How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament (Dale)

May 172012
 

Most Christians are (at least in theory, according to creeds and statements of faith promulgated by denominations) trinitarians, believers in a triune or tri-personal God, which they call the Trinity. But some have always been unitarians, believers in one God who is one perfect self, who does not in any way contain three selves or “persons.” Nowadays, these are a minority (again, going by official statements and membership rolls – I think the facts about Christians’ actual beliefs are more complicated than the official documents suggest).

In my view, before around fifth century, unitarians were always a majority. Of course, they didn’t call themselves “unitarians” – that term is of late 17th c. coinage – but arguably most of them were unitarians - for some arguments read this.

In any case, one can’t determine what is true by taking a vote. Truth may be unpopular. But also, it can be popular. So, who is right?

I propose that the following clear arguments provide a way forward. Which should we accept?

T1 The Father is not the Trinity
T2 The Trinity is God.
T3 Therefore, the Father is not God.

T1 The Father is not the Trinity.
U2 The Father is God.
U3 Therefore, The Trinity is not God.

“Is” here means numerical identity throughout. If x in this sense “is” y (in logic we write x=y) then x and y are one and the same, numerically one thing, numerically identical, and so x and y can’t ever differ in any way. The order doesn’t matter: it will be true that x=y just in case it is also true that y=x. And if it is false that x=y, then x and y are truly two – those terms name different things. To repeat: every “is” in these arguments is the “is” of identity. This is why we’re dealing with clear arguments. We’re not talking about some less close relation or association.

“God” here names Yahweh, the one true God asserted in the Hebrew scriptures.

Each argument is valid; in each case, if both premises were to be true, then the conclusion would also be true.

But we can’t consistently accept both arguments as sound. T2 conflicts with U3, and T3 conflicts with U2 (in both cases the pairs are contradictories – pairs such that one must be true and the other false).

So what to do?

Let us start on common ground. All sides should agree Continue reading »

Arguing against no one (Dale)

May 162012
 

Princeton philosopher Thomas Kelly in a paper on the epistemology of disagreement (i.e. what the reasonable response when we find the people just as smart and informed etc. as us disagree on some important matter):

In principle, we ought to be able to give due weight to the available reasons that support a given view, even in the absence of actual defenders of the view who take those reasons as compelling. But in practice, the case for a view is apt to get short shrift in the absence of any actual defenders. The existence of actual defenders can serve to overcome our blindspots by forcefully reminding us just how formidable the case is for the thesis that they defend… But the case for a given view itself is no stronger in virtue of the fact that that view has actual defenders…

Thomas Kelly, ” The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement,” p. 31 (in pre-print).

At first this reminded me of a proverb I’ve often thought of when reading some catholic theologian who has evidently never put the slightest effort into understanding the overall case for unitarianism:

“The first to speak in court sounds right–until the cross-examination begins.”  Proverbs 18:17 (NLT)

But this is actually a different point than Kelly’s. A better courtroom analogy for Kelly’s point is: Continue reading »

King of the Non Sequitur (Dale)

May 132012
 

The word is “Therefore…” When you are making a deductive argument, this means that what you are about to say logically follows from (is implied by) what you have just said. That is, if the former part were to be true, what you’re about to say must also be true.

A non sequitur (Latin for: “it doesn’t follow”) is an invalid argument, one in which the premises don’t imply the conclusion, that is, where one could consistently accept all the premises and yet deny the conclusion.

I recently stumbled upon this youtube video, The Trinity Explained (with Reason), featuring a supremely confident sounding young man. I watched amazed, as a torrent of non sequiturs ensued.

If only this fellow was as good at constructing arguments as he as at selecting pictures!

Here are most of them – not that in each case, the step starting with “Therefore” is not implied by the premises.

1. If unitarianism is true, God is more comprehensible than if trinitarianism is true.
2. God is not totally comprehensible and not fully explainable.
3. Therefore, unitarianism is false.

1. Unitarianism is true.
2. Therefore, God is no greater than a human being. Continue reading »

Ramble on (Dale)

May 122012
 

I was interviewed a couple of times at the 2012 Atlanta Bible College Theological Conference.

Here’s the first, in which I ramble on about my own religious history and views about God, the Trinity, and Jesus.

Also: pacifism (I’m agin’ it. Perhaps the majority of conference goers, I think, were for it.) I wasn’t expecting that question – hence the rambling. :-)

Thanks to Carlos Jimenez for filming, editing, and posting this. You can comment on the youtube page.

Better rambling below the fold… Continue reading »

What is idolatry? (Dale)

May 102012
 

In a recent public presentation I tried to define two concepts of idolatry, but I wasn’t quite happy with either of them.

So here’s the 2.0 version, submitted to you for criticism and comment:

  • idolatry (def 1): the practice of honoring a representation or symbol as if it were a god or a person worthy of honor.

This is literal idolatry, which is the rule rather than the exception in the world’s religions – bowing, etc. to things like this Jain statue I photographed in Bombay. It was this sort of practice which was forbidden in the ten commandments:

You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them… Exodus 20:4-5, ESV

“Serve” here, I think, clearly signifies religious worship specifically. It is not clear, I think, that it is against any sort of respect for images, e.g. saluting a flag. But it is against the sort of image honoring typical of ancient near eastern religions.

Apart from this command, it seems to me, it is by no means obvious that the one God shouldn’t be worshiped by means of some object, be it representational or abstract. After all, millions, probably billions of people do this, either for some god or for the one God.

But very often in the New Testament, it is not the above concept which is in view. Instead, they have in mind Continue reading »

Anthony Buzzard: That Jesus Should be Worshiped Does not Imply that He is God (Dale)

May 092012
 

(click for image credit)

Sir Anthony Buzzard is the author of a number of books, including the 2007  Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian.

Interesting title, no?

Some Christians will think it true but trivial.

Others, against the evidence, assert it to be false.

Others will urge that he is implicitly but not explicitly a trinitarian, i.e. that his beliefs entailed it, though he did not believe it.

I agree with with Buzzard, though, that it is both true and important. According to the gospels, Jesus’ beliefs included the numerical identity of the one true God with his heavenly Father, and we should assume him to be self-consistent on this subject, so he did not also think that the one true God is numerically identical to this: Father+Son+Spirit. (Things identical to the same thing must also be identical to each other.)

But isn’t Jesus worshiped in the New Testament? And doesn’t that show that he is God himself?

No – I agree with the substance of this recent video by Buzzard: Continue reading »

Speaking at 2012 Theological Conference in Atlanta, Georgia (Dale)

May 012012
 

I’m heading to Atlanta to give two presentations at the 2012 Theological Conference:

  • Who Should Christians Worship?
  • God and His Son: The Logic of the New Testament

Stay tuned for video links.

Seems it’s going to be hot there…

Update: Had a great time there. Folks who heard me talk may be interested in seeing some highlights from this blog, or misc. books. My thanks to the Buzzards for their organization and hospitality, and to the Gills for filming it all.

Copan answers: Who created God? (Dale)

Apr 302012
 

“Well, who created God, then?” Many an atheist has lobbed this one, supposing it to be a devastating objection in question form.

In reply, Christian philosopher Paul Copan knocks this one out of the park.

Well played, sir. I would add a few points:

One of the perfections a perfect being is supposed to have is aseity – existing but not because of anything else. God by definition has this. The physical cosmos, it seems, could not. It seems that no physical object could exist independently of anything else (a se – Latin for “through itself”). Any physical object owes its existence to some cause or causes, and will go out of existence if conditions cease to be favorable.

So there is nothing arbitrary in the believer in God demanding to know what caused the physical cosmos to come into existence, while not demanding to know what caused God to exist. Given the sort of being God is supposed to be (perfect, so a se) it is a contradiction to suppose that God is caused to exist. (X caused an essentially uncausable being to exist.)  The question/demand/objection I started this post with is based on ignorance of what sophisticated monotheism is. It’s too bad that some well known recent atheist writers have propagated this mistake.

There is trouble here, by the way, for some Trinity theories (hint: eternal generation). See here if you’re interested.

Defining the concept of a Christian unitarian (Dale)

Apr 242012
 

(click for image credit)

Thanks to reader Mike Gant  for his question about my last post.

As of now I think I’ve got a solid definition of the concept unitarian: someone who believes that the one God just is (i.e. is numerically identical to) a certain self and not to any other self.

But I then tried to define the more specific concept of a Christian unitarian: someone who believes that the one God just is (i.e. is numerically identical to) a certain self, namely the Father, and not to any other self.

But this is not a good definition. Mike asked: what about ancient friends of God like Moses and Abraham?

D’oh! The above definition makes them Christian unitarians. Thus, it is too “broad” or “wide.” Continue reading »

Defining the concept of a unitarian (Dale)

Apr 242012
 

Last time I offered a definition of the concept of a trinitarian.

This time, I will try to define the concept of a unitarian.

Many definitions of this concept are unacceptably polemical.  It is unacceptable to define a unitarian as an anti-trinitarian.  This violates requirements 3 and 5 – it doesn’t tell us what a unitarian is, but only what a unitarian is against.  And this is part of a common slashing rhetorical strategy which I have recently mentioned.  For the same reasons we must reject defining the concept unitarian as one who “denies the Trinity” or “has heretical beliefs about the Trinity,” etc. Equally, it is unacceptable to define a unitarian as one who holds the correct or biblical view about Jesus and God. Whether or not that’s so, it’s trying to sneak an argument for a thesis into a pseudo-definition of that thesis.

One common definition is,

Definition 1: someone who believes in exactly one unipersonal God.

I think this is on the right track, but the term “unipersonal” is obscure, and so this definition violates requirement 6 (and possibly also 3).

I have been working with this definition of the concept:

Definition 2: someone who believes that the one God just is (is numerically identical to) the Father.

I now think that this isn’t quite right.

First the definition is arguably too narrow.  Continue reading »

Defining the concept of a trinitarian (Dale)

Apr 232012
 

I woke up this morning, and realized that there is a problem with how I’ve been defining the concept of a unitarian.  In this post, I will attempt a definition of the concept of a trinitarian, after reviewing what is required of a good definition. Next time, I’ll try to define the concept of a unitarian.

According to the textbook I have used for years in my critical thinking class, a good definition should:

  1. Include the genus and a differentia.
  2. Not be too broad or too narrow.
  3. State the essential attributes of the concept’s referents.
  4. Not be circular.
  5. Not use negative terms unnecessarily.
  6. Not use vague, obscure, or metaphorical language. (p. 44)

What is a trinitarian?

Definition 1: someone who believes in a triune god.

This fails Continue reading »

Biddle: many “Gods” but one God (Dale)

Apr 212012
 

Here’s an interesting but tightly wound passage from John Biddle (1615-62) in a book from 1648:

Again, though he [Jesus] be a God, subordinate to the most high God, as having received his godhead, and whatsover he hath, from the Father; yet may not anyone thence rightly infer, that by this account there will be another God, or two Gods?  For though we may, with allowance of the scripture, say, that there are many Gods, yet neither will the scripture, nor the thing itself permit us to say, that there is another God, or two Gods, because when a word in its own nature common to many, has been appropriated, and ascribed to one by way of excellency (as that of God has been the Father), albeit this does not hinder us from saying, that there are many of that name, yet does it from saying, that there is another, or two, since that would be all one as if we should say, that there is another, or two most excellent (which is absurd),  for when two are segregated in this manner out of many, they claim excellency to themselves alike. Thus though some faithful man be a Son of God, subordinate to the chief Son of God Christ Jesus, yet may we not thereupon say, that there is another Son of God, or two Sons of God, (since that would be to make another, or two Sons of God by way of excellency, whereas there can be but one such a Son) howbeit otherwise the scripture warrants us to say, that there are many Sons of God. (A Confession of Faith Touching the Holy Trinity, According to Scripture, pp. 17-8,  in Firmin1691, language modernized and bold added)

He goes on to quote 1 Corinthians 8:4-6 and Hebrews 2:10.

What is Biddle’s argument here, and is it cogent? Discuss.

LaBreeska’s right (Dale)

Apr 182012
 

(click for image credit)

LaBreeska Hemphill is right. Jesus isn’t God; he’s the Son of God.

God is a certain perfect self, the one both we and Jesus call “our Father” and “our God”. Jesus is a man – but by no means a mere man, to wildly understate the case. God is not a man, not, as C.S. Lewis would say, a Son of Adam.

She’s not a theologian. She’s just one in a long parade of Christians who closely examine the Bible, expecting to find taught there that Jesus is God, or that he’s divine, and instead find Jesus worshiping and praying to one he calls “the one true God”. She’s a unitarian Christian, aka a “biblical unitarian” or a “humanitarian unitarian”.

Unlike many Christian intellectuals, she assumes that trusting Jesus means accepting his theological teaching, even if that implies that certain catholic bishops and those loyal to their traditions  have been mistaken in some of their speculations.

Like nearly all traditional Christians, she assumes God to be a self. The Bible implies this straight up, throughout, to the dismay of some with other conceptions of God – e.g. those who hold that God is “Being” or an “Ultimate Concern”.

Some present day “social” theorists deny that God is a self, and may deride her reasons for rejecting Trinity doctrines, as it conflicts with their speculation that really, God is a group of selves, or is a composite self or quasi-self composed of three selves. But they prudently hide this view of theirs when in church; they dare not assert that it is a mistake to think God is a self. They mumble that God’s  a “personal” being (you know, composed of persons/selves). They dare not correct their friends who refer to God as “him” or “he”, insisting that God is an “it”.

LaBreeska doesn’t need to mumble. She speaks Continue reading »

Theophilus Lindsey on human stubbornness (Dale)

Apr 012012
 

…very rarely is there found candour enough in the human breast, for a man to recede from opinions, for the defence of which he has drawn his pen, and been highly applauded, however strong and demonstrative be the evidence to the contrary that is presented to him. (Theophilus Lindsey, An Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worship, From the Reformation to Our Own Times, p. 175)

Sad but true.

I must add, though, that one should be very careful in wielding this charge. In the context Lindsey is unfair; he makes this remark about a person in a dispute who in my judgment was not simply being stubborn, not ignoring a mass of evidence to the contrary.

We can be too quick to mock politicians (“Flip-flopper!”) who’ve changed their minds about substantial issues. We assume, cynically, that they must be merely saying they’ve changed beliefs to gain political advantage. But how do we know they haven’t really changed their mind, after revisiting the evidence? Case in point: Romney on abortion.

Given how finite and fallible we are, if someone never changes his mind, you can be sure that he just doesn’t think much.

True story: On the day I successfully defended my PhD dissertation Continue reading »

How not to conduct theological dialogue (Dale)

Mar 222012
 

A poor exchange. Read it first – then my comments.

Where do I start?

  • The unitarian behaves poorly. Pretending to ask questions, he instead puts forward objections. This is disrespectful. And it makes the compliments at the start seem disingenuous, which is obnoxious.
  • But Bill serves it back, by sarcastically labeling the thing “Muslim objections…” Cute.
  • Are these objections “simple-minded”? No, not really. What they are, are objections to Jesus being the same self as, and so identical to God.  They are objections from the indiscernibility of identicals. And they do apply to one-self understandings of the Trinity.
  • But the unitarian, not having done his homework, lobs them at Craig, to whom they do not apply. ‘Cause Craig thinks that God Continue reading »

Francis David: Against Worshiping Jesus (Dale)

Mar 142012
 

(click for image credit)

There was a famous dispute between the famous unitarian Socinus and a Hungarian unitarian leader Francis David (a.k.a. Ferenc Dávid, Franciscus Davidis; 1510-79) about whether Christians should worship or pray to Jesus. Both were what I call humanitarian unitarians (Jesus did not exist before his conception, and does not have a divine nature.)

This dispute went on for some time both in person and in print. Sadly, it became politicized and personalized, I take it, through no fault of Socinus, and turned into an attempt by George Blandrata (a.k.a. Giorgio Biandrata, 1515-88) to slander and destroy David.

While David was deathly ill, he was dragged before a prince to answer blasphemy charges.

Here’s how Rees represents David’s position, as expressed by his son in law on his behalf at the trial:

… no divine worship which was not prescribed or commanded in the Scriptures could be agreeable to God. The invocation of Christ was not there prescribed or commanded; – therefore Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 9 – Song of the Lamb (Dale)

Mar 132012
 

When discussing Revelation 4-5 earlier in this series, I looked backwards and forwards through the book, to get a comprehensive view of this author’s theology and christology.

But I overlooked something, namely this interesting little tidbit, in another throne room scene, in an interlude between some smiting.

And I saw what appeared to be a sea of glass mingled with fire—and also those who had conquered the beast and its image and the number of its name, standing beside the sea of glass with harps of God in their hands. And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying “Great and amazing are your deeds, O Lord God the Almighty! Just and true are your ways, O King of the nations! Who will not fear, O Lord, and glorify your name? For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship you, for your righteous acts have been revealed.” (Rev 15: 2-4, ESV, emphasis added)

Song of the Lamb? Why is that there? Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 8 – Objection: I Will Not Give My Glory to Another (Dale)

Mar 122012
 


The extraordinary early American minister Noah Worcester (1758-1837) fought in Battle of Bunker Hill, made shoes, taught school, served in the New Hampshire legislature, campaigned unsuccessfully for pacifism, and in his spare time, wrote some really interesting philosophical theology. (In my lingo, he’s a subordinationist unitarian.)

Here are some of his thoughts on the subject of worshiping Jesus.

That the Son of God is to regarded as an object of DIVINE HONORS, is so plain from the Scriptures, that it seems extraordinary that it should even have been denied by any one who has admitted the Bible as a rule of faith and practice. …We have express declarations of the will of God. “The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment to the Son, that all men should HONOR the SON even as they honor the Father.” This is a sufficient warrant for men to give DIVINE HONORS to the SON of God. Angels have their warrant also; for “When he bringeth in his ONLY BEGOTTEN into the world, he saith, Let all the angels of God WORSHIP HIM.” (Noah Worcester, Bible News: Or, Sacred Truths Relating to the Living God, His Only Son, and Holy Spirit, p. 128, bold added)

I agree.

Worcester proceeds to carefully work through many arguments in this chapter with sure-footed common sense and deep familiarity with the Bible. I thought his answer to a common objection to worshiping the Son was especially interesting:

It may still be thought, that if the Son be not the self-existent God, but has been exalted by God as an object of Divine honors, then God has given his glory to another, contrary to his own word. …

[In reply,] Continue reading »

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 6 – An interesting textual corruption (Dale)

Mar 102012
 

(click for image credit)

And we saw, at the climax of the heavenly scene in Rev 4-5, those present in God’s throne room fall down and worship. (5:14)

Whom do they worship? Both God, and the Lamb, as the songs said.  (4:11, 5:11-13)

But there’s an interesting textual variant. If you look in your old King James Version, which uses an inferior edition of the Greek New Testament, 5:14 reads:

And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshipped him that liveth for ever and ever. (emphasis added)

All modern textual scholars seem to agree that this is not the original reading,  in other words, that the words I just bolded were inserted into the book. Why?

This is evidently a deliberate change, and not a scribal mistake (e.g. accidentally mis-spelling, repeating a line, skipping a line, etc.). Why would someone make this insertion?

I can think of two reasons. Both depend on the assumption that only God himself should be worshiped. As we’ve seen, chapter 5 shows Jesus being worshiped. But this can’t stand!

  • Reason 1: So, we reason, the chapter should wrap up by clarifying – or rather “clarifying” – that it is really God who is being worshiped here, not Jesus. This is accomplished by inserting a Johannine phrase which denotes the Father, i.e. God, the one who sits on the throne in this scene. Clever! For his part, 18th c. unitarian Theophilus Lindsey loves it. ( p. 38)
  • Reason 2: This suggestion in ch. 5 that there are really two objects of worship can’t stand. So we end the episode by clarifying – that is, “clarifying” – that there is really just one object of worship: God. So, Jesus and God are one and the same. And isn’t this episode (ch. 5) sort of book-ended by other worship scenes where God alone is worshiped? (ch. 4, ch. 19) Don’t you get the hint? Don’t you? It’s like God has momentarily split apart to reveal his multi-personal nature.
Could there be other reasons for the insertion? What do you think?
What do you specialists in textual criticism out there say?
I don’t know which of my hypotheses is more likely; it might depend on when and where the corruption originated.
But I suspect it is one or the other, given the admittedly jarring nature of this worship of Jesus in chapter 5.

 

 

books 25% off (Dale)

Dec 042011
 

Just in time for Christmas: 25% off at trinities books. Use the coupon code: BUYMYBOOK305. Coupon expires December 14, 2011. $50 Max Savings.  Update: misc. daily coupons up till Christmas. Some notable reprints, in no particular order:

 Older Entries

Switch to our mobile site