Last time I talked about Dallas Willard. This time, another great Christian thinker, who I discovered some time around 1998, and am still wrestling with today.
Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) was one of the all-time great philosophical theologians. He was a greatly respected Anglican minister, and probably would have become archbishop of Canterbury if he hadn’t published on the Trinity. He was a younger friend of the famous scientist Isaac Newton, and became the main expositor of Newton’s science and the metaphysics and theology underlying it. He was also a wily metaphysician and an impressively learned scholar, capable of wielding a thousand textual facts to mount an argument.
In 1705 Clarke became famous for his still studied classic, A Demonstration of the Being and Attributes of God. This is a big, developed presentation of a cosmological argument for the existence of exactly one “necessary” and moreover perfect being. In my view, it is not entirely successful, but it is impressive, and the most developed cosmological argument ever.
For whatever reasons, though probably in part, his interactions with his friends Newton and William Whiston, Clarke plunged into the Bible and patristics, and came up with finely honed views on the Trinity, along the lines of the early (c. 150-350) “fathers.” This he published in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, the first edition of which was in 1712. This is his other, neglected, lost classic. It created quite a stir in early 18th c. England. Clarke narrowly avoided losing his job over the controversy. But here I’ll stick to its effect on my thinking.
In the first 35 pages, Clarke lays out some 441 passages in the NT, in which the Father either “is stiled the one or only God” (1), or “wherein he is stiled ‘God’ absolutely, by way of eminence and supremacy” (6), or “wherein he is stiled ‘God’ with some peculiar high titles, epithets, or attributes; which… are (generally, if not) always by way of supreme eminence, ascribed to the person of the Father only” (24). (In this post I’ve modernized Clarke’s words, omitting his early 18th c. use of italics and capitalization.)
After examining all passages concerning the Son and Spirit, and how they related to the Father, as well as all mentions of Father, Son, and Spirit together, Clarke gets theological. There’s a lot I could say about this, but in brief,
There is one supreme cause… of all things [i.e. the Father]; one simple, uncompounded, undivided, intelligent agent, or person; who is the alone author of all being, and the fountain of all power. (122)
And, appealing to some 45 NT texts, he asserts that
The Father alone, is, absolutely speaking, the God of the universe; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel; of Moses, of the Prophets and Apostles; and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
He defends all these claims by quoting (in the original language, then translating) numerous church fathers, especially Athanasius, Novation, Origen, Justin, and Tertullian. In short, he believes in 3 divine persons, but only one, the Father is autotheos – divine through or because of himself. This one, is the one God of whom the OT speaks, i.e. Yahweh. In a most manly fashion, without yielding an inch, and yet without ungodly nastiness, he defends these ideas against all comers – people I would call mysterians, tritheists (aka Social Trinitarians), modalists, “Latin” trinitarians, and humanitarian unitarians (“Socinians”) – who, interestingly, he takes to be basically modalists. He does this in nine thick follow up pieces, responses to those few of his many critics Clarke thought worthy of an answer.
This is all a lot to digest. But the main effect all this had on me was to drive me back to the New Testament, to see if what Clarke says about it is true. I found that all the New Testament authors very clearly distinguish between God, a.k.a. the Father, and Jesus. With a few exceptions, “God” refers to the Father, and generally in Paul, “the Lord” is Jesus. (This last can be confusing to us.) But what could hardly be clearer is that Father and Son there are different selves. Clarke also shows that for just about any favorite proof text supposedly showing that Jesus “is God,” in the immediate context, we find that the author seems to assume them to be two.
Now the standard answer to Clarke’s point that Father and Son are different selves is this: Sure, they are two persons, but that’s compatible with their being one God. But Clarke explodes this defense numerous times. A “god” in the Bible is always a self – not a substance, nature, or whatnot. Thus, if Father and Son were the same god, they’d also be the same self, which Clarke would explain, is unacceptable modalism, and just makes nonsense of the New Testament. Just to take one point, the Son can’t be the same person he mediates for – if he’s the mediator between God and man (which the NT says he is), then that precludes his being the same self as God.Further, if you think that “sharing a substance” (whatever that amounts to) makes them one god, you need to say why it is that two gods couldn’t share one substance – and Clarke bets that you can’t show this. Keep in mind that he agrees with the claim of Nicea (325) that Father and Son are homoousios – but he argues that we should accept just the original meaning, which is, essentially, that the two are similar, i.e. both divine. Indeed, that very document plainly assumes them to differ, and so to not be numerically identical. (So, not one self, and not one god – for in either case, they would have to be numerically identical.)
Is this “Arianism“? No. For Clarke, Son and Spirit are uncreated, and there are eternally dependent on God.
Is it Social Trinitarianism? No. It has a number of similarities to it, but the one God isn’t any group, but rather the Father. It was Clarke who cured me of “social” Trinity confusions.
Is it monotheism? Clarke argues that it is. Still, it is not obvious that it is. This is a tortured question, and I’m going to dodge it here – I’ll just say that he and his interlocutors had quite an argument about this.
Is this theory orthodox (i.e. consistent with the creeds, or at least, the creeds which truly summarize the Bible)? Clarke thinks so, and enlists a large number of ancient catholic theologians on his side, such as the great Origen. This too is a tortured question – I’ll only say that it depends on just what traditions you take as normative.
Is it trinitarianism? I would say not, although Clarke urges that this is the best and only biblical way to understand the mainstream catholic tradition on God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. It isn’t trinitarian because the Trinity is not the one God, or any sort of god at all. Rather, the one god is (numerically identical to) the Father, and this is the characteristic, defining thesis of unitarianism, be it ancient, early modern, or present day. So, while Clarke has no intention of being “anti-trinitarian,” and while he has no love at all of Socinus and later unitarians, he is in fact one of the most important unitarian Christian thinkers of all time. I call Clarke a subordinationist unitarian, because for him the Son and Spirit are divine but ontologically subordinate to, eternally dependent for their existence and perfections on the Father. They are not, that is, absolutely co-equal, and that is another reason why, arguably, Clarke is not a trinitarian. Of course, for these same reasons, neither are all the other ancient “fathers” mentioned in this post!
(click for image credit)
Most importantly, is his the best reading of the Bible, and is it true? In my view, not quite – more on that in future posts.
But his key points are true, and are the key to a non-confused reading of the Bible. The one God of both testaments is none other than (i.e. same self, same god, same being as) the Father. And this Father is supposed to be someone other than Jesus. You can take that to the bank.
The price is that you must reject any theory inconsistent with those two points. But any Trinity theory which is self-consistent is not compatible with them. In the end, it is the Bible vs. catholic tradition. For me, the Bible had to win. So, reading Clarke led me to see the unitarianism (again, just the thesis that the Father is one and the same as the one God) in the Bible, and this made me a unitarian, though I had no desire to be one, and many reasons to not want either that label or that belief. Without going into details, I’ve had some painful life experiences with cranks and conspiracy theorists, and I have no desire whatever to become one, or even to be thought one. That unitarianism is, at least post 4th c. , a minority report is a strike against it, in my view, a barrier it must overcome.
I was fully aware that my evangelical brethren would consider me a traitor and a non-Christian. I knew I’d be accused of arrogance, of thinking I was smarter than so many Great Christians, while in fact being about as smart as that goldfish in the picture above.
I get a sick feeling reading the ancient “fathers” viciously verbally attacking the so-called “Arians” in furious contempt, accusing them of blasphemy, assaulting Jesus, being sub-human, being closet Jews, and so on. (Not because I’m an Arian, although they are unitarians too – another species of subordinationists.) These words are, to be blunt, a disgrace and an offense against the Lord they claimed to be defending; it’s not to strong to say that many of them hated their subordinationist opponents. This is all about theories, mind you – well, about that plus politics – those “fathers” I’m referring to were catholic Bishops desperate to maintain control over their churches, and to enlist the Empire to help them smash their rivals.
Today, while the rhetoric is somewhat less brutal, many Christian thinkers are quite proud of their various Trinity theories, and many hold “the” Trinity doctrine to be the pride of Christianity, its shining jewel and most distinctive and central thesis. And many react harshly to those who would, as it were, show their theories to be theories, and multiple (and mutually incompatible). That is really what most of my published work has been so far, and I’ve been less than clear about my own views. (This because those views were (1) not strictly relevant to the task at hand and (2) still in the process of being formed, and (3) honestly, I was not eager to start taking fire, as it were. Call this last prudence or cowardice – you be the judge.)
But I have decided in recent months that to be ashamed of these truths would be disloyalty to Jesus, whose disciple I endeavor to be. He too taught that the one God, who is both his God and my God, was the one he called “Father.” (John 17:3, 20:17) So did Paul, John, and Peter. So, kick me in the shins and call me a heretic, but I know to whom I must answer. For the record, no, I don’t think I’m smarter than everyone else, and yes, I admit that it’s possible that I’m mistaken. And no, I’m not a “rationalist.” It is the texts which drive me to unitarianism.
Are there difficult texts for this view? A few, yes. But far fewer than for the common evangelical view that Jesus is numerically the same as God (and, of course, also: he’s someone else). This view makes every NT book self-contradictory.
While Clarke convinced me that the one God is the Father, I wasn’t sure that I was a subordinationist unitarian, as described above. There are another class of Christian unitarians, what I call “humanitarian” unitarians. That’s where I find myself. More on that next time.
Print 
PDF
James,
Per your post #48 – incoherence (still)
You already explained what you meant by coherency in #42, and in #47 I accepted this and explained why I’d initially assumed you had a wider scope in mind (than the specific article to which you were referring but for which you did not initially provide a location). I’m not sure why you’re revisiting this point.
If you’re trying to say that whilst you are interested in consistency with the Christian Bible in principle, you’re not interested in discussing it here, fine.
If not, I’m still interested in your responses to my points in #41.
Per post #48 – divinity passages
I may not be a philosophy major but I had imagined you would have inferred by now that do take an interest in the Bible. You’re welcome to list the passages you think teach the divinity of Christ, I’d be happy to be surprised by one or two I’ve not seen before.
By the way given your precise use of terms I’m a little surprised by your use of the term “divinity” here – at best, a loosely-defined term, or at worst one that’s closely defined but quite differently by different people. What do you mean by it in this context?
James,
(Finally) on weak relative identity. I need some more time to digest this, but for now just a brief point on “only” and then a point on personhood.
I have a feeling that the US partnership model has something to do with your claim that “Father = Only True God” does not preclude the deity of Christ. However, your paper does not address the point about one of the 3 persons being called “the only true God” which at least *sounds* like it precludes other persons being true God, so it might be worth your clarifying this somewhere (you may already have done so).
I imagine your analogy with the US partnership could equally be used by social trinitarians and presumably others.
Therefore it seems to me that one of, if not the key distinguishing point here is the claim that F, S, H and T are all persons. I see now why you were frustrated when I assumed you didn’t think T is a person (likewise given that this is a distinguishing point you’ll no doubt understand why I made such an assumption in the absence of access to the document!)
However this relationship simply doesn’t work with the normal definition of “person”, and you seem to accept this by suggesting that there are (at least) two different kinds of “person” going on. However, unless I missed something you don’t seem to offer a definition of either kind, or why these two different concepts ought to be conveyed by the same word in the same context. Coherency may be a matter of degrees (though I accept that this point may not be unanimous), but completeness surely helps.
Instead of enumerating and defining the different kinds of person, you offer an analogy based on an amazing pair of twin girls. I’m choosing not to name them here as I understand they would seek to manage / minimise their exposure to the media. They are amazing both as individuals and in what they’ve achieved, but ultimately, they are disabled individuals. Please don’t imagine I use this term as a pejorative – but clearly between the two individuals they are missing limbs and organs and must compensate (albeit amazingly well) by means of collaboration. They are also missing the freedom to move where each pleases or do certain tasks without the collaboration of the other.
So whilst I struggle with the use of humankind as analogy for our glorious God (the created for the uncreate) – and especially disabled members of humankind (the disempowered for the all-powerful), I still pressed on, expecting to find an answer to how all 4 parties (F, S, H, T) can be persons whilst 3 are members of the 4th.
Unfortunately I don’t think I found it. You suggest that the 2 girls share 1 substance. Well, while this is potentially true of their blood supply, it seems that any given area of the body is ennervated and controlled by one of the two girls. They simply happen to be conjoined. They are still 2 girls, and each girl, for example, has control over only one arm (by the way I think you may have gotten your lefts and rights confused at one point). I don’t see that the girls share a substance, and I don’t see how their example helps your case.
More importantly, there are exactly 2 persons here. There is no person called “the twins”. And whilst they are called “identical” they certainly aren’t so in the sense Liebnitz would understand. So for me I don’t see how this case helps your contention that T=person either.
Personhood remains a big issue for me on the Trinity, and I don’t yet see that you’ve solved it. However I’m gratified that you see God as a person, not (only) a collection of 3 persons, as this is how the NT speaks.
Ultimately James, yes I understand that your paper is about coherency and not exegesis. And I do believe that coherency tests are useful and important. But I’d still rather be in a position to derive the analogies required to support coherence from the scriptures rather than from the organisations of fallen man – and especially from specific challenges, bravely faced by some more than others, that come from the corruptible human nature we commonly inherit from Adam.
Speaking of Adam, surely a coherent belief set which includes God as creator (outside your paper but inside the set of your beliefs, I suppose) would have something to say on why individual members of mankind, made “in the image of God and after his likeness”, do not consist of three persons, all weakly identical with and members of one person.
Matt
I think you are correct in asserting that James Goetz is talking about two different ‘types’ of person.
In my country (Zimbabwe) the law distinguishes between ‘natural persons’ and ‘legal persons”
The latter are not human beings , but have the contractual capacity of a living person. In a sense they are ‘constructs’ – but they certainly do not have the features of intelligence and ability to act independently which Dale Tuggy believes are necessary to be a ‘real’ person.
A corporation-or partnership acts as a vehicle through which various persons/partners implement their common will.
1 Corinthians Chapter 3 v8 strikes me as an example of a partnership at work -”the one who plants and the one who waters have a common purpose”
If you consult your Greek Interlinear Bible you will see that the word for ‘common purpose’ is “ev” .
Interestingly this is the same word (“ev”) which Christ uses to express his ‘oneness’ with the Father in John Chapter 10 verse 30…. and is used again in Philippians 2 v 2 to denote unity of purpose.
(sorry no Greek keyboard)
I agree with you that the word ‘divinity’ can be difficult to interpret – the word ‘deity; is
-in my opinion a great deal clearer and, appropriate only when describing God ,the Father.
Every Blessing
John
Dear Matt
I’m sure you are correct when you surmise that James Goetz is talking about ‘two different types of person’
In my country (Zimbabwe) the law provides for both ‘natural persons’ and ‘legal persons’
The latter would describe partnerships or corporations which have the legal capacity to act as a natural person, but which are ‘ legal constructs’
A ‘legal person’ does not have the basic aspects such as as intelliegence and ability to act independently, which Dale Tuggy believes constitute a ‘person’
While considering this matter, I came upon a good example of a partnership at work-in the Holy Bible.
1 Corinthians 3 verse 8 states
“the one who plants and the one who waters
have a common purpose”
The Greek word used to describe ‘common purpose’ is ‘ev’ (Zondervan interlinear)
Interestingly the same word was used by Christ in John 10 verse 30 when he states “I and the Father are one” (ev)
I suspect Dale Tuggy’s definition is more ‘correct’ than the vague abstracts on offer!
Every Blessing
John
Dale
Sorry about the ‘double post’!!!
Could you please delete post #53 -or whichever you feel appropriate.
Blessings
John
Hey Matt,
Yes, good idea. I have written a few articles about Christology and the Trinity while none of those articles dialog with biblical unitarianism, but I hope to have the time to do that in the near future. Incidentally, I hope to have the time to write many other articles in the near future while my schedule is uncertain. In short, I agree that John 17:3 and a rigid use of Aristotelian identity and syllogism could conceivably preclude the basics of Trinitarian doctrine.
I suppose yes, while I do not know how those models would look.
First, any concept of divine personhood would have some radically differences from concepts of creaturely personhood. For example, earlier, you mentioned your belief in divine immutability. However, a rigid view of divine immutability would exclude the possibilty of God having a personal relationship with humans, while I suppose Thomas Aquinas thought otherwise. In my case, I believe that God has an immutable nature capable of dynamic relationships with creaturely agents.
Second, I suppose you missed that page 6 says “Regardless of the awkwardness, this requires two distinct but related contexts of the words person and self: (1) unipersonal and (2) tripersonal.”
Third, a paper could be coherent and incomplete, while I never suppose that I could reveal everything about the Trinity. However, my paper mentioned different contexts of “unipersonal self” and “tripersonal self.” Also, various contemporary English dictionaries list multiple meanings for the word person that includes (1) individual humans and (2) corporations. I am not claiming that corporate persons are a perfect analogy for the Trinity, but I see then as a related concept.
Fourth, after I mentioned the two contexts of divine personhood/self, I never suggested that the Hensel dicephalus twins were a perfect analogy of trinitarianism or binitarianism.
Fifth, doctors say that the Hensel twins are evidently capable of conceiving biological children while the twins having only one set of reproductive organs. The last that I heard, one of the twins is engaged. If the twins bear a child, then who would be the biological mother? How would you identify the biological mother?
James
The answer to your final question is simple.
We have two PERSONS sharing a few organs,
The shared organs might be analagous to a ‘shared utility’ in computer parlance.
The child born would belong to the married couple.
The child would be no different, in a way, to identical twins sharing the same DNA.
I’m sure the laws of ‘surrogacy’ in your country would be along these lines.
I have to admit that with God, anything is possible -but the discussion of ‘multipersonal self’ is normally associated with a mental disorder.
However we have NO PROBLEM in the case of the conjoined twins – we have two persons and two personalities sharing a few organs.
Don’t you think that sometimes/invariably the most straightforward answer are the best ‘fit’.
Blessings
John
Per Post #57
Hi John,
You described legal maternity, but I asked about biological maternity.
Dear James
The answer is the same as if a person who was ” a normal” identical twin concieved a child.
Identical twins share the same (identical) DNA
In the case of conjoined twins , each will call the other “sister” and we still have two persons and two personalities.
One might say that in sense they share ‘substance’ -i.e. DNA-but this bears NO relationship to “mind and spirit”
As you suggested in an earlier post this might not be an entirely appropriate analogy.
Best Wishes and blessings
John
Hi John,
Some of your comments leave me speechless. For example, normal identical twin women do not literally share ovaries and a uterus, which is entirely different than the dicephalic twins who would both go through exactly the same pregnancy and labor. Also, my original article reported the coordinated thinking and athleticism of the dicephalic twins. Furthermore, my original article noted that analogies by defintion are imperfect comparisons, which according to your wording would mean that there is no “entirely appropriate analogy” for anything.
Blessings,
James
Dear James
Many elderly married couples tell the that their sense of unity is so great that words become unnecessary.
Imagine then, a couple who share the same stimuli 24/7 and possibly share some vascular and neural interconnections. The twins quite possibly share some endocrine system-in which case they would be ‘bathed’ in the same hormones.
The sense of oneness must be quite profound.
If you were to ask the parents whether there was one person or two persons present they would not hesitate to reply ‘two’!
And two souls too!!
James I was not saying that I reject analogy –
analogy is pert of our normal dialogue .
I am just saying that this particular one not ‘do it’ for me!
Blessings
John
Hi John, I agree with everything that I quoted above and I have no idea why you disagree with my use of analogy. Perhaps I left too much unexplained in my secondary partnership analogy, but at this point I do not know of one point we disagree other than that you do not like my secondary analogy while I like my secondary analogy.
Hi Dale.
I would like to direct you to re-read Tertullians Against Praxaes – but with differen’t eyes this time.
It is a very telling document from a historical point of view.
In Chapter 1-2, you find Tertullian making a defense for Montanus, Maximilla and Priscilla = false prophets. Montanus is the “PARACLETE” he speaks of throughout the whole document. “THE NEW PROPHECY” in the second last chapter is the name of the sect of Montanus. Do some research on what other early Christian writers had to say on the Montanists and your eyes will be opened. I suggest Eusebius Eccl. Hist. Bk. IV. chap. 14-21 for a starting point.
When you read Adv Prax, look specifically at what accusations and charges and arguments Tertullian is ( defending ) himself against.
Such as breaking the rule of faith, disturbing and destroying the “Monarchy”, introducing multiplicity etc, etc.
He specifically calls the “Paraclete” (meaning Montanus) the “…INTERPRETER…” and “…EXPOUNDER…” of the economy.
Don’t just look at one translation either – go to the Tertullian Project and check other versions and the Latin aswell. Alexander Souters version is available on archive.org.
According to chapter 3, the “…MAJORITY OF…” non-montantist Christian “…BELIEVERS…” both “Latin” and “Greek” speaking Christians (ignore his abusive slur – calling them simple etc) believed in:
THE ( MONARCHY ) OF THE FATHER!
Monarchy = “…ONE ( PERSON )…” RULE OR GOD!
This takes you back to the Biblical belief of John 17:3; 1st Cor 8:6; “…( ONE ) GOD THE FATHER…”
The original Christian belief which was corrupted by apostacy was A ONE ( PERSON ) GOD who was THE FATHER.
You know the rest of history and and what the ANF taught.
Compare Eph 1:17.
Have a read and a think and do the homework.
TERTULLIAN (c. 145 to 225.C.E. ): “…But ( WE ) [ MONTANTISTS ] both always and ( NOW ) – MORE THAN ( BEFORE ), AS BEING ( BETTER-INSTRUCTED ) BY THE PARACLETE, [ MONTANUS ] WHO OF COURSE LEADS US INTO ALL TRUTH, BELIEVE INDEED IN ONE GOD, BUT – ( SUBJECT TO ) – THIS ARRANGEMENT, WHICH – ( WE ) [ MONTANTISTS ] – CALL ( ECONOMY )…” – (Page 28, Chapter 2, “AGAINST PRAXEAS,” Translated by Alexander Souter)
TERTULLIAN: “…in whom ( WE ) [ MONTANTISTS ] believe as three, make one God ? It was the wish of God to give A NEW FORM TO FAITH, SO THAT A NEW BELIEF MIGHT BE HELD concerning his unity through the Son and Holy Ghost…” – (Page 39. Tertulliani adv. Praxeam, c. 30. p. 518. TERTULLIANUS, A. D. 200. BY THE REV. EDWARD BURTON, D. D. MDCCCXXXI.)
[NOTE]: Tertullian twists and miss-uses the scriptures in expounding the Montantist view.
TERTULLIAN ( 145 to 225.C.E. ): “…if ( THENCE-FORWARD )… in such a way as that His Unity MIGHT BE BELIEVED IN, AFTER A NEW MANNER, through the Son and the Spirit, in order that God might now be known openly,” in His proper Names and Persons, who in ancient times was not plainly understood…” – (Chapter 30. Adv. Prax. Translated by Dr. Holmes.)
LATIN TEXT: CAP. 3. [1] “…quae maior semper credentium pars est … EXPAVESCUNT AD OECONOMIAM…” – (TERTULLIANI ADVERSUS PRAXEAN LIBER CAP. III. Text edited by Ernest Evans, 1948.)
Latin., ( ad ) = to, toward, at
TERTULLIAN (c. 145 to 225.C.E. ): “…THE GREATER PART OF THE BODY OF CHRISTIANS … DREAD THIS [ ????????? ] ECONOMY…” – ( [As quoted in: “The theological and miscellaneous works of Joseph Priestley, Volume 6] Page 486-487.)
TERTULLIAN (c. 145 to 225.C.E. ): “…OF CHRISTIANS … THE GREATEST PART … ARE MIGHTILY AFFRIGHTED AT THIS [ ????????? ] DISPENSATION…” – (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, III. William Whiston)
TERTULLIAN (c. 145 to 225.C.E. ): “…THE MAJORITY OF BELIEVERS, ARE STARTLED AT THE [ ????????? ] DISPENSATION (OF THE THREE IN ONE)…” – (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, III. Roberts & Donaldson ANF)
TERTULLIAN (c. 145 to 225.C.E. ): “…THE MAJORITY OF BELIEVERS … BECOME GREATLY TERRIFIED … WITH HIS [ ????????? ] ECONOMY…” – (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, III. Alexander Souter’s translation)
TERTULLIAN (c. 145 to 225.C.E. ): “…THE MAJORITY OF BELIEVERS … ARE [ expavescunt ] EXCEEDINGLY TERRIFIED AT THIS [ ????????? ] OECONOMIAM…” – (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, III. By Matt13weedhacker 10/12/09 revised 19/4/11)
Matt – thanks for the comments. Too much data, though, my friend. Better to make your points in a couple of paragraphs, than to do a data dump that will make readers’ eyes glaze over.
So, sorry, but I haven’t approved all your comments.
Looking at your blog, I see you’re doing some interesting and wide reading!
Your point seems to be that Tertullian has a Montanist kook and a trinitarian. The first may be, but I think the second is mistaken. I’ve read Ag. Prax. very hard, and compared with his other works, and I’m pretty sure he’s rather an strange sort of unitarian. He too thinks the one God is the Father – it’s just that the Father has now extended his stuff/substance so as to form the Son and Spirit. I have a paper in progress on this that I can send you if you email me.
As you read these sources, a word of warning – the 4th c. guys often know little about these 1st to early 2nd c. guys. The former can be very unreliable. Compare with running into some internet troll now spewing strong opinions about, I don’t know, the American-British war of 1812-4. He could be quite full of it, and spewing ideas he’s read in spurious books. We shouldn’t be too impressed by the fact that he’s living less than 200 years after those events. Someone writing 20 years after, or even 800 years after, may well be more reliable – it depends on many things.
Hi Dale.
Apologies for being over zealous. Sorry.
Could you outline the main themes in your paper please?
It has sparked my curiosity.
But, wether you disagree or not, I personally am quite certain that Tertullian was indeed a “Montantist” when he wrote Adv. Prax.
I agree that he was what I would describe as a very confused theologian. He could be described as the first Arian: “…There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son…” – (Adv. Herm. 3.)
But also the first professed “Christian” who could be called a Tri{3}nitarian, perhaps even coining Ltn., (trinitas) himself and using the formula Ltn., (una substantia et tres personae) “three persons in one substance”.
May I suggest William Whiston’s “Primitive Christianty Reviv’d” for some interesting reading. Vol 4 in particular is interesting. You have to get past the letters and records of court preceedings at the beginning, but it makes a very interesting read once you actually get to his essay (by memory about 200 pages in). You can find it at Google Books or on a search at archive.org under texts in the American libraries section.
If you could find the following book too:
1720 – “The true origin of the Sabellian and Athanasian doctrines of the Trinity. Or, a demonstration that they were first broach’d by the followers of Simon Magus, in the first century, and reviv’d by the Montanists in the second. Drawn from all the original accounts now extant, and humbly recommended to the consideration of the learned Dr. Daniel Waterland.” By Will. Whiston 1667-1752 ; Senex, John, fl. 1718-1725 [bookseller] ; Taylor, William, fl.1700-1723 [bookseller].
If it is even possible to find one in a library somewhere around the world. Perhaps England somewhere. I would very much like to read it. I share similar views on the possible origin of the Tri{3}nity doctrine.
Dale
I think you hit the nail on the head when you observed ‘in the end it is either Catholic tradition or the Bible”.
The early church fathers had widely varying and often contradictory views and many writers seem to say “I agree with X and what he says is credally acceptable’ – but the only thing which really matters is ‘is it scriptural”?
You made two statements which you said ‘could be taken to the bank’ and any logical person must agree with you- but this is where the ‘gymnastics’ begins.
The ‘breakthrough’ which you have made is the understanding that God is a ‘self’-everything follows on from this point.
So much dialogue seems to be ‘wheel spinning’ -why do people ‘go to the ends of the earth’ to avoid the logical conclusions?
Best Wishes
John
Matt13weedhacker
Whatever any of the “Church Fathers” were, their clearly not biblical unitarians.
[...] usually well-motivated ways to read all the texts. See, e.g. this, out since 2000. Or there’s the Clarke version, for a different sort of unitarianism. Honestly, you’re underestimating how well motivated [...]
Hello again.
Someone recently asked me about Clarke’s book, and this post says enough about it to be worth anybody’s while to read it.
I just finished reading all the comments, as well. I particularly enjoyed Matt’s contributions (beginning with post # 41).
I notice that many of the comments have to do with questions about one particular detail. So I am going to ask again if there is a chance for a debate on this blog, the subject being, “Is there compelling scriptural evidence for the pre-existence of the Son of God?”
Why a debate?
Because it would allow a complete presentation of the evidence on BOTH sides. Discussions (like the comments I have just read) are interesting, but they do not give the overall view that a debate can provide.
Would you allow such a debate on your blog, Dale? And if so, are there any volunteers?
One more thing. I recently came across a paragraph (quoted from a Catholic encyclopedia) which seems to fit the subject of much of this thread, and certainly fits Clarke’s conclusions.
That seems to fit the evidence. For example, in the book of Acts Luke has recorded for us 7 different messages by the apostle Peter and Paul. Not one of them has anything “even remotely approaching” the idea of “one God in three Persons”.
Hi Marg
I really enjoyed your quotation from the Catholic Encyclopaedia!
The gymnastics employed by the Trinitatian apologists to ‘explain/refute’ this comment are rather futile.!
I , like you, find that the issue of Christs alleged or actual pre-existence is the most perplexing.!!
To be frank, the scriptures are confusing.!!
I was reading Luke Chapter 2 the other day and encountered verses 27 and 43 – which state that Christ visited the Temple with his ‘parents’
The Greek word used for parents was ‘goneis’ , which according to Strongs reference 1118 means
” begetter, Father, parent”
You and I have discussed the matter of the ‘literality’ of scriptures , and I still believe that references to Christ as creator or some sort of intermediary through which creation occurred are not to be read literally.
Without being ‘pushy’ could I please suggest that you
(i) Get a scholarly Bible – I use NAB
(ii) Read the Prefaces to each book
(iii)Read the foornotes to each book
Can you still claim the literality of scriptures.?
I too would welcome a full-scale debate on the pre-existence issue – although I am not sufficiently knowledgable to initiate the process.
Every Blessing
John
Thanks for the advice, John. I have several Bibles, of many stripes, but perhaps you wouldn’t call any of them “scholarly”. However, I do read prefaces to books, and I do read footnotes. Good advice for anyone.
I don’t think I ever used the word “literality,” and I am quite sure I have referred to passages that are obviously figurative. But I think a debate would help to clarify what either one of us classifies as being literal. After all, SOMETHING has to be literal, or Christianity is a farce.
Anyway, I really would like to see a debate. Uneducated though I certainly am, I would undertake to show that there is compelling scriptural evidence for the pre-existence of the Son of God – if someone better educated would be willing to take the opposite view.
Whether that happens or not, I would VERY much like to see Dale’s next post on the evolution of his views on the Trinity. That’s something I have been waiting for ever since this article was posted. And I notice others have been waiting for it, too.
Marg
You can hear one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahTfbk9-dYo
Hi Marg,
Thanks for reminding me about this – I had forgotten. I put it off, because I think this issue is exegetically complicated, and because honestly, I don’t think it matters. It matters that Jesus is our genuinely human messiah, and not God Himself. It matters that he is not a part or member of a postulated tripersonal God, and that the one God is none other than Jesus’ Father. As far as I can tell, Jesus’ pre-existence only matters if it is incompatible with his being a genuine member of the human race. I suspect that it is, for philosophical reasons. But these are not obvious, and people will go with whatever they think is the best overall reading of the texts. Does it matter that he’s (allegedly) the creator? Perhaps – but he is not, on traditional catholic readings, the ultimate creator, the ultimate origin of the Cosmos – rather, the Father is, the pre-existent Jesus being his agent and instrument. While this would be an honor, it would not give Jesus creator’s, that is owner’s rights over the world. So again, I don’t see why this really matters theologically or spiritually. Jesus will be worthy of worship either way, because of his obedience and service to God and to us, and his resulting exaltation by God.
http://trinities.org/blog/archives/4037
So again, thanks for the reminder. But I have a ton on my plate – I’ll spare you the whining.
This is on the back burner, but I will get to it some time.
Thank you, Dale. I will try to be patient.
The fact is, your story is incomplete; and if there are compelling reasons for you to reject Clarke’s understanding of God, his Son and his Spirit, I am anxious to hear them. I think others are, too.
We may still disagree when all the evidence is in, but that is a small thing. After all, both of us disagree with Dallas Willard’s Trinitarian teaching, but that doesn’t prevent our profound respect for his spirituality. So do his Trinitarian views really matter?
Xavier – thank you for the link. I listened to the whole debate, all three hours of it, and took notes when there were any to take. I appreciated some points on both sides; but there was a LOT!! of repetition, and most of it seemed to be about the Trinity – a subject that has already been beaten to death. What I would like to see is a debate focussed exclusively on the question, “Is there compelling scriptural evidence that the Son of God existed before the Word became flesh?”
No, I am not confusing the terms. I am just making use of a historical event that we all (I think) agree on. The Word became flesh at a specific point in time. Did the Son of God exist before that time?
As for the debate I just listened to, I agree with Anthony that Jesus is not the creator of the universe, and have already explained that on a different thread. In fact, several of the issues raised have already been dealt with at length on various threads. My problem is – I no longer know where to find them.
That is why I would like to see a WRITTEN debate, so that all those issues can be put together. I really enjoyed the format of the Burke/Bowman debate. Couldn’t the same format be used again, but with the Trinity barred from the discussion?
Perhaps such a debate has already taken place somewhere. If so, would someone please give me a link to it?
If not, then is there a forum where such a debate could take place? And is anyone willing to participate?
Marg
The Son of God was foreknown/preordained and not a preexisting, 2nd eternal Person beside the only One Who is Eternal, Immortal God, the Father.
The debate between Anthony Buzzard and Robert Skynner included some things that are pertinent to the debate I am wishing for, and I want to comment on one of them.
Robert refers to the words I am (e.g. John 8:57) as evidence that Jesus was claiming the name of Yahweh. His argument is based on the Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14 – a common (and spurious) Trinitarian claim.
Robert obviously hasn’t studied the CONTEXT very well. For example:
v. 24 “… if you do not believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” The Jews’ response was, “Who ARE you then?” His response was, “Just what I’ve been telling you all along.”
They obviously didn’t think Jesus was claiming to be Yahweh. If they had, they would have stoned him then and there. And his answer helps us to understand his original statement as, “Unless you believe that I am [the one I claim to be], you will die in your sins.” It was an amazing claim, but it didn’t constitute blasphemy.
He used the words again in verse 28. “When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be], and that I do nothing on my own …” Yahweh would NEVER say, “I do nothing on my own.”
The last occurrence is different. Jesus says (v. 51), “If anyone keeps my words, he shall never see death.” …
“Are you greater than our father Abraham?”
“Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day, and he saw it and was glad.”
Apparently they weren’t listening very carefully, because this is the question they asked him:
This question has nothing to do with what he claimed to BE. It had to do with his AGE. If he was less than 50 years old, how could he have seen Abraham? That was the question. Jesus’ answer was,
This time it cannot be translated as I am [the one I claim to be]. That would not answer the question at all. He was saying that before Abraham ever existed, he already was.
That was too much for the Jews. They took up stones to stone him.
Hi Dale, could you explain what you mean by this statement, thanks
That unitarianism is, at least post 4th c. , a minority report is a strike against it, in my view, a barrier it must overcome.
Marg
Some unitarians would say that before Abraham was born,God had a plan for a Messiah – and that person is Christ.
Sir Anthony emerged the clear ‘winner’ in the debate as one would expect!
However, while listning I was continually reminded the Erasmus observed that certainty in such matters is an illusion.
How does one get a precise definition of words like ‘through’, ‘because of’ ‘in connection with’ in the context of this discussion?
You will have noted that the debate continually reverted to verses from Hebrews.!
As you will know, no-one even knows who wrote the book – and this debate will rage on till kingdom-come..
As the NAB says in its preface “Yet the exact audience , the author, and whether Hebrews is a letter have long been disputed’.
It was many years before Hebrews was included in ‘Canon’.
To me Hebrews looks like a ‘cut and paste’ job based on first century writings – but to hang on to each word and the various possible interpretations thereof is incredible to me.
Of course one might agrue, but this is ‘of God’ ,so normal rules of scholarship do not apply.
Marg, I am an admirer of your writings, but I fear that you will not achieve the absolute certainty you crave.
In a recent paper Sir Anthony showed that the term ‘Son of God’ was the term used to describe the King of Israel (see John 1 v 59) – at coronation the Israeli kings became ‘adoptive sons’ of God.
This insight is most helpful.
I suspect that Dale has sensed the futility/impossibility of this issue and decided to ‘park it ‘ for a while..
I had left a ‘gap’ in my notes on the Bible -to be filled once some clever person comes up with what looks like the ‘answer’ ,.
Like Erasmus I have now decided to leave the matter for a wiser , more knowledgable generation!
Every Blessing
John
“… before Abraham was born,God had a plan for a Messiah.”
That’s true, John. But that doesn’t answer the Jews’ question in John 8:57. They were questioning his AGE. Their question was,
The answer, then, had to explain how Jesus – who was less than fifty years old – could have seen Abraham.
If he had answered, “Before Abraham existed, God had a plan for me to be the Messiah,” they would not have tried to stone him. After all, his claim in v. 24 is far stronger than that.
But he answered their QUESTION. And the answer was more than they could stand. His answer was,
And immediately they tried to stone him.
The CONTEXT, John, tells the story.
By the way, I am NOT looking for “absolute certainty”. That is an attitude I dread. It marks the end of growth and the beginning of death.
What I AM looking for is a careful examination of the evidence. This debate gives us some evidence to test. And Paul advises us to “test all things”.
That’s what I intend to do.
J.D.G Dunn writes on pp.158-159 of his Christology in the Making (Second Edition) regarding preexistence:
Another point that deserves attention involves 1 Corinthians 8:6. It reads (American Standard Version):
Robert understood from this that the word “Lord” identifies Jesus as God. But that idea has been discredited so often that I feel free to reject it without discussion.
Anthony focused on the preposition dia. It does not (he said) here mean “through the agency of”. It denotes “attendant circumstances,” which is one of the meanings of dia.
In connection with Hebrews 1:3 he explained that dia means “with the Son in mind;” he is “the OBJECT of creation,” the REASON for it.
It’s true that dia can denote the reason for an action; but only if it is used with the ACCUSATIVE case. But in both 1 Corinthians 8:6 and Hebrews 1:2, the pronoun “whom” is in the genitive case. So that meaning is not valid for the passages under discussion.
Let’s look at dia used with the genitive case then. One subdivision has the heading “with the genitive of a thing”. Under that heading, one possibility is “denoting attendant circumstances” – Anthony’s own words.
But notice: it occurs only when dia is used with the genitive of a THING. A typical example is 2 Corinthians 2:4 – “I wrote to you with (dia) many tears.” In all of the examples, the idea of “attendant circumstances” is perfectly clear; but in every case, the object of the preposition is a THING.
The one Lord is not a thing. He is a person. And under that heading there are two possible meanings. The usual meaning is “through (the agency of)”. One of the examples is 1 Corinthians 8:6.
It can also be used to denote the originator of the action. But the context of 1 Corinthians 8:6 makes it clear that the one God is the originator of all things. The one Lord is not.
That narrows the possible meanings of dia in this verse down to one. It means through the agency of.
We know that the Messiah is called “the Father of the age to come” [Isa 9.6] and the creator [in a secondary sense, of course] of the new heavens and earth [Heb 1.10-11; 2.5].
Indeed it is, John. When God told David that he would be a father to Solomon and Solomon would be his son, it was clearly an official relationship between the Sovereign Lord and his representative, the king of Israel. And I agree: the relationship began at the king’s coronation – not at his birth.
That certainly fits Psalm 2. The nations may rage at Yahweh’s messiah (and Peter quotes this verse in connection with the raging of the world leaders against Christ at his crucifixion); but the messiah has the assurance that his throne is secure. God has said to him, “You are my son; today I have begotten you.” And all the promises associated with his kingdom follow that declaration. It all fits.
Thanks, John.
PS. What did you mean by “see John 1 v 59″? I can’t find that many verses in John 1. You must be referring to some other passage.
Marg
Oops! So sorry!
Should be John 1 v49 “Rabbi you are the Son of God, the King of Israel”
The two titles are therefore equated.
Blessings
John
Thanks for the quotation, Zavier.
Most of it would fit many theories. In fact, I have read sentences like -
‘Jesus Christ is the fulcrum and focus of history, which is really “His – story” ‘
in Trinitarian publications.
Nor do I doubt that God carries out his plans (past, present and future) by means of his Son.
But when we come to the meaning of dia in 1 Corinthians 8:6, both the grammar and the context point to something quite specific.
Grammar:
The preposition dia in this passage is followed by a pronoun in the GENITIVE case, referring to a PERSON. Those two factors eliminate all the possible meanings except two. Check a lexicon and see.
Used with the genitive of a person, dia can refer to the AUTHOR of an action; the principal (as opposed to the agent); the essential cause.
For example, it is used this way in 1 Corinthians 1:9 – “God is faithful, by (dia) whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son”. The “whom” refers to God himself – not an agent.
Used with the genitive of a person, dia also (and more usually) refers to the instrument or agent through whose service the action is carried out.
For example, it is used this way in 1 Corintians 8:6, where the “one Lord” is expressly distinguished from the first cause, who is the one God.
Context:
All things come from the one God (the principal; the first cause of everything). Those same “all things” come by means of (through the agency of) the one Lord.
Because ALL THINGS come from the one God through the one Lord, we can conclude that idols are nothing. Nothing comes FROM them, nothing comes THROUGH them. They are worthless.
That is what Paul was telling the Corinthians.
Marg
So what is your point precisely? Are you saying that the Son of God was begotten before Luke 1:35?
Jesus was not adopted of course. He was Son by divine begetting and Luke 1:35 tells how why and when. That is the basis.
‘Through the agency of’ is for me exactly the same as ‘with Jesus as the attendant circumstances’. Jesus is the attendant circumstance of the whole creation.
You are right about dia plus gen and dative; which can also sometimes have a shade of causal meaning. Have a look at TDNT, if you can (Vol 2:65-70).
All things are through wisdom and wisdom is what Jesus became. All things are through Jesus as the foreordained wisdom of God. He was foreknown [1 Pet 1:20] and he was slain before the foundation of the world in the purpose of God [Rev 13:8]. It is an easy transfer from wisdom to Jesus and from word (not “Word”) to Jesus.
Jesus is what the word became not what the SON became. The “light” is a thing in John 1:5 and in v. 10 that thing has become a person (auton not auto as in v. 5).
Luke 1:35 is the basic key to all this because it tells precisely how the Son came to be, came into existence.
Unless both of my lexicons are wrong, dia is NEVER used with the dative case.
Can you give an example that I can check?
Forgive me for the foregoing question, Anthony. I am old, too, and I know how easy it is to slip.
This, though, is obviously intentional:
According to the lexicons, dia refers to “through the agency of” ONLY when it is used with the genitive of a PERSON.
It refers to “attendant circumstances” ONLY when it is used with the genitive of a THING. So the two meanings are grammatically incompatible.
An example of dia referring to “attendant circumstances” is 2 Corinthians 2:4 – “I wrote to you with (dia) many tears.” Paul was shedding tears as he wrote.
Another example is Romans 14:20. All things are good; but they are evil to the man who eats with (dia) offense – that is, they are evil to a man who eats while causing offense to the scruples of others.
Clearly, by definition, the “attendant circumstances” occur at the SAME TIME as the action they are attending.
Now look at the sentence,
In the first place, Jesus is not a thing, and therefore is not a circumstance. He is a person.
In the second place, I cannot imagine how he could be an ATTENDANT circumstance of the whole creation, if he didn’t even exist yet.
Thank you for the suggestion, Anthony. Here is what the TDNT says, relevant to dia in 1 Cor. 8:6:
So the TDNT does not support your translation of 1 Corinthians 8:6.
The NIDNNT says essentially the same thing:
Can we agree now on the meaning of 1 Corinthians 8:6?
Marg.
That was a complete slip on my part. The point is that the gen. and acc. are the only options.
What is your larger point? Do you think that the Son of God was alive when God created the world?
I can sympathize with slips, Anthony. I make enough of them myself.
Before dealing with anything else, though, I want to be sure that we are in complete agreement about the meaning of the Greek text of 1 Corinthians 8:6. Your suggestion that Jesus is the ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCE of the whole creation does not fit the grammar, and it makes no sense in the context.
Nor is it supported by the Dictionary you recommended. On the contrary, that dictionary cites 1 Corinthians 8:6 as saying that Christ mediates the action of God in creation. He serves as the agent through whom God creates all things.
Is that dictionary correct? If so, can we agree that Paul is explaining to the Corinthians why “idols are nothing”?
That is the obvious reading. All things are FROM the one God, THROUGH the one Lord. Nothing is left for the idols to claim. They are worthless.
Marg thanks.
What are you proposing then? The Jesus was alive and well in Genesis? This is the issue.
I was actually thinking of Col 1 DIA. But your point is good.
Tell me then if you believe that Jesus existed before coming into existence in Mary.
Thanks
I just looked again at the entry in the TDNT which you recommended:
I notice that Col. 1:16 is included along with 1 Cor. 8:6. So you have no support there, either.
The fact is, Anthony, you have suggested a meaning for dia when it is used with the GENITIVE of a PERSON which is ungrammatical, which makes no sense in the context, and which is actually contradicted by the very book you cited as support for your view.
I don’t usually harp on something like this, but I just finished reading a sentence (in Hearts of Iron, Feet of Clay) that states concisely what I have always believed:
Your meaning for dia in 1 Corinthians 8:6 AND in Colossians 1:16 is grammatically impossible, and citing the TDNT as evidence in favor of your view was misleading.
When that is frankly acknowledged, I will gladly discuss other passages.
“With God’s words in his mouth Jesus, as Messiah, plants the New Heavens and lays the foundation of the New Earth by his ransom sacrifice. Additionally the focus of the Christian Greek Scriptures is forward looking, toward the reconciling of mankind to God through Jesus and not backward looking to the Genesis creation.”
http://www.christianmonotheism.com/media/text/1-11.%20AGENT%20OF%20NEW%20CREATION.pdf
Marg, thanks.
Do you believe that Jesus the son of God, was alive at the creation in Genesis?
Please do say.
What does this person’s opinion have to do with Anthony’s misrepresentaion of TDNT?
Anthony – what I believe (or what you believe) is not the topic under discussion. The topic is biblical evidence. And the evidence so far is clear. Paul taught that all things come through (my means of) the one Lord, Jesus Christ (1 Corinthains 8:6); that everything in heaven and in earth was created by him Colossians 1:16).
And Xavier – please notice Anthony’s words in Comment #39:
Notice the words the whole creation, Xavier. Anthony was not questioning the inclusion of ALL creation, past included. He was questioning the meaning of dia, which would not have been necessary if he had shared the opinion you quoted.
Opinions are a dime a dozen, and come in many stripes. So let’s get back to the evidence.