fixed your post by indenting the parts you quoted.
To all who may be interested, this blog allows most html commands, which is how we do indentations. If you would like to denote a block of text as quoting someone else, please follow this convention.
at the beginning of the quotation put this <blockquote> and at the end of the quotation put this </blockquote>
to bold text put this at the beginning <strong> and this at the end </strong>
to italicize text put this at the beginning <em> and this at the end </em>
etc.
Sean, I’ve been having difficulty downloading talks from the site, such as yours and JohnO’s. I usually get about 2-6MB, and then the download stops.
Would it be possible for you to burn me a CD of the talks you have on file and send it to me? I’d be very grateful.
Sean,
Thanks- I look forward to your thoughts.
Fortigurn,
You bring up several points that I need to respond to but since I am on limited time today I will only respond to one:
Regarding the law of non-contradiction I would like to first say that while this law clearly applies to the created reality I do not see any reason why it must necessarily apply to the Creator. It seems that if we are to insist that it must apply also to God then we are making something else (this law) ultimate along with God. I believe the law of non-contradiction is the creation of God- not something that stands over Him dictating what He can and cannot be and do. God alone is self existent and eternal yet given my understanding of the logical laws God created I see no reason why those laws are above Him.
Finally, the debate should not be over whether I maintain that there are three Gods vs. one God. Clearly I believe in one God. The debate is what type of oneness is that God- is he a radically singular one like Allah or is He one that encompasses three divine eternal persons. Appeals to pronouns will not settle this debate as I am a Non-Tritheistic Trinitarian. Since I believe that God is a covenental being in which all three persons are capable of representing the fullness of that Trinity individually (and corporately) I fully expect that God would refer to Himself in the singular. All that those pronouns prove is that there is one God- on this point we happily agree. It is getting really boring to repeat myself on this point so please try to respect my monotheism- even if you don’t fully like or understand it. Thanks.
Fortigurn,
I was already sending out those 4 DVDs to you today. In fact, the package was already sealed and ready to go, but we can slip in one more disc. We’ll be sending it out today.
Sean, I thought you did wonderfully well, in a trying situation. I am left thinking about this after listening to various debates on the Trinity, and doing some myself (at our site, with Prof Sanders): The real issue can be reduced to one point: What creed, ie view of God, was Jesus affirming in Mark 12:29?
We never got a straight answer from your opponent. A trinitarian must logically claim that Jesus believed in the Trinity, and if that is so then the Jewish scribe with whom Jesus agreed and Jesus himself were affirming the Shema as a Trinitarian creed!
But every scholar knows and many have written to the effect that the Shema was never a Trinitarian creed. If so, then Jesus in Mark 12:20 was affirming a non-Trinitarian, unitarian creed, and the debate is over…. Unless of course– and this is where the issue becomes so fascinating– Christians don’t really believe in Christ!!
I think that your opponent argues valiantly for a position which makes him disregard Jesus! In other words it is pointless to say “I am a Christian, but I reject my lord’s teaching about who God is.”
I think that your opponent was implying, without realizing of course, that he rejects the Jesus who affirmed the unitarian creed of Israel, a creed which is utterly incompatible with the Trinity.
Is there anything that could be said against my point here?
I think in debate Mark 12:29 ought to not be allowed to slip for one second from first position— after all it involves the most important command of all.
The awful issue is summed up by the amazing statement in the Word Biblical Comm on our passage: “There is nothing remarkable or particularly Christian about Jesus’ quotation of the Shema” (see the relevant section in the commentary)
So then Jesus was not really a Christian!!! Better, Christians today are forgetting about following Jesus as lord in the most important issue of all. They have substituted his creed with another one about which he knew nothing.
Anthony
Ah, Sean you champion, thanks for that.
Scott,
What you have to do is demonstrate that it doesn’t apply. The Bible clearly indicates that God reveals Himself in such a way as does not involve logical contradiction, and the Bible also clearly teaches that God is constrained logically (He cannot deny himself, for example).
No one is raising pronouns as if they have anything to do with tritheism. The issue is that they are a complete obstacle to trinitarianism.
But that’s not logical at all. It’s not even good grammar. There’s a perfectly good pronoun to use when more than one person is being referred to, and it’s the plural pronoun. You’re confusing references to a BEING with references to PERSONS.
No they don’t, they prove that God is one person. Pronouns count PERSONS, not beings. This is where trinitarianism violates basic rules of grammar. Pronouns count persons. If God is more than one person then God should be referred to as ‘them’.
You can still say there is one God, but if God consists of more than one person then when you refer to the PERSONS of God you MUST use plural pronouns.
This is acknowledged by trinitarians who appeal to the ‘we’ passages (such as Genesis 1:26), to argue that they speak of the trinity. They are perfectly correct to argue that if one God with a plurality of persons is speaking then the plural pronoun should be used. That is exactly right. But they then turn around and say the complete opposite when it is pointed out that singular pronouns only refer to one person.
These are the facts. Plural pronouns refer to more than one person, and are used whenever more than one person is referred to. Singular pronouns refer to only one person, and are used when only one person is referred to.
I also would like to welcome Scott. I pray you find the sisters and brothers in Christ here are honestly seeking the truth.
Scott, If God is “one that encompasses three divine eternal persons” is there anywhere in the scripture (either Hebrew or Greek) a word that means “one that encompasses three divine eternal persons”? I propose there is not.
I disagree with the likeninig the belief in a unitarian God to a ‘radically singular one like Allah’. But as the discussion developes, maybe you can expound on why you seperate your ‘type of oneness’ from the Muslim faith. As a former trinitarian, I assume you are taking this position in order to indicate you worship a different God than the Muslims. The Jewish faith also worships a singular (unitiarian) God. If God is a not a singular one and is “one that encompasses three divine eternal persons” , did the Jews get it wrong? Did God not reveal himself fully to Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, David, …etc? Do you worship the same God the Jews worship?
Erica, you said I have definitely thought about Jesus’ ability to sin now… he must still have free will, therefore he can sin- and yes that is scary, although not so much because he is not God therefore God is greater than him and will always win, as well as those who love God.
In your view, does God have free will? Yet God cannot sin, 1 John 1:5. How then can the ability to sin or not sin be a tell tale sign of free will? Scripture teaches that human wills are without sin with the potential to sin (Adam and Eve), are slaves to sin (Adam and Eve after sin and all their offspring), are both slaves to sin and slaves to righteousness (those in their sin natures and new natures by the Spirit), and 100% slaves to righteousness (those who will be glorified after death with Christ and forever preserved). In all of these natures or combination of natures, all have free will. Yet free will in accordance to their respected natures.
Secondly, I do not see Scripture teaching that Christ could have potentially sinned. Heb 4:15 says “but we have one [High Priest] who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin.
Yet, the greek word for ‘tempted’ is ‘peradzo’ and is a word which carries the connotation of being tempted by an outside force, not being tempted by an inner urge, craving, or desire. If I hold a cupcake in front of a statue, I am tempting the statue, yet the statue will never take the cupcake. When Jesus was asked by the Pharisees in Mark 10:2 if it’s lawful for a married man to divorce, Jesus was being tempted, or peradzo.
They didn’t approach Jesus with a porn magazine, thus tempt Him, but challenged the quality of His intellect and character. It is in this way that Jesus can perfectly identify with humans, as He suffered emotionally and physically as we do for He faced many testing and trying times.
Jeffrey Dahmer had certain urges and cravings due to his continual sin over time. Yet, Christ would not have shared such urges with Dahmer. To think Jesus dealt with, in some way shape or form, all experienced sinful cravings by mankind, in order to be a sufficient High Priest is to misinterpret the Scripture.
Here is the point on pronouns- singular pronouns CAN be used to speak of multiple persons. Brant proved this in the debate in his extensive quotations of examples of just that (i.e. Israel is referred to with a singular pronouns when it clearly refers to the entire nation) this is because of the concept of covenental relationships. So far the unitarians have not dealt with this concept.
Additionally, plural pronouns can be used of God as well such as in the book of Genesis. The assertion that God is speaking to Himself and the angels is a great case of eisegesis and the fact that some trinitarians agree with such eisegesis doesn’t make the error any truer. In summary the Trinitarian God is referred to properly using both singular and plural pronouns. This makes sense in light of a trinitarian covenental view of God but the unitarian cannot account for it.
What the Bible does not teach is the unitarian position on God. You can assume every time God is referred to in the singular this proves unitarianism but it does not- it affirms monotheism. Since both trinitarians and unitarians are monotheists the debate should not be about the pronouns as I have now stated several times. The nature of that monotheistic God is not examined as being either trinitarian or unitarian in those passages. Later in the New Testament when monotheism is reaffirmed (Mark 12:29), Jesus is called God, the Holy Spirit is called God and the Father is called God the doctrine of the triune nature of God is finally perfectly revealed.
Until someone interacts with these points I am done talking about pronouns.
To state that the unity of God was believed by Christ and all Jews before him is unprovable. Unless you can provide an argument based on scripture that affirms both monotheism and the fact that the one God is radically one and has not eternally existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit you cannot meet your own standard. Though they clearly affirm montheism the question of unitarianism vs. trinitarianism is not discussed just as the doctrine of Jesus’ body being the future temple of God is not discussed but is none the less true. It is clear from the text that before God came into human history and revealed himself as God the whole question about His nature being unitarian vs. trinitarian was not addressed. The fact that it is not addressed does not prove either side. As God works in human history new questions arise- i.e. how could the Messsiah be a carpenter named Jesus from Galilee that would be crucified for the sins of His people when the Old Testament doesn’t succinctly state that in a formula? How can the second coming of Christ be true if the Old Testament saints had no idea that the Messiah would work in that manner? How could Lazarus be raised from the dead before everyone else when the Jews of the day believed that God’s plan was to raise everyone on the last day? As these questions are answered new revelations about God become apparent and we grow in our knowledge of God.
Finally, on the point of which God I worship let me answer by asking a question- have Muslims ever worshiped the Trinitarian God? Do modern “Jews” worship the Trinity? The answer to this should tell you who worships which God. When it comes to the Old Testament saints I believe we do worship the same God. I believe it is the modern “Jews” and Muslims who departed from the God of the Old Testament in rejecting His Son (who is identified as God and received worship as God).
On progressive revelation:
First, as we saw in the debate Unitarians and Trinitarians are entirely agreed that progressive revelation occurs, notably with regard to the fact that a Temple of sheets and stone is replaced with a body of human flesh without any specific prophecy foretelling the end of the former. Also, for Erica, who notes that the inclusion of the Gentiles into the New Covenant was anticipated in the Old Testament (e.g. Amos 9:11, 12), it nevertheless remains clear that something flatly unexpected occurs in the New Testament when Gentile are allowed to become members of the Covenant without becoming Jewish proselytes through circumcision (Acts 15:5, 24-29). Any Jew reading Amos 9:11-12 would have read it in light of Genesis 17:11-13 and Exodus 12:48, but God revealed in the New Testament something entirely new, namely that Gentiles could be a part of the covenant as Gentiles. By the same right the Trinity is anticipated in the Old Testament in the teachings, among other things regarding God’s Spirit and his Word (e.g. Gen. 1:2; Ps. 33:6; 55:11), but the full revelation of the doctrine in the New involves ideas that would have been profoundly surprising to the Jewish people. But then we do serve the God who says, “Behold I will do something new” (Is. 43:19).
Second, when properly understood, progressive revelation allows for both exciting new truths and for continuity between the Scriptures, disallowing for a 5-person God as Frank D. fears. The kind of continuity in Scripture is better compared to the growth of a child to manhood, than to the steady assent of a diagonal line driven by a mathematical function, as I sometimes find Unitarians presupposing. There are some features in a grown man which are downright unrecognizable in an infant—his facial hair, his ability to walk, etc. But, nevertheless there is clear continuity between a grown man and child, so that when we see the grown man we may understand that certain features of the child were always intended to be accented, others to be outgrown, and others to remain unto the end. Importantly, when it comes to the Trinity it is not God who has come to manhood, but our knowledge of him. In the Trinity we see realities about God which have always been present, as Scott notes, but which have been emphasized in a new way by the fullness of the work of Christ, who propitiates the Father’s wrath and sends the Spirit. We know that there is no need for any further revelation because Jesus is expressly identified as the fullness of the revelation of God (Col. 2:9; Heb. 1:1-2), and the one who has finished the work of reconciliation (Col. 1:20; Heb. 10:14). Mohamed and Joseph Smith could not let us know more about God, salvation, or another member of the Godhead—our salvation has been fully accomplished by the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. Any additional member would thus be ancillary to the work of salvation, and not the God who is our Savior (Is. 43:11).
On a “clear” statement of the Trinity:
First, there is no clear statement of the Unitarian position in the Scriptures along the lines that the Unitarian demands of the Trinitarian. Fortigurn has well noted that the Trinitarian view is birthed out of the compilation of four truths, but argues that the Unitarian position is succinctly stated every time God is called “he.” Yet, upon scrutiny this is not the case. First when (1) God is called “he” the Unitarian does not conclude that God is “male” as it means with regard to most subjects (I note this in the debate). Thus, the Unitarian adds an addition piece of information to his systematic theology that (2) God is not a man (Num. 23:19). Yet, still further the Unitarian adds an assumption that is not found in Scripture that (3) the single God, who is radically different than man as noted in point (2), cannot be identical with three distinct persons. And here the Unitarian adds another extra-Biblical assumption to his theology, namely that (4) God’s manner of being must submit to our rational demands, and because we cannot understand or envisage a Triune God it simply cannot be possible. Rather than follow Augustine in believing so that we may have greater understanding, the Unitarian seems to demand that we be able to understand before we believe. Thus, it is the Unitarian who reasons syllogistically by pulling together multiple points of theology some Biblical and some non, and demands that they measure up to Aristotle’s logic (as opposed to Hegel’s or any other philosopher’s). By contrast the Trinitarian makes his sole presupposition the Word of God itself, and submits to the teaching that there is one God, that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are God, and that they are distinct persons.
Second, I have heard from several Unitarians that the Chalcedonian view of Christ, were it true, should have been stated in succinctly in Scripture, and that because it was not agreed on by a council until 451 A.D. it could not have been part of the Apostolic teaching. These contentions have been echoed on this forum. But of course Biblical doctrines are rarely if ever granted to mankind in the “doctrinal statement” format demanded by the Unitarian. Instead, they are drawn from reflection on the powerful acts of God revealed in covenantal history. But, let’s apply the Unitarian’s reasoning to another aspect of our theology, namely our beliefs regarding the Canon of Scripture. The New Testament does not contain a succinct list of books defining the parameters of the Canon, as the Mormon Scriptures do in the Pearl of Great Price. And there is no list of the books of New Testament Canon until after several Church councils (Laodecia—366; Hippo Regius—393; and Carthage—397. Importantly, not even these councils provided a complete list of the New Testament books, the first “council” to do this was the council of Trent in 1563, with which most of us disagree. Of course, none of this means that the early church lacked Scriptures. Rather our understanding of the parameters of Scripture grew up through our common usage of them in a covenantal history with God. Controversy caused us on many occasions to scrutinize the question of the parameters of the canon in a way that we had not in the beginning, and even helped us to clarify our view. But certainly these developments do not undermine the fact that we had had Scriptures from the beginning. All of the same may be said for the Trinity and the Chalcedonian view of Christ. The councils regarding them are clarifications of what had long been believed and implied by our practices.
Third, should the Unitarian reject this view because there is not a verbatim statement of the Chalcedonian definition in the first century A.D., they must also reject the current parameters of the Canon for which there is no identical list corresponding to our current one in the first three centuries of the church. Instead, we see the earliest church fathers using all the parts of our current canon giving us confidence that they are genuine, despite the fact that that individuals sometimes erred by failing to honor genuine Scriptures (2 Peter, 3 John, etc.), and identifying other non-canonical texts as Scripture (The Shepherd of Hermas). By the same right, we see the earliest Church Fathers teaching all the truths of Chalcedon—Jesus is perfectly God, perfectly man, and one person—although certain individuals underemphasize or overemphasize certain elements of this teaching. But ultimately both our view of Scripture and of Christ are vindicated by virtue of the fact that when we zoom out and look at the broad teaching of the Church from the beginning, 2 Peter was held to be canonical and the Shepherd of Hermas was not, and Jesus was held to be perfectly God and perfectly man, and not an admixture between them. Thus, the councils affirm what the church had broadly been teaching since the beginning, and consolidated those teachings in summary statements, despite the fact that certain individuals before then had failed to represent the position in full.
Trinitarians keep saying that it doesn’t matter if the doctrine is illogical by our standard of reason, because it is God’s higher standard pf reason which we can’t understand. If that were the case, then SOMEWHERE in His written revelation to us it would have to be spelled out clearly. If it is not based on human reason, then you cannot reason it out from any of the supposed “implications” in the Scriptures. God would have to make an explicit, though seemingly illogical, statement that he was “three persons, yet one God.” He would have to make such a statement, and perhaps include the statement that it does not fit with our reason, we must simply accept it on faith. But of course He made no such statement anywhere in Scripture. Nor did He ever say that our eternal life depended on believing such an illogical doctrine. He only said we must believe that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of God.”
And I still don’t understand why Trinitarians have no problem with the fact that the idea of the Trinity didn’t even exist until hundreds of years after the Scriptures were completed. How can it be divine revelation? Such an important doctrine would surely need to have been included in the Canon of Scripture, wouldn’t it? The Scriptures give us knowledge of EVERYTHING that pertains to life and godliness (II Peter 1:3). Yet they make no explicit statement regarding the Trinity, or the two natures of Jesus which supposedly explain the very clear distinctions between the Father and His Son.
But these questions were dealt with in the New Testament. The Trinity was not. As I said, it didn’t exist as a doctrine till hundreds of years later.
Mark,
I disagree with your post above. Though the current formulaic discussion of the Trinity may have been developed only after the closing of the Canon the Bible does affirm teach at least 4 things that only make sense in light of the Trinitarian view of God. I am not jealous of categories/terms such as essence, person and being since these are concepts that may changed much over time or not even existed at other times. However, I believe the Bible is clear that- there is only One God (Mark 12:29), that Jesus is God (John 20:28), that the Father is God (no proof needed) and that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4). These truths are explicitly stated in scripture and can only make sense if a Trinitarian view is taken. To do otherwise is to engage in horrible eisegesis or make the Bible contradict itself. I know the assumption of unitarianism will not allow many to accept these teachings but lack or persuasion is not necessarily a lack of proof.
Scott, What is your definition of “radically one”?
By providing amplifing information, we can better understand what scriptural evidence you seek. I believe the scripture does clearly “affirms both monotheism and the fact that the one God is radically one”. God chose the words for the authors of the books to write.
{2Tim 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspirtion of God…”} God is a
Also, If God is “one that encompasses three divine eternal persons” is there anywhere in the scripture (either Hebrew or Greek) a word that means “one that encompasses three divine eternal persons”?
Scott,
I think you’ve misrepresented the point about singular pronouns, as well as Brant did during the debate. The singular ‘he’ is in reference to Israel. Israel is the name of an individual. Israel is the name of a family. The name “Israel” scripturally has come to denote the individual and his family (since that is the basis of the covenantal promise). Therefore, in this case, Israel is being used as a collective noun. It entirely remains to be proven whether or not “God”/”Elohim”/”YHWH” is a collective noun. That was not in any way proven in the debate.
Therefore, just because a singular CAN be used to represent a group when used in reference to a collective noun, it is no way proven that the singular references to God SHOULD be read in this manner. And of course we maintain there is not one single instance in which any use of “God”/”Elohim”/”YHWH” to mean triune – and trinitarian scholars largely agree with us, or state they don’t without any evidence whatsoever.
Sorry, Let me try this again (darn fat fingers!)
God chose the words for the authors of the books to write.
{2Tim 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspirtion of God…”} God told Moses to write Deut 6:4
Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
Here the word God chose (‘echod) means exactly one.
Do you have any Old Testement scriptural evidence where God revealed Himself as “one that encompasses three divine eternal persons” ?
On Logic
First, Mark your statement that we cannot use logic to speak about implications in Scripture unless we hold to a belief in an unbounded logic which dictates possibility for man and God along the lines of Greek philosophy does not follow. We use logic in submission to God’s word, and allow that the teachings of his word are beyond what we are capable of understanding. And Scripture does teach that we ought to be prepared to encounter such teachings—Deut. 29:29; Is. 40:28; 55:8-9; Rom. 11:36; etc.
Second, you seem to assume that the parameters and demands of Logic are certain and without variation, which of course is contradicted by a long history of philosophy in which the demands and the reach of logic is highly debated. You appear to have chosen Aristotle’s Logic as the ultimate standard, capable of judging God’s revelation itself. One must wonder why Kant’s logic, or Hegel’s, etc. is not favored.
Third, you claim that in order for God to reveal himself as Triune he would have had to (1) reveal it explicitly, and (2) succinctly in one passage and (3) note it was paradoxical in that passage. Where do these demands come from? Are they revealed explicitly and succinctly anywhere in Scripture, as you demand of the Trinitarian doctrine? Why should we regard these as anything more than rationalistic demands that God reveal himself in “doctrinal statements” as opposed to the manner that he has so chosen in covenantal history.
Fourth, there are a multitude of doctrines in Scripture which provide us with mysteries and paradoxes which are neither stated succinctly in one passage, expressly declared to be a mystery, and yet must be accepted as true—Predestination and human responsibility; the fact that God is good, all-powerful, and perfectly sovereign and the reality of evil (Is. 45:7-8); the perfectly divine and perfectly human authorship of Scripture; the fact that God may be glorified and is already perfect in glory, etc. Are you seriously claiming that we must resolve every mystery in Scripture before believing them (1 Cor. 13:2)?
On the Assumption of Unitarianism
First, Frank D., God does reveal himself to be “one” in Deut. 6:4 but he does not expressly say “one person” as the Unitarian would have it. It is assumed that this divine oneness must be the same as the oneness of an individual man. And as we all know Israel understood that God was personal, one, loving, powerful, etc. in a radically different way than men are. He is the Creator and we are the creature.
Second, John O., my argument was not limited to the fact that Israel is the name for an individual and for a tribe, it also encompassed the fact that singular pronouns—I, you, he—are often used for collective groups of people (Judges 1, Isaiah 41, Jeremiah 3), and therefore cannot preclude the possibility that God is Triune, especially when this human race which is one and many is made in God’s image. As for positively proving that God is Triune, I have stated time and again that God expressly reveals that he is Triune in the New Testament. And naturally, I do believe that the point that God is Triune was proven in the debate by the multitude of references to Jesus as God and his capacity to take on the prerogatives of God, and my denial that these can be explained by any concept of representative deity.
On What Must be Revealed in Scripture.
Frank D., the claim that something as important as God’s Triune nature needs to be stated in “doctrinal statement” format in Scripture, is undermined by the fact that the our doctrine of Scripture itself, including its very parameters is not itself stated in Scripture.
Scott,
Regarding the point on pronouns…Brant pointed out a case in which singular personal pronouns referred to a group of people. This is a rare usage of the concept and is readily understandable in the context. However, when it comes to God, we are not talking about a few places, we are talking about 20,000 or so singular pronouns and verbs used in reference to him. Just read these verses and tell me that God really means something other than that he is a singular individual:
Are we to believe that all of these “I” statement really mean “we?” The whole point Yahweh is making is that he is the only one who is God.
Brant, Thank you for your response. I am not looking for a dotrinal statement, I’m looking for any scripture that alludes to, hints at, or could be interpreted to say God is “one that encompasses three divine eternal persons”! God states many times and many ways that he is a unitary being as Sean has listed above.
So, as Scott has stated that the Old Testement believer believed in a “one that encompasses three divine eternal persons” god, I do not see that true anywhere in the Old Testement scriptures. If it is formulated throughout the old testement, please provide as many scriptures as necessary to clearly depict such. I contest that it is not in the Old Testement and therefore Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, David and , yes, Jesus were not trinitarians.
While you are correct in saying that the Bible makes those three statements (Father is God, Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God), the place where the logic fails is in the statement that these truths “can only make sense if a Trinitarian view is taken.” Sean demonstrated how the (rare) statement that Jesus is God can be understood in a representational sense (which reflects the Hebrew mindset). And he didn’t make that up – it’s a view that has been around for centuries, and was in fact held by Jesus as demonstrated in John 10:31-36. Likewise the Holy Spirit as representing God, being His presence and power operating in the world. Even if you disagree with the Unitarian view, you can’t say that the Trinitarian view is the only way to make these Scriptures fit.
In order for the Scriptures to fit, we have to examine all of the relevant passages. There are several which quite clearly demonstrate that Jesus could NOT be God, and the only explanation offered by Trinitarians is the extra-Biblical concept of Jesus having two natures. There is no Scripture that explicitly states such a thing, nor is there any that explicitly state that there is one God who exists in three persons.
Brant,
I say inasmuch as we’re talking about collective nouns – it does preclude the possibility that God is triune. If “God” is not a collective noun – then your argument falls flat, and there is no possibility for the OT to support your assertion. Which is why I feel you’ve come up very short of your intended point and thrust.
If I may say, Sean pointed out clearly in his opening that taking on the perogatives of God present nothing towards claiming he is God. The prophets before Jesus and the apostles after him also took upon the perogatives of God. All God’s messengers do that. And, “Multitude of references’ = 2, as most 9, as Sean again stated.
Sean,
Clearly the point of all of these statements is that there is only one true God. Whoever He is and whatever His nature is composed of is not discussed in any of those passages. The passages are declaring His superiority not His metaphysical make up. Your assumption of Unitarianism is the only thing that makes it seem to you that God is commenting on His nature. The only aspect of God’s nature that is displayed in all of those texts is that He alone is God- on this point we agree. You tell me which of those passages has a Trinitarian ever denied? Which one of them have we ever dismissed?
Frank,
All I mean by “radically one” is the Unitarian view of oneness. I consider it a view in which God is completely singular in much the same way that Allah is both one and singular. I don’t mean this as an insult- I am just trying to distinguish this type of oneness from the Trinitarian view of the oneness of God. Do you have a different term that I can use the is more helpful to you? That is a genuine question and I not trying to be a smart alec with it. Thanks.
A note on respresentational deity-
Thomas calls Jesus “my God” and worships Him as such and Jesus accepts it (not a very nice thing for a good monotheist to do if Jesus wasn’t God). All of the times Sean points out that other people are called gods or that they will be “as god” the context is completely different. I can agree that Jesus in a sense does represent God- since He is in covenental relationship with God. I just do not limit Jesus to being a mere human representative of God. Regarding those people are clearly just human representatives of God no one ever worships these people as God, they are never called God by another human and they never accept worship as God’s representative. This is why the New Testament teaches that Jesus is God in a way that is only intelligible in light of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Finally, Acts 5:3-4 no where states that the “Holy Spirit as representing God, being His presence and power operating in the world.” or anything close to this. In fact such a formulation is not found anywhere in scripture. Instead Acts 5:3-4 clearly identifies the Holy Spirit as being God.
No, I’m claiming that while there are mysteries about God which we don’t understand, the question of how many He is, is not one of them. He explicitly claims to be one God, and clearly identifies Jesus as His Son. Anything that would otherwise cause confusion must be clarified in God’s revelation of Himself, or else He has not succeeded in communicating Himself to us.
But you don’t agree. You say that there are THREE persons that are God, while those texts say there is only ONE. “He ALONE is God and there is NO OTHER.” That means there is only ONE who is God.
Scott,
I think you know we are not talking about a “mere human” or “just a man” when we are talking about Jesus. He is the most exalted creature in all creation, save the Father Himself.
As for Acts 5:3-4, yes, to lie to the Holy Spirit is to lie to God. But that is because God’s spirit is an extension of God in the same way that my spirit is an extension of me.
I Cor 2:11 – “For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”
Is the spirit of man a different person than the man? Is the spirit of Elijah a separate person from Elijah in II Kings 2:15? The spirit of God is seen as His presence and power throughout the Bible.
Mark,
Right- God affirms that He alone is God. But beyond this He does not dive into a metaphysical discussion of His own nature. The subject of how many persons God exists as is not the subject of these passages.
For the last time please note- we are not Tri-Theists! We do not believe that there is ANOTHER God. We do not believe in more than one God. We believe in ONE God has has eternally existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Thus we completely agree with the passage above in affirming that no one but Yahweh (not Daigon, not Molech, not Allah, not Krishna) is God.
Do you not understand our position or do you really not get what we are saying? How can I clarify my position for you?
Mark,
This is a good question- Is the spirit of man a different person than the man? Frankly, I do not know the answer. Thankfully, we are talking about God and not man so whether or not the Spirit of a man is a different person than the man doesn’t matter to me as a Trinitarian. To compare God to man and assume that whatever is true of the man is also true of God is like assuming whatever is true of pottery must also be true of the potter. Every man I know has (or at one time had) male reproductive organs- are we to assume that therefore the Father does as well? Clearly the answer is no. So I don’t see how one’s opinion about the nature of man and his spirit helps us know how the Holy Spirit is rightly called God.
By providing, as Frank said, any scripture that alludes to, hints at, or could be interpreted to say God is “one that encompasses three divine eternal persons”!
Mark,
Further where does the Bible ever explicitly state that “God’s spirit is an extension of God in the same way that my spirit is an extension of me.” Does the Shema state this? Does the Old Testament state this? Did Moses know this? Did David? Did 2nd Temple Jews believe this? If not how can you know this is any more true than the Trinity?
The verse I referred to in that post, I Cor 2:11, compares the relationship between man and the spirit of man with that between God and the spirit of God.
Mark,
I have to disagree about I Corinthians 2:11- this passage is discussing an epistemic analogy of man’s spirit and God’s Spirit not the metaphysical relationships that would be involved in answering the question you raised about persons.
Mark,
Does it have to be ONE scripture that states what Frank asks for? If the answer is yes- then why? Does the Bible demand this level of proof?
Scott, No insult taken.
Scott,
just curious…how would you explain the fact that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, yet James 1.13 says that “God cannot be tempted.”
clearly there’s a contradiction in that belief. I know there’s a doctrine of dual natures; the problem is that there’s no scriptural support for that line of reasoning.
Scott,
So, as Scott has stated that the Old Testement believer believed in a “one that encompasses three divine eternal persons” god, I do not see that true anywhere in the Old Testement scriptures. If it is formulated throughout the old testement, please provide as many scriptures as necessary to clearly depict such. I contest that it is not in the Old Testement and therefore Abraham, Issac, Jacob, Moses, David and , yes, Jesus were not trinitarians.
Scott,
So, as Scott has stated that the Old Testement believer believed in a “one that encompasses three divine eternal persons”
Frank,
I stated that we worship the same God- I did not however state that we would have understood God’s nature in the same way. In the same way we both believe in the same Messiah. I know that His name was Jesus, that his mother was named Mary, that He had brothers, that He turned water into wine, the He instituted communion at the last supper, died on a cross for the sins of His people, was buried in a rich man’s tomb and rose again on the third day. Clearly the Old Testament saints did not know these things about Jesus yet it is still proper to say we believe in the same Messiah.
John O, your claim that “If “God” is not a collective noun – then your argument falls flat, and there is no possibility for the OT to support your assertion” is not only an overstatement but not to the point.
First, to state my case again it is the New Testament that reveals clearly that God is Triune, and there is no reason why the New Testament cannot provide such a revelation. Israel did not begin as a collective noun, it originally referred to a single individual but it came to refer to a tribe. By the same right “God” may reveal himself to be Triune, and the argument that singular pronouns do not preclude the possibility that God is Triune stands. Ultimately, both the reality of God’s Trinity and man’s covenantal nature come together in the work of Christ who may say “I in them and you in me” (John 17:23) because he shares both the nature of God and man.
Second, the idea that there is “no possibility for the OT to support the assertion” is itself an unsubstantiated assertion. The plurality of God’s title and the fact that man is his image both ready the waters for the New Testament revelation.
Third, your point that mere men spoke on behalf of God does not change the fact that men do not bear the divine name, title, or divine prerogatives (e.g. creation) in the Old Testament. In each instance that they said “Thus says the Lord” there is no ambiguity that they are speaking on behalf of God in the first person. On the other hand, Jesus immediately intertwines his self-designation as “the first and the last,” a strict divine title (Rev. 1:17; cf. Is. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12), with designations referring to his historical existence “I was dead and behold I am alive” (Rev. 1:18) and this none of the prophets could do.
Sean, on your question in regard to the many “one God” passages in the O.T. (Deut. 4:35, 39; 2 Sam. 7:22; 2 Kings 19:19; Is. 45:5-7), “Are we to believe that all of these “I” statement really mean “we?”
Lets take another matter of special revelation, like the Old Testament teaching that Gentiles will be included in the New Covenant (e.g. Amos 9:11-12). When Israelites read this passage they no doubt foresaw a time when all the Gentiles would become proselytes. And a contemporary Jew might well say to us, “Are we to believe that all these statements about Gentile conversion have nothing to do with them becoming circumcised? Well, there’s no way the original audience would have thought that.” And to this Jew we must respond, of course you are correct we needed special progressive revelation to know that. But once we have this revelation it becomes clear that God was never primarily interested in cutting off flesh, he was really preparing the waters for the revelation that he would cut off his Son (Col. 2:11ff). In the same way, we are happy to acknowledge that it is a new and profound revelation that the “I” statements of God do encompass the whole of the Triune Lord, but this reality is by no means a contradiction—“I” was always capable of doing that.
Scott, I find it interesting that you would say “I did not however state that we would have understood God’s nature in the same way.” What is God’s nature in the Old Testement? Is it stated as “one that encompasses three divine eternal persons” or is it “radically one”?
What did the Old Testement patriarchs believe about God’s nature?
Quite honestly, I don’t think the trinity theology can be constructed from the Old Testement.
Frank, if your point in saying “I don’t think the Trinity theology can be constructed from the Old Testament” is that we need the fullness of the Biblical revelation in order to know the fullness of Biblical theology, then of course what you are saying is true. But its true of every Biblical doctrine. We cannot construct “Christological Theology” strictly from the Old Testament either, because the Old Testament itself looks forward to fuller revelation. It appears that you are committed to a Platonic epistemology which will not allow for the communication of new truths in history, but it is precisely this that the Biblical worldview presupposes.
As for the question, “What did the Old Testament Patriarchs believe about God’s nature?” It is clear that they believed the moral qualities which defined Israelite relationships to one another—love, righteousness, fidelity, honor, etc.—were embodied by God in himself (Lev. 19:2; Ps. 36:5-6; 51:1) and not qualities which were temporarily manifest in his relationship to creation. This was no doubt mysterious, because they did not believe in abstract attributes along Platonistic lines which awaited instantiation in history. And the New Testament thus represents the culmination of the Old Testament teaching in revealing the relationship between the Father the Son and the Spirit.
No, you could bring up as many as you like. Frank asked for “any scripture that alludes to, hints at, or could be interpreted to say God is ‘one that encompasses three divine eternal persons.’” No Trinitarian has ever been able to do so, because “one” means “one.”
Frank,
I believe that God has always existed as Trinity so in that aspect of His nature He was a trinity in the Old Testament. I am not here saying that this was revealed in the Old Testament as I cannot find any passages that deal with God’s metaphysical make up- thus the Old Testament takes neither a unitarian nor trinitarian position regarding God’s nature.
As far as what the Old Testament saints believed about God’s nature I agree with Brant.
Sal, if I may respond to your question to Scott,
just curious…how would you explain the fact that Jesus was tempted in the wilderness, yet James 1.13 says that “God cannot be tempted.”
clearly there’s a contradiction in that belief. I know there’s a doctrine of dual natures; the problem is that there’s no scriptural support for that line of reasoning.
Clearly there’s a contradiction for you as well for verse 13 also states “nor does he (God) tempt anyone”. As I stated earlier, the Greek word ‘peradzo’ carries with it the connotation of being tested, challenged, or proved from the outside, not an inner craving from within. There is a better Greek word for that, such as ‘epithoumia’ I believe.
This point alone illustrates how reading the Bible in English is like seeing its truths in black and white while reading it in its original languages is like seeing its truths in color.
Like most words, context dictates how they are meant. ‘Peradzo’ is no exception. For instance, one can be tested unto sin or unto Godly character. God never does the former but certainly does the latter. Thus, James 1:13-15 is not contradictory once we see that word’s meanings do not stand alone but are also guided by their given context.
Heb 11:17 By faith Abraham, when God tested (peradzomenos) him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son
We even see Christ testing others in John 6:6: Philip, “Where shall we buy bread for these people to eat?” 6He asked this only to test (peradzon) him, for he already had in mind what he was going to do.
Again, God tests unto Godly character, not to sin – like Satan does.
Also, Satan tested Christ in hopes He would sin, while God used such tests to all the more prove His inability to sin.
Again, I don’t see what is so complicated about the simple exclusive statements that Yahweh makes of himself that he is the only God. The shema is clear that there is only one Yahweh, not two, not three. This is so simple, it could only take the confusion of men like Athanasius and the Cappadocians to confuse it into poly-mono-theism. Can I urge you just to read these simple verses?
Deuteronomy 4:35
“To you it was shown that you might know that Yahweh, He is God; there is no other besides Him.
Deuteronomy 4:39
“Know therefore today, and take it to your heart, that Yahweh, He is God in heaven above and on the earth below; there is no other.
Yahweh is the only God (period). If you want to add Jesus or the Holy Spirit to this it is not compatible–not if there is only one Yahweh. Remember, Jesus explicitly denied the Trinity when he agreed with the non-trinitarian scribe on who God is.
The way Jesus understood the shema was the same as this scribe who said, “he is one, and there is no one else besides him.” This is clearly a confession of strict monotheism. If Jesus is a co-equal (which of course he denied John 10.30; 14.28) then there is one besides Yahweh who is also God. Furthermore, if the nameless holy spirit is God then there are two besides Yahweh. That Yahweh is not Jesus is clear from Psalm 110.1 when Yahweh addresses David’s lord.
Why not listen to our beloved brother Paul?
Simple right? “for us there is but one God, the Father.” Can you agree with this statement? No! The trinity says, “there is but one God, the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit!”
Again, we come back to the same problem we have over and again with the Trinity–it is not derived from Scripture. It is a theory that is so clever that it is not able to be proven nor disproved (i.e. it is not falsifiable). Show me where the Bible teaches the Trinity–not merely the deity of Christ or the incarnation, etc. etc., but where does it say that God is one in three persons? Where is Jesus equal with the Father. The theory is superimposed on the text anachronistically. The words of Hans Kung are instructive:
Hello everyone,
Brant has agreed to come on my radio program to discuss the debate this Saturday at 9AM PST. You can call into the show and talk to Brant in person at 1-800-466-1873 (that is if you are as bold on the phone as you are on your PC)
Check out unchainedradio.com for more info.
It should be educational,
Gene
“Jesus didn’t tap out”
The Trinity is a traceable doctrine which developed after New Testament times. We find a clear evolution between the Apostle’s Creed (which is clearly biblical) and the Binitarian Creed of Nicea in a.d. 325. Remember the church was unsure as to whether the Father and Son were the same substance, similar substances, or different substances (hence the need for the council). Are we prepared to say that Christianity had always believed in the Trinity since Jesus secretly taught it to his apostles but as late as a.d. 380 there is still a question as to whether the holy spirit is a person?
It is preposterous to think that Jesus or his apostles redefined the concept of God from a unipersonal, monotheistic belief of “Yahweh alone is God” to some tripartite or triune God of three persons when we see not one New Testament book, not one chapter, not one paragraph describing the change. There is no explanation of how the clear statements of radical monotheism found in the Old Testament could be reread in light of this new understanding of plurality. If the Trinity were part of what the apostles taught, then we should find at least one community in either Palestine or the Diaspora that struggled to accept this new doctrine of God. To think that the early Church debated over accepting the Gentiles, keeping the Law, how to keep communion, the role of women in the Church, yet never once had any trouble at all accepting that God is now three instead of one is absurd.
Sean,
I have already spoken to the issue of the supposed radical monotheism you refer to. It seems at this point my ideas are not being interacted with and instead you simply continue to assume that the “one God” texts are all some metaphysical discourse about the ontology of God. Apart from you assuming that monotheism= unitarianism I have heard no real discussion of the texts. This is pretty frustrating and makes for a bad conversation.
No, Scott, that is not at all what I assumed. My point is that it is the trinitarian who is bring metaphysics and ontological demands to the text. I’m just asking you to read it and believe it. It is so simple I think that we need not even have this discussion. If I say that I alone am Sean and there is no other human besides me. How is that confusing or metaphysical or whatever? This is really not difficult. There is no assumption here.
Sean,
Respectfully- that is why you are Sean and not God. It’s interesting how many times the unitarian argument comes back to reasoning from man’s nature to God’s nature. To be consistent you would have to say that since God is called He and every he we know has (or at one time had) male genitals then God must have them.
I am not importing anything to those texts- I am not arguing that they reveal trinitarian, unitarian or any other metsphysical statement about God than the ones actually referred to- His superiority over all and unique standing as the only true God. The issue of His metaphysical make up is simply not at hand in these texts. From this text we know that God is one but this text alone does not tell us in which way He is one. Radical oneness is not the only option for those that are presented as being one. This is why we trinitarians happily say amen and submit to the texts where He reveals Himself to be the only true God.
Scott, Brant, Thank you for your patience with me.
Scott wrote:
Brant wrote:
Scott also wrote:
I understand your position to be that since there are no “metaphysical make-up” statements in the Old Testement defining God, then he is neither unitarian or trinitarian. God uses the word ‘echod to describe Himself as ONE and I think we all agree. We disagree if this is a metaphysical ONE. But, there are numerous uses of ONE to describe God. There are no words used by God in the Old Testement that means ‘one that encompasses three divine eternal persons’ . True?
Can you please provide any scripture that alludes to, hints at, or could be interpreted to say God is ‘one that encompasses three divine eternal persons’ in the New Testement?
Is there any Greek word that means ‘one that encompasses three divine eternal persons’ and is this word used anywhere in the New Testement to describe God?
Sean, I know this is going to get to be a very long blog. THANKS!
Scott.
‘Here is the point on pronouns- singular pronouns CAN be used to speak of multiple persons. Brant proved this in the debate in his extensive quotations of examples of just that (i.e. Israel is referred to with a singular pronouns when it clearly refers to the entire nation) this is because of the concept of covenental relationships. So far the unitarians have not dealt with this concept.’
This has already been dealt with. In this case the subject of the singular pronoun is known by context to be plural. So what you have to demonstrate is that in every place where a singular pronoun is used of God, the context indicates that more than one person is referred to.
But once again this only proves the Unitarian position. In all of these cases the singular pronoun is being used to refer to ONE person, the corporate body Israel.
‘Additionally, plural pronouns can be used of God as well such as in the book of Genesis.’
You’re begging the question.
‘The assertion that God is speaking to Himself and the angels is a great case of eisegesis and the fact that some trinitarians agree with such eisegesis doesn’t make the error any truer.’
It isn’t eisegesis, it’s correct grammar. In Genesis 1:27 the verb/noun agreement proves that only ONE person created all things, and that ONE person is called ‘God’ in the same verse. So once again the noun, pronoun, and verb all agree. God is one person.
‘In summary the Trinitarian God is referred to properly using both singular and plural pronouns.’
You haven’t explained how God is ‘referred to properly using both singular and plural pronouns’, especially since your examples require throwing out Hebrew grammar.
‘What the Bible does not teach is the unitarian position on God. You can assume every time God is referred to in the singular this proves unitarianism but it does not- it affirms monotheism.’
No Scott, I’ve been through this before. Pronouns count persons, not beings. This is not an assumption, it’s a fact.
Brant,
‘First, Frank D., God does reveal himself to be “one” in Deut. 6:4 but he does not expressly say “one person” as the Unitarian would have it.’
He does say ‘one person’, the moment He says ‘I’. Let me ask you, how many people are referred to in each of the following dot points:
* I
* Me
* My
* Mine
* Him
* His
Brant,
‘First, there is no clear statement of the Unitarian position in the Scriptures along the lines that the Unitarian demands of the Trinitarian.’
Sure there is. We have plenty of passages which say God is one, and plenty of passages in which God is described as one person (using standard noun/pronoun/verb agreement). You have no passages which say God is three in one.
‘Fortigurn has well noted that the Trinitarian view is birthed out of the compilation of four truths, but argues that the Unitarian position is succinctly stated every time God is called “he.” Yet, upon scrutiny this is not the case. First when (1) God is called “he” the Unitarian does not conclude that God is “male” as it means with regard to most subjects (I note this in the debate).’
No Brant, whether or not God is male is not under discussion here. Whether or not God is one person is what is under discussion. When God is called ‘He’, Unitarians understand that God is one person. That’s it. Whatever else we make of the use of the MALE pronoun is irrelevant to the fundamental difference between Unitarian and trinitarian theology which is under discussion here.
‘Thus, the Unitarian adds an addition piece of information to his systematic theology that (2) God is not a man (Num. 23:19).’
Again, this has nothing to do with the issue under discussion, which is that God is one person. That is found in the Bible countless times, and requires no systematic theology.
‘Yet, still further the Unitarian adds an assumption that is not found in Scripture that (3) the single God, who is radically different than man as noted in point (2), cannot be identical with three distinct persons.’
No Brant, we make no such assumption. We simply not that God has repeatedly revealed Himself as one person. We don’t assume He CANNOT be identical with three distinct persons, we simply note that He has revealed Himself as only one person. This being the case, there is no evidence compelling us to believe otherwise.
‘And here the Unitarian adds another extra-Biblical assumption to his theology, namely that (4) God’s manner of being must submit to our rational demands, and because we cannot understand or envisage a Triune God it simply cannot be possible.’
No Brant, we simply understand that when God communicated to us in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek He knew what He was doing. We understand that God communicates to us intelligibly and within our frame of reference. When He communicates using a human language, we understand that He uses it the same way we do, and you do the same. We trust God to be able to communicate intelligently and intelligibly in whatever language He chooses, without making glaring grammatical blunders.
This has nothing to do with Aristotle, Augustine, or Hegel.
Again I repeat, no systematic theology is required for Unitarians to assert that the Bible describes God as one person. Pick up a Bible and start counting singular prounouns. It’s a simple as that.
hi, can someone please tell me were the word trinity came from , thanks
For me, it’s utterly conclusive that the apostles baptized thousands of people with the knowledge that Jesus is a MAN who was sent by GOD, to whom GOD gave power, and who was attested by GOD through miracles and signs that GOD did THROUGH him, and that GOD has appointed a day on which He will judge the world THROUGH THAT MAN whom GOD has appointed.
The apostles teach this explicitly, all the way through the Acts. Thousands of people were baptized into Christ with this understanding. Whatever else might be said for the trinity, it’s clear that the apostles never taught it as a salvic doctrine, or a precursor to baptism. The Unitarian faith sufficed.
To go off what Fortigurn closed with – if the apostles never taught this as a salvific donctrine, we biblical Unitarians should be declared outside Christ, heretics, or in need of salvation. This has been done in the debate, in this thread, over email, and in the public world for centuries now.
Frank,
Thanks for hashing this out with me-
You said,
“I understand your position to be that since there are no “metaphysical make-up” statements in the Old Testement defining God, then he is neither unitarian or trinitarian. God uses the word ‘echod to describe Himself as ONE and I think we all agree. We disagree if this is a metaphysical ONE. But, there are numerous uses of ONE to describe God. There are no words used by God in the Old Testement that means ‘one that encompasses three divine eternal persons’ . True?”
You are pretty close on my position here but I want to clarify a few things:
1. I am not saying that there are NO statements in the Old Testament that detail God’s metaphysical make up. I am saying that I believe all of the “one God” passages that have been refferred to in this blog and the debate to this point are not in context dealing with the metaphysical make up of God’s oneness. (I know that was a mouthful).
2. I am not saying that in the Old Testament God was neither unitarian or trinitarian. My point was that the texts we have been discussing do not reveal His metaphysical make up- not that He didn’t have one. Maybe you already got this but I just want to be clear. As a side note I want to make it clear that I believe that the one God has always existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit- though I admit the full revelation of this was not seen until the New Testament.
Frank- again I appreciate you working through this with me and I think we are getting to the nature of my point. We agree that God is one and now we need to hash out in which way He is one. As an analogy the Bible speaks of my wife and and I as being “one flesh” and we both agree that this is true. Now since we know that my wife and and I are “ONE flesh” we need to work out what that means metaphysically (if anything). I am not trying to compare God with His creation here rather I am pointing out that the same type of discussion of what does “ONE” in the case of my wife and I should also take place about how God is “ONE” in light of the New Testament identifying the Father as God, Jesus as God and the Holy Spirit as God.
I will post later on these specific scriptures as you asked.
Fortigent-
Please see my comments to Frank above about the “One God” passages. As I said earlier I am done with the pronoun thing. Brant I have both covered our position numerous times. Thanks.
Thank you. You are making our point for us! The relationship of a husband and wife is EXACTLY what Jesus and Paul say regarding in what sense the Father and the Son are one. A husband and wife are not “one essence existing in two persons.” They are two distinct beings who are in agreement, one in purpose, one in heart.
We agree that the Old Testament does not reveal God’s nature as Trinity. So sticking to the New Testament, I still maintain that there are NO Scriptures that present three persons in one God, or even two. Nowhere is the word “one” ever defined as “one that encompasses three persons.” The doctrine did not come about until many years later. The New Testament is quite clear:
John 8:
17 It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true.
18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.
John 17:
3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
I Corinthians 8:
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
I Timothy 2:
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
And this isn’t even touching on the distinct differences between Father and Son, such as whether they know all things, whether they can be tempted, and whether they can die. I know that is explained away with the “two natures” concept, but I again maintain that such a concept is NOWHERE presented in the New Testament.
Mark,
You totally disregarded my comment about not comparing God with his creation. The relationship of the Father to the Son is never compared to the relationship of husband and wife. Your assertion that they are only one in so far that they are one in “purpose, heart and agreement” is Mormon theology- not Biblical theology. I used that illustration to point out what is obvious- unless you assume unitarianism there is no good reason to assume that every reference to one in the Bible means “radically one”.
As for your points about the distinctions between the Father and the Son we Trinitarians agree- there are distinctions between them. Just as we agree that they are one, we also agree that there is distinction between them. At this point you are not defeating trinitarianism- you are simply defining it.
I don’t disregard your comment. I just don’t agree that there is anything wrong with comparing God with His creation. He has given us many examples from creation that help us to understand Him. That’s why He made His creation the way He did. Father begetting son, and seed producing a growing plant are just two examples.
And the belief that they are one in heart and purpose is not uniquely Mormon. All Unitarians see this as the way in which Jesus and God are “one”. The same word for one is used in Jesus’ saying, “I and the Father are one” and in his prayer, “that all may be one AS YOU, FATHER, AND I ARE ONE.” How could Jesus pray for all people to be “one essence existing in three (or more) persons.” You have yet to show ANY Scripture that defines one as “one that consists of three.”
There is nothing “radical” about one. It is a basic concept that anyone can understand. One is this many: * . Two is this many: ** . Three is this many: *** . If you insist that one means something else according to God’s viewpoint, then I want to see Scriptural proof. Show me where one means one-in-three or three-in-one.
And in defining it I am pointing out that there is, again NO SCRIPTURE that presents either “one consisting of three” or “two natures of Jesus.” You (and others) have used the examples of things that the Jews did not understand, which were later revealed, such as the body of Christ replacing the Temple, Gentiles being members of the Body, and spiritual sacrifices replacing the physical ones of the Old Covenant. But all of those issues are described and discussed and defined in the New Testament, especially in Paul’s letters. But the Trinity is not. You may be content to base your doctrine on extra-Biblical writings but I am not.
I am not saying that we cannot learn about God from his creation and vice versa but I am saying that it is wrong for you to make God subject to the same rules as His creation. As though logic and natural law are something that exist above Him that He is forced to submit to.
As long as we are talking numbers I should also point out that husband and wife means this many- ** yet are called this many *. From this it appears we need to have a robust discussion of the metaphysical nature of whatever is called ** and * before we can say that when God referred to as * it means He cannot possibly have existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit for all of eternity. Simply pointing out that God is referred to as * is not anymore helpful than pointing out that husband an wife cannot be called ** because the Bible calls them *. This is what I am trying to get at and you keep missing it. Can you really not see my point or are you just busting my chops?
Finally, when Jesus prays that believers all be one as the Son and the Father are one He is making an analogy and not speaking in strict terms. This is clear because your assertion that their union is exactly like ours cannot even stand on its own terms. This stems from the fact that according to you the Father and Son are ** individuals while believers are more than ** individuals. Thus the unity of ** is by definition different than the unity of
the post above finished out by saying:
….Thus the unity of ** is by definition different than the unity of more than **.
Finally, we agree that Jesus and the Father would have perfect unity and purpose- we just don’t limit them to that type of unity. This make sense in light of a Trinitarian view for what better basis would God have for unity in purpose than having existed eternally as Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
Scott,
‘Please see my comments to Frank above about the “One God” passages. As I said earlier I am done with the pronoun thing. Brant I have both covered our position numerous times. Thanks.’
I’ve read what you wrote. But the problem is that neither you nor Brant have a valid argument on this point. Pronouns count persons, end of story.
The trinitarian doctrine requires that we throw out the rules of grammar and practices special pleading for an interpretation of the text which is completely ungrammatical.
I gave a list of personal pronouns, and I asked a very simple question. It wasn’t answered. That didn’t surprise me. I’ve found trinitarians don’t like to answer that question.
Maybe I can just cut to the chase here.
Scott said:
Scott, Is belief in God as ‘one that encompasses three divine eternal persons’ necessary for life in the kingdom of God? (I don’t think it is necessary to get into a discussion about the kingdom of God but it may end up that way.)
As you have stated above, it was not revealed until the New Testement, so what did Abraham, Issac and Jacob believe? What did all of the prophets believe? Jesus said they will be in the kingdom of God:
Luke 13:28:
There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out.
If you submit that they all believe in God as ‘one that encompasses three divine eternal persons’ when was it revealed to them?
kevin, In an attempt to post a bipartisan link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
and a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia (a trinitarian source):
In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri'as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. He speaks of “the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom” (“Ad. Autol.”, 11, 15, P. G., VI, 1078). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian. ..
Frank,
Since you asked here is what I believe:
I believe that all the saints of God through out all time are saved by Christ and Him alone. I believe this salvation is by grace through faith and that those who are saved should worship the God that saves them. The true worship of God includes (but is not limited to) accepting all the things He has revealed about Himself.
I believe that God’s elect people today will accept the scriptural teaching that there is one God, that Jesus is God, the Holy Spirit is God and that the Father is God. I believe that people who reject this worship and serve a different God and must repent of their unbelief if they are to enter the kingdom of God.
I believe that the Old Testament saints were also saved by grace through faith though I feel no need to say that they believed in the Trinity as this revelation had not been made clear at that time. However, they did accept God at His word and believed all that He had revealed about Himself at that time. The Bible does not say when this doctrine was revealed to the OT saints but it is my opinion that the Trinity was revealed to them after death- when they stood before Him and saw God revealed in His full glory.
The same quesion can be put back to the unitarians. Is belief in Christ necessary to enter the Kingdom of God? If so did Abraham, Isaac and Jacob believe in Christ?
I am not trying to flame anyone in these points- but you did ask the question and I wish to be honest, even if that honesty sounds harsh.
One last point- as a Trinitarian do you believe I will be saved or do I need to repent of what must be considered as heresy to the unitarians?
Fortigen,
On pronouns-
That question has been answered both in the debate and on this blog. As I said before I am done on the pronoun thing- unless there is some point that I made that you wish to interact with specifically.
You can take that as me chickening out if you like. But I intend it as a statement that your point has been dealt with and there is no need to rehash it.
It doesn’t sound harsh at all, Scott. This, I think, is the meat of the debate.
Gen 15:5-7 5And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. 6And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Gen 12:1-3 1Now the LORD had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Gal 3:6-9 6Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness. 7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham. 8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. 9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
Heb 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
So, yes, Abraham (and I can dig up Issac and Jacob or just lean on Luke 13:28 and Matt 8:11) did believe in the coming Messiah. Also, Paul uses Abraham’s faith as an example in Romans, Galatians, and Hebrews so I have no problem at all following the Abrahamic faith in his understanding of God and the Messiah.
Scott, we all are going to stand before God and God will judge, not me.
Rev 20: 12-15 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Acts 2:21 And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.
and of course Romans 10:9-13
9That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. 10For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. 11For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. 12For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. 13For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Now, there may be some debate as to who or what you are believing in when you call on the name of the Lord. But, again, I choose to follow the example of Abraham and leave the rest up to God.
I feel as if I should make one more case here. The Apsotle Peter (master debator) gives a beautiful discourse in Acts Ch 2 that I think is worth a read.
16But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; 17And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: 18And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy: 19And I will shew wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath; blood, and fire, and vapour of smoke: 20The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come: 21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. 22Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: 23Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: 24Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 25For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: 26Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: 27Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. 28Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. 29Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. 30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; 31He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. 32This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. 33Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. 34For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, 35Until I make thy foes thy footstool. 36Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ. 37Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do? 38Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. 39For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call. 40And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 41Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. …. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
And the example of faith in this passage is David who received his understanding of God and the Messiah from the Old Testement scriptures.
Scott,
‘On pronouns-
That question has been answered both in the debate and on this blog. As I said before I am done on the pronoun thing- unless there is some point that I made that you wish to interact with specifically.’
No answer was actually given to that question on this blog. It’s not a matter of me disagreeing with the answer, it’s a matter of the answer simply not being given. If it was given in the debate, please refer me to the relevant section.
This is one of the reasons why trinitarian scholarship is now on the back foot these days. Honest trinitarian scholars acknowledge that many (if not most ), of the old arguments simply aren’t defensible, either exegetically or grammatically.
It’s enlightening to see how each generation of recognized trinitarian scholars continues to concede more to the Unitarian position. Pick up the New English Translation and prepare to be amazed at how many traditional trinitarian ‘proof texts’ are debunked in the footnotes.
I predict that the next generation of trinitarian scholars will abandon almost completely the concept of Biblical support for the trinity, in preference for a ‘trajectory theology’ approach which appeals to the authority of post-apostolic church councils to develop doctrines which the apostles never taught.
And mark that, it’s already acknowledged by standard trinitarian scholarship that the apostles never taught this doctrine. Hence the power of my post on the peaching of the apostles in Acts. The entire debate starts and finishes there.
Frank,
‘and a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia (a trinitarian source):
In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word [tri’as] (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A. D. 180. He speaks of “the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom” (”Ad. Autol.”, 11, 15, P. G., VI, 1078). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Shortly afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian. ..’
Actually the Greek word ‘trias’ simply means ‘a group of three’, which is not very useful for the trinitarian (and of course, Theophilus wasn’t a trinitarian). We have to enter the 3rd century before we start finding genuine trinitarian language, and even then it’s obscure.
I’m not saying that logic and natural law exist above God and He must submit to them. But I am saying that for Him to communicate successfully with us, He has to do so in terms we can understand. One of the most basic concepts for a person to understand is how many one is.
I like how Fortigurn put it, above:
Under normal usage of language (which God would need to use in order to communicate with us) the word one means one, not three-in-one or one-in-three. In order for God to communicate something that was against all of our logic, and violates ordinary rules of language, as well as contradicting what was formerly believed by His chosen people for centuries, He would have to say so IN HIS WORD, in a way that communicates to us, even if it is in a way that declares we can’t understand it and must accept it on faith. Otherwise language ceases to function and words have no meaning. But as I have said repeatedly, there is NO Scripture that presents one as meaning “one consisting of three” nor is there any Scripture that presents Jesus as having “two natures.”
I’m not saying he cannot possibly have existed as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I agree that God would be capable of doing or being things which we can’t understand. I would be more than happy to submit to such a doctrine if it were taught in the Bible, but it is not.
I didn’t say a husband and wife cannot be called two. Obviously they are called two at times. I just said that when they are called one, it doesn’t mean “two persons in one essence.” I don’t know why you keep saying I am missing your point. I can see it, I just don’t agree with it. I can understand that you believe that God revealed in His Word that He was one God but existing in three persons. I just don’t see any such thing in the Scriptures. All I see is “Father is God, Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God” and we have been over how those three statements can be understood in a way that does not demand the Trinity.
I didn’t say that it is “exactly” like their unity. But when he uses the word “as” that means there is some similarity. But if Jesus and the Father are “one essence, co-equal, co-eternal” it is not even close, and there would be no basis for comparison at all.
But there is no basis to go beyond the limit of what God has revealed in His Word.
How about the fact that Jesus always did the Father’s will? How about the fact that he was (and is) the perfect representation of God? All the things that the New Testament declares about him would be a basis for their being one in purpose. But for them to be two persons in one God, or in one essence, is simply not stated in the Scriptures. You have yet to show us any Scripture that declares such a thing. That’s because there is none.
Scott,
This came up a few times in the debate and needs to be answered. Typically, any time logic begins to impinge on the beloved doctrine of the Trinity the trinitarian retreats into mystery language. Scott, you said, “that is why you are Sean and not God” because I said, “If I say that I alone am Sean and there no other human besides me, how is that difficult to understand?” Scott, this is a real concern of mine, that we create new rules of language for God. If Yahweh says that he alone is God and there is no other, then it is our duty to respect the language he chose to use. What Brant and you have repeatedly done is to say, well, that’s God and we cannot apply logic to him. Again, this is a subtle and dangerous way to think because the end result is that language is twisted to mean bizzarre things. God chose to communicate himself to us in a certain way, if we do not accept that because it doesn’t fit with our theory–the Trinity–then we are disrespecting God!
The trinitarian is guilty of redefining several words in order to even have a theory:
person is redefined to be a mind not a being
begotten is redefined from the act of bringing into existence by a father to merely a relationship of dependence
personal pronouns are stripped of their number and gender
one gets redefined to be more than one (compound unity)
etc. etc.
Once we destroy language we destroy God’s revelation of himself. You are sitting at the end of the branch supported by logic and language and you are sawing off both thinking that the branch will mysteriously continue to bear your weight. We are not reasoning from man’s nature to God’s, we are just taking God’s special revelation of himself (not themselves) seriously. Because we do this is does not mean we are bringing God down to our level or any such thing.
Ah, yes, the male genital argument. Brant mentioned this in the debate as well. Ok. God is a he not a she not an it not a we not a them, etc. In grammar two things need to be understood that are relevant to this conversation: number & gender. The number of “he” is singular rather than plural (much to the chagrin of trinitarians). The gender of “he” is masculine rather than feminine. Our trinitarian opponents would have us evacuate the personal pronoun of all meaning but this is not at all necessary. God is masculine, he is not feminine–he is a “he” not a “she”, he is our “Father” not our “Mother.” This does not mean that he has genitalia of any sort (after all according to John 4, God is Spirit). However, it does mean that he is masculine. This is how he chose to reveal himself.
Agreed the texts which speak of God’s exclusivity (a. Exodus 8.10; 19.16-20; 20.1-6; Deuteronomy 4.35-39; 5.1-7; 6.4-5; 7.9-10; 10.17-21; 32.12, 39; 1 Samuel 2.2; 2 Samuel 7.22-24; 1 Kings 8.60; 2 Kings 19.15, 19; 1 Chronicles 17.20; Nehemiah 9.6; Psalm 83.18; 86.9-10; 135.5; Isaiah 37.16, 20; 41.4; 42.5-8; 43.10-13; 44.6-8, 24; 45.5-7, 12, 18, 21-22; 46.9; Jeremiah 10.7-10; Joel 2.27; Zechariah 14.9; a. Matthew 19.17; Mark 10.17-18; 12.28-33; John 5.44; 8.41; 17.3; 1 Corinthians 8.4-6; Galatians 3.20; Ephesians 4.6; 1 Timothy 2.5; James 2.19; Jude 25) are not trying to be metaphysical. The metaphysical/ontological language is purely a trinitarian problem which cropped up the moment they began to work out having two Gods while at the same time having only one. The theory was foisted upon the Bible and the philosophical language and distinction between person and being was the mechanism they used to do it. The unitarian repeatedly, asks people to simply read these exclusivity texts and allow the reader to make up her or his mind. The trinitarian gives a course in trinitarian theology which in the end cannot be understood or even articulated cohesively and then the text is scoured for verses that support the dogma.
I would suggest that there is nothing radical about oneness. I am one single being/person. I am sitting on one chair. If it is the only chair in the room then I hope no one would be confused to think that two identical chairs also were in the room! Again we can see how dangerous it is to fiddle with language to reinterpret the Bible to fit with our theory of God.
Sean,
‘This came up a few times in the debate and needs to be answered. Typically, any time logic begins to impinge on the beloved doctrine of the Trinity the trinitarian retreats into mystery language. Scott, you said, “that is why you are Sean and not God” because I said, “If I say that I alone am Sean and there no other human besides me, how is that difficult to understand?” Scott, this is a real concern of mine, that we create new rules of language for God.’
Well done. This is nothing about ‘reasoning from man’s nature to God’s nature’, it’s simply about whether or not we believe God used the Hebrew language the way the grammar requires it to be used.
The fact that trinitarians have to indulge in special pleading whenever singular personal pronouns are used of God (though they are perfectly happy with correct grammar everywhere else in the Bible), proves that this is a contrived argument which has been constructed for the purpose of supporting a preconception.
Listening to the debate it’s remarkable how many times Brant appeals to Nestorianism. Every time you asked if Jesus died, or if Jesus was omniscient, he couldn’t answer the question with a ‘Yes, Jesus died’ or ‘Yes, Jesus was omniscient’, he simply argued that Jesus’ HUMAN NATURE died, but Jesus didn’t, and that Jesus’ DIVINE NATURE was omniscient.
This is classic Nestorianism, from way back. It’s textbook Nestorianism. The two natures are CALLED two natures, but are TREATED as two persons.
Not only that, but when it came to the death of Christ, Brant pulled out the standard Docetist response. Only THE BODY OF JESUS died, not the person Jesus. Apparently the ‘divine logos’ somehow ‘experienced death’, without actually dying. This was not explained, but what was made abundantly clear was that Jesus didn’t die.
Sean, you made an excellent point that Brant’s view of the atonement requires the death of God, but that in fact Brant’s God didn’t die.
Fortigurn,
Thank you for your kind remarks. The death issue is really a serious one for the trinitarian camp. Regardless of how they define death, if Jesus is God then Jesus cannot “experience death.” (period). Otherwise he is not immortal and therefore excluded from being God on the basis of 1 Tim 1.17; 6.16. The unitarian view of atonement is infinitely more costly than the trinitarian one. Though trinitarians often say that Jesus’ death was infinitely valuable because he is God, the fact of the matter is that what supposedly made Jesus God (his divine nature/person) is exactly what did not die on the cross, only impersonal human nature. Thus, on trinitarianism, the only thing that dies is human nature–this is not at all costly. However, on unitarianism, Jesus really died–all of him. Part of him did not continue living in some mysterious undead manner. Since Jesus was a human being his death–the death of someone who was divinely begotten, sinless, and voluntarily representative of the human race–was extremely valuable.
I actually thought Brant did a great job and believe that it was Sean who could not give answers to the questions. Amazing how people hear these things so radically different.
It was a great exchange though.
It was interesting to hear the man who introduced the speakers (I’m assuming that was Ken Westby) state the Brant and his family seem to believe in God, etc, etc. Sounded a bit postmodern to me.
It would be my position, and I can only at this point assume Brant’s as well, that Sean does not believe in, love, worship or serve God; which is why he called Sean to repentance.
Mr. Westby seem to use God in such generic term. Kind of like Oprah Winfrey would. But the Bible is very specific about who God is and that any other god is an idol.
Again, I enjoyed the debate very much.
All,
Thanks for interacting with my points this last “round”. I will try to respond to you later today- after work.
I would also like to invite all of you to call into the web cast that Brant is doing tomorrow regarding the debate. It would be great to have some interaction/questions on these issues with some of you as I hate arguing against straw men. The web cast is called “The Narrow Mind” and is hosted by my friends Gene Cook, Jr. and Jonathan Goundrey.
The website is http://www.unchainedradio.com and the call in number is 1-800-466-1873. The program will start at 9am pst and I plan on calling in to talk about some of the points as I see them. Thanks again.
Thanks Scot, that will be interesting to hear.
Sean and Fortigurn,
Well worded answers here. It is not “reasoning from man’s nature to God’s nature” to expect God’s communication to follow the rules of language. If He didn’t, then language would cease to function and words would have have no meaning, as I said in my last post. And the genitals argument – who ever said that any word that is gramatically masculine means it has to have genitals. Yes, male humans and animals do, but houses, bells, robes, and pomegranites (to name only a few) do not, yet they are all masculine nouns in Hebrew.
Jeff,
Ken is not a post modernist. He believes in the God of the Bible, not some vague “concept” the way Oprah and others define “god.” While his christology may differ from yours, we all agree that we worship the same God. If he used generic-sounding terms, it was probably to encompass both Trinitarian and Unitarian viewpoints. Brant mentioned that the Trinity issue has literally divided his family. If I heard correctly, about half of his family are Trinitarians, and half Unitarian.
Just curious, exactly what questions did you feel Sean did not answer?
Jeff,
you said,
“It would be my position…that Sean does not believe in, love, worship or serve God”
Jeff, I most certainly do believe in God. I love him with all of my heart and worship him daily. I don’t know why you said I didn’t or how you would even know?
Mark,
How can it be said that we “worship the same God” when you believe that only the Father is truly God yet we Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all equally the only true God?
As for the gender of words argument it is not our contention that something which is grammatically masculine must have genitals. That comment was a ciritque of the “if x is reffered to as he then x must be singular” argument that seems to keep getting put forward (even though it has been defeated). The critique lies in the fact that as you now clearly agree with us that everything that is true of one thing referred to as “he” is not necessarily true of something else referred to as “he”. Just as not everything called “he” has genitals so it is that not everything called “he” is a singular in the sense that you believe God must be. Brant brought this point up in the debate during his opening statement (about 15 minutes into it). I don’t recall Sean ever answering these points.
In the end this phenomena is just an illustration of the elasticity of the “rules of grammar”. Though the rules of grammar are important they do not ultimately determine the meaning of texts in isolation from the surrounding context. Ultimate meaning is determined by the context of sentences, paragraphs, chapters and finally by the entirety of the Bible. You can’t pick out one or two words and force the entirety of God’s revelation about Himself to be dictated by modern 21st century rules of grammar- especially in light of Brant’s points in the debate which directly contradict your argument about the rules of grammar.
Scott wrote:
So now I don’t understand ‘he’ unless I understand the whole Bible the way you do? This argument will never be proven/disproven because your understanding of the whole scripture and my understanding of the whole scripture concerning God are vastly different. You can’t stake a position and then bend the scripture to meet your definition. If there is no common ground on the meaning of ‘he’ then you are attempting to put yourself on some unasailable theological position. You would actually have us believe that since only trinitarians believe in your god that only trinitarians can understand your meaning of ‘he’?
This is not something that can be taken with “faith like a child”!
Frank,
That is not my position at all. I was saying that point (about “he” ONLY being able to refer to a singular individual) is incorrect both based on the points Brant made in the debate (again about 15 minutes into his opening statement), because of the elasticity of language and because of the importance of context. I bring up the need for the several levels of context because they limit that elasticity and help us to learn the POSSIBLE meanings of words like “he”. If we didn’t know that words can have multiple meanings and applications then I would have to agree with you and be a unitarian. Further, if the broader context of the Bible did not teach that Jesus was God (and God in such a way that He was ontologically equal to the Father) or that the Holy Spirit is called God then I would have no reason to think that “he” when it is applied to could mean anything but what you assume it means. This is what I mean by the necessity of context.
However, I do know all of these things so I can say that the broader context of the Bible allows me to rightfully say that the word “he” being applied to God does not disprove the Trinity any more than the fact that Adam (singular) is called “him” disproves that he is the convenant head of all fallen men (plural).
It is true that not everything that is called “he” has genitals. It is NOT true, however, that “not eveything that is called ‘he’ is a singular.” This is because masculine and singular are inherent in the meaning of the pronoun. Words mean things; that’s how communication works. This was answered in the debate and has been repeatedly pointed out here, but you simply disagree. That is your choice. I still hold to my challenge that you provide ANY Scriptural proof that “one” means one composed of three. No one has done so yet.
When was this answered in the debate? How is Brant’s point that not everything called he (or him) is only singular? What about when man is called “him” in Genesis 1:27? Surely you don’t believe that this use of him just means Adam- do you?
Let me ask you a question about communication- have you ever heard of Michael Jackson’s song “Bad”? Is he really meaning there that he is evil? Or is language elastic enough that he might be referring to something else? We should at least give God the same freedom of expression that Michael Jackson has.
Once again I must insist that you SHOW ME where IN THE SCRIPTURES one means one composed of three. You can’t just prove it from the fact that three (supposed) “persons” are called God, as we have dealt with that. Show me where one means one-in-three or three-in-one. Can you do that?
I agree that the Word “he” being applied to God does not disprove the Trinity, since it is subject to our definitions. What disproves the Trinity is the fact that there is no Scripture that tells us that the singular words applied to God do not mean singular in its normal sense but one-in-three. Again, I must insist that you SHOW ME FROM THE SCRIPTURES.
Was this not the point you made in the post that I quoted?
Michael Jackson was using a coloquialism that is typical of how language can be twisted to an ungodly end. In the current culture (and to some extent today still, I believe) ‘bad’ did not mean evil. Do you seriously want to suggest that God in His Word used such distorted language to communicate Himself? Language is elastic UP TO A POINT. But NOT so much that the meaning of words and the rules of grammar can be ignored without language ceasing to have meaning.
Once again, SHOW ME IN THE BIBLE WHERE ONE MEANS THREE-IN-ONE.
Mark,
I will gladly walk through all of the scriptures that show that there is only one eternal God, that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God and that the Father is God. However, I know that even after I do this you will once again ASSUME unitarianism in all of the “one God” passages. This unchecked, controlling assumption (which has been dealt with at length both in the debate and on the blog) will not allow you to consider the rest of the teachings of scripture. You have your unitarian filter up and it will cause you to insist that whatever way God (or the Holy Spirit) is called God it cannot mean that they are “truly God” because you know that the words “he” and “one” can only refer to singular persons. This is why I have to bring in the context of all of scripture and deal with the nature of God’s oneness and the “he” statements. All of these words need to be understood along with the teaching that Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father are all God.
My point was only to communicate the obvious elasticity of language. I was also attempting to do it with a somewhat ridiculous person toward the end of humor.
On a more serious note- I do not believe God twisted language- I believe He clarified it and when we consider the whole counsel of scripture that becomes obvious.
This part of post 111 should have read:
that whatever way JESUS (or the Holy Spirit) is called God it cannot mean that they are “truly God”
not:
that whatever way GOD(or the Holy Spirit) is called God it cannot mean that they are “truly God”
Sorry for the slip up.
…and that is your unasailable theological position. You won’t even agree to a simple definition of the word ‘he’ without cycling it through the trinitarian manufacturing process.
I have shown that Abraham held an Old Testement belief in God and the Messiah. You agreed that the trinity is not ‘revealed’ in the Old Testement therefore Abraham’s Old Testement understanding of God and the Messiah is sufficient for enterance into the kingdom of God. In Luke 13:28 and Matt 8:11 Jesus said Abraham will be in the kingdom of God. Paul used Abraham as an example of faith for all to follow. This is something a child can believe.
Now, I am not a minister, priest, or in any course of theological study. I am a simple man who for over 20 years has been “studying to show myself approved before God. A workman who needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” So answer me one simple question:
Was Abraham a trinitarian?
A faith like Abraham’s guarantees the same blessing as Abraham: to be in the kingdom of God. What and where in any scripture is Abraham a trinitarian? And remember, Abraham didn’t have to rely on “the broader context of the Bible.”
Frank,
You are right- I am taking a theological position that includes ALL that the Bible teaches. At the same time I have shown how my trinitarian belief is based on a legitimate, acceptable use of words like “one” and “he” being applied to God. What I won’t do is assume that God must be unitarian and then dismiss the rest of what the Bible teaches.
Regarding Abraham’s faith I will say this- Abraham trusted God and it was credited to Him as righteousness. Abraham even trusted God when He was told to do and believe incredible things. In this Abraham’s faith was such that he believed what God had revealed about Himself. We should do the same and imitate Abraham and take God at His word. I believe that His word teaches that there is one God, that Jesus is God, that the Holy Spirit is God and that the Father is God.
As I have said before, I do not believe that when Jesus or the Holy Spirit is called God, it CANNOT mean they are all three persons in one God, if God had said they were. I am simply saying that there is NO SCRIPTURE that says such a thing. Yes, you could go over and over the verses that say that each of the three is God, but we each have a different understanding for that, so one could say we are both looking at it through filters.
The thing that will determine which filter is right is if you could show me ANYWHERE in the Scriptures that God is presented as “three persons in one essence” or even that the word “one” means “one consisting of three.” I have repeatedly challenged you on this, and you have yet to present any. I understand this, because there aren’t any so you won’t be able to. Therefore, without any Scriptural evidence to demonstrate “three-in-one,” sound exegesis would require us to understand “one” as “one” like it means to anyone else.
We’re going in circles here. There’s not much else we haven’t said already. Bottom line: Show me “three-in-one” in the Scriptures or admit that it is an extra-Biblical doctrine.
Not for anything, but if it is so essential for one to believe in the trinity ,many are going to be in a very seriously sad place, for who can truly say they understand such difficult concepts and ideas. True belief must come from understanding and may I dare say that many will be excluded on that basis. God is not a respector of persons, or abilities to think in such strange ways. God has made the way to salvation acessable to all, a child should be able to understand it. Just a couple of questions; Was Jesus born with these two natures? Was the man nature apart of GOD? If yes when Jesus died did a part of the essence die also/?Why did Jesus say that he always did the fathers will and not his own will? Did he have his own will? WAs he not telling the truth?In the resurrection will we be like GOD {if Jesus is God} We dont know what we shall be,,,,, Thanks for your patience
Scott,
‘The critique lies in the fact that as you now clearly agree with us that everything that is true of one thing referred to as “he” is not necessarily true of something else referred to as “he”. Just as not everything called “he” has genitals so it is that not everything called “he” is a singular in the sense that you believe God must be. Brant brought this point up in the debate during his opening statement (about 15 minutes into it). I don’t recall Sean ever answering these points.’
That point has been answered. The fact is that grammatically speaking the gender of a noun in Hebrew does not always indicate the gender of the entity the noun describes. However, grammatically speaking the number of a noun or verb indicates the number of persons. It’s simple.
What you have to do is to prove that the Bible consistently uses Hebrew grammar for everyone but God, and then does something completely ungrammatical when describing God. You can’t. You know that singular pronouns refer to singular persons.
‘In the end this phenomena is just an illustration of the elasticity of the “rules of grammar”.’
The rules in this case are not elastic.
‘Though the rules of grammar are important they do not ultimately determine the meaning of texts in isolation from the surrounding context.’
They don’t determine the meaning of TEXTS in isolation from the surrounding context, but they do determine the meaning of NUMBER AND CASE.
‘Ultimate meaning is determined by the context of sentences, paragraphs, chapters and finally by the entirety of the Bible. You can’t pick out one or two words and force the entirety of God’s revelation about Himself to be dictated by modern 21st century rules of grammar- especially in light of Brant’s points in the debate which directly contradict your argument about the rules of grammar.’
We would agree with this. But of course this discussion has nothing to do with ‘modern 21st century rules of grammar’. It has to do with standard ancient Hebrew grammar, and rules which trinitarians follow RIGIDLY, everywhere in the Bible except for SOME passages which speak of God.
And let’s not forget that trinitarians SOMETIMES follow standard grammatical rules when it comes to God, and sometimes they do not. Why the inconsistency? To support the preconception that God consists of more than one person.
Scott,
‘All of these words need to be understood along with the teaching that Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father are all God.’
The trinitarian preconception could not have been expressed more clearly than this. You are telling us that we have to interpret all passages and grammar with the PRECONCEPTION that ‘Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father are all God’. I’ve rarely seen a trinitarian state this so directly.
You are telling us that when we read ‘one’ we have to read it as if it says ‘three in one’, when we read ‘he’ we have to read it as if it says ‘they’, and when we read ‘I only’ we have to read it as if it says ‘We only’.
Apparently we have to change what was written in order to make it conform to the trinitarian preconception. You couldn’t have made it more clear.
Sean,
Sean, you mentioned more than once in the debate that modern trinitarian authors are claiming the text which have always been used to support the deity of Christ are no longer used. Would you please list the sources for your claim (expecially giving the recent books on Christology; the Trinity New Testament Theology, etc.)?
You asked I most certainly do believe in God. I love him with all of my heart and worship him daily. I don’t know why you said I didn’t or how you would even know?
I would know by what you teach Sean.
Mark said:
While his christology may differ from yours, we all agree that we worship the same God. If he used generic-sounding terms, it was probably to encompass both Trinitarian and Unitarian viewpoints.
How can you say that Trinitarians and Unitarians worship the same God?
Jeff,
I have listed commentary from various scholars on these texts: John 1.18; Romans 9.5; Titus 2.13; 2 Peter 1.1; 1 John 5.20; Acts 20.28; 2 Thessalonians 1.12 in my recent paper called Jesus is God: Exploring the Notion of Representational Deity. Click here to access it (these verses are covered in Appendix 2).
Ok, Scott, I guess it’s an impass.
I made the point clear though that Abraham’s belief in God was based only on what Moses was told (by God) to write about God and Abraham’s relationship. No “progressive revelation” required by Abraham so that is the faith I choose to emulate.
Thank you, Sean and Brant. This has been a very invigorating discussion. If nothing else it has blessed me by the extra time I have spent in studying God’s word this week.
God Bless and keep pressing on!
Frank (and others),
Thank you for interacting with me as well. I too have gained from this important dialogue and have spent extra time in the word of God which is always a blessing. I wish you all the best in your future studies.
I’ll quote Daniel B Wallace here:
‘FEW TODAY would take issue with Rudolf Bultmann’s oft-quoted line that “In describing Christ as ‘God’ the New Testament still exercises great restraint.”
The list of passages which SEEM explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is ALMOST NEVER MORE THAN A HALF DOZEN OR SO.
As is well known, ALMOST ALL of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being THE ONLY TWO which are usually conceded without discussion.’
Daniel Wallace, ‘Sharp Redivivus? A Reexamination of the Granville Sharp Rule’
He goes on in the article to review Acts 20:28, Romans 9:5, Ephesians 5:5, 2 Thessalonians 1:12, 2 Timothy 4:1, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1, and Jude 4. He concludes that of all these texts, ONLY Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 substantiate the trinitarian claim that Jesus is God (with the meaning of Romans 9:5 being disputable on grammatical grounds).
That means he writes off SIX out of EIGHT traditional trinitarian ‘proof texts’. This is not an isolated phenomenon (his paper makes reference of other trinitarian scholars who have moved to the view he describes in the opening paragraph of his paper).
Fortigurn,
You said,
I do not believe it is a preconception. It is a progressive revelation that we must either say contradicts former revelation or can be harmonized with that former revelation. I believe that it can be harmonized because of the obvious elasticity of grammar. This elasticity has been shown both in modern english as well ancient hebrew.
I was just on the radio show with obo.
I asked him to not define my belief, which he continually did to me and Obo. My arguments were not given due weight. Nor were Obos.
They ignored all I said about the Greek of Matt 1:18, 20, Luke 1:35, the commentators I provided, and didnt even let me respond to the last statement.
I was called a heretic for not believing that Gen 1:26 makes Jesus a creator. And…… I was told to go read the bible!!!!
What a joke.
Dustin
My position was absolutely mis-represented on Colossians 1. Granted there are unitarians which would have argued based on ‘en’ – I am not one of them. I just use the context of the passage.
Polemic and rhetoric are not useful in a debate or attempts to find the truth. They are only useful when one group seeks to lord over another, which is clearly what is happening. I’m just sorry that it is done in the name of God. It only makes me more joyful that my salvation rests in God and not man’s changing winds of orthodoxy.
Jeff Wrote,
How can you say we don’t?
I don’t believe even Brant or Scott are implying that we worship a different God, just that we disagree about His nature.
But where does this progressive revelation make the turning point into “one means three essences in one God”? I believe in progressive revelation, too, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF SCRIPTURE. We agree on most of the other examples in which the New Testament clarifies, changes, or in some way adapts what came before. But once again, SHOW ME WHERE ONE MEANS THREE IN THE BIBLE. You can’t do it. That’s because it is doctrine of men that came about after the fact, and has been reread INTO the Scriptures. Sorry, but I still hold to what I said before: Show me “three-in-one” in the Scriptures or admit that it is an extra-Biblical doctrine.
Mark,
Again here is my answer on the “three and one” issue. Maybe this isn’t the formulaic expression you are looking for but I do think the following affirms a view of God that can only be consistently explained in light of the trinity. I believe that the Bible teaches that there is one God (mark 12:29), that Jesus is God (Romans 9:5, John 5:18, Col. 1:15-19, John 1, Titus 2:13 and 1 Peter 1:1), that the Holy Spirit is God (Acts 5:3-4) and that the Father is God. Further I believe that these persons have always been the One Eternal God and thus I embrace the doctrine of the trinity as the best explanation of these texts.
Patty,
You said:
“Just a couple of questions; Was Jesus born with these two natures? Was the man nature apart of GOD? If yes when Jesus died did a part of the essence die also/?Why did Jesus say that he always did the fathers will and not his own will? Did he have his own will? WAs he not telling the truth?In the resurrection will we be like GOD {if Jesus is God} We dont know what we shall be,,,,, Thanks for your patience”
Here are my answers to your questions:
Jesus was born with two natures. No the man nature was not a part of God. Jesus did the will of Father because He was His Son and was only interested in serving the will of His Father because in the economic working of the trinity the Father was greater than the Son. I believe Jesus did have his own will and He submitted it to the will of His Father. Jesus never lied. At the resurrection we will be glorified humans. I suppose this makes us more like the image of God but there will always be the distinction between the Creator and His creation.
All,
I appreciate the discussion we have had and appreciate your willingness to engage in a spirited yet respectful discussion. That being said I think that I have said all of the points I need to say. I am sure that they are not satisfying to some of you or just point out how much we disagree. I think that it is time for me to post for the last time and move on. Obviously these issues will not be settled here and I need to focus more time on my studies. If there is some pressing issue that you really want to discuss with me please feel free to email me at presuppositional@yahoo.com and I will respond as time allows. Thanks again.
-Scott
Scott,
‘I do not believe it is a preconception.’
I know, you believe it’s a revelation. But my point was that you claim it’s an idea with which the pronouns and other evidence must be interpreted. So you approach those pronouns and that other evidence with the preconception of the trinity. You’ve just told me that.
‘It is a progressive revelation that we must either say contradicts former revelation or can be harmonized with that former revelation.’
But it was never revealed, as trinitarians acknowledge. That’s why you have to construct it syllogistically.
‘I believe that it can be harmonized because of the obvious elasticity of grammar. This elasticity has been shown both in modern english as well ancient hebrew.’
No, it has never yet been proved that singular pronouns really refer to plural persons.
‘When did I ever say any of the above?’
When you said we have to interpret the pronouns with the preconception that the trinity is true.
‘My point was simply to refute the point that the words “one” and “he” demand a unitarian view of God to the exclusion of the teachings that Jesus was ontologically equal to the Father.’
That’s not the issue under discussion. The issue under discussion is whether or not the pronouns refer to one person or more than one person. We’ve already seen that trinitarians SOMETIMES interpret singular pronouns referring to God as a reference to ONE person, and SOMETIMES interpret singular pronouns referring to God as a reference to MORE THAN ONE person, so you’re clearly picking and choosing according to what your theology requires. That’s the logical fallacy of special pleading.
We’ve also seen trinitarians appeal directly to Hebrew grammar in Genesis 1:26, so you can’t tell us that the Hebrew grammar isn’t decisive. You rely on it yourselves.
Scott, Brant, et al.
I think you would do well to disregard using Gen 1.26 as your own popular materials (NIV study bible) even declares it is unsuitable to be used in proving the Trinity. God is not talking to Jesus, he is talking to the heavenly court – your Trinitarian scholars have know and published this for decades now, let alone all the secular scholars who have known it for a much much longer time because they don’t share your bias.
In the call-in today, Brant agreed that he has a bias. I have a bias. This is all true. It is not necessarily bad to have a bias. The only problem comes when your bias does not match the bias of the author and audience of a text. Then you will certainly misunderstand the text. And its been my course of study over the last three years to actually understand the culture and setting in which the NT was written, and a little bit about the OT as well. Because Brant’s bias is that of western 21st century Trinitarian – he will surely misunderstand the Hebrew writers of the ancient near east and second temple period.
If Bosserman thinks that because Jesus was a man, that he must still be able to sin now, then I guess we will all still be able to sin after our resurrection and sin and death never really get defeated. How silly.
I agree with JohnO, we all have a bias. Both sides interpret those Scriptures that they list in light of their theology. (I think it’s interesting that Scott’s email ID is “presuppositional”.)
The difference is, where does that theology come from? If it comes from other sections of Scripture, and it fits, then we have sound exegesis. But we have seen that the concept of three persons in one God is not found anywhere in the Bible, but developed over a number of years AFTER the NewTestament.
At least the Roman Catholic Church admits that their doctrines are based on Church Tradition at least as much as (if not more than) the Bible. Protestant Trinitarians don’t seem to be so honest. Or perhaps many of them don’t know. But anyone who takes the time to honestly look at this subject can see that the Trinity cannot be proven from the Bible. If they want to believe it anyway based on what the Church has taught for hundreds of years, so be it. But they should stop saying it can be proved from the Scriptures.
I too have enjoyed this exchange. It has solidified even more than ever for me, that the Trinity is a man-made doctrine with no Scriptural foundation.
Rick,
‘If Bosserman thinks that because Jesus was a man, that he must still be able to sin now, then I guess we will all still be able to sin after our resurrection and sin and death never really get defeated. How silly.’
I think Sean’s position could do with a nuanced reading. I believe it’s Sean’s understanding that the Bible insists Christ had to be A HUMAN IDENTICAL TO THOSE HE CAME TO SAVE. This meant he had to be capable of temptation and sin.
However, I am also certain that it is also Sean’s understanding that by virtue of his obedience and glorification, Jesus is now A HUMAN WHO IS NO LONGER IDENTICAL to those he came to save, insofar as he is free from sin and death.
I know Sean was finding it difficult on the spot to articulate precisely the difference between the pre-glorified Christ who was IDENTICAL to us (and thus NECESSARILY a human), and the post-glorified Christ who is NOT identical to us (yet STILL a human), but I think that was the trajectory of his thoughts.
That’s certainly what I understand the Bible to say.
Fortigurn,
Correct, Jesus post-resurrection is a perfected human. God has done a miraculous thing by doing away with sin in perfection – that is the climax of the whole biblical story, no more sin, pain, tears, or death.
Makes sense to me. That’s why he’s still called a man even after his resurrection, and still distinguished FROM God as the agent of God.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. I agree 100%. It’s just that Bosserman was trying to trap him by saying that if he was a man (and capable of sin), then he must still be a man (and capable of sin). That’s simply not the case. You are right. He’s still a man, but he has been perfected – I think Hebrews says he was made perfect by his sufferings (which would include his crucifixion).
I’m in total agreement with Sean. This guy was a speed talker and very defensive. Sometimes the brotherly love seemed to be lacking (not from Sean).
Thanks for the clarification Rick, I agree with you entirely.
JohnO,
Great job on the show. You repeatedly asked them to describe what they meant by saying man is in the image of God on trinitarianism. None of the three gentlemen had any answer to this whatsoever. This exposed the fact that what they required of unitarians could not be supplied by their own position. This is why they left Gen 1 and ventured over to Col 1 because they couldn’t make their case on Gen 1 alone. Unfortunately, they cut you off and did not allow you to respond to Brant’s statements.
Your point about bias is right on as well. The best course is not read our modern bias into the text, nor is it to read 5th century christology into it, nor is it even to read the text without bias (which is impossible), but rather, to do the work to reconstruct the bias of the 1st century people who wrote and read the inspired New Testament.
I understand that Jesus could have sinned but did not. But is it correct to say that he is “A HUMAN IDENTICAL TO THOSE HE CAME TO SAVE” if he was supernaturally conceived by God in Mary? I have thought that because he was begotten by God and not man, he was not subject to the sin nature that everyone else gets from Adam. Is this correct?
Mark said: I don’t believe even Brant or Scott are implying that we worship a different God, just that we disagree about His nature.
I can not and certainly do not want to speak for Brant, but I can tell you that a Unitarian concept of God is different from a Trinitarian concept, and therefore two different Gods. These issue are too important to say that we simply disagree about God’s nature (as if these things do not have eternal consequences) which you seem to imply in your comment above.
Sean said You repeatedly asked them to describe what they meant by saying man is in the image of God on trinitarianism. None of the three gentlemen had any answer to this whatsoever. This exposed the fact that what they required of unitarians could not be supplied by their own position. This is why they left Gen 1 and ventured over to Col 1 because they couldn’t make their case on Gen 1 alone. Unfortunately, they cut you off and did not allow you to respond to Brant’s statements.
I have not listened to the audio yet, but very much look forward to it. Not sure why the image of God would be a problem to answer, although I would certainly take more then 10 minutes to address. At this point I do not know what specifically JohnO was looking for, but since Gen. 1 doesn’t tell us much regarding what the image of God means (I certainly believe you can infer things), but there is nothing wrong with going to another text that addresses image and coming up with a biblical theology on image.
For example, the Gen. account tells us very little regarding Adam’s epistemology, so in order to address these issue, we need to look at what the next testament says regarding believers and how we are to take every thought captive, love God with all of our mind, etc. and what all this mean in relation to the fact that we are being made into the image of the second Adam.
Again, simply on that particular point alone, the discussion could go on for hours, or many pages could been written. In fact, they have.
The best course is not read our modern bias into the text, nor is it to read 5th century christology into it, nor is it even to read the text without bias (which is impossible), but rather, to do the work to reconstruct the bias of the 1st century people who wrote and read the inspired New Testament.
No Trinitarian would disagree with the above statement, but at the same time, you nor I are the only Christians (writing) on the planet. God has graced us with centuries of great men who have insights on the text, think of things in different way, etc. that we can learn from. We are not lone ranger Christians. Therefore, the 5th, 15, 20th centuries to have things to say to us…while no doubt, all of this is to be sifted through the lens of the scriptures.
Mark,
‘But is it correct to say that he is “A HUMAN IDENTICAL TO THOSE HE CAME TO SAVE” if he was supernaturally conceived by God in Mary? I have thought that because he was begotten by God and not man, he was not subject to the sin nature that everyone else gets from Adam. Is this correct?’
If he was not identical to those he came to save, he couldn’t have saved us. If he was not identical to those he came to save, he couldn’t have sinned. If he was not identical to those he came to save, the Bible wouldn’t repeatedly insist that he was.
But that aside, I actually see no evidence that Jesus being born of God ensured that he did not have the same ‘sin nature everyone else gets from Adam’. On the contrary, I see Scripture saying that he had the same nature as ourselves.
If this wasn’t the case, he certainly would never have been tempted to sin, which we know he was.
Jeff,
‘God has graced us with centuries of great men who have insights on the text, think of things in different way, etc. that we can learn from. We are not lone ranger Christians. Therefore, the 5th, 15, 20th centuries to have things to say to us…while no doubt, all of this is to be sifted through the lens of the scriptures.’
The last sentence is the most important. Why would we think that Christians of the 1st century didn’t have a true knowledge of God and Christ, and that this had to be worked out in the next few centuries through countless squabbles, disagreements, fights, and bloodshed?
Fortigurn stated:
Why would we think that Christians of the 1st century didn’t have a true knowledge of God and Christ, and that this had to be worked out in the next few centuries through countless squabbles, disagreements, fights, and bloodshed?
Who said/says that they did not have a true knowledge of God and Christ. For it is the scriptures (the apostles of the 1st century) where we today, get this true knowledge of God.
The fact of the matter is though, that when at certain times, certain individuals begin teaching certain things on what ever doctrine that may be, the body of Christ states and clarifies its theology. This is what has happen throughout Church history and we continue this practice today.
BTW: I wonder if any of you have looked a Daniel I. Block’s article
“How Many Is God? An Investigation into the Meaning of Deuteronomy 6:4-5,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47:2 (June 2004)?
Jeff, we arent concerned how Dr. Block explains the Shema. We need to pay very close attention to how JESUS expounds it in Mark 12:29f. The Creed of Jesus has yet to be given due weight from the Trinitarian camp.
Dustin
The Creed of Jesus has yet to be given due weight from the Trinitarian camp.
Interesting you say such a thing, when you seem to have not “concern” with what a Trinitarian says. Oh well.
Jeff,
‘Who said/says that they did not have a true knowledge of God and Christ. For it is the scriptures (the apostles of the 1st century) where we today, get this true knowledge of God.’
Well you see Jeff, they simply didn’t teach what you do. That’s why you can’t find any passages in which they teach what you do. Instead you have to take a handful of verses from John, a couple from Paul, one or two from Mark and Luke, and come up with a doctrine they never taught. You wouldn’t need to resort to syllogism if they taught what you taught.
‘The fact of the matter is though, that when at certain times, certain individuals begin teaching certain things on what ever doctrine that may be, the body of Christ states and clarifies its theology. This is what has happen throughout Church history and we continue this practice today.’
But Jeff, there were plenty of options running around before the trinity was developed, and yet the trinity wasn’t evoked even once in opposition to them:
* Ebionism: late 1st to early 2nd century, never opposed with the trinity
* Docetism: late 1st to early 2nd century, never opposed with the trinity
* Gnosticism: late 1st to late 2nd century, never opposed with the trinity
* Binitarianism: Mid 2nd to late 3rd century, never opposed with the trinity
* Sabellianism: Mid 2nd to late 3rd century, never opposed with the trinity
* Modalism: Mid 2nd to late 3rd century, never opposed with the trinity
* Arianism: 3rd to 5th century, opposed by the Subordinationist Binitarians first, and only later by the trinitarians (who came after)
So this is the thing Jeff, while all these heresies were going on and getting plenty of support, we don’t find ANY trinitarians standing up and saying ‘Hey this is all rubbish, we all know the trinity is the truth, let’s have away with this’. We don’t find any trinitarians until about the 4th century, and that’s being generous.
NONE of the earliest creeds (1st to 4th century), said anything about the trinity, despite the fact that they were opposing all manner of false doctrines and defining truth. This is all well accepted by standard ecclesiastical historians.
Fortigum,
How can you sleep at night given your willfull distorition of facts, or your car salseman tactics?
One example might be your complaint that the doctrine of the trinity wasn’t invoked to deal with heresies that denied Jesus’ humanity! One would think that, well, um, arguments for Jesus’ humanity and not his deity would be used to show his, well, um, humanity.
Now, you’re either playing dumb or your are dumb.
The above is just an example, one of many I have seen from you in this thread, and since I have zero evidence that you are an honest debater, I have no desire to interact more fully with your lines of argument. I simply said what I did to substantiate my charge.
Oh, and for those who are interested, here is a short paper on the “us texts,” most importantly Gen 1.26. Both the NIV study Bible and the NET say that God is talking to his divine council (i.e. angels). If you prefer the audio version, click here
trinitarian,
‘One example might be your complaint that the doctrine of the trinity wasn’t invoked to deal with heresies that denied Jesus’ humanity!’
That was not my complaint. Please read Jeff’s post:
‘The fact of the matter is though, that when at certain times, certain individuals begin teaching certain things on what ever doctrine that may be, the body of Christ states and clarifies its theology. This is what has happen throughout Church history and we continue this practice today.’
Please read my objection in the context of Jeff’s remarks, which had nothing to do with heresies that denied the humanity of Jesus. By the way, neither Sabellianism, Nestorianism, Binitarianism, Modalism, nor Arianism denied Jesus’ humanity.
I’m afraid the rest of your post is sadly typical of my experiences with trinitarians. They find a straw man to attack, then claim that there’s no point in attempting to address my arguments.
Sean, great post, thanks.
Jesus is a man.
Matt 1:1-20
Gen 3:15
Deut 18:15-18
2 Sam 7:12-14
Acts 17:31
Romans 5
1 Tim 2:5
1 John 4:2
2 John 7
The gospel of John calls Jesus a man (aner/anthropos) more than Matt, Mark, and Luke combined!
Dustin
Well, at this point, already, I’m confused. You originally stated Why would we think that Christians of the 1st century didn’t have a true knowledge of God and Christ, and that this had to be worked out in the next few centuries through countless squabbles, disagreements, fights, and bloodshed?
No trinitarian would say otherwise. All trinitarian would deny that 1st century didn’t have a true knowledge of God and Christ. Which certainly leads into my next comment…
The other point, which is simply a historical point, was that systematics (on certain doctrines) were, in large meaure, hammered out because (various) heresy was being dealt with.
Again, we do the same thing today, and this criticism (i.e. your criticism above), from my perspective, is simply a not handling of the historical account with any accuracy.
How can I download the WHOLE debate in one file? I tried right clicking the whole audio feed but it did not download.
Fortigurn,
I did read Jeff’s post. I furthermore did not specify which heresies I was referring to. Obviously not all hersies the church dealt with concerned the nature of Jesus’ humanity. But, some of the ones you listed did. And I find it ridiculous that you would point out that the “Trinity” was not invoked to refute, say, docetism and gnosticism. It is simply dishonest of you to include them. Proving a real human Jesus, with a real material body, was the point of those debates.
I’d furthermore disagree with your overall analysis of the historical situation, but you have shown no indication that you can debate honestly, or that you can read my posts and respond to them in a relevant way – rather than perpetrating your dishonesty by naming hersies that did not err about Christ’s human nature. I obviously did not mean, say, Arianism, when I spoke of heresies that denied Christ’s humanity! To read me as saying that is to impute ignorance to me. That’s another reason there’ll be no discussion. I just thank you for giving me yet another opportunity to point out your dishonest debating tactics, of whcih this thread is chalk-full of.
Jeff,
Actually, many Trinitarian scholars do in fact say that the first century Church did not have a fully developed knowledge of God and of Christ. They say that it was part of the “progressive revelation” which has been referred to in this thread several times. This “progressive revelation” did not reach its full end until the fourth century when the Trinity was completely formulated. This is why Trinitarian theologians have no problem with the fact that the Synoptic Gospels clearly teach that Jesus was a man, the Son of God, and without John and a few hints in Paul (they say) you could not see the Trinity in the New Testament.
Since the poster known as “trinitarian” doesn’t want discussion, I will simply mention the fact that his/her accusation of “dishonesty” stems from having completely missed Fortigurn’s point. Jeff had said that the first century Christians had an understanding of the Trinity. When Fortigurn listed those other heresies and mentioned that the Trinity was not invoked, the point was to demonstrate that the Trinity was not the “standard” by which other doctrines were judged. He concluded by saying:
I’m also curious regarding who the first trinitarian was. Brant had suggested that Jesus and the apostles were the first trinitarians but then produced absolutely no evidence to back up his assertion (not to mention the fact that Jesus agreed with a non-trinitarian scribe on how many God is). However, if we define the trinity as believing in the following statements, where do we find any of them teaching these things?
– the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God but there are not three Gods but one God and each is fully God not merely a part of God
– the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-equal
– the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal
– the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-essential
This is the very reason I was upset with James White, For calling me a “Unitarian” on his dividing line program, He very well knew what he was doing by using a term that we reject, as he lumped us in with the Jw’s and every other non-trinitarain group, We are Oneness and that is what we should be called, he then kicked me off of his program when I was going to call him on his dishonesty.I am sure he would not like me calling him a polytheist.
Manuel Culwell
Jeff,
‘No trinitarian would say otherwise. All trinitarian would deny that 1st century didn’t have a true knowledge of God and Christ. Which certainly leads into my next comment…’
Well no, not all trinitarians would say this. In fact it is the position of many trinitarians that the 1st century believers didn’t have a true knowledge of God and Christ, that this had to wait for later revelation given to the church.
‘The other point, which is simply a historical point, was that systematics (on certain doctrines) were, in large meaure, hammered out because (various) heresy was being dealt with.’
There’s no doubt about this. But look at what you’re saying. The result of this was the formulation of doctrines which had NEVER BEEN TAUGHT BEFORE. So it wasn’t simply a matter of re-interpreting established doctrines, it was a matter of inventing new doctrines which were completely unknown to the 1st century believers, and the trinity is one. It’s in the same category as infant sprinkling, ‘original sin’, the ‘immaculate conception’, and the ‘assumption’ of Mary.
That’s the point here.
‘Again, we do the same thing today, and this criticism (i.e. your criticism above), from my perspective, is simply a not handling of the historical account with any accuracy.’
If by this you mean we systematize the doctrines originally taught by the apostles, that’s true (though the apostles had already systematized it, so we have to follow their lead).
But if in the process of our systematizing we invent new doctrines, then we’re wrong to do so. The apostles already established all Biblical doctrine. There’s no value in us making things up.
trinitarian,
‘I furthermore did not specify which heresies I was referring to.’
Yes you did. You specified those heresies that denied Jesus’ humanity. These are your words:
‘One example might be your complaint that the doctrine of the trinity wasn’t invoked to deal with heresies that denied Jesus’ humanity!’
I note you didn’t address the remainder of my post.
‘And I find it ridiculous that you would point out that the “Trinity” was not invoked to refute, say, docetism and gnosticism. It is simply dishonest of you to include them. Proving a real human Jesus, with a real material body, was the point of those debates.’
It is not dishonest to include them. They were errors, so if the trinity was the truth it would make sense for the trinity to be invoked to disprove them. This is especially the case since they taught that Jesus wasn’t a real man, whereas the trinity teaches that he was. Proving a real human Jesus, with a real material body, is one of the foundations of the trinity.
‘I obviously did not mean, say, Arianism, when I spoke of heresies that denied Christ’s humanity!’
I know you didn’t. I never said you did.
‘I just thank you for giving me yet another opportunity to point out your dishonest debating tactics, of whcih this thread is chalk-full of.’
The correct phrase is ‘chock full of’, not ‘chalk full of’. The error is the result of poor pronunciation corrupting written communication. There are several common errors of this type. They typically occur within North America as a product of the regional pronunciation.
Mark, thanks for your explanation of the context and intent of my comments. That’s exactly right.
Manuel,
When you say Oneness, do you mean Oneness Pentacostal? Most of here are not (some of us here have been in the past). We mean it when we say we are biblical Unitarians (not Unitarian Universalists)
The Narrow Mind radio interview w/ Brant is up on i-Tunes if anyone is interested.
I do not like being lumped with any Unitarain!There is no such thing as a”Biblical Unitarain”Do you believe Jesus is God? If you don’t you are an un-biblical unitarain! It is the same pompousness the trinitarians employ by saying “the christian doctrine of the trinity. “I don’t care how much you tell yourself a doctrine is biblical or christian but in my book you better be able prove with your doctrine according(Not to so called Church history)but with scripture.Jesus said thy word is truth(John 17:17) he did not say ;”thy church history: is the standard in which we measure the true church. that is what false prophets say. you might as well be a unitarain universalist or a trinitarian as you are all the same to me.
I would like to invite the unitarains to discussion along with anyone else.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Trinity_vs_Oneness_Debate/
I wonder if this ever-growing thread has actually converted anyone…..
Dustin
Manuel,
If your beliefs are founded on the Bible then maybe it would interest you that a oneness pastor, J. Dan Gill, found his “Jesus only” faith in contradiction with the Scriptures and so converted from the belief that “Jesus is the only true God” to the belief that “the Father is the only true God” (John 17.3).
If you wouldn’t mind putting your beliefs to the test, I highly recommend to his talk on the subject. Click here to listen to the mp3 called From Oneness to One
Also, famed gospel oneness singer Joel Hemphill has also recently come to see that the oneness position is not the biblical one, but that Jesus was right after all in claiming that he had a God–the Father (John 20.17). To listen to Joel’s testimony can be listened to by clicking here.
Josh Walker,
I just sent you an email with a direct link to the entire debate. If that doesn’t work let me know.
I don’t Listen, I debate!I will not listen to someone who did not know what he believed in the first place. I assure you I know what I believe. Give me the best you got and send him to my debate group.
Manuel…I told you that this gentleman was a oneness pastor. He did and still does know the oneness position. He probably does not have the time nor desire to debate someone who won’t even listen to a brief audio file.
I don’t want to debate him! I want the best you got, If you think your side has the truth then you will not mind getting me someone who has the fortitude to do so. Sorry I will listen in a personal debate on my group to anyone who wants to have a one on one.
I want the exchange to be informal, and public,for all to witness, to see who has the truth, and who contradicts scripture.
Sean, you said
Thus, on trinitarianism, the only thing that dies is human nature–this is not at all costly. However, on unitarianism, Jesus really died–all of him. Part of him did not continue living in some mysterious undead manner. Since Jesus was a human being his death–the death of someone who was divinely begotten, sinless, and voluntarily representative of the human race–was extremely valuable.
In the Unitarian view, what is significant about Jesus, even as a lesser deity in your view, which all the more makes for a better atonement? In my understanding, Jesus’ God nature enables His human nature to be sinless. Other natures do not hold water as sin substitutes. Animal natures do not suffice nor angels. Only a perfect human sacrifice in place of imperfect ones. I am not a demi-god like the Jesus of your view, thus I do not need this being with a singular demi-god nature dying in my place. It should die for other demi-gods that are imperfect.
Further, 1. you have no biblical grounds implying that 100% of Jesus Christ died (encompassing all of His nature/s without exception). 2. How do you handle verses which teach that Christ raised Himself from the dead? If all which encompasses Christ’s being were dead, He could not raise His dead self. That would be more like incarnation.
Biblically there seems to be a Trinitarian work in Christ’s resurrection. The Spirit – Rom 8:11, The Father – Gal 1:1, The Son – John 2:19-21 “Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It took forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” But He was speaking of the temple of His body.” (NASB)
If per chance you believe Christ had no ability to raise Himself but strictly “authority”, then I would ask what good is authority without ability?
John 10:18 “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father.”
Of course these verses are highly debated, yet they are definitely worth mentinoing in light of your remarks.
@Manuel,
you wrote above
I am sure, that would be true “according to Manuel Culwell”.
But then, saying and believing that Jesus is God seems to me to be clearly twistign Jesus’ very own words recorded in Joh 17:3 where Jesus said that HIS FATHER (and not Jesus himself) was alone the true God.
So then, why do you want to accuse others of being “un-biblical” when you yourself in the very statement you make are “un-biblical”?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
@Manuel
you stated above
Now, what you most likely meant was that you don’t listen, but like to “hit people over their head” with your personal conviction (which you deem to be the biblical truth), and in addition you only want to do so on your turf (perhaps because you actually feel quite unsure when in someone else’s territory where you can’t control what gets published should something not quite go your way)?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
@Manuel,
you continued above:
Is this exchange not sufficiently informal? is it not sufficiently public and others can witness/have witnessed what has been written?
As for contradicting scripture, I have pointed out in my reply (#177 above) that the claim “Jesus is the true God” (which you appeared to hold) in in plain contradiction to Jesus’ very own words as recorded in Scripture (Joh 17:3).
So then, who has the truth and who contradicts scripture when one believes what Jesus said (that Jesus’ Father alone is true God … in accordance with the testimony of scripture in Joh 17:3), and another believes what he/she twists into the text, twists out of the text, or arrives at by ignoring the text in Joh 17:3 (that Jesus is the true God) ?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Of Course “God the father is the true God” but you cast off other passages ignoring Jesus claim…. Jesus was made God.(John 3:34) He was given the spirit w/o measure. he was made the Lord(Acts 2:36) He was made the Spirit the Life giving spirit(1st. Cor. 15:45) his humanity had a beggining therefor he could not already be God. Get out of your comfort zone and debate your cause.
Wolfy wrote:
“Now, what you most likely meant was that you don’t listen, but like to “hit people over their head” with your personal conviction”
mlculwell: No, I said what I meant ,apperantly you did not listen. I said;” I don’t listen to peole who did not know thier own doctrine in the first place.” (I don’t care they were once oneness.) they must have been defective in their understanding to fall into such a sham.I have debated you guys before, you have nothing.
Wolfgang
(which you deem to be the biblical truth), and in addition you only want to do so on your turf (perhaps because you actually feel quite unsure when in someone else’s territory where you can’t control what gets published should something not quite go your way)?
Cheers,
Wolfgang
mlculwell: I am perfectly fine anywhere this blog is not for that but okay.
@Manuel
you say
I don’t do that at all …. what I do is this: I do NOT use other passages to support an idea which flat out contradicts Jesus’ very own words … which is what you are doing …
Such contradiction comes about because of your incorrect understanding of the other passages of Scripture to which you point … if understood correctly, there are no such contradictions to Jesus’ own words as is the case with YOUR interpretation.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
PS: It seemed that my initial reply did not format the quote from your note correctly, thus a new try here
hi, can someone tell me at what point in time the word trinity appeared. thanks
@ Kevin
you requested
The entry on the word “trinity” as a Christian doctrine in the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity#The_Origin_of_the_Formula ) has the following paragraph with information addressing your question:
“The first recorded use of the word “Trinity” in Christian theology was in about AD 180 by Theophilus of Antioch who used the corresponding word in Greek (Τριάς) to refer to “the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His wisdom”, of which he considered the first three days of creation to be types.[8][9] He did not apply the word to the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”
I hope this helps …at least a little bit
Cheers
Wolfgang
Hi all
Never been here before!!
I’ve tried to read as much of this long thread as possible, I would like to make a comment which may help.
The ‘trinity’ is not a ‘frontline’ or ‘core’ teaching, it is an explanation of the totality of what Christians have believed the Bible teaches.
The bible teaches that there is ONE God, but that the father, Son and Spirit are also called ‘GOD’ or YHWH.
One practical upshot of the biblical teaching is that Jesus is to be worshipped (as he is of course in the scriptures), if he is n ot in some way ‘GOD’ then to do so would indeed be blasphemous.
So my simple ‘offering’ as a first time contributor is that TRINITY is an explanation of totality of what the bible teaches about GOD. To look at one verse and say ‘the trinity isnt there’ is to miss the point ‘epically’!!
Unfortunately Mark is just as dishonest, or ignorant, as Fortigurn is. I never said I didn’t want a discussion. My claim was qualified, viz., I didn’t want to discuss anything with a dishonest person. See the difference.
I’d also point out that you can’t seem to follow the argument. Here’s your claim:
That was rather obvious. I fully understand both points. Both Jeff and Fortigurn’s claim.
Here’s what you seem to be missing: YOU WOULDN’T INVOKE THE ONTOLOGICAL TRINITY TO SHOW THAT JESUS WAS HUMAN!
The ontological Trinity refers to the divine persons in the Godhead. So, why on earth you you invoke a truth about the divine nature of Christ if you were trying to show the human nature of Christ?
Fortigurn,
Oh, so you knew which heresies I was referring to but you came back in response with heresies that didn’t deny Jesus humanity, viz., Arianism et al.? As I said, you’re a dishonest debater.
Yes, it is dishonest to include them. I refer you to my above argument against Mark.
No, the “Trinity” doesn’t. If you were unaware, let me enlighten you. We believe that there never was a time when God wasn’t a Trinity. We believe that there was a time when the second person was not incarnated.
One place you might want to look is my confession of faith:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/
See, no mention of “Jesus’ humanity.”
Or, perhaps you might be interested in the Athanasian creed:
http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html
See, the Trinity deals with deity and then the creed discussion the Incarnation which deals with Jesus’ humanity.
So, you’ve dishonestly tried to mix the doctrine of the Trinity with the doctrine of the Incarnation.
I wouldn’t expect anything less from a heretic. Heretics always resort to dishonest debate tactics.
You could have admitted your dishonest and so avoided this repeated embarrassment, but now you’ve been caught lying before God and have dragged your friend down with you. Mark now has the honor of being labeled a liar.
I’d love to move on, but until you can admit your dishonest tactics, I’m afraid a discussion would be unprofitable.
I’ll say it again: The Trinity wouldn’t have been invoked to deal with arguments concerning whether Jesus was human.
Repeat that 20 times.
Learn it, live it, love it.
Cameron,
‘In the Unitarian view, what is significant about Jesus, even as a lesser deity in your view, which all the more makes for a better atonement?’
He wasn’t ‘a lesser deity’. What makes him a better atonement is the fact that he was identical to those he came to save.
Hebrews 2:
14 Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, HE LIKEWISE TOOK PART OF THE SAME, SO THAT through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death (that is, the devil),
15 and set free those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death.
16 For surely his concern is not for angels, but he is concerned for Abraham’s descendants.
17 THEREFORE HE HAD TO BE MADE LIKE HIS BROTHERS AND SISTERS IN EVERY RESPECT, SO THAT HE COULD BECOME a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, TO MAKE ATONEMENT FOR THE SINS OF THE PEOPLE. 1
8 FOR SINCE HE HIMSELF SUFFERED WHEN HE WAS TEMPTED, he is able to help those who are tempted.
Hebrews 4:
15 For we do not have a high priest incapable of sympathizing with our weaknesses, BUT ONE WHO HAD BEEN TEMPTED IN EVERY WAY JUST AS WE ARE, YET WITHOUT SIN.
16 THEREFORE LET US CONFIDENTLY APPROACH THE THRONE OF GRACE to receive mercy and find grace whenever we need help.
Cameron, you can read my paper Incarnation and Atonement given at this very conference to answer your exact question. You can find it here: http://kingdomready.org/blog/2008/06/01/incarnation-and-atonement/
trinitarian,
‘Here’s what you seem to be missing: YOU WOULDN’T INVOKE THE ONTOLOGICAL TRINITY TO SHOW THAT JESUS WAS HUMAN!’
This has never been disputed. Once more it’s clear you’ve missed the point. Incidentally the trinity is supposed to teach that Jesus was human, but in reality it doesn’t. So you’re correct, you can’t honestly invoke the trinity to teach that Jesus was human.
‘Oh, so you knew which heresies I was referring to but you came back in response with heresies that didn’t deny Jesus humanity, viz., Arianism et al.?’
Wrong. I didn’t ‘come back’ to you at all. I didn’t address that list to you, I addressed it to Jeff (check the post), whose reference to heresies was completely unqualified. So all the heresies in my list were completely relevant.
‘No, the “Trinity” doesn’t. IWe believe that there never was a time when God wasn’t a Trinity. We believe that there was a time when the second person was not incarnated.’
Er, you’re just claiming that the trinity doesn’t teach that Jesus was a real man. Are you sure you want to go there? I know that you believe ‘there never was a time when God wasn’t a Trinity’ and that ‘ there was a time when the second person was not incarnated’. This has no relevance to what I wrote. I didn’t contradict that.
‘See, the Trinity deals with deity and then the creed discussion the Incarnation which deals with Jesus’ humanity. So, you’ve dishonestly tried to mix the doctrine of the Trinity with the doctrine of the Incarnation.’
Ooops, someone forgot to read Chalcedon. I’m not in the least confused. I’m not trying to mix the two.
Fortigurn,
So you refuse to admit your dishonest tactics? You used heresies over the humanity of Christ as fodder to point out to Jeff that if the Trinity was believed, they would have invoked the Trinity to refute debates about Christ’s humanity. If you can’t see how dishonest and ridiculous this was, then there’s really no point to continue with you.
All you needed to do was swallow your pride and admit that you went a little overboard in your zeal to show that the Trinity wasn’t invoked.
I’d love to point out the errors in your reasoning with the other heresies you listed, but you seem unable to follow a simple argument and your seem bent on defending your dishonesty.
And, btw, I should point out when I said “mixing” I wasn’t referring to “mixing” the natures, per Chalcedon, I was talking about “mixing” the doctrines. Your ability to follow an argument and engage your interlocutor is embarrassing. Is that what happens to one’s mind when they embrace heresy?
trinitarian,
We will not continue tolerating your mean-spirited comments. If you continue to speak to others in this way we will revoke your privilege to dialog on this site.
trinitarian,
When you say “The Trinity wouldn’t have been invoked to deal with arguments concerning whether Jesus was human” you are once again missing the point of the whole exchange. Jeff originally said that a Trinitarian understanding of God was known and accepted by the first century Christians. The various heresies mentioned by Fortigurn consisted of different beliefs about who/what Jesus was and his relationship with God, which are different from the Trinitarian model.
The following definitions are from Wikipedia:
Each of these belief systems holds a different view of the nature of Jesus and his relationship with God. Therefore, if Trinitarianism were the prevailing standard doctrine in Christianity at the time, it would have been invoked in response to the heresies as being the “true view” of who Jesus was and the relationship between him and God. That was and is the point of what was said to Jeff.
And by the way…
If you are going to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, please remember that we are commanded to do so in love (Eph. 4:15). If we disagree or don’t understand each other’s points, that is one thing. But there is no call to be rude and accuse us of being dishonest and calling us “dumb” and “liars” just because you missed the point. If you want to debate in a civilized, loving Christian manner, that is welcome. If you cannot do that, then please keep your word and have no discussion.
Mark said:
Actually, many Trinitarian scholars do in fact say that the first century Church did not have a fully developed knowledge of God and of Christ. They say that it was part of the “progressive revelation” which has been referred to in this thread several times. This “progressive revelation” did not reach its full end until the fourth century when the Trinity was completely formulated. This is why Trinitarian theologians have no problem with the fact that the Synoptic Gospels clearly teach that Jesus was a man, the Son of God, and without John and a few hints in Paul (they say) you could not see the Trinity in the New Testament.
Well, this Trinitarian and others that I know would not agree with your comments. But, I certainly do not have the time to correct each bit of information you state. It does appear that you don’t get out (read) much regarding in reference to Christological studies.
Sean keeps asking this question:
I’m also curious regarding who the first trinitarian was.
I woud say, since they were in a unique relationship with God, that Adam and Eve were the first Trinitarians.
Sean, you also kept making reference to the Shema in the debate. Have you looked at Block’s article (that reference in a previous post)?
Because I have read opinions that differ from yours, then I “don’t read much”? I don’t have the time to dig up the exact quotes and sources any more than you have time to “correct” what I said.
So let’s make this quick and simple. Once again, show me “three persons in one God” or any other way in which “one” means “one consisting of three” FROM THE BIBLE. It can’t be done.
@Manuel
you say
“Of Course “God the father is the true God” but you cast off other passages ignoring Jesus claim”….
Wolfy:
I don’t do that at all …. what I do is this: I do NOT use other passages to support an idea which flat out contradicts Jesus’ very own words …
mlculwell: How weak of you. You set up one passage excluding any others: I submitted Jesus was “made God” because his humanity had a beggining, Just as I knew you would,You did not deal with the passages I presented . (John 3:34) God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.(Jesus) No christian was ever given the Spirit w/o measure.(Eph.4:7)ALL power in heaven and earth was given unto Jesus.If Jesus had it all then ther eis none left! and then (1st. Cor. 15:45)Jesus was made the Life giving Spirit(How many are those according to you?)Eph.4:4-6Then Jesus was made Both Lord and Christ.
Wolfy:
which is what you are doing …
Such contradiction comes about because of your incorrect understanding of the other passages of Scripture to which you point …
mlculwell: Actually that would be you and your doctrine that excludes these very revealing passages Like I said I have debated you guys before and your threats as hollow as your weak doctrine.
Wolfy
if understood correctly, there are no such contradictions to Jesus’ own words as is the case with YOUR interpretation.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
PS: It seemed that my initial reply did not format the quote from your note correctly, thus a new try here
mlculwell:There are no contradictions period you simply focus on Jesus real humanity and pay no attention to other passages that proclain Jeus is the One God becausde he was made God.
I know I said I was done posting so please forgive me for going back on my word. I have to ask a question- in Isaiah 44:6 how many persons are called Yahweh?
One: “…beside me there is no God.” What is the difficulty here?
trinitarian, you’re contradicting yourself and not reading either my posts or even your own.
First you said:
* ‘you came back in response with heresies that didn’t deny Jesus humanity’
Now you say:
* ‘You used heresies over the humanity of Christ’
So first you try to tell me that I referred to heresies that DIDN’T deny Jesus’ humanity, and then you try to tell me that I referred to heresies which DID deny Jesus’ humanity. It’s clear you’re confused not only over what I’ve written, but over what you’ve written also.
I never once said ‘if the Trinity was believed, they would have invoked the Trinity to refute debates about Christ’s humanity’. My point was that if the trinity was believed, they would have used it to counter ALL Christological heresies, as they certainly did later when it finally was invented.
‘And, btw, I should point out when I said “mixing” I wasn’t referring to “mixing” the natures, per Chalcedon, I was talking about “mixing” the doctrines.’
I know you were. I didn’t say you were talking about mixing the natures. I pointed you to Chalcedon because you were ignorant of the fact that the human nature of Christ was defined as an essential element of the trinitarian doctrine.
Thanks to both participants for a civil debate.
I think that Sean did a fine job.
Maybe Sean would consider a debate with Dr. James White of aomin.org
Scott,
Clearly Is 44.6 is talking to one YHWH
“This is what the Lord, Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty, says: I am the First and the Last; there is no other God.” – NLT
“Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: ‘I am the first and I am the last, And there is no God besides Me.” – NASB
“This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.” – NIV
And YHWH is clearly the Father, an essence does not have a name – only a person. Therefore only the Father, the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, is truly God. Simple.
Doug,
Thanks for the suggestion, but I have a lot of studying to do before I would even consider debating someone of Dr. White’s caliber. I’m still at a beginning level of Greek.
Hmmmm.
White vs Buzzard
Dustin
@ Manuel,
you wrote aboe
An understanding of other passages which makes Jesus to be “the One God” contradicts Jesus’ very own words as recorded in Joh 17:3 …. it’s rather simple!
By the way, all “screaming and jumping and claiming” that “there are no contradictions, period ” becomes empty words when one then goes on and takes any other passage and makes it to contradict what Jesus himself stated.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
I am understanding you guys rightly to say that only Yahweh is referred to as the “first and the last”?
Not necessarily. Yahweh’s titles can be borne by His representatives (agents). The principle of agency is one which the trinitarian has to leave behind in order to uphold the trinity.
@Scott,
you had written:
I would say that only one person is called Yahweh in Isa 44:6 (as well as throughout the Scriptures), and this One is the Father of our lord Jesus Christ.
You then asked
This question seems to indicate that you believe the term “first and last” to refer only to Yahweh, and since “first and last” is used in other contexts of Jesus, you then conclude that Jesus must be Yahweh.
I would say that the premise of such a conclusion is incorrect …. “first and last” is NOT only used of Yahweh … it is used in some contexts of Yahweh, in other contexts of Jesus. The term “first and last” by itself means in such usage basically “the only one”, and the context determines the exact detail and aspect of how the person spoken of is that “only one”.
In other words, the fact that terms such as “first and last”, “lord”, “saviour” etc. are used of more than one person, does NOT make those persons to be identical or the same being.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Jesus as the first and last the same name attributed to “Yahweh” so called (Which there is no such thing in scripture actually the tetragrammaton is (YHWH) It is an uneducated guess) Jesus was made (YHWH) becauss his humnaity had a beggining.
@ Manuel,
you wrote aboe
mlculwell:There are no contradictions period you simply focus on Jesus real humanity and pay no attention to other passages that proclain Jeus is the One God becausde he was made God.
An understanding of other passages which makes Jesus to be “the One God” contradicts Jesus’ very own words as recorded in Joh 17:3 …. it’s rather simple!
Deal with the passages Wolfgang You cannot submit One passage to the exclusion of all other passaages.It contradicts nothing,it only does for you as your hermenuetical interpretation is the same as the Calvinist Reformed who vacuum Isolate passages, Yes sir you are guilty of the same thing as they.
By the way, all “screaming and jumping and claiming” that “there are no contradictions, period ” becomes empty words when one then goes on and takes any other passage and makes it to contradict what Jesus himself stated.
Cheers,
Wolfgang
mlculwell: There was no screaming or jumping and an exclamaition point being used does not indicate I am screaming. But you sir need to deal with the passages I submitted jesus was made the One true God. You think the prince reamins a prince and that the son never inherits his fathers throne.LOL! Silly.
@Manuel,
you wrote
First problem is that NONE of the passages you submitted even says that Jesus “was made the One true God” !!! YOU are the one who interprets these passages in a way that contradicts Jesus’ own words concerning the one true God (Joh 17:3)
And then, you are making a rather silly comment about “son never inherits his fathers throne” …. are you telling us that the father has died in the meantime and the son has inherited the father’s throne? Do you actually have 2 true Gods (the father for a while, and after his death, the son has taken his place)?
As I have pointed out before, YOU are the one who interprets other passages in a manner which makes them to be contradictory to the very words of Jesus as recorded in Joh 18:3 ….
Cheers,
Wolfgang
Fortigurn, I say “amen” to the passages you quoted in Hebrews. As a Trinitarian I fully believe what you believe, in that Jesus was fully human, but I also believe more than that, that He was fully God by virtue of claiming to be God and the Messiah.
Going back to what Sean previously stated: “However, on unitarianism, Jesus really died–all of him. Part of him did not continue living in some mysterious undead manner.”
This is one of the first Unitarian statements I’ve heard which makes Jesus more un-human that the human (sounds like a Rob Zombie song). Even humans, created in the image of God, continue to live after death. Not their physical flesh but their meta-physical soul, which technically is still the truest part of their live flesh.
Additionally, as I stated earlier, to say that Jesus fully died, having no iota of life in any way shape or form after His death, is contrary to the biblical understanding that Jesus took part in raising Himself unto a new glorified body.
Further,
JohnO, the only answer I derive from your written response is “what makes Jesus death so valuable is that God accepts it on behalf of humanity”
Yet, this seems to beg the overarching question. You say that God accepts Jesus death, but “why” does He do so? Penal substitutionary atonement is plainly taught in Scripture. The OT carries the same idea with the mercy seat or ‘the place of purging through death’. Pen sub is a compound concept. Justice unto justification. In the OT an animal was not only slain but had it’s blood sprinkled on the mercy seat to appease God. All of which never appeased God but pointed to Christ, the true sacrifice unto appeasement. The greek word ‘hilastarion’ carries with it this same compound meaning.
Rom 3:25-36 “God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement (the greek word here is hilastarion), through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.”
Lastly,
Jesus did not only die to save us from Satan, darkness, and lies. He saved us ultimately from Himself to show His mercy and grace towards us. Rom 5:9 “Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him!”
Cameron,
Are you quoting Plato here? He is the one who said that death was no more than the separation of the body from the soul. The Bible (in both Old and New Testaments) teaches that dead people are asleep (i.e. not alive, but unconscious and awaiting the resurrection).
But, it doesn’t even matter what your view of death is because if Jesus is God (1 Tim 1.17; 6.16) then he is immortal and he cannot experience death. That’s what immortality means. If Jesus died then he is not immortal and thus not fully God. In other words…
1. Jesus is 100% God
2. God is immortal
—————————-
Jesus is 100% immortal
But Jesus died which proves he was mortal. So we have to deny premise #1 or #2. I chose to deny #1. What do you pick?
This line of thinking works for his knowledge as well:
1. Jesus is 100% God
2. God is omniscient
—————————–
Jesus is 100% omniscient
But Jesus did not know when he was to return (Mk 13.32) which proves that he is not all-knowing so again we must deny either #1 or #2.
Cameron,
I agree for the most part with what you said about penal substitution. I implore you to read the paper. Note, that nothing you said about God’s acceptance of the sacrifice has anything to do with Jesus being God. God accepted the lamb and other offerings of the law, not because of any inherent worth, but because that is what God decided to do and accept. Just as with Jesus.
Sean,
So when Jesus told the dying thief on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise that day was what did he mean? Is paradise a synonym for unconciousness? When Jesus was about to expire and He said, “Father into your hands I commit my spirit” was that another allusion to being unconcious at death? Are the martyrded saints seen in heaven in the book of Revelation worshipping at the throne of God singing and praising Him unconciously? How can Paul say that be absent from the body is to be present with Christ if he really means that being present with Christ is being unconcious? Doesn’t “being present” have to include conciousness? If I went to the symphony yet was in a coma the whole time is it sensible to say I went?
I don’t think Cameron is quoting Plato- he has good reason from the Bible to believe that the soul of man is seperated from the body at death and exists in that unnatural state until the resurrection.
Jonathan Edwards writes well on this subject in his article called “True Saints, when Absent from the Body, Are Present with the Lord”
http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/je-absent.htm
Finally, in what sense do I have eternal life if at death all of me dies? Is there such a thing as “temporary” eternal life?
JohnO-
Do you have any examples of when Yahweh’s titles being borne by His representatives (agents)? Is anyone else ever called Yahweh? Is anyone else ever called the first and the last? Is anyone else ever called saviour? If someone is bearing the title as a mere representative are they allowed to receive worship in that capacity?
But Jesus never claimed to be God. (Please don’t quote “I and my Father are one” – we’ve been through that before.) He was called God twice for sure, which we have discussed already too. The phrase “God the Son” appears nowhere in the Scripture, just as there is no occurrence of “three persons in one God.” Once again we are faced with the resounding lack of Scriptural evidence for Jesus being “fully God” and “fully man” at the same time.
If we are going to get into a debate about the state of the dead, perhaps we should start a new thread. That is a subject with as much controversy and misunderstanding as the Trinity. (Please refer to the resources on the “death is not sleep” page of this site:
http://kingdomready.org/topics/death.php)
mlculwell:
There was no screaming or jumping and an exclamaition point being used does not indicate I am screaming. But you sir need to deal with the passages I submitted jesus was made the One true God. You think the prince reamins a prince and that the son never inherits his fathers throne.LOL! Silly.
Wolfgang:
First problem is that NONE of the passages you submitted even says that Jesus “was made the One true God” !!! YOU are the one who interprets these passages in a way that contradicts Jesus’ own words concerning the one true God (Joh 17:3)
mlculwell:
First Off, God is Spirit(John 4:24) God gave that spirit w/o Measure to the Human son(Who was not already God, But was made God)God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him. What does that mean? No other human or christian was given the spirit w/o measure. You are measuring the spirit.
I gave the Passages from (1st. Cor. 15:45) Where that last man Adam was *MADE* the Life giving spirit(How many of those are there?)
(Matthew 28:18) Jesus was given ALL power in heaven and earth. So if he has it ALL, nobody else has any!
(Acts 2:36) Jesus was Made Both Lord and christ.there are not two Lord’s(Eph.4:4-6)
Wolfgang:
And then, you are making a rather silly comment about “son never inherits his fathers throne” …. are you telling us that the father has died in the meantime and the son has inherited the father’s throne?
mlculwell: No, I am telling God took himself a glorified body permently.
Wolfgang:
Do you actually have 2 true Gods (the father for a while, and after his death, the son has taken his place)?
mlculwell:No Wolfgang, because One glorified man and One true God make One true God.
Wolfgang:
As I have pointed out before, YOU are the one who interprets other passages in a manner which makes them to be contradictory to the very words of Jesus as recorded in Joh 18:3 ….
Cheers,
Wolfgang
mlculwell: Absolutely Not.
Mark,
Even if I were to accept your proposition that Jesus never claimed to be God (which I do not accept) how does that prove your point? Is Jesus was just a man the default position that we all should inherently know? If you never positively prove your view it only show how heavily you rely on the assumption of unitarianism. It seems that you further assume that Jesus was only a man yet you never justify it in any way that is close to what you demand of the trinitrain view. So let me ask you- where does Jesus in the Bible ever claim that he is ONLY A MAN and is not God? When does He turn down worship as God? When does He reject the divine titles? Just as you seem to want the words to come out of His mouth directly stating that He is God I want the same statements from Him that He is not God. Please don’t offer syllogisms, deductions or inferences because they are not sufficient in your mind when we offer them.
The default position in this discussion should not be that God is unitarian and Jesus is only a man. This is especially true in light of the very strange and miraculous events that took place in Jesus’ life- i.e. the virgin birth, turning water to wine, walking on water, rising from the dead, equality with the Father being ascribed to Him and many other wonderous issues. I do not claim that any one or collection of these things in and of themselves prove that He is God but they should at least cause us to start from a position of questioning whether or not the scriptures could teach that He is.
You seem to do the opposite and instead assume that He is just a man- though you will build Him up from there in some ways. You then set your own standard for what the teaching of the contrary must look like and then after you have dismissed all of the evidence because it doesn’t appear to meet the standard you made up you assert your assumptive position that Jesus was only a man. Yet you never provide the type of positive evidence for your case that you demand of the trinitarian.
Scott,
The issue of conditional immortality is something worthy of discussion, but unfortunately right now my time is very limited. I am a full time husband, father of two, and pastor….I only have the resources to talk about one thing right now on the blog and often I don’t have the time to even respond to many of your fine points. Even so, may I offer some resources to you to consider if you are at all open on the question of the sleep of the dead?
As Mark has already mentioned we have a resource page dedicated to understanding the biblical definition of what happens at death (just click on “Death is Sleep” on the top right of this blog). I would also refer you to this list of verses that Dustin and I put together which clearly teach that dead people are not alive and disembodied. Lastly, I’d like to refer you to Anthony’s fine booklet, What Happens When We Die? A Biblical View of Death and Resurrection, available for free in pdf format here..
We have ample answers to the 5 or so typical proof texts that proponents of Natural Immortality use to demonstrate their case. But, at the same time, I don’t think this doctrine is completely necessary in order to understand my argument against the immortality of Jesus. What I said before still stands. If Jesus experienced death (whatever we define that as) then he is not immortal and thus not God. Brant answered this by saying that Jesus was immortal even though he “experienced” death. It seemed like he was uncomfortable with saying, “Jesus died” or “God died.” But, of course, this is just a mere language trick. Anyone who experiences death dies and thus is mortal. One who is mortal is not at the same time immortal (this is a clear violation of the law of non-contradiction). Jesus cannot be x and ~x at the same time and in the same sense. He cannot be immortal and die. It just is impossible.
The same goes for my other argument–Jesus was not all knowing because he did not know when he would return (Mark 13.32). God is all-knowing and Jesus did not know something. Even if Jesus knew everything but that one thing he is still not omniscient and therefore not fully God.
The mid-fifth century development of the hypostatic union (dual natures) is not a biblical doctrine but a brilliant attempt to prop up the trinity in the face of clear contradictions like these.
On the subject of whether or not Jesus was worshiped in a religious sense in the New Testament, please see my article on the subject. Furthermore, Jason David BeDuhn’s Truth in Translation explains this issue beautifully. Jesus was worshiped in the sense that was completely normal in the context of the 1st century world when a King or noble entered the room, if you were from a lower social stratification, you would bow as a sign of respect. Furthermore, Esau (Gen 33.3), Judah (Gen 49.8), David (1 Sam 25.23; 2 Sam 14.4; 1 Kings 1.31), Elisha (2 Kings 4.32); Ahasuerus (Esther 8.3) were worshiped in the Old Testament and so are the saints in Rev. 3.19. Does that make them all gods?
You know better than that, if you’ve read these posts at all. We don’t say he was JUST a man. He is the uniquely begotten Son of God, the promised Messiah, the ultimate communication of God, who shares many of the Father’s attributes and characteristics.
My point was that Jesus never claimed to be God, as you claimed he did. You can refuse to accept it all you want, but can you show Scriptural proof? Where in the Bible did Jesus ever claim to be God?
As for claiming not to be God, we’ve referred before to several things. When the Jews accused him of claiming to be God, he responded by saying, “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:35-36). And how about the one I cited above: John 8:17-18, “It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.” If that doesn’t show two distinct entities I don’t know what does.
And of course there are several instances when Jesus said his Father was greater than he was, he did nothing of his own will but always did the Father’s will, etc. Plus he said, “Why call me good? There is none good but God.”
But You will say that they are indeed two persons, but one God. I’m still waiting for proof of that from the Bible. Not to mention the insermountable problem of how God could be tempted in all points, how He could not know something, and how he could die. Your only explanation is “two natures” which I have pointed out is not in the Bible.
JohnO, you said God accepted the lamb and other offerings of the law, not because of any inherent worth, but because that is what God decided to do and accept. Just as with Jesus.
God did not accept them as full payment of sin, Heb 10:2-4; 8-10.
Sean, you said
1. Jesus is 100% God
2. God is immortal
—————————-
Jesus is 100% immortal
But Jesus died which proves he was mortal. So we have to deny premise #1 or #2. I chose to deny #1. What do you pick?
Again, Scripture teaches that humans remain in existence after death. That is our spirits, if you will, remain in existence. Are we then ontologically superior to Jesus? No. Part of our nature still remains after death and part of it does not. The same with the God-Man who’s human nature dies but who’s God nature does not and never will. Remember, as the Second Adam, Jesus’ human nature is to die as a substitute, not His God nature.
And again, Jesus does not go completely out of existence because Jesus also participates in raising Himself unto a new glorified body after His death. Your premises cader to your assumptions about Jesus’ nature, yet it is His full nature which needs to be argued from Scripture, not biased premises.
Phil 2:6-8, to paraphrase says Jesus, being God’s very nature, limited Himself. With having human limitations, in order to be like us in every way, Jesus’ human nature would not have known the hour of His return. Yet, His God nature would have, Job 21:22. This is no different then arguing, how can Jesus be in a house if He is God since God is omni-present. Again, His human nature can be in a house (as it existed in time, space, and matter as we know it), yet His God nature was eternally outside of time space and matter as we know it holding it all together. Hence, the Logos became sarx.
That is the Logos as defined in John 1. The Logos John describes is ‘en(imperfect verb-continual past action) arche’, a beginning-less beginning. Further, this logos was with God, and was “qualitatively” God-in very nature God. All of which is juxtaposed with all that has came into existence. John 1:3 “Through him all things were made (egeneto-aorist verb, having a starting point); without him nothing was made that has been made.”
Lastly, in the Unitarian view, God forgives sins on arbitrary grounds. It’s simply because God “says so”. God very well could have told Jesus to eat ice cream instead of go to the cross. There is no demand of human justice.
However, it isn’t simply Jesus physically dying which makes atonement, specifically the part of atonement known as propitiation-the demand of justice for human God-haters. Rather, more then mere physical death, Jesus undergoes spiritual death, then gives upHis own life. Isaiah 53:5, “by His wound (singular) we are healed.” v.10, “It pleased Yahweh to crush Him”. 1 Pet 2:24 “He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wound (molopi-singular) you have been healed.” It does not say, by Jesus going out of existence we are healed, but by the singular appeasement of God’s death blow to Himself (Christ)-the actualizing of innocent lamb’s blood being sprinkled on top of the ark.
Cameron,
I feel like you missed my argument. I have repeatedly said that if Jesus is immortal then he cannot experience death. To experience death is to be mortal (the opposite of immortal). If you define death, as Plato did, as the separation of the soul from the body then this is precisely what Jesus cannot do if he is God (i.e. he is immortal). Immortal beings cannot die. This is a matter of definition.
The problem here is that you have no amount of definitions to even define what it means to have a human nature, let alone for the Logos to become sarx. You are starting and ending with human definitions, rather than coming to conclusions revealed in Scripture. Again, God is immortal, but human natures are not. The Logos is eternal, but sarx is not. Yet, the Logos, or God, took on sarx.
Also, just because I define morality as Aquinas did, that it is relative to given absolutes, does not mean I derive it from him ultimately. Nor with Plato.
Cameron,
God is the one who said he is immortal. This is not human reasoning. The issue comes to a head with the traditional dual natures doctrine (hypostatic union). The doctrine itself is self contradictory and unbiblical. There are no verses that teach this idea. Furthermore, every time the divine and human natures conflict there is a problem. One cannot both immortal and mortal at the same time nor can he be both omniscient and limited in knowledge at the same time. This is the death blow to the much beloved dual natures doctrine.
Sean, I don’t use human reasoning to make the most sense of my nature nor God’s nature, but God’s reasoning because His knowlege is exhaustive and mine is not. If the Logos takes on sarx by way of a virgin birth, then the Logos can put off sarx by way of death. For some reason this is impossible simply because a guy named Sean says so.
Cameron,
Good points. I especially like the point about Jesus raising Himself to life:
John 2:19-21
Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.
It is also interesting to note that the Bible also teaches that God raised Him from the dead:
Acts 2:32
This Jesus hath God raised up….
Acts 4:10
Jesus Christ … whom God raised from the dead….
Acts 13:30
But God raised him from the dead.
Colossians 2:12
Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Does the Bible just contradict itself? How do the unitarians deal with this?
Cameron,
Also, you said, “This is no different then arguing, how can Jesus be in a house if He is God since God is omni-present. Again, His human nature can be in a house (as it existed in time, space, and matter as we know it), yet His God nature was eternally outside of time space and matter as we know it holding it all together”
As another example Brant brought up in the debate (during his rebuttal at about 2.5 minutes into it) that Yahweh Himself is omnipresent yet His followers would have agreed with the statement that He lived in their Temple and not in Marduk’s Temple. Does this mean that He wasn’t God? No- it simply points out that God can at the same both be imminent and transcendent. I have yet to hear a unitarian deal with these points.
Sean,
Does the Bible teach that I am immortal? Do I have eternal life (assuming that I know the Father)? Will I some day die despite my immortality (if you agree I possess it)?
Sean,
Can God change His mind (Exodus 32:14, Psalm 106:45) or not (Numbers 23:19)? As Brant challenged you if we lose the Deity of Christ because of the apparent contradictions between His imminent nature and his transcendent nature then how do we not also lose the Deity of Yahweh?
Mark,
You said, “And of course there are several instances when Jesus said his Father was greater than he was, he did nothing of his own will but always did the Father’s will, etc.”
So how do you deal with the Biblical claim that Jesus was equal to God (John 5:18) in light of the statement of inequality that you point out in John 14:28?
Not to pile on but I also should note that the Holy Spirit is also said to have raised Christ from the dead:
“But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.” (Romans 8:11)
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit…” (1 Peter 3:18)
I wonder if my unitarian friends can tell me who is the “ONE” who raised Christ from the dead? It would be good to know who “HE” is. I wonder how many of “HIM” there are?
On the representational line, I agree that non-divine figures can represent or act in a functional role on deity’s behalf, but why think that this is true of Christ? Paul in Col 1:15ff seems to rule this out.
Further, if “God” can funcitonal representationally, why think that this is not true of the Father also? At root here is the philosophical issue of whether terms denote an essential/intrinsic or accidential/extrinsic relationship. Why import the notion of an essence into Unitarianism? Where does the Bible explicitlysay God is one “being” “essence” etc where such terms denote an intrinsic relationship?
It seems to me that the Unitarians here consistently conflate the categories of who-ness with what-ness (person and nature). One being = one person. This depends on and historically is derived from Platonism, since the Platonists didn’t have a concept of personhood.
This is why the attempt to argue that Christ can’t be deity because opposite properties are attributed to him and this violates the law of contradiction falls flat, for this is true of essences, but persons aren’t essences. Consequently Trinitarianism is anti-platonic, which is why its technical terminology is apophatic, lacking any any philosophical content.
So I don’t see why Jesus can’t die or be ignorant since the person that is Jesus is not a simple platonic form or essence. Furthermore, it was exactly Chalcedonian teaching that Christologycut against Greek philosophical thinking that took the world to be composed of opposing powers and properties-God and man are not therefore opposites but reconciled in Christ-Cyril and Athanasius before him for example is explicit in saying so for example, following Paul.
It is true that the OT, ISTM refers to God as one person often, and that one person is Christ since Christ says that the Jews NEVER heard the Father’s voice nor ever saw his form (Jn 5:37) So unitarians ISTM have the option of designating the OT God as Father or Son, but not both.
As Sean made reference to a comment by Gregory of Nazienzus on the deity of the Spirit being in doubt in the fourth century, this is an error. What Gregory refers to is what is going on in his locale, and not something universally true. See my 80 page refutation of a JW who made the same claim ten or so years ago. http://www.forananswer.org/Mars_Jw/Robinson.Stamp.htm
If one presses the question “how can the immortal die?”, it must equally be asked, “how can the unborn be born?” The same answer is given for both. God is neither born nor can He die. however the sarx (human nature) which He willfully limits Himself to can be born and die. Just as John’s gospel plainly teaches, the Logos became flesh. If the Logos, being God’s very nature, can take on flesh through birth, why can the Logos not also put away such flesh through death? Further, how does the timeless and space-less enter time and space? Again, John’s gospel declares it to be so.
Sean,
As to the death of God, what you are proposing is that death and God are opposites so that God cannot be in any contact with or touched by death. This is a very platonic way of looking at things. Scripture though seems to speak as if God is even greater than death, which is the point of Christ’s victory, he goes into it and reconciles even death to God. (Rev 1:18) On your view I can’t see how that is possible.
Moreover, I think there are plenty of verses that teach two sets of properties that are both true of Christ so I suppose we just disagree. I don’t think the divine and human natures conflict, for this would assume Manicheanism, that human nature is intrinsically evil and opposed to God. Lastly, simply asserting over and over again how two sets of properties can’t be true of the same thing doesn’t prove it. How can Scripture b both human and divine if these two things are opposite. It seems to me that your Unitarianism, isn’t Unitarianism at all, but Binitarianism, that there are two gods. One high God who is so far removed from the world as to be untouched by it and who works through created intermediaries. It just looks like old (platonic) Arianism.
The Greek word for “equal” in John 5:18 is isos. It does not mean “one and the same.” It means equal like the two angles of an isosceles triangle are equal. It is used elsewhere and translated “agree” and “like” as well as “equal.”
One verse where it is also translated “equal” is Matt. 20:12, speaking of the hired laborers who complain that the ones hired late in the day got the same pay. “…These last have wrought but one hour, and thou hast made them equal (isos) unto us, which have borne the burden and heat of the day.” They were complaining that the men who didn’t work as long were made “like” them in terms of what they were paid. This doesn’t mean they were identical, certainly, and it doesn’t mean they were alike in every detail. The word is to be understood in light of the context.
When it says that Jesus “called God his Father, making himself equal with God,” they did not think he was claiming to be God, because such a claim would have been dismissed as being nonsense. They knew he claimed to be the Son of God, a title for the Messiah, making himself like God, or on a par with God as His representative. They knew that this was a possibility, yet they considered it blasphemy for him to make that claim, since they didn’t believe he was the Messiah. Yet the very next verses clearly define the relationship the Son has with the Father.
John 5:
19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.
20 “For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel.
21 “For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.
22 “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son,
23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.”
One God, the Father. One Son, Jesus Christ. The Father gives his Son authority. It’s so simple. I for one am glad our salvation doesn’t depend on trying to understand all that complex Greek philosophical mumbo-jumbo.
Mark,
While it is true that isos does not necessarily carry the semantic content of ontological identity, that isn’t a reason for thinking that in John 5 it doesn’t. You’d need to give not just other usages in other contexts but semantical and synatical reasons for thinking that it doesn’t in John 5, which you didn’t do.
Furthermore, you seem to contradict yourself when write that isos can mean “agree” and “like” and then you say “as well as equal.” I thought your argument was that it doesn’t mean equal. If it can mean equal, then what is the reason for thinking that in Jn 5 it doesn’t mean that but only like or similar?
Matt 20:12 is irrelevant since the context is an extrinsic relation, that of monetary value. The question is, is Jesus talking about an extrinsic relation to the Father, like that of one agent being willed into existence by the other, or a relationship much closer in Jn 5? It is akin to the ancient philosophical outlook of the distinguishing of different signs. Heat was always associated with fire but so was dryness, but dryness could be associated with other things and so it was not essential or necessarily associated with fire and therefore only “like” fire. Heat was a reliable sign of fire but dryness is not. Does Jesus reveal God or just what God is like and other people could just as easily be “like” God or not? (This is why your view entails the view that Jesus could have sinned.)
John 14, Jesus says that the Father is greater, but he doesn’t say that the Father is better since the former denotes status and the latter denotes quality. The Father is greater since the Father is the source, (arche) of the Son who is begotten prior to creation (Jn 17) and is therefore “of” the Father (Eph 1:17) and the Spirit who proceeds from the Father (Jn 15:26), also prior to creation. This is perfectly consistent with Trinitarian theology and strongly implies that the Son and the Spirit aren’t temporal agents but share the divine glory (Jn 17:5)
Furthermore, in Jn 5 it seems that the implication is that Jesus has authority over the Law which is what pissess off the Jewish leadership since in their mind created agents can’t have such power. Humans can’t alter the Law. That is the point of the preceeding passage, a unity of activity implies a unity of existence. This is why the “working” is active and not past tense.
If the surrounding people did not understand Jesus to be claiming ontological equality with God, please show us what they thought from the text, because the text doesn’t say what you claim. If Jesus was a created human like them, then calling God his Father would not be a big deal, which directly implies that there is more in Jesus’ claim than they were prepared to accept for any human agent. This is the whole point on identifying the activity and power of Jesus with and derived from and continuously coming from the Father. The relation is direct and not instrumental. If they thought that he was not Messiah, his claim would not have been of itself blasphemous, just wrong, as they had lots of false Messianic candidates.
I also notice that you leave out v. 26. “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself”
If the Father by virtue of being God has this property, then it is a property and not a role or function that the Son has also, and this implies that the activity isn’t a mere conjoining of performances but a unity of being. Jesus’ activity isn’t contiguous with the Father’s, it is one and the same with it. Otherwise there would be two sources of life. This is why worship/honor given to the Father is also given to the Son, which would be blasphemy if the Son were only creature. Revelation forbids honoring angels the same way we honor God for example. Jesus simply denotes the Father as the source and this doesn’t imply an extrinsic relationship as you seem to want to imply, but in fact its opposite.
I notice that you don’t say “One Lord.” And this is because the NT writers use Kurios (lord) as a substitute for Yaweh, clearly identifying Jesus with Yaweh in say Philip 2 for example. One God and one Lord, that seems quite Trinitarian.
You lament Greek philosophy, but as I pointed out above, your view actually depends on Greek philosophy, whereas Trinitarianism doesn’t. Greek philosophy can’t distinguish between person and nature since it doesn’t have a concept of personhood. (This is why Unitarians are platonic since person=being in their thinking. You can see this in the historical literature for example in Dixion’s work on post Reformation Unitarianism in, “Nice Hot Disputes”) And this was the source of terminological confusion during the Sabellian and Arian controversies. The Nicene’s were actually reforming and stripping Greek philosophical terms of their dialectical content and this is why at Nicea the Arians had Greek philosophers testify in their own defense. It is just the case that you are influenced by philosophical systems of which you are unaware.
I’d just ask you to consider someone like Ignatius of Antioch. The guy is personally ordained bishop of Antioch by the Apostles Peter and Paul, and dies a martyrs death in Rome in 107 A.D. Now, if you read him, he is quite Trinitarian. And there isn’t any Greek speculative apparatus in his writings either. Which is more probable that 17th century Unitarians are correct in their reading of the bible or someone like Ignatius?
Sean, you wrote
“Thus, on trinitarianism, the only thing that dies is human nature–this is not at all costly. However, on unitarianism, Jesus really died–all of him. Part of him did not continue living in some mysterious undead manner. Since Jesus was a human being his death–the death of someone who was divinely begotten, sinless, and voluntarily representative of the human race–was extremely valuable.”
Actually this doesn’t follow and isn’t historic Trinitarian teaching. The Fathers, say John Chrysostom, Cyril, Maximus, et al, teach that the divine person experiences a human death in that he actively lays hold of death. It is like Neo in the Matrix, he goes into Smith to defeat him from the inside out. So historically it is false to say that on Trinitarianism, only the human nature dies, since natures don’t DO anything, persons do. And it is costly, for while he is a divine person, he contends with human weakenesses, which is how he can be tempted, human nature is disposed away from death which is why he has genuine human fear of death in his passion. On the contrary, if Jesus is a human representative, that is hardly costly to God. God could just as easily pick any representative he liked, especially given the fact that God can impute moral standing and value irrespective of actual standing.
Furthermore, taking Chrysostom as an example, Christ’s death not only transforms death by uniting it to himself and thereby stripping the devil of his weapon (jn 8:44, heb 2:14ff, Rev 1:18) but his death involves real suffering. The point of the death of Christ is that if the devil can sever the union in Christ between humanity and divinity, God’s will, will be frustrated and thus the devil by doing so will have shown himself via death more powerful than God. But Jesus via his divine power by virtue of being a divine person, while his soul and body are divided from each other in death are never divided from his divine person. Consequently the power of death is overcome so that all die now, will be raised in Christ, both the wicked and just. (1 Cor 15:21-22, 2 Pet 2:1, 1 Tim 4:10) This is the Christus Victor view of the atonement, which is the earliest view of the atonement which held sway for the first thousand years of Christianity and is still maintained by the Orthodox.
Death in the bible doesn’t imply unconciousness as for example in Rev 6:9ff the dead saints under the altar cry out to God, and they aren’t sleep walkers either. Cooper’s, Body, Soul and Life Everlasting, is helpful in this regard.
Fortigurn,
In #150 you listed a number of views not opposed by Trinitarianism to imply that Trinitarianism came later and they came earlier. Here I think you are mistaken.
Docetism didn’t deny the divinity of Christ, but his humanity and the Ebionites were Adoptionists, which did affirm Jesus’ divinity, they thought it just came later in his life. Both were opposed by Trinitarians like Ignatius of Antioch (107d.)
Ireneaus for example was a Trinitarian who opposed Gnosticism.
As for Binitarianism, I haven’t the foggiest who you think this was.
And Sabellianism was opposed by a number of Trinitarians, not the least of which was Tertullian and a few bishops of Rome. And just FYI, Sabellianism is Modalism.
And Alexander of Alexandria was quite Trinitarian and was the first opponent of Arianism as he was Arius’ chief bishop who censured him.
Scott,
Neither passage you gave says that the Holy Spirit raised Christ, nor does either passage personalize the Holy Spirit.
Romans 8:11 speaks of the Spirit OF Him who raised Jesus from the dead, identifying the Spirit as POSSESSED by the one who raised Jesus from the dead.
1 Peter 3:18 says Christ was made alive by the Spirit. Well, we agree! Christ was made alive by the Spirit, the Spirit OF GOD, not ‘The Spirit WHO IS GOD’.
Cameron,
‘Fortigurn, I say “amen” to the passages you quoted in Hebrews. As a Trinitarian I fully believe what you believe, in that Jesus was fully human, but I also believe more than that, that He was fully God by virtue of claiming to be God and the Messiah.’
But the problem is Cameron that’s not actually what passages from Hebrews say. They say that in order to effect the atonement, Christ had to be a human being, and not only that but a human being identical to those he came to save.
You don’t believe the atonement was predicated on Jesus being a human being like those he came to save (you believe it was predicated on him being God), you don’t believe Jesus was a human being (you believe he is the ‘God-man’), and you certainly don’t believe that he was a human being identical to those he came to save (you don’t believe he could be tempted or sin as we can).
So in fact you don’t agree with what these passages from Hebrews say.
The whole context of John 5 is what tells me that isos does not imply ontological identity. The verse started off saying he called God his Father. It didn’t say he claimed to be God. The verses following all talk about the relationship between the Father and the Son. The context defines the meaning.
What I said was, it is translated as “agree” and “like” as well as “equal.” And where it is translated “equal” it does not mean “ontological identity.”
He is talking about exactly what he said. God is his Father. He is God’s son. He does what the Father tells him to do. Why make it more complicated?
Jesus reveals God, and what God is like. He can do both as God’s son.
Yes, the Father is greater, denoting status. He is the source of the Son (I would argue about being begotten “prior to creation” but that’s another issue). I didn’t say the Son was a “temporal” agent. I am not sure what that would mean or imply. All I said was that Jesus was the whole reason for creation, and the center of God’s plan. That is why he had glory with God before creation. That doesn’t make him God any more than God’s choosing us before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:4) makes us God.
Where does it say that “a unity of activity implies a unity of existence?” A unity of activity implies obedience, and one person always doing the will of the other.
He did not claim “ontological identity” with God anywhere in the book! He said “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working” (that’s two!) and they “were seeking all the more to kill Him, because he…was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” They knew what the words “Father” and “Son” meant, especially with regard to the promised Messiah. The “Son of God” was one of the things the Messiah was described as in the Hebrew Scriptures. “God the Son” or “God in the flesh” was not.
He was not a created human like them. Calling God his Father, as I said, was part of his claim to be the Messiah. I’m not sure what you mean by “The relation is direct and not instrumental.” He was “directly” God’s son, and was empowered by God to do the things he did. I don’t want to quibble about whether they claimed it to be “blasphemous.” I probably shouldn’t have used that word, as it is not in the context of John 5. It simply says, ” the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “conjoining of performances.” It’s simple. The Father gave life to the Son, and he has given him authority to judge, because he is the Son of Man. (v. 27). What part of that is difficult?
Jesus said, “I can do nothing on My own initiative. As I hear, I judge; and My judgment is just, because I do not seek My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” I find this much easier to understand than the convoluted terminology that is necessary to explain the Trinity.
Sean did a good paper on whether or not Jesus should be worshipped. He has a link to it above.
The wordkurios is not used exclusively as a substitute for YHVH. Look at Matt. 18:25, to name but one. Both Jesus and God are called Lord, but so are other people. It must be considered in the context. And Phil. 2:11 says “that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” That’s because it was and is God’s plan.
My view depends on Hebrew thinking, not Greek. The Hebrews did not make a distinction between person and being. And they never gave any other meaning to the word “one” in the Shema.
Thanks, but I’d rather stick with Jesus and Paul.
We’re not talking about 17th century Unitarians. We’re talking about 1st century unitarians: Jesus, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, etc. Once again I challenge you (I feel like a broken record here) show me FROM THE SCRIPTURES anywhere that the word “one” means “one consisting of three.” Show me anywhere IN THE SCRIPTURES that Jesus had two natures, “fully God and fully man.” Show me anywhere IN THE SCRIPTURES where Jesus is called “God the Son.”
Scott,
‘So when Jesus told the dying thief on the cross that he would be with Him in paradise that day was what did he mean? Is paradise a synonym for unconciousness?’
It’s a synonym for the Kingdom of God. Note that the thief asked Jesus to ‘REMEMBER ME WHEN YOU COME IN YOUR KINGDOM’. It’s clear that the thief had no illusions about being wafted off to the Spirit In The Sky.
Cameron,
‘Remember, as the Second Adam, Jesus’ human nature is to die as a substitute, not His God nature.’
Well hey, I could have died then and saved you all. Jesus wasn’t necessary.
Scott,
‘It is also interesting to note that the Bible also teaches that God raised Him from the dead:’
No Scott, it’s interesting to note that the Bible ONLY teaches that God raised Jesus from the dead, distinguishes God from Jesus, and further identifies the God who raised Jesus from the dead as one person, the Father:
* Acts 2:24
Whom GOD raised up
* Acts 2:32
This Jesus has been raised up BY GOD
* Acts 3:15
whom GOD has raised from the dead
* Acts 3:26
To you first GOD having raised up HIS SON JESUS
* Acts 4:10
Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom GOD raised from the dead
* Acts 5:30
The GOD OF OUR FATHERS raised up Jesus
* Acts 10:40
Him GOD raised up
* Acts 13:30
But GOD raised him up from the dead
* Acts 13:33
GOD has fulfilled this unto us their children, in that HE has raised up Jesus again
* Acts 13:34
HE [context indicates God] raised him up from the dead
* Acts 13:37
But he, whom GOD raised again
* Romans 4:24
HIM [context indicates God] that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead
* Romans 6:4
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of THE FATHER
* Romans 10:9
GOD has raised him from the dead
* I Corinthians 6:14
GOD has raised up the Lord
* Galatians 1:1
GOD, THE FATHER, who raised him from the dead
* Colossians 2:12
GOD, who has raised him from the dead
Not once did they say Christ raised himself. For the apostles, ‘God’ meant ‘the Father’, not Jesus.
Perry,
‘On the representational line, I agree that non-divine figures can represent or act in a functional role on deity’s behalf, but why think that this is true of Christ? Paul in Col 1:15ff seems to rule this out.’
We think this is true of Christ, because it is taught repeatedly by the apostles. Is Jesus is described as an agent of God? Is he described as sent by God? Is God described as doing things in, by, or through Christ, the language of agency?
The apostles taught explicitly that Christ is the agent by which God saves and judges (in, by, through):
* Acts 10:42, ‘he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead’
* Acts 17:32, ‘he [God] has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, BY A MAN WHOM HE DESIGNATED whom he designated’
* Romans 6:23 ‘the gift of God is eternal life IN Christ Jesus’
* Titus 3:5-6 ‘renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He [God] poured out on us in full measure IN Jesus Christ our Savior’
* Galatians 3:15 ‘IN Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles’
* Hebrews 13:20-21 ‘God… working in us what is pleasing before him THROUGH Jesus Christ’)
* Hebrews 10:10 ‘we have been made holy [‘sanctified’] THROUGH the offering of the body of Jesus’
An agent is subordinate to the one for whom he acts, and by whom he is sent. We find this subordination described clearly by Scripture:
* John 14:28 ‘My Father is greater than I’
* Acts 3:13, ‘his [God's] servant Jesus’
* Acts 3:26, ‘God raised up his servant’
* Acts 4:27, 30 ‘your [God's] holy servant Jesus’
* Acts 4:30 ‘your [God's] holy servant Jesus’
An agent receives power and authority from one who is greater than he:
* Matthew 9:6, ‘When the crowd saw this, [Jesus healing] they were afraid and honored God who had given such authority to men’
* Matthew 28:18, ‘Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME”‘
* John 5:19, ‘the Son can do NOTHING FROM HIMSELF’
* John 5:22, ‘[God] HAS ASSIGNED all judgment to the Son’
* John 5:26, ‘For just as the Father has life in himself, thus HE HAS GRANTED the Son to have life in himself’
* John 5:27, ‘he [God] HAS GRANTED THE SON AUTHORITY to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man’
* John 5:30, ‘I can do nothing OF MYSELF’
* John 17:2, ‘you [God] HAVE GIVEN HIM AUTHORITY over all humanity’
* Acts 10:42, ‘he is the one APPOINTED BY GOD as judge of the living and the dead’
* Acts 17:32, ‘he [God] has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, BY A MAN WHO HE HAS DESIGNATED’
Note that time and time again ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’ are differentiated from each other. Not ‘God the Father’ and ‘God the Son’, not even ‘God the Father’ and ‘Jesus’, but ‘God’ and Jesus’.
According to the repeated teachings of these verses, God is one person, and a person who is not Jesus.
Perry,
‘In #150 you listed a number of views not opposed by Trinitarianism to imply that Trinitarianism came later and they came earlier. Here I think you are mistaken.
Docetism didn’t deny the divinity of Christ, but his humanity and the Ebionites were Adoptionists, which did affirm Jesus’ divinity, they thought it just came later in his life. Both were opposed by Trinitarians like Ignatius of Antioch (107d.)’
You’re missing my point Perry. My point was that if the trinity was known and believed from the 1st century onwards, why wasn’t it invoked to correct all these heresies? You can find men writing against these heresies, but you won’t find men invoking the trinity to do so until very late.
By the way, Ignatius was not a trinitarian, and you would do well to be aware of how his letters were interpolated (and even forged), by later trinitarians attempting to make it look as if he was one. The original letters of Ignatius are of no use to the trinitarian.
‘Ireneaus for example was a Trinitarian who opposed Gnosticism.’
Surely you’re not going to claim Irenaeus was a trinitarian? What evidence do you have? And don’t say it was because he believed Jesus was God or divine. That’s not the trinity.
‘As for Binitarianism, I haven’t the foggiest who you think this was.’
The history of Binitarianism is very well documented. Justin Martyr was an early Binitarian for example. This view wasn’t held by only one individual, and nor does it seem to have originated from one individual.
‘And Sabellianism was opposed by a number of Trinitarians, not the least of which was Tertullian and a few bishops of Rome.’
Perry, you’re confusing trinitarians opposing these heresies with the trinity being invoked to oppose them. I’m talking about the latter. You’re just mentioning the names of those who opposed them and claiming that they were trinitarians. Whether they were or not isn’t the issue under discussion (though no names you’ve mentioned yet were trinitarians), the issue is whether or not the trinity was invoked to correct them.
FYI Sabellianism was not originally Modalism, it was originally Dynamic Monarchianism. The change to Modalism came later.
‘And Alexander of Alexandria was quite Trinitarian and was the first opponent of Arianism as he was Arius’ chief bishop who censured him.’
No surprise, we’re into the 4th century by now.
Look at the creeds. See the gradual development and change of doctrine from the ‘Apostles’ Creed’ to the Nicene, then the radical change from the Nicene to the Athanasian. The changes are undeniable, and standard trinitarian theologians acknowledge them.
The doctrine of the trinity was not taught from the 1st century onwards. It was the product of considerable doctrinal drift from the 2nd century to the 5th.
Perry,
‘As to the death of God, what you are proposing is that death and God are opposites so that God cannot be in any contact with or touched by death.’
No Sean is not saying that. He is simply repeating the plain truth of Scripture, that God is immortal and that which is immortal cannot die. Simple. No fuss, no metaphysics, no Platonism, no Gnosticism, nothing. Just the facts.
And you acknowledge the facts when you say that ONLY THE HUMAN NATURE of Jesus died. So God didn’t die. The most you can bring yourselves to say is that God somehow experienced death in an inexplicable way. Of course the Bible never says that God experienced death in any way at all.
Cameron,
‘If one presses the question “how can the immortal die?”, it must equally be asked, “how can the unborn be born?” The same answer is given for both.’
That’s exactly correct. The answer is ‘It can’t happen’.
Perry,
‘So historically it is false to say that on Trinitarianism, only the human nature dies, since natures don’t DO anything, persons do.’
Well this is the thing Perry, trinitarians want to have it both ways when it comes to the two natures. You want to treat them as natures one moment, and persons another moment (classic Nestorianism, as the Lutherans themselves note).
Apparently Jesus’ human nature could grow weak, learn, grow, be tired, be tempted, and die (this, according to common trinitarian teaching).
Apparently Jesus could even pray ‘from his human nature’ (whatever that means), and his human nature could be ignorant of facts of which his omniscient divine nature was fully cognisant (!).
As a matter of fact, dying is not an action carried out by a nature, it’s what happens to a nature. So yes, as many trinitarians have said, only the human nature of Jesus died according to the standard trinitarian explanation of the atonement.
Of course you would have a lot less problems if you disengaged 5th century trinitarian doctrine from 11th century penal substitution. Just a suggestion.
Wholfgang, where are you ? Why not answer to the passges and what I have presented, it shows the so called biblical unitarain actually ignoring passages, much as the trinitarains do, to vacuum Isolate passages, simply to force and unscriptual one sided doctrine.
John 3:34 God giveth not the spirit by measure unto him(to take anything away is measuring) Christians do not recieve the Spirit hithout measure(Eph. 4:7)
Matth. 28:18 All power in heaven and earth is given unto me.
1st. Cor. 15:45 The last (Man) Adam was made the quickening spirit.
Acts 2:36 This same jesus whom ye have crucified was made both Lord and christ.
You keep submitting a passage from John 17:3 that focuses in on one area, a great truth that iIuse myself on the trinitarains. you are being dishonest your whole doctrine is based on vacuum isolation dishonesty and How a Oneness person could fall for it there surely be as much defect with that person as there is with your faulty doctrine .
Manuel…………..
you used Matthew 28.18 and Acts 2.36
First of all, for Jesus to say that all power has been “given” to me, is clearly him saying that he is not equal to God. My God, never had to have power given to him, he always had it.
Jesus “who was crucified was made both lord and Christ” also does not support trinitarian theology. “lord” does not mean the LORD from the old testament, its simply putting Jesus above us; he is our lord and master, Sarah called Abraham “lord” but surely she didn’t think he was God. And clearly the meaning of “christ” is not understood if one thinks that, that has something with him being a God. The unique role of the Christ was come into Jerusalem and take over and reign on behalf of God. “And he will rule in the strength of the LORD his God.” Micah 5.4 is part of a messianic prophecy and clearly this messiah would rule in the strength of HIS GOD. He has a God to, just like you and me!
“You keep submitting a passage from John 17:3 that focuses in on one area, a great truth that iIuse myself on the trinitarains. you are being dishonest your whole doctrine is based on vacuum isolation dishonesty and How a Oneness person could fall for it there surely be as much defect with that person as there is with your faulty doctrine”
I also disagree with you there. John 17.3 is a superb verse that captures in essence the theology of Jesus. (In case you didn’t catch it – ‘This is eternal life, that they may you (talking to the father see verse 1), the only true God AND Jesus Christ whom you have sent’). I know the only way to combat that is to throw around insults and such. And lets face it, that totally hypocritical for you to say that, we have passages in a plethora of places that say “one God” how many Original verses do you have that say talk about God being three in one? Before you start calling it a faulty doctrine, let’s return to the truth of scripture.
Jesus agreed with the Jewish scribes (also, in case you didn’t know they were monotheists) In mark 12 the scribe says, “Teacher, what is the foremost commandment of all?” Jesus replies “The foremost is Hear O Israel, the LORD is our God, the LORD is One.”
There are many verses that make a distinction between God and Jesus;
1 timothy 2.5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, The MAN Christ Jesus.”
Manuel, I apologize
I now just realized that you weren’t arguing the trinitarian view point. Are you arguing the Binity? Modal ism? If so, the same principal applies.
Manuel,
Please keep your communication focused on the argument at hand. Accusing Wolfgang, a life long Christian servant, of being dishonest because he interprets Scripture different than you is inappropriate. Please tone down your caustic remarks. I’m all for arguing forcefully but there is a line and once it’s crossed we cease to be a witness to Christ and instead defame him by our rudeness.
Mark,
Asserting that the entire context of Mark 5 tells you that isos doesn’t imply ontological identity isn’t an argument showing that it is so. You have yet to give a reason for why it doesn’t. As I noted simply noting how a word is used in other contexts doesn’t tell us how it is used in this context. That is fallacious.
I agree that the passage indicates Jesus calling God his Father, but that could be seen as claiming to be God. There isn’t anything in the language that rules that out per se, at least not that I can see. So you need to argue, rather than assume that the surface grammar means what you claim that it does. I gave an argument from the text as to why it means what I think it does. The relation between the Son and the Father seems there to be direct, rather than instrumental, which is why the Son has “life in himself” just as the Father does. How does the Father have life “in himself?” As God. Moreover, the dispute turns on Jesus’ relation to the Law. Could any of the prophets alter or loose the Law’s requirement? Or is that the prerogative of the Lawgiver alone?
To reiterate my point that context defines meaning is just to capitulate that your citations of other usages is fallacious or at best irrelevant.
If it is translated as, doesn’t the translation aim to capture its semantic content? So if it is translated as “equal” why else translate it that way unless one thought it meant equal? Moreover, your argument was that it doesn’t necessarily mean ontological identity, but not that it did not based on other usages mean that. You need to show that it doesn’t mean that and examples from other contexts are inadequate to do so. Again, there is no argument here showing that it can’t mean and doesn’t in fact mean ontological identity.
I agree that Jesus is talking about what he said as God as Father and He is the Son, but that leaves untouched the nature of the Father/Son relationship. Is it an extrinsic or an intrinsic one? Jn 5 seems to imply the latter and not the kind of accidental relationship in say Matt 20:12. I am not making it more complicated, but rather asking you to support your claim that the relationship is an extrinsic one like the one in Matt 20.
How can Jesus reveal God if he is not God? How then is Jesus superior to the angels and the prophets, (Heb 1)? Jesus as a creature would only know God’s behavior, which may not guarantee knowledge of God. Knowing the behavior of an actor doesn’t imply knowing the actor. At best on your view Jesus sees through dark glass like the rest of us since given the Psalms, God is enshrined in darkness.
As to being prior to creation, the Son seems very clearly to say that he pre-existed with the Father prior to the incarnation. John 17:5 “And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.”
How can the Son have glory with the Father prior to the creation of the world if he didn’t exist? To say that the Son is a temporal agent would be to say that the Son is a created being and isn’t that what you are claiming? If Jesus is the center of God’s plan that doesn’t imply that he HAD, possessed the divine glory since he didn’t exist. Non-existing things have nothing for the very simple reason that they don’t exist. Moreover, since God shares his glory with Jesus, how does that fit in your view with Is 48:11? Furthermore, I don’t see why yourview wouldn’t imply that anything else that was part of God’s plan would “have” glory prior to creation as well, which seems a little absurd on its face. God’s predestinating activity in Eph 1:4 doesn’t say we had glory with God prior to our existence, but only says that God has plans with respect to potential, yet unactual agents. Jn 17 though says Jesus was not part of the plan of God, but that he actually had the glory, so this is a false analogy.
The text doesn’t say that a unity of activity implies a unity of existence. My claim was that this was a common belief between Jews and non-Jews at the time and that this helps to understand why there is a problem for Jesus’ hearers. One activity, one power, one existence is a very common implication in the ancient world, even in the Bible at places. Again, how can a human have authority over the Law?
Simply asserting that he didn’t claim ontological identity isn’t anywhere in the book isn’t a demonstration that it is so. When you write “He said “My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working” (that’s two!)” I don’t disagree that it is two agents or persons, but the question is, does it denote two different powers (human and divine) or one divine power? How does Jesus have this power, this life, “in himself” as the Father has it “in himself” if the Father has it by virtue of being God? That seems to directly imply that the Son is deity. Can any prophet have life in himself? If God can’t die, can any human have intrinsic divine properties since by definition, humans can’t have life in themselves by virtue of being contingent and created agents. If Jesus can’t be God because by definition, God can’t die as Sean argues, then Jesus can’t have life in himself since that by definition is a property of God.
If his hearers knew what the words Father and Son meant especially in regard to the promised Messiah, why did they not seem to understand Messiah and make so many mistakes? It was exactly their claim to “see” and understand that rendered them blameworthy. “Seeing” they were blind.
“Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.” Jn 9:41
“God the Son” is a technical term that carries with it a formal definition. The Bible gives no formal definitions and doesn’t use technical theological terminology so noting that the term isn’t present is irrelevant since the Bible doesn’t give a formal definition of what constitutes “Son of God” either. The Jews had different ideas as to what “Son of God” meant, so appealing to what they “knew” or what was described is fallacious since they took those descriptions to mean lots of different things.
If Jesus was not a created human like them, in what way is this not so? Could he have sinned? Did he exist prior to the virgin’s womb? Sean doesn’t think so, but perhaps you do? If Jesus is created, then the relation between God and Jesus is indirect, mediate and instrumental since there is a relation of will between them and God uses Jesus to achieve purposes.
And the blasphemy charge is hardly quibbling. For what could someone be accused of blasphemy? For what could you execute someone for regarding blasphemy under the Law? Did that include making a false, even if sincere claim to be Messiah? I don’t think so. While John 5 doesn’t use the term, John 10 does and it isn’t for mere Messianic authorship. Did the Jews understand what he meant there too?
If the Father’s giving life to the Son is contingent property, then it is also a contingent property in the Father, which means that the Father might fail to exist. The text does not say, as you write, “The Father gave life to the Son”, but rather that the Father gave to the Son to have life in himself, just as the Father does. What does it mean to have life “in himself” with respect to the Father? Because whatever it means, it means the same thing with respect to Jesus. Does having life in himself mean that Jesus was simply made to live? If so, then the Father was also made to live, which is absurd.
As for conjoining performances, the point was that Jn 5 doesn’t seem to indicate just two agents working side by side, but that there is one power and not two powers.
I agree that the Father is the source of the Son and that the Son does nothing apart from the Father, but that doesn’t imply two powers of life, which is why Jesus has life in himself, just as the Father does, implying one power of life and not two. What you find easier to understand isn’t necessarily a hallmark of truth. People find Newtonian physics easier to understand, but it is falsified by Quantum Mechanics. Does the sophistication and the inability of most to understand it of the latter imply it is false? No. Perhaps rather than convoluted terminology, you are simply confused by clear thinking and conceptual precision-as a teacher of logic, most people are.
Sean’s paper on worship is irrelevant unless you can cite something specific that explains how we can honor the Father by worship but also not honor the Son by worship when the Son says to honor him just as we honor the Father.
It is true that kurios is not exclusively used as a substitute for Yaweh, but that is irrelevant. The question is when is it so used and if it is so used. If it is used of Jesus, then the NT identifies Jesus as Yaweh, which it does in Philipp 2 as well as 1 Cor 8. Following the Shema, there is only ONE Lord, otherwhise you violate the Shema saying that the Father is one Lord and Jesus is another Lord, so who is Lord?
Actually I already demonstrated how your view depends on Greek philosophy. I am quite familiar with it as I teach it every semester. Furthermore, as James Barr pointed out a century ago, there is no monolithic idea of Hebrew thinking. Added to this is the fact that the Hebrews became Hellenized long before Jesus was conceived, which is why they put the OT into Greek, believing that this was done by divine inspiration, making it equal to the Hebrew text. Furthermore, the Hebrews had no distinct concept of personhood or being so to say that they didn’t make a distinction doesn’t imply that they took them to be identical. That doesn’t logically follow.
I think you mean you’d rather stick with what you judge Jesus and Paul meant rather than someone like Igantius who was directly aquainted with them. Again, which is more probable, that you or he is correct in their understanding of what Jesus and Paul meant? Why is Trinitarianism so early and closely tied to the Apostles in the case of Ignatius?
Since the debate was by Unitarians, Unitarianism historically popped out of the 17th century and so did the vast majority of Sean’s arguments. If Jesus and Paul and so forth were Unitarians, where do they say they “Unitarians?” They don’t. Why do demand of me that I used only biblical terms but you don’t? That’s the fallacy of special pleading. (double standard)
Fortigurn,
You said:
“Not once did they say Christ raised himself. For the apostles, ‘God’ meant ‘the Father’, not Jesus.”
So were the Apostles making Christ a false prophet in light of John 2:19-21 which states:
“Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days? But he spake of the temple of his body.”
You also said:
“Neither passage you gave says that the Holy Spirit raised Christ, nor does either passage personalize the Holy Spirit.
Romans 8:11 speaks of the Spirit OF Him who raised Jesus from the dead, identifying the Spirit as POSSESSED by the one who raised Jesus from the dead.
1 Peter 3:18 says Christ was made alive by the Spirit. Well, we agree! Christ was made alive by the Spirit, the Spirit OF GOD, not ‘The Spirit WHO IS GOD’.”
I am confused by your statements above. You state that neither passage says that the Holy Spirit raised Christ yet then you agree that 1 Peter 3:18 says that Christ was made alive by the Spirit. Is it your contention that the Spirit that made Christ alive in 1 Peter 3:18 is not the Holy Spirit? If it is not the Holy Spirit making Christ alive (after having been put to death IN THE FLESH) then which Spirit is it?
Finally, your point about the Holy Spirit not being personalized in those texts I would point out that though it may not say in those lines of text (where this is not the topic being addressed) it does clearly say so just a few lines later. Thankfully Paul did not leave us with just Romans 8:11 but was also kind enough to leave us the following text that do indicate the personhood of the Holy Spirit:
Romans 8:16 “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” Only persons bear witness- I have never heard of a force being called to testify at trial.
Romans 8:26-27 “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For(AU) we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but(AV) the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27And(AW) he who searches hearts knows what is(AX) the mind of the Spirit, because[f] the Spirit(AY) intercedes for the saints(AZ) according to the will of God.” According to Paul the Spirit intercedes, has a mind and “groans”. These are clearly personal attributes not those of a force.
Scott,
‘So were the Apostles making Christ a false prophet in light of John 2:19-21 which states:’
No they weren’t. They just understood he was speaking in parables. It’s very simple.
So we have a statement of Christ. You say it means Christ raised himself. I say it’s a parable, and that God raised Christ. Whatever they thought this verse meant, the apostles ONLY taught that God raised Christ, and they did so repeatedly.
Here’s where the rubber meets the road. The trinitarian interpretation of passages such as Christ’s words regarding the temple of his body are flatly contradicted by explicit apostolic teaching. And did you note that the apostles said that GOD raised Christ, and repeatedly distinguished Jesus FROM God?
‘I am confused by your statements above. You state that neither passage says that the Holy Spirit raised Christ yet then you agree that 1 Peter 3:18 says that Christ was made alive by the Spirit. Is it your contention that the Spirit that made Christ alive in 1 Peter 3:18 is not the Holy Spirit?’
It was God who raised Christ, BY HIS SPIRIT, just as it was God who inspired the prophets BY HIS SPIRIT. That’s why Christ can be said to have been made alive BY THE SPIRIT.
‘Romans 8:16 “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” Only persons bear witness- I have never heard of a force being called to testify at trial.’
This verse does not say anything about the Spirit being called to testify at trial. It does not require the Spirit to be a person. The heavens bear witness to the glory of God, but they aren’t people.
In Hebrews 2:4 we find that ‘God confirmed their witness WITH SIGNS AND WONDERS AND VARIOUS MIRACLES AND GIFTS OF THE HOLY SPIRIT distributed according to his will’. But God wasn’t put on trial, was He? He didn’t even speak in this case. The witness is the ACTIONS which God performed through the Spirit. That’s the same sense as is used here.
And I will point out yet again that no trinitarian here has ever been able to demonstrate that their doctrine was taught by the apostles.
That’s why you’re reduced to putting it together yourselves through syllogistic reasoning, and that’s why when confronted by a list of explicit statements made by the apostles which say X, you actually attempt to break Scripture with Scripture by saying that since Jesus appears to have said Y, then to agree with what the apostles say would make a liar out of Jesus.
Scripture is simply never in harmony once the trinity is introduced.
Perry,
‘Asserting that the entire context of Mark 5 tells you that isos doesn’t imply ontological identity isn’t an argument showing that it is so. You have yet to give a reason for why it doesn’t.’
It’s a host of other passages which are the reason why it doesn’t, such as all the instances in which the apostles CLEARLY DISTINGUISH JESUS FROM GOD. I posted a number of them.
‘he relation between the Son and the Father seems there to be direct, rather than instrumental, which is why the Son has “life in himself” just as the Father does. How does the Father have life “in himself?” As God. Moreover, the dispute turns on Jesus’ relation to the Law. Could any of the prophets alter or loose the Law’s requirement? Or is that the prerogative of the Lawgiver alone?’
All answered by my post on agency. Anyone could alter or loose the Law’s requirements IF AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE LAWGIVER. Did you note that Nathan was authorized to forgive David, instead of stoning him for his murder and adultery? I provided a long list of passages in which Christ is specifically identified as the agent of God.
‘How can Jesus reveal God if he is not God? How then is Jesus superior to the angels and the prophets, (Heb 1)?’
Because God revealed Himself to Christ.
‘How does Jesus have this power, this life, “in himself” as the Father has it “in himself” if the Father has it by virtue of being God? That seems to directly imply that the Son is deity.’
Perry, please just read the verse. The verse tells you that Jesus has this life in himself because God HAS GRANTED IT TO HIM. That specifically rules out the identification of Jesus as deity. God has life in himself by virtue of being God, but Christ has life in himself by virtue of BEING GRANTED IT BY GOD. The verse states this explicitly.
These long lists of rhetorical questions just don’t ever seem to address what the verses actually say. It’s just a long list of fallacious arguments from incredulity and false dichotomy.
‘The text does not say, as you write, “The Father gave life to the Son”, but rather that the Father gave to the Son to have life in himself, just as the Father does.’
Er Perry, you just said it doesn’t mean X, then quoted the passage where it explicitly says X.
‘How can the Son have glory with the Father prior to the creation of the world if he didn’t exist?’
That depends entirely on what you believe that glory is. Remember that Jesus was glorified with this glory at his crucifixion. I’ll leave you to define it.
Once again I note that you’re simply relying on your interpretation of a range of disparate passages, rather than providing the apostles’ own teaching of the trinity. When they preached the trinity, to which passages did they turn? Did they make the same arguments as you when they allegedly taught people that Jesus is God? Can you find any instances at all in which the baptized anyone with the knowledge that Jesus is God?
‘If the Father’s giving life to the Son is contingent property, then it is also a contingent property in the Father’
No it doesn’t. It’s contingent in the case of the son because it was given to him. He didn’t have it before. No one gave it to God, so it’s not contingent.
‘For what could someone be accused of blasphemy? For what could you execute someone for regarding blasphemy under the Law? Did that include making a false, even if sincere claim to be Messiah?’
Even trinitarian theologians acknowledge that the Jews had at this time extended the crime of blasphemy so that it covered more than the Law originally intended.
‘Sean’s paper on worship is irrelevant unless you can cite something specific that explains how we can honor the Father by worship but also not honor the Son by worship when the Son says to honor him just as we honor the Father.’
Hey, I honor the son, just as I honor the Father. I honor the son, just as I honor the government. What’s the issue?
‘Why is Trinitarianism so early and closely tied to the Apostles in the case of Ignatius?’
It wasn’t. As I have noted previously, there’s no evidence that Ignatius was a trinitarian. In fact this is made even more obvious by the fact that later trinitarians took his letters and deliberately corrupted them, inserting trinitarian sounding material. They also forged some letters in his name.
When people have to make things up like this, and resort to forgery, it’s clear they know full well that the available evidence doesn’t support them. That’s why trinitarians inserted 1 John 5:7, and played around with some of the other texts. When you don’t have any evidence for your case, you just make it up.
Fortigurn,
First of all, there are places where Christ speaks in parables and they are clearly different than John 2:19-20. What in the passage indicates that Jesus is telling a parable that should be understood that the “I” (Jesus) should be replaced with “He” (God)? Especially when the author takes time to explain that the temple is not the literal Temple of God but it the body of Christ? How does “I” become “He’ simply because it is a parable?
So I am still confused was Christ raised by the Holy Spirit or not? Sorry if I am slow on the uptake but I am confused by the words you used above.
Certainly the idea of God raising Jesus from the dead by the Father granting authority to the Son and doing it by the power of the Holy Spirit is a Trinitarian idea that is in complete harmony with scripture (John 2:19-21, Romans 8:11, 1 Peter 3:18, John 10:17-18 and Romans 10:9).
Finally, you said:
“‘Romans 8:16 “The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God.” Only persons bear witness- I have never heard of a force being called to testify at trial.’
This verse does not say anything about the Spirit being called to testify at trial. It does not require the Spirit to be a person. The heavens bear witness to the glory of God, but they aren’t people.”
Good point about the heavens. Since I haven’t looked into the greek or hebrew behind these passages I will have to assume that yu are correct in pointing out that impersonal things can be said to bear witness in the same way that the Spirit does. Thank you for pointing this out.
However, I wonder why you failed to interact with the following:
Romans 8:26-27 “Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For(AU) we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but(AV) the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27And(AW) he who searches hearts knows what is(AX) the mind of the Spirit, because[f] the Spirit(AY) intercedes for the saints(AZ) according to the will of God.” According to Paul the Spirit intercedes, has a mind and “groans”. These are clearly personal attributes not those of a force. Add on to this that the Holy Spirit can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30) and I further fail to see how your point can be maintained.
Fortigurn,
As for representation, there are many concept of representation, so just using that word doesn’t do the work you want it to. Second, it isn’t clear to me that Col 1:15ff has the notion of an extrinsic representation that you have in mind. The relation seems much closer. This grounds well Jesus’ superiority to any of the prophets or angels. You can honor an angel, but you can’t worship one. (Heb 1:6) So the languages of agency of itself doesn’t imply an extrinsic kind of representation.
So I grant that Jesus is the primary agent at work in salvation, sent by the Father, but that doesn’t imply that Jesus is created. And spoof-texting a bunch of texts in scattershot fashion isn’t an argument that it does. The question is, is the representation extrinsically and intrsumentally related to God or intrinsically related to God? Is Jesus’ life in himself per Jn 5 a different life than the Father or the same power of life? So that citing for example Romans 6 about life IN Christ doesn’t prove that Jesus is related to God as a workman is to a hammer, extrinsically and a mere instrumental cause. Furthermore, how can Jesus make us partakers of the DIVINE nature if Jesus doesn’t have the divine nature himself? (2 Pet 1:4) You can’t give what you don’t have.
An agent isn’t necessarily subordinate to the one for whom he acts. It only follows that he is subject to him. The former is a product of Platonism, where objects are subordinated via opposing properties. Further, I agree that Jesus is always subject to the Father qua person and Trinitarianism has always affirmed this is so. So the passages you spoof-text aren’t inconsistent with my view. This is why the Father and Son both have life in themselves, which is only true of God, and hence the Son is deity.
It may be true that a representative receives power and authority from one who is greater, but greater does not imply better, and therefore it doesn’t imply any essential inequality between Father and Son. Furthermore, the reception of power/authority doesn’t imply essential inequality for if it did, women would be unequal essentially to men, and ministers of a preceding generation who passed it on to others via the laying on of hands would be essentially different than the later ministers, which is absurd. And the reception doesn’t imply that the receiving is temporal and contingent.
I agree that Jesus is a man, so Matt 9:6 leaves my view untouched. I don’t think Jesus is ONLY a man. I agree that the Father is the source of the Son’s life and authority, which is why he called Father. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian I fully affirm the Patriarchy of the Father and that the Father alone is autotheos. So I agree again that the God, the Father gives authority to the Son. So I agree that the Son can do nothing from HIMSELF. But self denotes person and not nature. If the Father is the eternal source OF the Son (Eph 1:17) then the Son does nothing from himself and that is just traditional Nicene and pre-Nicene teaching. Jn 5:22 isn’t a problem either since it is true that assigned relationships can exist between the members of the Trinity in the economy or outworking of salvation. You are assuming that the relationships in the economy are isomorphic with those of eternity, which is obviously false since the Son sends the Spirit in the economy of salvation but the Spirit is only proceding from the Father in eternity. (Jn 15:26)
Much the same could be said of all of the other passages you cite. There are reams of arguments dealing with these texts in the church Fathers so just throwing them out does no argumentative work. You need to answer the arguments on the books already. The fact that you keep assuming that personal or hypostatic subjection implies inequality of essence or that person and nature are identical shows I think that you have not grasped the issues or Trinitarianism. In any case, if hypostatic or personal subjection implied inequality of essence, then women would be inferior to men by essence.
I do note that the God and Jesus are differentiated and Trinitarians affirm that they are so. What is at issue is the nature of that differentiation. Further, they are so differentiated so as to protect the patriarchy of the Father as the source of the other two persons which is why Scripture most often refers to the Father as “the” God whereas the Son is denoted as deity via theos rather than ho theos.
None of those passages denote that deity qua deity is one person. It only identifies a primary of one person who is God rather than implying that God is only one person. In fact ,Scripture never speaks of “persons” explicitly anyhow, so I don’t know how you can say that it denotes God as one person. Where does Scripture either speak of “persons” or delineate as what constitutes personhood for you to know what you claim to be true? It doesn’t.
I think you are missing my answer to your point. The Trinity wouldn’t have been invoked to answer heresies like Doketism which did not directly attack the Trinity but the humanity of Christ. Secondly, Trinitarians did answer Doketism for example as I noted above.
Assuming that everything we know from Ignatius is falsified it wouldn’t logically follow from this supposed fact that he was not a Trinitarian, only that we can’t know on that basis that he was so or not. So your claim is too strong and is a fallacy of ignorance.
Further, while some of his writings contain interpolations, so does Scripture. Second, since Pearson’s answer to the Presbyterians, the authenticity of the Ignatian corpus has not been in serious doubt. And the shorter texts are sufficiently Trinitarian as is witnessed by the fact that plenty of non-Trinitarians object to their content as being false.
Yes I am going to claim that Ireneaus was Trinitarian and I’d claim his writings as evidence as I have read them cover to cover. Ireneaus not only thinks that Jesus is deity, he thinks there is only one deity, that the relation between the members is intrinsic and not merely functional and extrinsic and that the relationship is eternal. That’s quite Trinitarian. Further, while thinking Jesus is deity is not a sufficient condition for Trinitarianism, it is a necessary condition and it is sufficient to falsify traditional Unitarian claims.
Justin wasn’t a Binitarian any more than Origen was. I know some scholars think so because of his subordinationalist outlook but the views of scholars are only as good as the arguments they give. If their arguments are bad then their judgments are bad too. I take the arguments that Justin was a Binitarian to be bad aguments since they ignore the core of Justin’s synthetic project, that of cashing out Christian Triadological views in terms of platonic metaphysics. Justin’s problem is that he can’t consistently distinguish person and nature using Platonism for Platonism doesn’t distinguish them. And this is why, he like Origen often talks out of both sides of his mouth since the Platonic terminology won’t permit him to consistently maintain both. And this is why the same Platonism lead to Arianism via Origen to Lucian to Arius. Inconsistency on Justin’s part doesn’t imply Binitarianism, but just that Justin’s project of cashing out Christian Triadology in terms of Platonism was a failure. But that’s a problem for Platonism, not Christian Triadology.
Trinitarianism was invoked when relevant as was the case with Tertullian for example. Furthermore, one can believe in and witness to a belief without invoking it and plenty of authors do at least the latter. It seems awefully strange to claim that Tertullian isn’t a Trinitarian, the man who first invokes the terminology of trinitas.
FYI, actually Sabellianism was originally modalism. You are confusing Sabellianism with Monarchianism, which had two historical forms, Dynamic and Modalistic-Sabellius was of the latter whereas Theodore of Mopsuestia was of the former. Dynamic Monarchianism posited an Adoptionistic Christology where Jesus was divinely empowered whereas Sabellius conceived of God following Stoicism as one power with multiple temporary manifestations-Father, Son and Spirit. Consequnetly your taxonoimic relation gets the genus species relation wrong. Sabellianism was a species of the genus of Monarchianism.
It maybe no surprise that with Alexander we are into the fourth century since your claim extended to the fourth century with Arianism. To that extent your claim is false. Further, who invokes Unitarianism to answer those heresies? No one that I know of. So even if some of my examples are controversial, some support is far better than absolutely nothing.
I don’t think the creeds imply development of doctrine. Lots of people throw that term around without knowing what it means, academics included. It does not mean that vocabulary became more technical or that expressions became clearer over time. It is a distinct thesis where via dialectic, hidden semantic content that was either unknown or not explicitly expressed is garnered to a fuller expression. I don’t believe that which is why I am not Protestant or Catholic, since Protestants and Catholics both endorse such a notion-Protestants to justify doctrines like Sola Fide and Catholics for the Papacy and the Filioque. In fact, Unitarians historically have invoked doctrinal development for their claims as well. So if development of doctrine implies error, then Unitarianism is just as erroneous as the views it attacks.
Furthermore, your argument is specious on its face for the following reason. If we go with the majority of scholars on Gospel composition we could make the same claim about the Gospels, that the later Gospels “develop” and mythologize more, which implies that their content is not genuine. The same argument used to be employed in textual criticism where more complicated readings were thought to be later developments and simpler readings were thought to be primitive, but textual discoveries proved this to be false. So, more sophisticated later expressions do not imply that they are on that basis not representative of the earlier semantic content.
I don’t hold to the Athanasian Creed as it was not composed by Athanasius or anyone holding to Athanasius’ Trinitarianism. It is a later Frankish Creed and no Eastern Christian accepts it or ever has to my knowledge.
I agree that theologians recognize textual expansion, but that is hardly a sufficient basis to argue that there is semantic expansion as well or change of belief. Furthermore, what experts claim is only as good as their arguments and the arguments for development of doctrine are bad ones. Further, no Eastern Christian “standard” Trinitarian acknowledges this. So I see your fallacious appeal to authority and raise you one.
If Trinitarianism was the product of considerable doctrinal drift, why not also think that Unitarianism wasn’t also the product of considerable doctrinal drift? Assuming that the NT authors were Unitarian won’t help either since it is exactly the Jewish claim that they were subject to “considerable doctrinal drift.” Moreover, if Trinitarianism was the product of “considerable doctrinal drift” what does this say about the canon and textual preservation by Trinitarians. If they aren’t reliable witnesses about God, why think that they are so with respect to the canon of Scripture and its textual preservation? The Bible we have today is largely the product of those nasty fourth-fifth century Trinitarian Church fathers.
The doctrine of the trinity was not taught from the 1st century onwards. It was the product of considerable doctrinal drift from the 2nd century to the 5th.
As to the death of God, yes that is what Sean is saying, which is why he argues Platonically by the very definition of immortality. Opposite properties cannot be true of the same thing and so immortality is opposite to mortal. God is immortal and therefore God can’t be mortal. That in sum has been his argument. The problem is that it confuses persons with essences. Sure, perhaps opposite properties (mortality and immortality) can’t be true of the same object, but persons aren’t “things.” If Sean were giving “just the facts” he would not have attempted to give a syllogism above. Arguments use facts, but they are not the same so no, Sean isn’t just “giving the facts” rather he is making an argument.Furthermore, his “facts” are hardly undisputed as I pointed out that his understanding of them depends on certain philosophical commitments.
I do not acknowledge what you claim as facts. I affirm that a divine person (God) experienced death and so died. As I stated before, natures don’t DO anything so natures can’t “die.” Persons die. Even if I said that God dies in an inexplicable way, why is that any more problematic than saying that God creates, as Sean does, in an inexepliable way? It won’t do to claim that one is controversial and the other isn’t since people also, both historically and now claim that God did not create ex nihilo. Further, take for example Acts 20:28. When did God have blood to shed for the church? Notice the text says “his own blood.” When did God have blood? And if he did and shed it, this implies that God died.
Trinitarians wish to explain what they see as all the data and this doesn’t imply that they are inconsistent in trying to have it “both ways.” I don’t wish to treat one thing as a nature at one point and then a person at another point, but rather consistently distinguish this is hypostatic and this is essential. So no, I am not Nestorianizing, far from it in fact, even further than the Lutherans since as Orthodox, the Lutherans in fact share the same problematic assumptions with the Nestorians, which is why the Nestorians and Eutychians were opposite since they both identified person with nature so either one person implied one nature or two natures implied two persons. I reject the platonic assumptions that both assume to be true.
Actually Jesus grew weak in and via his humanity. Jesus didn’t pray from his human nature as if his humanity were a hypostasis. Rather Jesus prays with the human capacity or power of prayer, which makes this activity performed by a divine person genuinely human. Furthermore, it recapitulates humanity so as to set it aright from the inside out. I don’t think the human nature was ignorant since natures don’t do anything. Persons use their natures to perform acts, which is the difference between fire and me. Fire necessarily manifests its powers whereas I do not. I have the power to sleep or debate or whatever, but I can choose not to. Jesus’s weakeness via his humanity is a divinely empowered weakeness, which is why Paul says that the weakness of God is stronger than the strength of men, since Jesus overcame what other men could not, even with divine aid because their personal use of divine power was imperfect and unhabituated.
Furthermore, if Jesus is both human and divine and intellect is a power of the nature used by the person, then Jesus has two intellects, one which is limited and the other which is not and the one divine person can speak using either or both of them and this is how it is possible for one and the same person to be both ignorant and omniscient.
Dying can be an act, especially in the case of Jesus since he lays down his life and no one takes it from him, which incidentally wouldn’t be true if he were a mere prophet or man.
And I don’t subscribe to the penal modal as I am Orthodox. I hold to the Christus Victor model, which I outlined above. So you could just engage some reading comprehension skills and note what I say about my own views. Just a suggestion.
Fortigurn,
Appealing to lots of other passages isn’t an argument nor sufficient to show that in John 5 isos doesn’t or can’t mean ontological identity so other passages are irrelevant. This is a common exegetical fallacy.
Second, distinguishing God from Jesus doesn’t imply that isos doesn’t mean ontological identity since the NT denotes “the God” as the Father, while using theos of the Son. Distinction doesn’t imply inequality of essence as I demonstrated in my last post in which I addressed your seeming misunderstanding of what Trinitarianism implies regarding the derivative hypostasis of the Son.
Furthermore, your argument is fallacious since even if true, this would be an extra textual, extra exegetical and philosophical principle brought to the text. What I asked for was an exegetical reason for thinking that isos didn’t/can’t mean ontological identity. So far, I haven’t gotten one from you or Mark.
Where does Scripture say that prophets or anyone else can or has been authorized by God to alter or loose the Law’s prohibitions?
Second, Nathan didn’t forgive David. 2 Sam 12:13 indicates that Nathan announces God’s forgiveness, but Nathan doesn’t forgive David on God’s behalf. Further, the analogy is a bad one since I have given a case where a prohibition has been loosed and the case you gave was one where the sentence while possible was not necessary. In OT Law, judges had the prerogative to impose the full extent of what the law allowed or a lesser punishment since the choice of penalty was decided by the victim. There is no case of a just judge that I know of in the OT who relieves someone of a direct prohibition concerning one of the ten commandments and claims divine authorization to do so. Can you give me an example of where adultery, idolotry, dishonoring parents, etc. are authorized?
Further, it seems odd that the Jewish leadership didn’t know this when they exclaim, “And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?” Luke 5:21. If they knew divinely appointed representatives could do this (if you supposedly know it from reading the bible in translation,they most probably would too) then it seems awedully stupid for the Gospel writers to write this or for the JEwish leadership to be so confounded and disquieted.
Actually your post on agency depended on a number of fallacies and controversial philosophical assumptions, which I pointed out. See above.
If God is infinite and Jesus is finite, then a full revelation is impossible. All Jesus would know was how God acted up till then, in which case he wouldn’t be in any superior position qua knowledge than prophets or angels. But he is, so therefore he isn’t a creature and has a full revelation. If P, then Q, ~Q, therefore ~P. QED.
I have “just read the verse.” The granting of having life in himself does not rule out Christ as deity, it only implies that his hypostatic existence is derivative. You conflate intrinsic properties with underived properties, but this is logically specious. I have the intrinsic property of being human, but it is derived from my parents. So intrinsic properties can be derived-they are compossible and not impossible as you imply. So I’ll just “read the verse” again if you just stop arguing using textbook fallacies.
My questions were designed to motivate thinking, clarify and make points to try and show what I think the verses MEAN. If you think I have committed any fallacies, then name then and demonstrate the fallacy. So far all I see on my screen is a bald claim and fist pounding. I on the other hand have named and demonstrated the fallacies you commit.
I didn’t just contradict myself as you claim when you wrote “Er Perry, you just said it doesn’t mean X, then quoted the passage where it explicitly says X.” Why not? Because the idea of granting life and granting to have life *in oneself* are not the same ideas. My parents grant life to me but they do not grant me to have life OF MYSELF. Mark conflated the two ideas and hence mangled the text, and your accusation depends on confusing with what is not actually written there. So I didn’t just deny what the text explicitlysays because the text explicitly says something different than what Mark claimed.
Oh how about a few biblical examples of Glory such as Moses face or Christ on Mt Tabor? You mean THAT eternal glory that Jesus had with the Father? So I repeat, how did Jesus have that if he didn’t exist? And yes Jesus is glorified with that glory on the cross since it is by divine power that he dies, otherwise it would be an ordinary death and not one that permitted him to go down into death and defeat it. Just because you don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
It doesn’t matter if I use the same arguments as the apostles to prove the Trinity (at points I do) since the same truth can be logically defended by multiple and different arguments. All roads lead to Rome as it were. The road may be different but as long as the the destination is the same,there isn’t a problem. By the same token I don’t see the Apostles or any of their disciples teaching Unitarianism nor using any of the traditional arguments Unitarians used since their rise in the 17th century.
Having life in himself would be contingent for the Father whether it was given to him or not since Jesus denotes that he has it “just as” the Father does. A property can be contingent without being derived so your claim doesn’t logically follow. Again more conceptual confusion.
Perhaps it is so that blasphemy was extended but it wouldn’t follow from that that merely claiming to be Messiah fell under that extension, which is what you have to prove. So you haven’t met your own burden of proof.
Do you honor the Father by NOT worshipping him?
Asserting that Ignatius wasn’t a Trinitarian isn’t proof that he wasn’t one. And the fact that there were later forgeries doesn’t imply that the agreed upon texts are forged or aren’t Trinitarian. Further, Christians also produced forged documents of the NT too, does that imply that the NT is false? IN fact, no Gospel text has a named attached to till 200 A.D. and those names are ascribed by tradition via Papias, Ireneaus, et al. All Gospel texts prior to that prior are anonymous.
Actually 1 Jn 5:7 does exist in a few Greek manuscripts going back before the 16th century. I believe the oldest is 9th century. In any case, Church Fathers cite it by about 200-250 Ad, which means it was in the manuscript tradition long before the Arian controversy and long before the canon was decided in the later part of the fourth century.
I have been reading the first 100 comments, and it is not difficult to see where Trinitarianism is shy of giving an answer. Was Abraham a Trinitarian? Perhaps the Trinitarian camp answers plainly beyond where I have read, but on the evidence given in the early posts, Abraham could not possibly have been a Trinitarian since as Trins admit, that Three in One God is not revealed as such in the OT. That really concedes the whole case!
May I therefore ask the Trinitarians to tell us whether the new revelation about the threefold metaphsical God had been given at the time when Jesus and the Scribe agreed about how many God is? (Mark 12:29)
Or did the historical Jesus not declare the Triune God? Is there a clear answer to this? If one is going to plead deveopment and progress (which is certainly valid for some teachings) where precissely in the NT is that progres in terms of the Godhead?
Are all those scholars wrong when they say that Judaism was never Trinitarian? Our Trin. friends appear to agree with scholarship on that point. If so what is the state of revelation about God precisely at Mark 12:29? Is Jesus affirming a Triune God and agreeing with a unitarian scribe? Is the scribe a Trinitarian already in that conversation? or what? Are both Jesus and the scribe agreeing on a unitarian creed? Please, some specific answers, so that I can understand how you are thinking.
[On a separate point, I think that evangelicalism is evidently not reading the Gospel of salvation from the teaching of Jesus, ie not proclaiming the Gospel about the Kingdom as Jesus did, and so we might anticipate trouble in other fields of understanding like the Godhead. But that might lead to another discussion definint the Gospel.]
Anthony Buzzard
Anthony,
See my embedded comments (in italics) which can also be found in many of the previous 259 posts as well as Brant’s presentation in the debate he has with Sean:
I have been reading the first 100 comments, and it is not difficult to see where Trinitarianism is shy of giving an answer. Was Abraham a Trinitarian?
Perhaps the Trinitarian camp answers plainly beyond where I have read, but on the evidence given in the early posts, Abraham could not possibly have been a Trinitarian since as Trins admit, that Three in One God is not revealed as such in the OT. That really concedes the whole case!
May I therefore ask the Trinitarians to tell us whether the new revelation about the threefold metaphsical God had been given at the time when Jesus and the Scribe agreed about how many God is? (Mark 12:29)
Or did the historical Jesus not declare the Triune God? Is there a clear answer to this? If one is going to plead deveopment and progress (which is certainly valid for some teachings) where precissely in the NT is that progres in terms of the Godhead?
Are all those scholars wrong when they say that Judaism was never Trinitarian? Our Trin. friends appear to agree with scholarship on that point. If so what is the state of revelation about God precisely at Mark 12:29? Is Jesus affirming a Triune God and agreeing with a unitarian scribe? Is the scribe a Trinitarian already in that conversation? or what? Are both Jesus and the scribe agreeing on a unitarian creed? Please, some specific answers, so that I can understand how you are thinking.
[On a separate point, I think that evangelicalism is evidently not reading the Gospel of salvation from the teaching of Jesus, ie not proclaiming the Gospel about the Kingdom as Jesus did, and so we might anticipate trouble in other fields of understanding like the Godhead. But that might lead to another discussion definint the Gospel.]
Abraham worshiped the Trinitarian God though I do not know how exaclty he would have he would have articulated it. In the same way, he knew that God would send a messiah though he did not know the specifics of what the nature and name of the Messiah would be. You see here you unitarians really beg the question we can’t know what Abraham believed about the nature of God until we know the full revelation of who Jesus is. Abraham believed God and trusted Him so if it is true what Jesus taught (that Abraham saw him and rejoiced) then we can know what Abraham believed by knowing who Christ revealed Himself to be (John 8:56-59). Once we know who Christ is then we can know what Abraham beleived about the nature and oneness of God. Clearly Abaraham believed that there was only one God (which Trinitarians agree with) but we do not see what this meant to Abraham- i.e. was God a monopersonal “one” or a not a monopersonal “one”. If he saw Christ and rejoiced (which he did per John *:56-59) and Christ is established as God (which He is in- John 1:1,14, 5:18, 8:58, 9:38, 10:30-33, 20:28; Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:8-9 and many more.) then we know that Abraham did not see a monopersonal God when he saw the reality of Christ and rejoiced. You seek to do theology backwards reasoning from an older and less complete revelation and letting that control the possible meaning of God’s new and final revelation. In reality, it is Christ’s ontological revelation of Himself that determines the reality of what Abraham believed about God’s nature and it is not the case that what Abraham believed about the nature of God determines the ontological nature of Christ. Brant made this point in the debate when he pointed out the fact that the Jews would not have believed that the Messiah’s body would replace the temple. Please note that Sean never dealt with this problem in the unitarian reasoning- and I doubt anyone else will either.
Anthony Buzzard
Two corrections-
First this part should read:
If he saw Christ and rejoiced (which he did per John 8:56-59) and Christ is established as God (which He is in- John 1:1,14, 5:18, 8:58, 9:38, 10:30-33, 20:28; Romans 9:5; Hebrews 1:8-9 and many more.)
Second:
You seek to do theology backwards reasoning from an older and less complete revelation and letting that control the possible meaning of God’s new and final revelation.
I want to add to this that this does not give us the ability to import contradictory revelation though we may illuminate old apparent realities (i.e. we can learn that the One God is triune but we could not learn that the One God is actually not the only one in fact there are an infinite number of Gods per Joseph Smith).
Anthony,
Was Abraham a monotheist? Most scholars say no, so the same scholarship that denies he was a Trinitarian, denies that he was a Unitarian and a monotheist.
Was Moses a monotheist for example? Most scholars say no. That monotheism doesn’t come about until the later major prophets and the Davidic Kingdom. I suppose then that those prophets were false prophets by parity of reasoning since they introduced a belief that could not be found in Abraham and Moses. The question is what is justifiable based on the teaching of the entire bible and not the contents of any one persons head at a given historical period.
Manuel, I apologize
I now just realized that you weren’t arguing the trinitarian view point. Are you arguing the Binity? Modal ism? If so, the same principal applies.
mlculwell:No for I am not arguing for “binity” I am arguing for Oneness.
Anthony:
Regarding the Shema, would you say that this is referring to God’s nature (i.e. that this is the point of the Shema)?
Scott,
‘What in the passage indicates that Jesus is telling a parable that should be understood that the “I” (Jesus) should be replaced with “He” (God)?’
I am not saying it should.
‘So I am still confused was Christ raised by the Holy Spirit or not?’
I said very plainly that God raised up Christ BY the Holy Spirit.
‘Certainly the idea of God raising Jesus from the dead by the Father granting authority to the Son and doing it by the power of the Holy Spirit is a Trinitarian idea that is in complete harmony with scripture (John 2:19-21, Romans 8:11, 1 Peter 3:18, John 10:17-18 and Romans 10:9).’
I’m glad you agree. So why did the apostles ALWAYS teach that Christ was raised up by GOD, whom they distinguished FROM Christ?
‘According to Paul the Spirit intercedes, has a mind and “groans”. These are clearly personal attributes not those of a force. Add on to this that the Holy Spirit can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30) and I further fail to see how your point can be maintained.’
It’s called personification (see Proverbs 8). The fact that the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit OF God proves that the Holy Spirit is not God.
sal writes:
“Manuel, I apologize
I now just realized that you weren’t arguing the trinitarian view point. Are you arguing the Binity? Modal ism? If so, the same principal applies.”
mlculwell:No for I am not arguing for “binity” I am arguing for Oneness.
Yes , the same prinicipal applies. I have already admitted ; ” God the father was the true God”. Jesus is also not another person of God.
I notice you did not mention (John 3:34) because Both you and the trinitarians really do not know what to do with the passage. To take any part away from Jesus is measuring. I also submitted (1st. Cor. 15:45) where Jesus as the last man Adam was made the life giving spirit. not much said from you though… You mentioned in passing (Matth. 28:18) where Jesus was given A-L-L POWER in heaven and earth. If he has it all nobody else has any. I have no arguemnt about Jesus being *Given it* as that was my point. His humanity was Made God(The Life giving Spirit.)
Perry,
‘As for representation, there are many concept of representation, so just using that word doesn’t do the work you want it to.’
I haven’t just used the word. I have demonstrated that the concept is applied repeatedly to Christ. By definition, an agent of X is not X, a representative of X is not X.
‘Second, it isn’t clear to me that Col 1:15ff has the notion of an extrinsic representation that you have in mind.’
I’m less interested in what is or isn’t clear to you than I am in what the apostles wrote.
‘This grounds well Jesus’ superiority to any of the prophets or angels. You can honor an angel, but you can’t worship one. (Heb 1:6)’
I agree. And?
‘So the languages of agency of itself doesn’t imply an extrinsic kind of representation.’
It explicitly implies an extrinsic kind of representation. You can’t be an agent of yourself. God cannot be the agent of God. And furthermore CHRIST is said to be the agent of GOD, as I said. The apostle does not say that GOD THE SON was the agent of GOD THE FATHER.
‘So I grant that Jesus is the primary agent at work in salvation, sent by the Father, but that doesn’t imply that Jesus is created.’
What it does prove is that Jesus isn’t God.
‘And spoof-texting a bunch of texts in scattershot fashion isn’t an argument that it does.’
I didn’t do that. I provided quote after quote in which the apostles explicitly teach that Jesus is the agent of God. Not God the son as the agent of God the Father. They not only describe Jesus as the agent of God, they distinguish Jesus FROM God. I have demonstrated that this is their consistent teaching. You have not addressed this.
‘The question is, is the representation extrinsically and intrsumentally related to God or intrinsically related to God?’
That was settled by the quotes I provided.
‘Furthermore, how can Jesus make us partakers of the DIVINE nature if Jesus doesn’t have the divine nature himself? (2 Pet 1:4) You can’t give what you don’t have.’
Of course Jesus has the divine nature now. God gave it to him.
‘An agent isn’t necessarily subordinate to the one for whom he acts. It only follows that he is subject to him.’
Subject but not subordinate? I’ve already demonstrated that the apostles repeatedly state that Jesus is subject to the father, and subordinate (what does ‘servant’ mean to you?).
‘It may be true that a representative receives power and authority from one who is greater, but greater does not imply better, and therefore it doesn’t imply any essential inequality between Father and Son.’
When a representative receives power they did not have from the one they are representing, there is a clear essential inequality.
‘Furthermore, the reception of power/authority doesn’t imply essential inequality for if it did, women would be unequal essentially to men, and ministers of a preceding generation who passed it on to others via the laying on of hands would be essentially different than the later ministers, which is absurd.’
Authority and power are not the same. I agree with you in the case of authority, but no human being grants power to another as God granted power to Christ. It’s simply not possible.
‘I agree that Jesus is a man, so Matt 9:6 leaves my view untouched. I don’t think Jesus is ONLY a man.’
I know you don’t think Jesus is only a man, that’s why Matthew 9:6 and other passages assault your theology. You don’t believe what the apostles taught.
‘So I agree again that the God, the Father gives authority to the Son. So I agree that the Son can do nothing from HIMSELF. But self denotes person and not nature.’
But ‘person’ includes nature. You keep trying to differentiate them. You can’t have a person without a nature. WHY can the son do nothing from himself? Because of his nature, not because of his person.
‘If the Father is the eternal source OF the Son (Eph 1:17) then the Son does nothing from himself and that is just traditional Nicene and pre-Nicene teaching.’
Ephesians 1:17 does not say that the Father is the eternal source of the son. And even your point here only gets you as far as Nicea, no further.
‘Jn 5:22 isn’t a problem either since it is true that assigned relationships can exist between the members of the Trinity in the economy or outworking of salvation. You are assuming that the relationships in the economy are isomorphic with those of eternity, which is obviously false since the Son sends the Spirit in the economy of salvation but the Spirit is only proceding from the Father in eternity. (Jn 15:26)’
No, I am not assuming anything. I’m simply telling you what the verses say. In response you resort to all kinds of arguments in order to claim they say something else, but what you never do is provide evidence that they say what you think. You’re projecting your own mindset onto the Scriptures.
Do you think John really meant to say ‘Assigned relationships can exist between the members of the Trinity in the economy or outworking of salvation, but the relationships within the economy are not isomorphic with those of eternity, since the son sends the Spirit in the economy of salvation, but the Spirit is only proceeding from the Father in eternity’? Or did he mean to say what he actually wrote?
Fortigurn,
I haven’t seen any demonstration that the particular concept of representations you have in mind are derived from he text. I just keep seeing repeated assertions and spoof texting. Moreover, when you write “An agent of X is not X, a representative of X is not X.” well that isn’t just THE concept of representation since it is compatible with multiple concepts of representation. Second, it is compatible as you state with Trinitarianism since Trinitarians don’t take the Son to be the person of the Father and this is so because your gloss only requires a distinction of agency. So at best you have only demonstrated the falsity of Modalism so this is a strawman since I am not a modalist.
If you aren’t interested in what I think or explaining your views to me such that I understand them then you aren’t really interested in communicating with people. Further, it was a polite way of saying that you haven’t given a demonstration that is compatible with the material in Col 1:15ff since that seems to be direct counter evidence.
If you agree that Jesus is superior to the prophets and the apostles, what is the difference between the honor given to Jesus, which can’t be given to angels?
I don’t think you grasp what extrinsic means. As I pointed out, a distinction in agency doesn’t imply an extrinsic, non-constitutive relation. I grant that one can’t be an agent of oneself, but that only excludes modalism yet again. Trinitarians don’t think that Jesus being deity and the agent of the Father excludes him from being of the same nature as the Father, but only excludes that he is the same person as the Father. So the language of agency simply implies that Jesus is not the same person of the Father, to which Trinitarians happily agree, but this does not mean that the Father and Son do not share a constitutive and intrinsic relationship as to what they are, so your evidence fails to support your point.
Jesus being the primary agent in salvation would only exclude Jesus from being deity if the relation is an extrinsic one. But you have given no proof or argument that it is so. Providing quotes that Jesus is the agent of God isn’t sufficient to prove your specific concept of agency as Trinitarians agree that Jesus is the agent of the God and hence agree with those texts. I agree that the texts distinguish Jesus from the God, but other texts call Jesus theos as well and then link them through theos and kurios like 1 cor 8 does or Philip 2 which substitutes Kurious for Yaweh.
As to the question of whether the representation is extrinsic and instrumental or intrinsic and constitutive, the passages you cite on their face could go either way. You’d need to prove exegetically that the passages MEAN an extrinsic relation. So far all I have seen is sloppy philosophical thinking being tossed around as proof by invoking your ideas of what is or isn’t implied by distinguishing this agent from that. I have demonstrated logically how this doesn’t follow through logical counter examples, to which you have yet to address. So at best the quotations you provide are idle.
Where does scripture indicate that the Father gave Jesus the divine nature? And is Jesus now a deity on your view?
Yes, being subject to doesn’t imply subordination, as I noted, otherwise women would be of a different and lesser essence than men since scripturally women are to be subject to their husbands, but last I checked, women were essentially equal with men. The passages you cite show that Jesus is subject to the Father, to which Trinitarians agree, but I didn’t see any passages that say “Jesus is subordinate to the Father.” Do you have one?
‘It may be true that a representative receives power and authority from one who is greater, but greater does not imply better, and therefore it doesn’t imply any essential inequality between Father and Son.’
It doesn’t logically follow that a representative receives power from the one they are representing that there is essential inequality since children receive various powers from their parents and yet aren’t unequal essentially to them. What you are saying would only be true if the relationship between Father and Son is extrinsic and contingent, but you can’t get that simply from the idea of representations. Ambassadors get powers from kings or governments but this does not imply that they are essentially unequal to the king.
I gave clear examples of how humans can give powers to another human so yes, it is possible. Furthermore, Jesus sends the apostles and the apostles send out ministers as they were sent by conveying to them thru he laying on of hands divine power so it is quite possible. Bishops and presbyters have different conveyed powers but they are not essentially unequal. (2 Tim 1: 6)
As for Matt 9:6, where does it say “Jesus who is only a man?” The words simply aren’t there so you are simply importing into the text what isn’t stated nor can be derived from it exegetically. So no, it doesn’t cut against my theological views.
Person may entail nature, but nature doesn’t determine or exhaust personhood so it is fallacious to argue from a difference in agency to a difference in essence. When Hebrews 1 or Col 1 speak of the Son as the express image of the Father, does the Son refer to the Son’s nature or person? What does “he” refer to? Why do you assume that the reason why the Son can do nothing of himself that it is because of his nature? That seems arbitrary.
Eph 1:17 for example denotes the Father a source, this is the point of referring to the God OF Jesus Christ as the Father since Father denotes source. And I think it is referring to eternally since he Father of GLORY is included. God’s glory is eternal. And if the passages only gets me to Nicea then that is sufficient to refute your position which means that one passage packs a whallop.
I know what the verses say, since any competent reader of English can know as much. What you are claiming is what the passages mean. You seem not to grasp the difference between saying and meaning. I do provide arguments for what I think some passages mean, but at this point it is sufficient to show that your arguments don’t imply your conclusion and rest on non-facts and non-truth preserving inferences, aka fallacies. Simply attacking your arguments doesn’t constitute imposing my views onto the Scriptures. In fact, I am not the one claiming imaginary words in Matt 9 for example. The eisegetical shoe is on the other foot I am afraid.
I don’t think meant to say those words about assigned relationships, but I do think h wished to express concepts compatible with the ideas. You seem not to be able to grasp the fact that the same ideas can be expressed in different words so that it isn’t necessary to show syntactical isomorphism but only conceptual identity. And yes, in John 15 I think indicating the sending of the Son is economical but not in the theologia I think that is the idea John has in mind. Consequently when you ask or did he mean to say what he actually wrote is therefore a classic example of the fallacy of a false dichotomy.
Btw, why think that John wrote John since that designation wasn’t added till 200 years after the fact by Trinitarians?
Perry,
* No, trinitarians do not affirm that God and Christ are differentiated, they affirm that the PERSONS of GOD THE FATHER and GOD THE SON are differentiated
* With regard to Scripture speaking of persons, I refer you once again to the use of personal pronouns (when God speaks in the first person it indicates He is one person)
* First you say that ‘The Trinity wouldn’t have been invoked to answer heresies like Doketism’, then you say ‘Trinitarians did answer Doketism’. I think you need to decide what you believe about the history
* I have not said that assuming that everythign we know from Ignatius is falsified it would logically follow that he was not a trinitarian. Please read what I write. I have said that the only passages which SEEM to indicate that he is a trinitarian are later interpolations, so that there is in fact NO evidence that he was a trinitarian
* Please tell me what you mean by ‘the authenticity of the Ignatian corpus has not been in serious doubt’. That’s true for a given value of ‘the Ignatian corpus’, but you don’t explain what that corpus is. Surely you’re not telling me that all of the Ignatian letters are now considered genuine, without any interpolations?
* Yes some texts of Scripture contain interpolations (typically trinitarian), as I already noted. So what?
* If you’re going to go against standard academia and claim that Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were trinitarians then that’s not my problem, I’ll simply dismiss your personal opinion. By the way, I am not affirming that either were Unitarians, so the fact that they thought Jesus was a deity isn’t relevant to me
* Tertullian’s use of the term ‘trinitas’ doesn’t help you because he clearly wasn’t a trinitarian. His was simply one of the developmental steps along the way (see standard commentaries)
* With regard to Sabellianism you want to say it wasn’t Modalism, yet you acknowledge it was ‘Modalistic Monarchianism’. That’s what I’ve been saying, so there’s no real argument here.
* Sure Unitarianism wasn’t appealed to in order to settle these disputes. I don’t have a problem with that, because I have the 1st century writings to go on, in which Unitarianism was frequently invoked to establish the identity of God.
* Of course my claim extended into the 4th century. What’s your point? I already said that the trinity wasn’t invoked to settle doctrinal disagreement until the 4th century
* If you don’t think the creeds are indicative of the development of doctrine then you have placed yourself completely outside the recognized scholarship on the subject, well beyond even the fringe. To argue that these doctrines did not develop is to retreat to a position which so archaic it predates even the 19th century (which is when it was generally rejected, even by the Catholic Church)
* I don’t claim any doctrinal development to support my beliefs, so you can’t attack them on those grounds
* It’s not simply my claim that the trinity was the product of doctrinal development, this is a standard claim of current trinitarian scholarship. And it’s not based on increasing complexity or ‘more sophisticated later expressions’, it’s based on clear evidence of concepts not even being hinted at in previous writings, then invented by specific individuals and only creedalized much later after heated dispute. You’re not drawing a valid analogy.
* I haven’t made any fallacious appeals to authority. I haven’t named any specific authorities. I’ve simply pointed out that this concept of doctrinal development is not an ad hoc claim I’ve invented to support my argument, it’s well recognized by standard scholarship. The fact that you dismiss it because it’s incompatible with your theology is an example of bias
* You ask, ‘If Trinitarianism was the product of considerable doctrinal drift, why not also think that Unitarianism wasn’t also the product of considerable doctrinal drift?’ Easy, because there’s absolutely no evidence for it. The Jews were always Unitarians (and still are), and so were the 1st century Christians. There’s no evidence for doctrinal drift from polytheism (or anything else), to Unitarianism
* You ask, ‘Moreover, if Trinitarianism was the product of “considerable doctrinal drift” what does this say about the canon and textual preservation by Trinitarians’. Well it doesn’t say much. It does say that we have to be very careful in our historical investigations of the canon, since the trinitarians weren’t very good at determining what was and what wasn’t Scripture. In fact the closer we get to the trinity, and the further we go along from the date that the trinity was formalized, the more disagreement appears among trintiarians as to what constitutes the canon. So certainly we can’t rely on trinitarians for this information, they were increasingly confused and couldn’t agree among themselves
* You say, ‘God is immortal and therefore God can’t be mortal. That in sum has been his argument’. That is in fact the statement of Scripture. This has nothing to do with Platonism. Persons aren’t essences (despite your attempt to use Christ’s nature as a person), but their essence or nature is an essential part of them. Remove the nature, and there is no person. When the body dies, the person dies. This is all Scripture. There’s no room here for your philosophizing. You’re simply inventing ad hoc arguments as a retrofit of your belief to Scripture
* You say, ‘ I affirm that a divine person (God) experienced death and so died’, but that’s not what the Bible says, so I can safely ignore this
* You commit the fallacy of equivocation by repeating your argument ‘natures can’t die’, where you interpret ‘can’t die’ as an act of volition. But that’s not how ‘die’ is commonly used. When we say that a plant died we don’t mean that it performed an act of volition. Likewise, to say that a nature died is to say that it underwent the experience of deat