Devastating.

I have long noted that Augustinian/Calvinist theology is unpopular among Christian philosophers, though many, like me, go through a Calvinist phase (when I was a sophomore and junior in college), before seeing its problems to be hopeless. Walls concisely and fairly sums up what Calvinism is all about, and then shows it to be profoundly problematic, focusing on philosophical problem rather than biblical ones.

I would add that many of us – many Christians who’ve studied analytic philosophy – are persuaded by the Consequence Argument that compatibilism about human freedom is false, and also that if compatibilism about human freedom were true, then J.L. Mackie would have a sound argument for atheism. Christians need to make the free will defense against that argument, and to do that, you must believe in libertarian freedom. (But, that’s the kind of freedom we all, or almost all, believe in anyway.)

Mysterianism, as Walls points out, is very important to being a Calvinist. They think that “The Bible teaches X” is an answer to any difficulty. But it isn’t – in particular, objections to the effect that the Bible doesn’t actually teach X, and/or that X seems to be a contradiction.

Judging just by a few things he says here, I assume that Walls is a “social” trinitarian; but I don’t think that detracts from his case. And note that God is a “he” throughout.

Note to young professors and grad students – this is how you give a presentation. Note what Walls does.

• Simple but relevant slides. Not too many. No distractions.
• Talks loudly, to the audience, moving around.
• Touch of humor.
• Knows what he wants to say, is passionate about it.
• Carefully reasoned. He’s done his homework; he’s not just ad libbing or recycling sermon or classroom material.
• Clear enough to disagree with. If you’re a Calvinist, he’s put you on the spot, and given you some hard choices to make. Calvinist theologians could assign this lecture to their students, and make this an assignment: refute Walls.
• Generous enough quotes from his opponents, with just enough context.
• Clear use of well-chosen concrete examples to make his points and distinctions.
• Aggressive, but not in a mean or unfair way. Doesn’t mince, put on kid gloves, or dance around a point.
• Calls a spade a spade, a weasel a weasel. Qualifies, but doesn’t waffle.

Well done, Dr. Walls.

And well done Evangel University and Dr. Schmidly for hosting the talk, and the Society of Christian Philosophers for sponsoring it.

What is “analytic” theology?

Good question. Roughly: theology done using the tools of contemporary (typically English-language) “analytic” philosophy.

What is that? Here’s one answer by a master practitioner. Also, this journal aims to “explore theological and meta-theological topics in a manner that prizes terminological clarity and argumentative rigor.” I assume that the topics will not be limited to Christian ones, although glancing through the names on the editorial board, I don’t recognize the names of anyone I know to be a non-Christian.

I’m sure this is going to be an important source both for philosophers and for theologians. The inaugural issue in fact features some interactions between the two.

It also features an interesting article by trinities contributor Scott Williams – congratulations, Scott! Maybe I’ll post a few comments or here on trinities soon.

Finally, kudos are due to the Center for the Philosophy of Religion at the University of Notre Dame and Baylor University for their support of this project. Their support is advancing the cause of Christian thought.

Love the logo. If they made another, they could talk about their official “logos.”

OK, I’ll stop.

Ably reviewed

• White, like many evangelicals, understands “the deity of Christ” as meaning that Jesus and God are numerically one, that is, numerically identical. He argues that various things the NT asserts about Jesus imply this. (e.g. He is worshiped, called “Lord.”) Conveniently, he ignores the many passages which assert or presuppose a qualitative difference between Jesus and God. He ignores these because it is self evident that things which ever (or even merely could) differ, can’t be numerically identical.
• White emphasizes the charge of “rationalism” vs. Navas. It’s unclear quite what that is supposed to be. Perhaps his main idea is that a “rationalist” ignores elements of divine revelation which are inconsistent with his theology.
• But if that’s what he means, then as I just observed – White is plainly a rationalist! Takes one to know one, evidently. (Is he projecting his own double-think onto his opponent?)
• Sean’s point about choice of passages should be emphasized. Navas here fights White, as it were, on White’s home turf. To be fair, White should debate him again, taking the negative side, and letting Navas pick the five passages.
• White was sloppy on the topics of monotheism and worship. And he overuses the ad hominem and question-begging assertion that Navas is simply looking at the texts through unitarian blinders. Still, he is an able debater. As is Navas.
  
• This sort of debate can get tedious because of the focus mainly on the exegesis of texts. Those texts are, of course, the main evidence. But I think that both sides could have spent more time making their overall case – actually making explicit arguments, not only showing how various texts allegedly fit their respective views, and then going, see! This is, after all, a battle of theologies. If only reading the texts was going to solve this, well, it would’ve been resolved a long time ago. And it is clear – or at least, it is clear to me – that the theoretical arguments are really the locus of disagreement. e.g. Jesus is rightly worshiped, and only God can be rightly worshiped, therefore, Jesus just is God and vice-versa. (Even though they differ!) But that second premise is false, according to the New Testament. On carefully thinking through White’s traditional catholic arguments, see this. They do get a bit more into such argument in part 2.
• Relatedly, it strikes me that for White, focusing almost completely on (favorite) texts is a way of avoiding hard questions, like: isn’t White’s theology self-contradictory? (e.g. Jesus and the Father are both identical to God, but not to each other. God is and is not the ultimate source of the cosmos. God does and does not have a God above him.) If so, we can reject it as false. And we can see that there is a weighty reason to suspect his interpretations of the texts, on our assumption that what they teach is true, and so self-consistent. If he’s going to resist these inferences, he’ll need to say a lot more about how it can be rational to believe a clear, stable, apparent contradiction. It will not do to merely repeat that his view is (allegedly) based on all the texts.
• In light of 2nd and 3rd century catholic theology, it is amazing that White thinks it absurd (and/or “Gnostic”) that the Son is an intermediary between God and humans, who is less great than God / the Father. More on that theme in a forthcoming screencast and paper, but for now, see this series.

In both cases, I was impressed. What an acheivement, and what a weight it must be, to try to effectively and accurately render what one regards as the most important texts in human history, the communications of God to humankind.

I was privileged to be able to interview Ray Faircloth a few days ago near Atlanta, Georgia, where we were both in town for a conference. Maybe at a later date I’ll post a few representative passages from his translation.

Congratulations on the publication of your translation of the New Testament, The Kingdom of God Version. How long did this take you?

This took three and half years.

Was that full time?

No, it was in blocks of time, so that you’d get so far, and you’d need to move on to another subject, and come back to it at a later time.

What, in your view, is most distinctive about your Kingdom of God Version?

It’s hard to say one thing, but much of it was attempt to get rid

of the jargonistic terms that are current even in quite modern translations. And the other point was to introduce many of the things I’d learned that the scholars were saying were better renderings of many texts.

I know that many translators, as they go along, compare with previous translations. Did you find any particular translations helpful?

I referenced about thirty-five translations after the basic thing was done, and found better word choices, at times. The latest one was N.T. Wright’s The Kingdom New Testament, and I thought there were some very good word choices there, which I then did use.
[2:50]

You mentioned jargon. But in your view, has the rendering of certain passages in the New Testament been biased by the theology of the translators?

I think most of the translations are very good. I don’t think there’s really a jargonistic connection there with what I think is faulty. What I think are faulty, are about half a dozen passages – sometimes it’s a matter of the phrasing of the grammar, perhaps a full stop needs to go in a certain place, splitting a sentence into two sentences, or a comma, or a rephrasing, because a word or phrase choice leans in a trinitarian direction, whereas the context gave [the translators] an alternative that they did not take. So I’ve taken that alternative.

How would you theologically describe yourself?

As a unitarian in terms of christology. As a futurist in terms of escatology, and sleep of the dead. Those are the basics. [Also as] a person of non-violence.

What would you say if someone objected that your translation must be biased because you’re a unitarian?

I’d say yes, it is biased. But, I do believe that all translations carry a certain amount of bias. But I have tried, in spite of the likely bias, to be as honest as I absolutely can. But even on “trinitarian” things, I do think I have the right to translate in a non-trinitarian way, because the context – either immediate or broad context – absolutely leans in that direction.

In your view, who would most benefit from your translation?

First and foremost, my wife and myself. Secondly, all of our friends and associates who have a unitarian mindset. Also those who are seeking and searching for truth, and are slowly getting there. I do expect it to be highly criticized by the church systems because of its non-trinitarian approach. But I think any sincere person, who not only references the various non-trinitarian passages and other different passages, if they look at the appendix, they will get the rationales for rending them in that way.

I can think of a couple of other translations by non-trinitarians. One was the “Improved Version” of the early nineteenth century. Did you consult that at all?

I did not.

Another one was the so-called “Scholars’ Version” done by some of the Jesus Seminar guys.

I have it, but actually I did not consult it, no. Every translation I consulted came out of a trinitarian background – they are the well known translations, and the fairly well known ones.

Thanks a lot.

You’re welcome.

Cerberus’ owner takes him/them for a ride?

Our fictional story was necessary, to help us think about some important distinctions about referring terms.

It is easy to forget that “Trinity” was once a puppy, a neologism. But it was. It was born some time in the second half of the second century. We don’t know who coined it, but the earliest surviving mention of it is by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (d. c. 185). Commenting on the Genesis days of creation, in his remarks on the fourth day, he says that

…the three days which were before the luminaries [i.e. the stars], are types of the Trinity [Greek: triados, a form of trias], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. (“Theophilus to Autolycus,” Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. II, p. 101)

One could better translate triados here as Triad or triad. This would help us to not anachronistically import later ideas into the passage. What is this Triad supposed to be? I triad is just a threesome, a group of three somethings, not necessarily of the same kind or status, and not necessarily parts of any whole. Theophilus doesn’t betray any hint here that he’s introducing a novel term, which leads us to think that he or someone else in his circles has previously introduced it. But he tells us what this triad consists of: God, God’s Word (i.e. the Logos of John 1), and God’s “wisdom” – evidently the Holy Spirit – he seems to be following the other two-stage logos theologians here, and ultimately Philo. Is this Triad a god? It sems not. Thus, it can’t be numerically the same as God, the one true god. God is a part or member of it – a part if it is a complex entity, a member if it is a mere plurality. Writing this letter to his learned friend, Theophilus tells him who his God is in book I – the Father. (See book I, chapters 4 and 14.) That is, he’s a unitarian.

Similar considerations hold in the case of Tertullian, coiner of the Latin trinitas, writing around the year 200. But he says a lot more, and adds in some obscure speculations about God’s sharing a portion of his substance with others. This recent book (reviewed here) argues that Tertullian is the first trinitarian, and that he gets his views to some extent from Egyptian and Greek precursors. I don’t know exactly what to say about this last point, but in my view Hillar is mistaken in thinking that Tertullian is a trinitarian. But more on him in another post.

The point is a simple one - just because you see the word “Trinity” (or trias, trinitas) being used, you should not conclude, from that alone, that the user is a trinitarian. You need to figure out how he or she is using it. If it is clearly supposed to refer to the one true God, they’re trinitarian. But if it is merely a way to refer to this group: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, then they may not be a trinitarian. They might be a unitarian Christian, or they might just be confused!

This seemed to be confirmed by her discovery of “Flocanrib,” or rather her discovery of her uncles using that term. But she did not see that it was not really a proper name at all. It referred, but not to a particular man or woman. Her breakthrough was seeing the term disassembled into component parts (Flo, Can, and Rib) which corresponded to the gifts; that helped her to see how the referring term “Flocanrib” worked.

Philosophers distinguish singular referring terms from plural referring terms. Consider the word “Justin Bieber.” The function of it, the use of it, is referring to this one particular fellow. It is what philosophers call a singular referring term. Grammarians called it a name or a proper noun. Now consider a sentence like,

As Justin Bieber shopped, a crowd surrounded him and gawked.

The phrase “a crowd” is also a referring term, but (arguably) not a singular one. You might think it refers to a single thing – to a crowd. But what is a crowd? It is merely a plurality of people. Arguably, the term “a crowd” refers not to a thing (entity, being) but to a mere plurality of entities, more specifically, of people – to Sally, Bill, Martha, Janet, and so on.

Some philosophers claim that any two things whatever compose (are parts of) a third thing. They would say that “the crowd” does refer to a thing, a thing composed of Sally, Bill, etc. But they would have to agree that this thing is not a person, not an individual human (even though it has such as proper parts).

A plural referring term need to refer to multiple entities of the same kind. Let us coin such a term. Many Americans love baseball, apple pie, and freedom – let us call such a thing  thing or mere plurality “bapfree“. I’m a big friend of bapfree. Note that these items belong in very different categories – one is a game, the other is a kind of dessert, and the third is a concept or property. Or a general might exhort his soldiers in the name of the president, the flag, and the constitution – man, a kind or set of physical object, and a writing. One might call it “preflac,” if one had some need to refer to it by one term.   More commonly we’d refer to it by a phrase like “what the general appealed to.”

Next time: what does all this have to do with the Trinity?

On our campus, this course, called Phil 115 Philosophical Inquiry – counts as a humanities course (within the general education courses). Your institution may count it as transfer credit for a course called, e.g. Introduction to Philosophy, or whatever general education category that counts for. Some info about transfer credit is available at the link above, but you may also need to talk to your institution’s Registrar, or even the chair of their Philosophy department, to see what transfer credit they will give for it.

(2) Last year I took ten students on a study abroad course for three weeks to western India (Pune and Mumbai). (See the pics on our department webpage.) It was a really great trip; I taught a course called Global Philosophy of Religion to the ten I brought, together with about thirteen Indian students from this college in Pune. The two groups really enjoyed each others’ company, and we all learned a lot, and had many memorable experiences and one of the most fascinating and important countries in the world. We’re planning the next incarnation now, for this coming winter. (The “winter” there, by the way, is pleasantly hot and sunny.) The course includes material from both Indian and “Western” philosophers, and particularly concerns theories relating to religious diversity (e.g. pluralism, exclusivism), and different concepts of God / the Ultimate and of gods, as well as the basics of the Hindu and Sikh religions.

Probably within a month this page will be updated with this year’s information. Tentative dates right now are December 27 to Jan 19. Costs will be slightly higher than last year, because then we had a one-time grant helping us. Application info is here. The deadline will be some time in October – stay tuned. Email me if you want to be updated as things develop.

These courses are available to any English-speaking undergraduate college student, anywhere. They are very inexpensive for residents of New York State – a little more for others. We were delighted last time to have a really good Australian student join us in India.

As they coordinated the drop off each year, the conspirators would communicate, and they took to referring to themselves as “Flocanrib.” They would say things like “When is Flocanrib meeting next Tuesday?” and “Can Flocanrib do it again this year?”

When she was little, Irene thought of the source of her yearly presents as her birthday fairy “Presenty.” But later, she thought it must be a single human being – she imagined, a relative – still called, in her mind, “Presenty.” One day, when she was in high school, her birthday came, but the presents did not. They never resumed, and Irene still wondered who Presenty was; she was eager to thank this person.

Her uncles had all passed away, so they would never confess to their kind deeds. But one of their wives, looking through her deceased husband’s correspondence, found mentions of “Flocanrib” which seemed to imply that this had been the source of Irene’s doorstep presents. “Irene,” she said, “I know who gave you those gifts! In your uncle John’s correspondence, I found his or her name – ‘Flocanrib.’ Odd name, isn’t it? Anyway, it must’ve been someone your uncle knew… I wish I could help more. I’ve never heard of him or her.”

Irene was delighted. “I know who Presenty is – a Mr. or Ms. Flocanrib!” Aided by family members, she searched high and low, but found no evidence of any such person. All she knew – or thought she knew – that her three deceased uncles had known and probably helped him or her. She still wanted to know who Presenty was, but now she was also puzzled as to why her uncles knew this person, but never said anything to her about it.

Finally, Irene cracked the case. One of her aunts sent her an old email from uncle Jerry, which he’d sent to both John and Jack. It said,

 Flo’s bringing a carnation. What is Can bringing – chocolates? I’m bringing a pink ribbon. Sincerely, Rib.

Now she saw that there was no such person as “Flocanrib” or “Presenty.” “Flocanrib” was just name for three persons – for her uncles John, Jack, and Jerry, as birthday present conspirators.

She visited their graves, leaving an appropriate gift at each one.

Next time: Irene’s mistake explained.

I went last year and had a great time. I met a lot of interesting unitarian Christians (aka One God believers, Christian monotheists, biblical unitarians), and enjoyed the presentations and the beautiful wooded grounds of the conference center. The weather was delightful last year.

Among the presenters will be Kermit Zarley, author of (among others) this book. And Sean Finnegan. And Dustin Smith. A main organizer of the conference who I assume will also present is Sir Anthony Buzzard.

My presentation will be on some of the themes I’ve been posting here on in recent months. It will be called “The Lost Early History of Unitarian Christianity.”

I hope to see you there.

In the most recent translation of his Against Noetus, though, the translator thinks he is a trinitarian. He entitles this section, “The three Persons of the Trinity are One God”. (p. 74) Is he right? Here’s the passage, pretty much the whole chapter:

Well then, brethren, all this is what the Scriptures point out to us. This economy that blessed John, too, passes on to us through the witness of his Gospel, and he maintains that this Word is God… [John 1:1]

But then, if the Word, who is God, is with God, someone might well say: “What about this statement that there are two gods?” While I will not say that there are two gods – but rather one – I will say there are two persons; and that a third economy is the grace of the Holy Spirit. For though the Father is one, there are two persons – because there is the Son as well: and the third too, – the Holy Spirit. The Father gives orders, the Word performs the work, and is revealed as Son, through whom belief is accorded to the Father. By a harmonious economy the result is a single God. This is because there is one God. [Another translator here has: "The economy of harmony is led back to the one God; for God is One." (Vol 5, p. 228)] For the one who commands is the Father, the one who obeys is the Son, and the one who promotes mutual understanding is the Holy Spirit. He who is Father is over all things, and the Son is through all things, and the Holy Spirit is in all things. (cf. Eph 4,6) We can get no idea of the one God other than by really believing in Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Of course the Jews glorified the Father, but they offered no thanksgiving (cf. Rom 1,21), since they had no knowledge of the Son. The disciples did have knowledge of the Son, but not in the Holy Spirit, so they even denied [him].

Now the Father’s own Word was aware of the economy and the will of the Father – that the Father is determined to be glorified in no other way than this. So after the resurrection he passed this on to his disciples with the words: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28,19) – showing that all those who miss out any one of these did not glorify God perfectly. For it is by means of this Triad that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son brought it about, the Spirit made it clear. Now the whole of the Scriptures are a proclamation about this. (Contra Noetum 14, pp. 74-6, trans. Robert Butterworth, bold added, parenthentic references added by translator)

The translator strains here to find trinitarianism – to find three equally divine persons within the one God. He wants the one God here which is mentioned several times to be the Trinity. But it’s the Father, throughout, as his translation makes clear. (The one sentence excepted – the one in the middle I give another, surely trinitarian, translator’s rendering of.)

Correctly, I think, he translates the Greek word triados as Triad – meaning a plurality of three entities – as “Triad” and not “Trinity,” which would tend to suggest the anachronism of a tripersonal deity here. I’ve always thought the idea of “economy” was obscure; but the basic idea is that God, the Father, has a plan for his working in history, and that is through these lesser deities of Son and Spirit. The coordination of the actions of these three beings shows that it is all the plan of one being, the one God, the Father. As Paul has it in Ephesians 4:6, which the translator sees Hippolytus referencing above:

There is one Lord [Jesus], one faith, one baptism, and one God and Father of all, over all, through all and within all. (Eph 4:6, New Jerusalem)

If Hippolytus does have this in mind, note that he’s assigned the “through” and “within/in” to the Son and Spirit. But his idea is that it is God, the Father, working through them, as to his economy. This leaves him as “the one God and Father of all, over all.”

Trinitarian or unitarian?

Here’s some of his schtick:

• “God had a son” – sorry Bill, you can jeer at the claim rather than seriously consider it, but that only reveals your contempt for Christianity – it doesn’t show anything ridiculous about the claim. Granted, it is an unusual claim. Of course, Jesus was an unusual man.

• “suicide mission” – Sort of sounds like he’s blowing himself up to kill others. Gee, Bill, that’s just not at all like the claim that he came, in part, to willingly offer him as a sacrifice for all the sins of humanity. Bill surely knows better, and is depending on the ignorance of the audience to find that a stinging and funny comparison. Fail.

• “they can’t kill you because you’re really Me”

Here, Bill has a point. Consider this argument:

1. God is immortal.
2. Anything which is immortal can’t die.
3. Jesus died.
4. Therefore, Jesus is not God.

The argument is indisputably valid; that is, if 1-3 were to be true, then 4 would have to be true too. But are 1-3 true? 1 and 3 are directly and clearly asserted in the New Testament. 2 is true by definition. It looks like if you agree with the New Testament, you must endorse the argument as sound, and not only valid. Incidentally, far better men than Maher, and long-time faithful followers of Christ, have made this same argument – not to mock Christianity, but rather to clarify New Testament teachings.

About all the catholic tradition has to say to this compelling argument is that Jesus died “in his human nature” or that only his human nature died or that he “died as a man”. But that won’t do. The New Testament plainly assumes and asserts that Jesus was a man, a human being – and one who died. It doesn’t say that only a component of him – his “human nature” (which enjoyed a “hypostatic union” with the eternal and immortal Logos) died. A human nature, the tradition says, is not a man. So it can’t be the man who died. Also, it seems contradictory to say that as man, Jesus died, but as God (or as divine, or as the Son) he didn’t die; we’re talking about one Jesus here, and he can’t have died, and not have died.

Also, Bill is also right that many Christians hold Jesus and God to be numerically one. That conflicts with 4, of course – that’s the joke. (Never mind that it’s not funny – I realize that this post is not giving evidence for my claim above that he’s pretty funny… this is not his best stuff.)

If you’re a thinking Christian, you need to decide what you think of the above argument. I believe it to be sound. We can thank Bill Maher for drawing our attention to it.

Jesus is alive, and he still has a real, flesh and blood body. He has had that body continuously – but for a break of less than three days –  for over 2000 years. Because of that, he has not switched bodies, not reincarnated, not been reborn as some present day dude. Jesus is still driving the original model… with a few upgrades, of course.

This is important to know, because of the proliferation of fake Jesuses today, like A.J. Miller in Australia, Sergey Anatolyevitch Torop in Russia, Jose Miranda (also here) in America, Álvaro Theiss (also here) in Brazil, and other assorted crazies.

Acid test: Does this claimant have a scar in his side, where they stuck the spear? Or scars in his feet and hands (or wrists) where the Romans put spike through him? Some small ones around the head, where they jammed a crown of thorns into him? Whip scars on his back? Does he look like he could be a Palestinian Jew? No to any of these? Walk away. It ain’t Jesus.

Why is that guy claiming he’s Jesus? He seems to really believe it! Well, he could be crazy or possessed. But the obvious reason is that it gets him attention, so that he can get what he wants out of you. He’s a bloodsucker. All cult leaders live and die for three things: power, sex, and money. Falsely claiming to be the most famous and influential and important man who ever lived is a way of grabbing at all of those. Of course, he’ll give you some things you want too – community, purpose, a basket full of answers. He’s got to have people; no people, no blood. But his needs come first.

The real Jesus sought neither power, nor sex, nor money. He set an example of true, loving, humble, service.

He is way, way more interesting – to put it mildly – than any of the imposters. And when he really does come back, the imposters will have a lot of ‘splaining to do. When he comes back, he won’t be washing feet – that’s our job. You see… he’s been promoted.

Happy Easter!

(That’s the all-time best Jesus movie, by the way.)

In the previous post, we saw that in his theology, the divine (but less divine than God) Logos came to exist from God a finite time ago, so that God could create the cosmos by means of him. On two counts, then, this makes him not a trinitarian – that the “persons” are neither co-equal nor equally divine. But is he a unitarian?

In the most important work we have from him, he says,

The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself… Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first… Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Logos was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of His progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. For simultaneously with His procession from His Progenitor… He has, as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father. …when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed *each object of creation, thus pleasing God.   …[God, via the Logos] formed the ruler of all [creation, i.e. Adam]… The Creator did not wish to make him a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel… but a man. For if He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou has the example of the Logos. His [God's] will, however, was, that you should be a man, and He has made thee a man. But if thou art desirous of also becoming a god, obey Him that has created thee… The Logos alone of this God is from God himself; wherefore also the Logos is God, being the substance of God.  (Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies, ch. XXVIII-XXIX, p. 151.)

Who is the one God here? It’s the Father.

One can be distracted by the fact that he calls the pre-human Jesus (the Logos) “God”. But we see also that he was given that status by God. And God, he says, could have made more such derivative deities – but chose not do. “Having the substance of God” – in his, pre-Nicene usage this is a status one can have by the free choice of God, and not eternally.

Here’s how he ends the book:

[Becoming a Christian,] You shall escape the boiling flood of hell’s eternal lake of fire… being instructed in a knowledge of the true God. And thou shalt possess an immortal body… And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven… And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou has become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou has been deified, and begotten unto immortality. …Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has been arranged to wash away sin from human beings, regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning… And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions… thou shalt resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shalt have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the dignity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!     (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, XXX, p. 153)

This is a dense passage, and translators have disputed over the text and translation of that second to last bolded phrase. But this much is clear. The true God is the Father of Jesus. But the Christian will “become God” (or: “become a god”). He thinks of salvation as deification. God, he thinks, can deify others. But he can’t pass on all divine attributes – such as being the ultimate source of all else, and existing independently of all else. It would be a contradiction to suppose properties like those to be passed along, as it were. Really, in his view – though he’s not explicit about it – there is a gradation of deities – with the one true God at the top, then the Son, then saved/deified Christians. As creatures, the derive from the Son (and ultimately from the Father). And as Son, Christ derives only from God. God derives from no one. Is Christ, in his view “the God above all”? Yes – above all humans, or above all creatures. But not above the Father, the one God in the highest sense.

This sort of God-talk is quite different than that of the Bible, though not without precedent in it.

The question again, is:

• is Hippolytus a trinitarian (the one God contains or consists of three equally divine persons)
• or unitarian (the one God is numerically identical to the Father, and not to the Son)?

He was especially concerned to combat “monarchian” theology. In my view, it is a huge undertaking to get clear what on just what “monarchian” theology was all about. In any case, it is clear that the Hippolytus re-asserts the two-stage logos theory against it, the same sort of theory we saw  in Ireneaus. He may have been a disciple of Irenaeus.

God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world. …but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality. For He was neither without reason, nor wisdom, nor power, nor counsel. And all things were in Him, and He was the All. When He willed, and as He willed, He manifested His word in the times determined by Him, and by Him [the Word] He made all things. …He begat the Word… And thus there appeared another beside Himself. But when I say another, I do not mean that there are two Gods, but that it is only as light of light, or as water from a fountain, or as a ray from the sun. …And this is the mind which came forth into the world, and was manifested as the Son of God. All things, then, are by Him [the Son] and He alone is of the Father. (Against the Heresy of Noetus 10-1, p. 227, original italics, bold added)

At the end here, he uses Philo’s analogies – his point being that this Word is of the same nature as God – and yet not so as to make a second God. His divinity is of a lesser sort – he comes from God, whereas God doesn’t come from anything.

Unless you think that a mighty self could have once been a mere attribute of something, this implies that the Son began to exist a finite time ago. Again, we see the sort of “subordinationism” for which the “Arians” were later pilloried. Really, only the language is different (the Son here comes to be out of God rather than out of nothing – which is all the same, for he’s not made by re-arranging pre-existing material either way – and is not called a “creature”). However you label it, though, this making-to-exist is a free act of the Father. Thus, we do not have two equal beings, eternally sharing an essence, in this theology.

But you will say to me, How is He [the Son/Logos] begotten? In your own case, you can give no explanation of the way in which you were begotten, although you see every day the cause according to man; neither can you tell with accuracy the economy of His case. …you are asking an account of the generation of the Word, whom God the Father in His good pleasure begat as He willed. …Is it not enough for you to learn that the Son of God has been manifested to you for salvation if you believe…?  (16, p. 229, bold added)

All of this implies that he is not a trinitarian. But is he a unitarian – a Christian who identifies the one God with the Father (and not also with the Son or Spirit)?

For the record, I don’t think that is correct. But I won’t contest it here.

In the quotes here, he’s commenting on “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This is from an long commentary on John, this portion of which was probably written in 231-2 AD.

Many people who wish to be pious are troubled because they are afraid that they may proclaim two Gods and, for this reason, they fall into false and impious beliefs. They either deny that the individual nature of the Son is other than that of the Father by confessing him to be God whom they refer to as “Son” in name at least, or they deny the divinity of the Son and make his individual nature and essence as an individual to be different from the Father. (Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel According to God, trans. Robert E. Heine, p. 98, bold added)

Permit me to paraphrase: people think that this Word who is with God and yes is God must be another God, a second God. But that seems wrong – isn’t monotheism true? Thus, they either think Father and Son to be numerically one (the same God) or they deny that the Word, that is, the pre-human Jesus to be divine – to be such that the word “God” applies to him.

Immediately following the passage above, Origen gives his solution.

Their problem can be resolved in this way. We must say to them that at one time God, with the article [Greek: ho theos], is very God, wherefore also the Savior says in his prayer to the Father, “That they may know you, the only true God.” [John 17:3] On the other hand, everything besides the very God, which is made God by participation in his divinity, would more properly not be said to be “the God,” but “God” [i.e. not ho theos, but theos, also translatable as "a god"]. To be sure, his “firstborn of every creature” [Col. 1:15], inasmuch as he was the first to be with God and has drawn divinity into himself, is more honored than the other gods beside him [i.e. Christians - see below] (of whom God is God as it is said, “The God of gods, the Lord has spoken, and he has called the earth.” [Ps. 49:1] It was by his [i.e. the Son's, the firstborn's] ministry that they became gods, for he drew from God that they might be deified, sharing ungrudgingly also with them according to his goodness.

The God [i.e. the Father], therefore, is the true God. The others are gods formed according to him as images of the prototype. But again, the archetypal image of the many images is the Word with the God, who was “in the beginning.” By being “with the God” he continues always to be “God.” But he would not have this if he were not with God, and he would not remain God if he did not continue in unceasing contemplation of the depth of the Father. (pp. 98-9, original italics, bold type and material in brackets added)

Again, to paraphrase. The God is the Father. He is unique in that his deity isn’t derived from another. Jesus is divine because of him, and so is a god. So are Christians – they too are gods, ultimately because of the one God. Back to the problem mentioned before, then. Origen is assuming that it is wrong to identify Father and Son; they differ, and so can’t be the same God. There are two to whom “God” applies. But there is just one who is the God. It’s the one who is the source and explanation of all the other gods.

He goes on to argue that “God” is used in four senses, to refer to (1) “the God of the universe”, (2) “the Son of God, his anointed”, (3) angels (assumed to be heavenly bodies, servants of God administering the nations), and (4) idols. These last are not at all gods, properly speaking. (p. 101) He is clear that these exist in a descending hierarchy. Referring back to these four,

There was the God [the Father] and “God,” [the Son] then “gods” in two senses [angels and idols]. “God the Word” transcends the higher order of these gods [i.e. the angels], himself being transcended by “the God” of the universe. (p. 102, bold and brackets added, original italics)

Back to the verse in question – gallons of ink have been spilled over whether the second clause should be translated “and the Word was divine” or “and the Word was a god.” For what it’s worth, it seems that the greatest Christian scholar in antiquity would have no objection to either.

As in every post in this series, I ask what you see here:

• The unique, one God being “unipersonal” (unitarian), or 
• The unique, one God consisting of or containing more than one ontologically equal person/self (trinitarian)

I used to call these sorts Trinity theories of “modalism.” I still think that is not a bad description, so long as you specify that it is not by definition heretical or wrong.

But I now think “one-self” is a more neutral term, which even better describes the sort of theory.

The reasoning goes like this.

The Christian God must, after all is said and done, be a god – a mighty self. He has plans, knowledge, and loves us. And in the Bible, he almost always says, “I”, “me” and “mine.” Further, there is there is only one God. And the Christian God just is the Trinity. Therefore, the “persons” of the Trinity must not be real persons, that is, selves. There’s only one of those – it is the Trinity – the one God himself.

That is how you get to a one-self Trinity theory – you demote the persons of the Trinity – either all three of them, or the Son and Spirit, to less than selves. That is, you make them in some sense modes of the one God (or of the Father). The whole who point is to end up with just one divine self, one god, God.

You see this reasoning, for example, in certain Reformed sources, like the ones Mr. Phil Gons is reading – here, and here. But you see it across the catholic spectrum, in my view. This is why theologians often say that many Trinity theories “tilt towards” modalism. Well, many of them just are modalisms – that is, one-self theories. You can announce that the relation between the one divine being and the “persons” is mysterious till you’re blue in the face, but if after all that, you conceive of God as a self, you have a one-self view – NOT something which is tilting, sliding, leaning, sneaking, fox-trotting, or tending towards a one-self theory.

Is it orthodox? It can be – just specify that the modes are all eternally concurrent, and that they are essential to God. Mainstream theologians are generally agreed that this is sufficient to make it a non-heretical modalism, to make it, in standard lingo, not “Sabellian.”

But there’s a huge problem with all of this; the Son of God is clearly a self too (specifically, a human self, a man). And he’s got to be a different self than God, because he’s the one mediator between God and humankind. To me, this is enough to show that the theory is inconsistent with central and clear claims of the Bible.

This also, I think, provides some of the impetus towards three-self Trinity theories, aka “social” theories.

But I feel compelled to correct some of their inaccurate statements about “the” doctrine of the Trinity. In this video, they want to correct the myth that “The Trinity” – by which they mean “the” doctrine of the Trinity, or rather, the widely accepted catholic creedal formulas -”was invented.”

Well, given that it is a doctrine which we’re talking about, a theory, which didn’t exist in BC times, of course it was “invented,” i.e first formulated and stated by some folks.

But it actually wasn’t in 325, at Nicea! That formula, as then understood, was consistent with Christian unitarian theology.

But let’s go through their video.

• 1:10 – they actually start
• 1:38 – “one God who eternally exists in three persons” – the vague but standard formulation nowadays.
• 2:00 – Monotheism: good. But three “persons” in “the Godhead.”
• 2:25 – Nope, not in the Bible. Correct. BUT the “concept” is there.

Comment: there’s no term expressing the concept of a tripersonal deity anywhere in the Bible. So they can only mean that things the writers say imply that they had it. OK, then, what are these things?

• Baptismal formula at the end of Matthew. Jesus and his Father both called “God.”

I’m sorry, but that won’t do. Yes, I know they could and do add to those claims. (I’ll discuss their biblical argument to the Trinity in another post.) For now: these claims do not, even taken all together, imply the existence of a deity somehow containing three equally divine persons. The most you can say is that you have a theory which best explains those true statements. But so long as you think the Bible implies your theory, you’ll see no need to show why your theory is a better explanation of the texts than its rivals. You’ll just cite the texts, and say, “See?”

• 3:10 – They urge that “the” Trinity doctrine (which Christians already believed) was merely “articulated more fully” at Nicea in 325.

No, not really. It was still subordinationist (both ontological and functional) unitarian theology, but they foisted the controversial new term homoousios onto the bishops and everyone else, leading directly to decades of strife. They managed to exclude the “Arians” (although this went back and forth in the ensuing fight, and councils multiplied and emperors changed) but no one was looking back on the council and saying, “I’m glad we finally clarified that!” However, a coalition eventually did rally around the new term, and then insisted on it as a shibboleth. This, as interpreted by the “Cappadocians,” was enshrined in the catholic tradition in 381, and shortly thereafter enforced by the might of the empire. The era of open Christian theologizing was over as of 380.

• 3:30 Basic story of the Nicea council, according to Mr. Kimberly. Problem was that this Arius said “Jesus wasn’t God.” Council says: yes he is. Council declares the three to be one God.

Sorry, gentlemen, but this is not accurate. That wasn’t the debate – it was essentially one brand of unitarian subordinationism vs. another (though they wouldn’t have described it that way). This was not a new thing, in the grand scheme. And the council did not declare a triune, tri-personal deity, contrary to much catholic lore, up to the present day.

What it did, was assert the new and unclear claim that the Father and Son were “same substance” (homoousios) And even though the creed starts off professing belief in “one God, the Father,” this mysterious substance-sharing makes the Son “true God from true God.”

What? To many of us this sounds like two Gods. And many trinitarians now take it as equivalent to one God containing (at least) two equally divine persons. But at the time, it was a variant on the old speculation that Jesus was divine because he exists because of God, making him also addressable as “God” or “a god.” This was at the time an old theme with a new twist; the “same substance” and “true God” phrases seemed to imply a higher degree of qualitative similarity between the two than was traditional to assert. It was not understood, at the time, to assert, imply, or hint that they somehow “were” or were parts of or were contained in the one God.

And the council roundly damned Christians holding to theories which had been current since the mid 100s, to the effect that the Son (that is, the pre-existent Logos) was somehow emanated out of God a long time ago. Infidels! Scum! They must instead confess that the Son was “eternally begotten.” In perspective, this is a lot like Calvinists one one stripe  disfellowshiping Calvinists of a different stripe – which is to say, it is apallingly contentious and mean. Of course, people put stock in rhetoric to the effect that everything hinged on this new lingo. The other guys were robbing, assaulting, or insulting, etc. Christ.

I assume that in the longer presentation they advertise at the end (4:45f), they assure you that there’s no decent analogy or model for “the Trinity” at all, so that you just must believe formulas you really don’t know the meaning of.

On the one hand, it’s not clear that one can do that. But if one can, does it sound like a good idea?

Here’s a more accurate source: Australian pastor Steve Katsaras goes through the plain, unvarnished biblical teaching about Jesus and God, and then in the second half accurately summarizes how the trinitarian creedal formulas arose from a series of catholic councils in the fourth and fifth centuries. Put it on your mp3 player and learn.

If you want to really dig into the history, the next steps would be this, then this.

Again, Christian apologetics is important, and I wish Credo all the best. I would not draw any general conclusions about their work based on these errors. Still, it is important when doing apologetics to be accurate to the historical facts. In defense of Credo, evangelical theologians and apologists have dropped the ball on all of this, so they’re just passing on common errors. But the facts are publicly available, and pretty clear, however theologically inconvenient they may be.

Myth 1: The Bible has been translated so many times we can’t possibly get back to the original.

Wallace’s answer is absolutely right.

#2 is also an important point. Wallace might have added that quotation marks are never in the Greek manuscripts; they didn’t exist in ancient times. In a sense, they are part of the translation – and at times, a product of translators’ interpretation.

I agree with the substance of Wallace’s comments #3 and #4 as well. But on #5, it is wholly unclear what he means by the “deity of Christ.” Evangelicals love that phrase, I think in part because of its ambiguity.

It is true, though, that Constantine is not any kind of major player in the development of catholic doctrine. That’s just Dan Brown nonsense – the bane of anyone who loves the intellectual enterprise of history.

Update: 15 more. Some of this stuff is embarrassing; but Wallace is doing God’s work, because many of these are in wide circulation.

John Biddle (1615-62)

Here are three of the six articles of his A Confession of Faith Touching the Holy Trinity, According to Scripture. (1648, reprinted in a 1691 book, itself reprinted in 2008.) I have modernized his spelling and use of capitals and punctuation, and have added emphases in bold.

Article I: I believe that there is one most High God, creator of heaven and earth, and first cause of all things pertaining to our salvation, and confessedly the ultimate object of our faith and worship; and that this God is none but the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the first person of the Holy Trinity. (p. 1)

Article II: I believe that there is one chief Son of the Most High God, or spiritual, heavenly, and perpetual Lord and King, set over the church by God, and second cause of all things pertaining to our salvation, and cosequently, the intermediate object of our faith and worship; and this Son of the most High God is none but Jesus Christ, the second person of the Holy Trinity. (p. 4)

This Jesus, he tells us, has only a human nature, but is our Lord and God (Article III, pp. 8-12) and deserves worship, even though he’s not the most High God, but is rather subordinate to him. (Article IV, pp. 12-7) Finally,

Article VI: I believe there is one principal Minister of God and Christ, peculiarly sent from heaven to sanctify the church, who, by reason of his eminency and intimacy with God, is singled out of the number of other heavenly ministers or angels, and comprised in the Holy Trinity, being the third person thereof; and that this minister of God and Christ is the Holy Spirit. (p. 18)

What’s going on here? How can Biddle, a unitarian, talk repeatedly of “the Holy Trinity”? After all, he doesn’t believe in any triune, that is, tripersonal god – much less one containing three equally divine persons. Is he lying? Is he being tricky, to hide his heretical views? Is he stupidly inconsistent?

None of the above. Rather, he’s using the term “Trinity” in a way that many trinitarians (in the proper sense) do, by long usage, to refer not to a certain entity (a triune God), but rather to a plurality of three entities.

Confusing? Yes! But not any more than present day theologians who assure us that, e.g. the Gospel of John, or the Apostles’ Creed is thoroughly “trinitarian.”

In another work, also reprinted in the volume above, Biddle shows by quotations (in the original languages, and translated by him) that Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Novatian, Theophilus, Origen, and others, were unitarians and not trinitarians. Part of his conclusion:

…the fathers of the first two centuries, or thereabouts, when the judgments of Christians were yet free, and not enslaved with the determinations of councils, asserted the Father only to be that one God, and so were in the main right as to the faith in the Holy Trinity, however they went awry in imagining two natures in Christ; which came to pass… partly because they were great admirers of Plato, and accordingly… did in out outward profession so put on Christ, as that in heart they did not put off Plato, wittily applying his high notions touching the creation of the world, to what was simply and plainly spoken of the man Christ Jesus in relation to the gospel, by the apostle John – partly, that they might thereby avoid the scandal of worshiping a crucified man, a thing then very odious amongst Jews and Pagans, and now amongst deluded Christians, who unless there were another nature in Christ, which was not crucified, accound it idolatry, unsufferable idolatry to worship him, thereby thwarting the most signal words of the apostle Paul, who says, “that Jesus Christ became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also has highly exalted him, and given him a name above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.” (Phil 2:8-10) (p. 30, text moderized and bold added)

Against Celsus is not the only important surviving book by Origen. Origen’s On First Principles is often called the first systematic Christian theology. It was written some time before 231. It is a bold and wide-ranging work, and in Origen’s day Christian theologians could speculate a fair amount.

But the curtain was brought down on this era of freedom by ecclesial-political events of the fourth century. While many still considered Origen a great scholar, the atmosphere was such that one might lose one’s church career if people thought you were too sympathetic to his views.

Among his admirers was the great scholar Jerome (translator of the Latin Vulgate Bible), but Jerome had do distance himself from Origen lest the heresy hunters get him. But still, people wanted to read Origen. Answering this need, Rufinus (d. 410) translated Origen’s On First Principles into Latin. Problem is, Rufinus systematically cut out and/or changed numerous passages that would not fit the new Pro-Nicene hegemony.

How do we know this? Because Rufinus tells us! He argues that heretics must have corrupted Origen’s works, since there just could not be a difference between those and the new catholic orthodoxy. Also, we have from other sources, e.g. letters of his contemporaries, the Greek texts of some of the cut and altered passages. In the excellent modern edition of the book, the editor-translator restores these to the text. Sadly, Rufinus’s Latin version is the only complete version we have of Origen’s book, so as it stands, the book is riddled with suspicious passages that don’t fit what we otherwise know about Origen, but which we have no textual grounds to correct. (On the whole crazy affair, see the above edition, pp. xxxi-lii.)

Here are some of the cut and restored passages; if you’re familiar with the “Arian” controversy and the trinitarian orthodoxy that coalesced and acquired the power of the Roman emperor at the end of the fourth century, you will not need an explanation why Rufinus cut them.

…the Saviour… is an image of God’s goodness, but not goodness itself. And perhaps also the Son, while being good, is yet not good purely and simply. And just as he is the image of the invisible God, and in virtue of this is himself God, and yet is not he of whom Christ himself says, ‘that they may know thee, the only true God‘; so he is the image of the goodness, and yet not, as the Father is, good without qualification. (On First Principles I.2.13, p. 27, bold added)

Now this Son was begotten of the Father’s will, for he is the ‘image of the invisible God’ and the ‘effulgence of his glory and the impress of his substance’, ‘the firstborn of all creation’, a thing created [Greek: ktisma], wisdom. For wisdom itself says: ‘God created me in the beginning of his ways for his works’… and I would dare to add that as he is a likeness of the Father there is no time when he did not exist. (IV.4.1, pp. 314-5)

But if the Father comprehends all things, and the Son is among all things, it is clear that he comprehends the Son. But someone will inquire whether it is true that God is known by himself in the same way in which he is known by the only-begotten, and he will decide that the saying, ‘My father who sent me is greater than I’, is true in all respects; so that even in his knowledge the Father is greater, and is known more clearly and perfectly by himself than by the Son. (IV.4.8, p. 324)

What do you see here?

• Is Jesus called “God” but is not the one true God, that is, the Father? And is Jesus caused to exist by God, and inferior to God in knowledge? (unitarian)
• Or is Jesus God himself? Or is Jesus just as divine as his Father, and like him somehow “within” the one true God, which is the Trinity? (trinitarian)