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 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