Skip to content

Kimel’s review of What is the Trinity – Part 1

At his blog Eclectic Orthodoxy, Fr. Al Kimel has undertaken a multi-part review of my book. He’s a smart and interesting person, and I appreciate a review which is honest and does not pull its punches. It’s a hostile review, to be sure, but I think it may be useful to interact with it. I want to respond to the first installment in this post, as I think this dialogue will bring out some interesting differences between his Orthodox assumptions and my Protestant ones.

This first installment engages very little with the content of the book. Rather it is about me, my alleged  shortcomings, and how really I’m not qualified to write on this subject!

…if, on the basis of the title, one is hoping to learn why the Church of Jesus Christ formulated the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, what it means and how it functions in its corporate life, then one is going to be disappointed. This is not to say that the book does not contain helpful information and analysis; but it is to suggest that Dr Tuggy simply misses the evangelical import of the trinitarian dogma. As the proverb goes, can’t see the forest for the trees.

My book is about the origin of the traditional trinitarian formulas, and what we are supposed to think those mean. Obviously, one reason why “the Church,” i.e. the victors in the fourth century struggle, came up with these formulas, is that they thought they were thereby best expressing the theology of the Bible, or least of traditional Christian teaching. I guess Fr. Kimel also wanted to hear about its practical and spiritual values, about how this doctrine functions incorporate spiritual life.

But for me the prior question is: What is it? First we need to get clear about what it is, and then we can inquire about all of the wonderful things that it supposedly accomplishes.

The reason is easily identified. Tuggy is an analytic philosopher, and he reads the relevant literature through the eyes of an analytic philosopher. But the first-millennium theologians who contributed to the formulation and development of the doctrine of the Trinity did not understand themselves as philosophers… Their writings are marked by a terminological fluidity and imprecision that can be more than a little frustrating, as evidenced, for example, by their failure to clearly define words like ousia and hypostasis.

This diagnosis overlooks that almost all Christian analytic philosophers are trinitarians! So whatever my shortcomings are, don’t think they’re going to be explained by my being an analytic philosopher. It seems to me that he is more comfortable with traditional obfuscation than with attempts to clarify, but if truth is our aim, it looks like we need clarity. We must know what is being said, before we know why it is important, and why we should think it’s true. In his view did these ancient bishops find “appropriate conceptuality”? I’m waiting to find out what he thinks that is…

While reading through What is the Trinity? I was reminded of the fourth-century theologian Eunomius. He might be described as the Dale Tuggy of his day. He prized philosophical clarity, logical precision, and syllogistic reasoning. Like Tuggy he was convinced that biblical monotheism excludes the kind of Trinitarian theology then being developed … The Pro-Nicenes accused him of being a logic-chopper, dialectician, technologue. In their eyes Eunomius had sacrificed God’s self-revelation in Christ to the idol of bare reason.

I don’t see the point of such traditional denunciations and dismissals. Seems like the poisoning the well fallacy to essentially just mock Eunomius (or me) as Philosophy Boy. This, while taking pride in the ancient bishops’ philosophical distinctions, as applied to theology. Better to just deal with the biblical issues.

What we see here is not just two conflicting theological positions but the collision of two incompatible religious visions. The Eunomian vision is epistemologically optimistic and deductive; the patristic vision, confessional, apophatic, synthetic. Tuggy is, of course, a very different kind of philosopher than Eunomius, yet perhaps the comparison is neither completely inapt nor uncurious. The Pro-Nicene Fathers would have found Tuggy’s presentation and critique as unconvincing, rationalistic, and offensive as they found the arguments of Eunomius.

As someone who has taught philosophers like Leibniz, Spinoza, and Descartes, it pains me to be described as “rationalistic” or even is especially optimistic. My epistemic stance is more derived from Thomas Reid, and in my view is fairly skeptical. But I think just making use of logic is enough to draw this charge. But it’s just a slur, I think. As to the claim that I adhere to some “religious vision” which clashes with Christianity, of course I deny that. Perhaps the reviewer would like there to be some weird, alien epistemic or religious dogmatism on my part, but this has not been shown. I suspect that he’s just reverse engineering what he thinks my methodology must have been, given my views.

What is the Trinity? Tuggy states that he hopes that his book will equip folks to figure out what they “think about” the catholic doctrine of the Holy Trinity (p. 3). This is a curious way of putting the matter. What “I” think about the doctrine is of little consequence.

To the contrary, what you think those words mean will determine the contents of your beliefs, your actual theology. And this directly affect your actions, prayers, and so on.

What is important is what the doctrine means to those ecclesial communities that teach it as a dogma that must be respected and believed.

“It.” What is it? That’s the main issue discussed in my book: the actual content of these required sentences in the creeds.

If I am considering initiation into, say, the Orthodox Church, I will want to know what Orthodoxy means by its confession of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Note the assumption here: that some one thing, some one set of claims, is meant. It’s not clear to me that there is some one content. Hence, all of the attempts by trinitarians to establish what that is.

What exactly am I expected to believe? If I then pose this question to the local Orthodox priest, he will provide me with a succinct summary of the doctrine, referencing creedal, conciliar, and catechetical pronouncements, as well as liturgical hymnody and the consensual teaching of Orthodox theologians, past and present. He will seek to describe the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, as he has received it, as he knows and lives it. This is how doctrine is faithfully handed on.

Here I think were getting closer to the crux of our disagreement.

Who do I think I am, anyway, to be discussing such things? My answer is: just one of these. In the fourth century, the hierarchy of bishops took for itself the privilege of arguing about the content of Christian teachings. This had never happened before. Back in the days of Justin and Origen, scholars and laypeople would engage in conversation an argument with one another, and of course the Bishop was a part of that. As a Protestant, I do not accept the one bishop system as God’s ordained system of church leadership. But even if I did, I would think they had gone too far in making themselves the Supreme Court of doctrinal disputes.

So, I don’t think much of myself, but I do think I have the right to ask what this traditional language means. If you ask an adult to publicly affirm some words, you should expect that he will ask you what they mean, if he does not understand. And here’s the thing: I’m pretty sure that if I just went to the local Orthodox priest and asked him their meaning, I would leave as puzzled as I came. And if that were to happen, I don’t think it would be my duty to just accept that I’m never going to understand these sentences that I have been told to profess.

But this is not Tuggy’s position. He writes as a philosophical and historical critic, as one who has rejected the trinitarian faith as incoherent and unbiblical and hopes to persuade his readers to his point of view.  

In this book, no I am not trying to make that case, a case for unitarianism. I’m just laying out the options, ones actually proposed and other conceptual possibilities. Honestly, I think that this does help me side. But in this book I don’t, for example, get into any of this.

To be clear, I am not and have never been “a philosophical and historical critic” of Christianity. I am just a Protestant and have been a born again Christian since 1978. I am a biblical unitarian because after a long and hard investigation, I now see this as a clash between the NT and later traditions.  It is now clear to me that the NT teaches that the one God just is the Father (and so, not the Trinity). The Trinity is merely inferred from the Bible, and no one actually made the inference until the fourth century, as I explain in the book. Thus, in my view, the need for Reformation. But I do not and have not ever claimed that all interpretations of trinitarian language are incoherent. Some are and some aren’t; the theories are many. You tell me what your theory is, and then we can discuss its coherence. If you just repeat the creedal formulas to me, we haven’t even started conversing about your actual theological views – we’ve only located them in a rough region, and established your loyalty to catholic authorities.

For the non-believer, as well as most Protestants, there is no Church that infallibly teaches today the faith once delivered; there are only churches and individuals existing in different parts of the world in different epochs of history. All we can do is engage in historical reconstruction.

I agree that there is no infallible church. Just look at all the churches, taking the NT as your standard, and that is where you end up. But in my view, the New Testament is meant for the Christian masses. These books were written to be read out loud to groups of people, young and old, educated and uneducated. And in some sense, they are sufficient for instruction. So no, the Christian does not need to wait around for the historians do their work, he can just get right to it with books that were designed for a person like him. Of course he needs the help of scholars to even read them, and the problem is that the scholars bring their theories with them. So it gets complicated nowadays. And yet, God’s spirit does work to bring people to faith and to new birth.

I do not believe that the diversity of interpretations poses as dire a situation as Tuggy here implies. He overlooks the regulative and grammatical function of Christian dogma. I will address this in a subsequent article in this series. At this point I simply want to point out the level of abstraction of Tuggy’s argumentation: the doctrine of the Trinity is reduced to a set of truth-claims divorced from the proclamatory, liturgical, and spiritual experience that the doctrine is intended to express and form.

“The doctrine” – again: what doctrine? I know the words, but until we nail down an interpretation of them, we cannot discuss the spiritual and practical values of that teaching. I am, yes, interested in truth claims, but I don’t see how this interest divorces theology from corporate Christian life.

Perhaps Fr. Kimel is thinking that the traditional trinitarian language actually can’t be justified by appeal to the Bible, but must be justified on some practical grounds. I’ll see if he goes there in a further installment… In any case, I don’t see how I am in any way “reducing” biblical teaching about God, his son, and his spirit to truth claims. Revealed doctrines have to involve truth claims, of course, but I believe in corporate and individual experiences relating to these matters. And I don’t think such experiences, on the whole, support belief in a triune God! But I don’t really discuss the epistemic value of religious experiences in this little book.

Nor is it possible to determine the truth or falsity of the trinitarian dogma by appeal to the “plain” meaning of the Bible, presumably read according to the criteria of the historical-critical method, for the early Christians did not read the Scriptures as historical-critical scholars. If they had, they never would have found the risen Jesus within our Old Testament. They read the Scriptures with and in the Church, employing typological and allegorical methods and hermeneutical strategies alien to the modern mindset (see “Reading the Bible Properly,” “When Scripture Becomes Scripture,” and “What Does Scripture Mean?“). Who today thinks that Proverbs 8:22-31 attests to the procession of the Son from the Father, yet this was old hat for the ante- and post-Nicene Fathers, as well as their opponents. Ecclesial meaning trumps plain meaning; or perhaps more accurately, ecclesial meaning enfolds, deepens, corrects, and transforms plain meaning.

Overall scriptural hermeneutics is a big subject which is outside the scope of this blog post and of my book. In my view, there is nothing mistaken, unreasonable, or arbitrary about Christians thinking that various Old Testament passages had more than one meaning, and that the christological meanings are only revealed in the first century. And I think it is a plausible view that while inspired apostles can do this, later imaginative people like Origen are doing a lot of mere eisegesis. To me, the New Testament is in a different boat. Apart from the last book, these books are pretty straightforward, and do not admit of esoteric interpretations. Did they read, say, Mark or Romans in a “plain” way? I think they did!

But the handicap in which Tuggy operates is even more severe. Not only does Tuggy stand outside the Christian faith (I know, I know, he will object to this statement, but as an Orthodox Christian I have to be honest about this), but his personal experience of the Christian faith is limited to an evangelical-Protestant form. He has not been shaped by the liturgical and sacramental life of the catholic Church; he has not been immersed in Eucharist nor formed by its symbolic language and graces. Forest and trees.

It is true that I have always been Protestant. The reader will have to judge if this has left me with some gaping epistemic deficiency.

Why is this important? Because the liturgy is the home and matrix of the Trinity. It was the liturgical and spiritual life of believers that ultimately drove the development of the trinitarian doctrine. The Trinity was never just a philosophical conundrum of one and three, which is too often how those in the scholastic and analytic traditions tend to think of the matter. It was always a matter of worship, praise and prayer. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

This sort of rhetoric is not to the point. Who thinks that the Trinity is just a fun little metaphysical puzzle to play around with? Honestly, I’ve met a few people with that attitude, but I have never had that attitude. To me all this stuff is deadly serious, and concerns spiritual matters of the highest importance. I don’t often pontificate about these concerns, you could call them pastoral concerns, but they’re an important motivation. Big topic, though – more than I’ll get into here.

Long before Christians formulated the doctrine of the Trinity, Christians prayed in the Trinity: to the Father, through and with Jesus the Son, in the Holy Spirit.

Yes, and in those days never, ever to a tripersonal God. Fr. Kimel here describes a unitarian-friendly practice of prayer.

Back in my seminary days in the late 70s, I read and reread Robert W. Jenson’s book The Triune Identity. After reviewing the kinds of trinitarian discourse found in the New Testament and the early tradition…

I omit his long quote from Jensen here, because it seems to me that it concerns not the Trinity, but only the triad, the trinity. This is generally what people switch to when they want to focus on the New Testament, because the New Testament never mentions or implies the Trinity. But God, his Son, and his spirit are of course all over the NT.

To “explain” the Trinity all I had to do was point to the eucharistic prayer, any extant eucharistic prayer.

I think that my reviewer here is just insisting on practical matters, and is determined to leave aside the theoretical, such as questions about the meaning and justification of trinitarian claims. “Explaining” trumps explaining (i.e. explicating or clearly conveying the meaning of traditional sentences).

Who is the God who is here addressed? The Father … but not just any Father but the Father of Jesus, his only begotten Son. The Creator is mysteriously constituted by his relation to the Nazarene.

Right! This is all unitarian compatible.

In 381 the Church definitively settled on the homoousion, applied to both the Son and Spirit.

As I explain in the book, actually emperor Theodosius I settled the dispute, and the portion of the Church which he favored (the pro-Nicene party), gladly accepted his legal strangling of the opposition through a serious of legal measures. The argument was forcibly ended.

Perhaps a book review ought to preach a little less and actually interact with historical information in the book.

Underlying, shaping, and energizing the Church’s reflection on the Trinity is its foundational doxological praxis: the Church prays to the Father, through the Son, in and by the Spirit.

I’m sorry, Fr. Kimel, but this is just rhetoric. “The Church” (i.e. mainstream Christians) did this before there was any theology of the Trinity. What you say here is what I, as a unitarian Christian do. We are talking about the Trinity (the triune God), right? Because you keep returning to the triad/trinity. The difference? It’s in the book.

Hoping for more book in part 2 of the book review. 🙂

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

43 thoughts on “Kimel’s review of What is the Trinity – Part 1”

  1. Pingback: Dale Tuggy Responds | Eclectic Orthodoxy

  2. [Rivers August 17, 2017 @ 6:45 pm] What is your explanation [of John 1:1]?

    I have given it on plenty of comments at trinities.org. I am not going to repeat it.

    [ Aaron August 17, 2017 @ 7:05 pm] I don’t hold the BU position but I would say that the best case for it is made by Dr. Dustin Smith’s view [of the logos in John 1:1?].

    DS treats the logos/sophia as a personification. I consider the Word/logos/dabar, with Marcellus of Ancyra, an essential attribute of God.

    1. Mario,

      It doesn’t really matter what Marcellus of Ancrya thought about anything. He had no contact with Jesus or the apostles and nobody considers him the final authority on anything.

      Can you give any exegetical basis for your claim that LOGOS refers to an “attribute” when it is used by the writer of the 4th Gospel? How do you explain an “[attribute] became flesh” in John 1:14?

      1. @ Rivers

        Let’s examine the key Johannine verse verses where ho logos is mentioned:

        – in John 1:1 ho logos is said to be en arch?, pros ton theon and theos

        – in 1 John 1:1-2 ho logos t?s zo?s is what the author, on behalf of himself and of other witnesses, proclaims to have heard, and seen, and looked at, and touched, and affirms that this “word of life” is “the eternal life that was with the Father”.

        – in Rev 19:13 the one who goes to war with the enemies of God, the Lamb, with his robes dipped in blood, is called ho logos tou theou

        Against this textual evidence, you seem to claim that ho logos is some sort of “name” by which Jesus was known. More or less like Simon was known as cephas, “the rock”?

        1. Oh, BTW, kai ho logos sarx egeneto means “and the Word became flesh”, where sarx is a loanword from the Hebrew basar and should be rendered with “and the Word became a human being”.

          1. Mario,

            It certainly isn’t necessary to render John 1:14 with “human being” for SARX (and that is nearly all Bible translations use the correct translation “flesh” instead).

            Regardless, even if we accept your idea of “the word became [a] human being” as a plausible translation, we still need to correctly interpret the meaning. There is nothing that requires the Greek grammar to connote “an attribute [of God] became [a] human being” and the context offers little to support the notion that this was referring to the time of Jesus’ birth.

              1. Mario,

                We also get bored with your repetitive uninformed assertions. Remember, I was merely responding to another one of your unsubstantiated claims.

                Rivers 🙂

        2. Mario,

          Yes. It seem to me that all of the passages you’ve cited suggest that “word” (LOGOS) was used by the writer of the John books as a metonym for the human being, Jesus Christ. This is because he was the man they associated with eternal life.

          Your theory that LOGOS refers to a divine attribute seems to have no exegetical merit whatsoever. If you want to go over the Greek grammar and the contextual issues, I’d be glad to revisit the discussion with you.

  3. Sean Holbrook (August 16, 2017 @ 6:38 pm) (1) Again, find me justification for your [assumed] understanding of “logos” prior to John’s writing unless you believe John is creating an entirely new understanding of “logos” alien to the entirety of Scripture prior to his lifetime. Is that your position?
    (2) From the B.U. position there are many justifiable possibilities with regards to John 1, yes even those that may agree with your [assumed] interpretation. I am not a literal pre-existent believer of the Messiah personally, but I grant why others do believe in it.
    (3) Biblically speaking, “logos” could refer to the “Memra” of the Aramaic Targums[which would then make it a metonym for YHWH, meaning the Father—and this ties into the translation of “with” in John 1:1b]. It could refer to the “Torah” of God. It could refer to a “prophecy, message” or literal “words.”
    (4) Then we could go into whether capital-G “God” even though it’s anarthrous is really the best translation of John 1:1c, or the “with” translation of John 1:1b more in detail if you’d like.
    (5) But again, back to the point. You seem to think it’s incompatible… but you’ve not made any argument *why* it is incompatible other than your assumptions in quoting a text. I see perfect compatibility… are you a oneness of some form? It does help to know how you’re viewing the text.

    I give my reply here, because otherwise, because of the indentation, it would be unreadable.
    (1) No, my point is the very opposite. Contrary to the “vulgate”, whereby John would have adopted Philo’s understanding of logos as deuteros theos, and with Marcellus of Ancyra, I affirm that the Word/logos/dabar is an eternal, essential attribute of God, that becomes “visible” (so to speak) first with creation and then with Incarnation (kai ho logos sarx egeneto).
    (2) No, the ONLY reason why the understanding of the logos as “another God and Lord” (Gr. theos kai kurios eteros) was accepted (whereas it should have been immediately rejected) is that (a) Philo was highly respected and that (b) Justin Martyr filched it (with a slight modification) from Philo’s deuteros theos.
    (3) If what you say was true, then we would have that “the Memra [or Torah, or “prophecy, message” or literal “words”] of YHWH was with [pros] YHWH”.
    All of them either irrelevant or senseless.
    (4) You could do that, but capital-G “God” for the anarthrous theos would inevitably lead you EITHER into the anathema of a “second god”, OR into [egalitarian] Trinitarianism.
    (5) I see incompatibility between Unitarianism [denial of the full divinity of Jesus Christ] and John 1 (John 1:1,14 in particular). See 1, 2, 3, 4 above.

    Oneness theology is at the very antipodes of logos theology because it affirms an unqualified identity between Jesus and YHWH (“patripassianism”). Either that, or oneness theology is irrelevant or senseless.

    Hope you are (reasonably) satisfied. 🙂

    1. Thanks for the reply Mario.

      Okay, still not sure I understand exactly your position. You seem to agree with some B.U. positions in thinking that the “logos/word” is an attribute of God, which could be a reference to the explanation that leads toward the “Memra of the Aramaic Targums.” The “Memra” was a metonym for “YHWH” and thus the “pros” would better be understood as “with reference to” or simply “towards/to” YHWH. Meaning, it’s another way to refer to God[the Father]. This explanation may not be your understanding, but it could come out from your understanding if I’m understanding what you’re claiming in [1]. If that last sentence makes sense haha.

      The above touches on point [1] and [3] slightly. But I still don’t see you showing a justification from the Scripture for your understanding of “John 1” and “logos.” Please find me a definition *within* *the* *Scripture* to justify your explanation since you take opposing views of Philo.

      For a clearer explanation of [3], you seem to think it’s “nonsense” that a word could be *with* someone? Okay, well then explain to me multitudes of texts that say the same type of thing please. Such as Hosea 14:2, John 15:7, Proverbs 8 and Wisdom, 1 John 1:2[eternal life was *pros* the Father, yet the Father has life in himself, John 5:26], Job 10:13, 23:14.

      Then one could speculate more on the many times the “word of the LORD” came *pros* a prophet, such as Isaiah 38:4 for one among many examples. So could a ‘word’ be towards the Father just as it’s towards a prophet? Jesus was embodied by God’s word and spoke about Him since He came to make Him[the Father] known. The number of examples of this are littered throughout the Gospel of John, but just a couple examples I think you’d be aware of for reference[John 12:49, John 7:16, John 8:26]. I see no contradiction in this understanding, but I suppose you may be mis-understanding our views.

      As for [4] I’m sure you’re aware of other biblical definitions of “god”[elohim] and how it’s also a title given to angels and men at times so I won’t bother to go through it unless you need me to. It doesn’t step into any form of a “second Almighty God” but yes the possibility of “gods,” lesser beings given authority and power from the one Almighty God. If you have trouble accepting this position, then I think your concern is more with the Bible than anyone else.

      Still don’t see justification for [5]… I just see your possible mis-understanding of B.U.’s other positions trying to do their best to be consistent with the entirety of Scripture to make a complete picture of harmony with “logos.”

      Thanks for the good dialogue Mario. I’m not sure how much longer I can keep it up, but it’s rare and I appreciate it.

      1. Thanks for examining my reply in as much detail as I did with yours, Sean.

        I have already explained clearly enough my perplexity with the expression “Unitarianism” (when it has the breadth of application that Tuggy tries to give it: from Socinus to Origen) and also with “Biblical Unitarianism” (because it would suggest that it is in agreement with the Bible, whereas it isn’t, because it only “agrees” with John 1:1,14 at the cost of making the agreement trivial). As for the “Memra”, I can only repeat what I said: what would become of John 1:1, “the Memra [or Torah, or “prophecy, message” or literal “words”] of YHWH was with [pros] YHWH” is either irrelevant or senseless. I see you don’t (can’t) dispute that, other than fully adopting a “Biblical Unitarian” POV, which makes John 1:1,14 either irrelevant or senseless.

        In the past I have already argued that there are at least two loci in scripture that I see in support of my view of logos: Deut 33:27 and Ps 33:6, supporting each other, as I have argued with a post at trinities.org (Word and Spirit: the “Everlasting Arms” of God). It was good enough for Irenaeus. It is good enough for me.

        No, I do not think it is “nonsense that a word could be *with* someone”. I affirm it is reductive to think of the logos as mere word (and/or rhetoric figure based on a mere word) to (try and) explain John 1:1,14. I affirm that what is with the Lord YHWH is NOT a mere flatus vocis but His eternal, essential attribute. See above. And I don’t misunderstand the view of whoever tries this reductive operation.

        You simply cannot resort to the ploy of asking why, if the angels could be called elohim, then why cannot the pre-incarnated Jesus? You cannot because angels, in the Bible, are NOT words but real beings and they are creatures. If you only consider that there could be another entity that can be called God, next to YHWH then, as I have already argued, EITHER you go against the Biblical God (“I am the Lord, I have no peer, there is no God but me.” – Isaiah 45:5-6; 46:9), OR you end up in [egalitarian] Trinitarianism. Sorry, no “third option”.

        Too bad if you still cannot see the incompatibility between Unitarianism (of whichever flavor) and a proper account of John 1:1,14

        In conclusion, let me say that you are a serious debater. We both strive for the truth. 🙂

        1. Mario,

          I’m wondering how you can construe the Hebrew words for “word” and “breath” to mean “arms.” Even the use of the two terms together in Psalms 33:6 could simply be taken in parallel since it makes perfectly good sense that speaking a “word” requires the “breath of the mouth” and it’s evident that the second clause of the verse implies the same verb (“made”) from the first clause.

          Do you believe that YHWH actually has a “mouth” and/or “arms”? If this is the case, why would He need to speak through a host of other mediators (cf. Hebrews 1:1-2)? Maybe it’s more reasonable to consider that the angelic messengers (who appeared as “men” with corporeal functions, Genesis 18:4-5, as well as were heard with voices from heaven, Genesis 21:17; John 12:29; 1 Thessalonians 4:16) are the ones from whom the Anthropomorphic language was derived.

          Also, wouldn’t it be more accurate to identify “speech” (verbal noun) or “speaking” (verb) as an “attribute.” How is “word” (noun) an “attribute”?

      2. Sean,

        Even though I agree with your Biblical Unitarian perspective, I think we need to be careful with what you’re trying to do with PROS in John 1:1b. This Greek preposition is not used with a reflexive implication and thus it’s unlikely that the writer of the 4th Gospel intended to say that “the word [of the Lord] was with God.”

        For example, if you look at the Greek version of Hosea 14:2 (that you cited in your comment), you’ll discover that it is the Greek preposition META that was used where it says “take your words with you.” You’ll also find that this is the case in all of the other OT texts which refer to something being “with the Lord.”

        I think it’s more reasonable to consider that all of the other times that PROS TON QEON (“to God”) is used in the Greek scriptures, it is always related to a human being who has near proximity, or is mediating something, to God the Father. For example, when it is used again in John 13:3, it refers to Jesus going “to God” after he completed his public ministry (cf. Revelation 12:5). It’s also interesting to consider that this is where Jesus “is” when the writer concludes the Prologue (John 1:18).

  4. There is no point in debating Trinity with Orthodox priests or bishops, in my opinion. I expected this kind of review from them. For them, Trinity is a mystery which cannot be explained. They accept it because church accepted it and believe that church was led by Holy Spirit in doing so. For them it is a given and all the arguments for its acceptance have already been concluded among their bishops by fourth century CE. The key for them is to keep the traditions that have been handed over to them by their fathers, experience Trinity in their worship and view the world in light of Trinitarian God. Especially Eastern Orthodox rejects any rational examination of doctrine of Trinity. I hope you get more interactions from theologians within Protestant and Evangelical community. That will be more interesting from a debate perspective.

    1. I see no reason why we should stop at rationalizing the trinity. Let us rationally explain God.

    2. John,

      Good points. I’ve had the same experience when occasionally discussing Christology with Catholic priests and nuns. Even though they are theologically trained, they don’t “learn” to think about biblical theology the same way that Protestants and Evangelicals do. Thus, it is very difficult to engage in a meaningful critical dialog about the issues.

  5. “The point of your book”—->>>>

    [Fr. Al Kimel’s Head]

    All I read in this article by Mr. Kimel is bait and switch[even if done on accident] and his refusal to admit he has a definition of the Trinity.

    And I can’t help but laugh and scoff at the claim you’re “not qualified”[even by implication] to critique the Trinity. Can’t see the the forest for the trees? Yikes.

  6. I am a biblical unitarian because after a long and hard investigation, I now see this as a clash between the NT and later traditions.

    Unitarianism is simply incapable to account for the Word/logos/dabar.

    1. “Unitarianism is simply incapable to account for the Word/logos/dabar”

      Disagree, trinitarianism is unable to account for it. Prior to John’s Gospel writing, find me one reference in the entirety of the OT or NT where “word” refers to a pre-existent second “person” God which is defined as a “god natured” identity that somehow still amounts to only “one God”[monotheism].

      I’ve asked every trinitarian I’ve met and still never had an answer. From my understanding trinitarians must take an eisegetical definition from outside the Scripture and input it into John 1. Even if I granted “personhood” definitions, there are still unitarian Christians[Arian like] that account for it from their position even if I disagree with them. So your point seems to be actually a non-sequitur.

      1. Mine was a criticism of Unitarianism. I do not even consider the a Trinity, which, in spite of its “mystery” is just a political compromise between neo-Nicene and semi-Arians.

        The non sequitur is entirely yours.

        1. Okay, I may be assuming something incorrectly about your views then based on your consistent claims about Dale. Are you not a trinitarian then Mario? Or oneness? Binitarian?

          Under my assumption the point is trinitarianism is not proven by John 1 and “word.” Even granted, Arians hold a similar position on “word” and “God/god” to Trinitarians yet they are clearly not Trinitarians. That was the non-sequitur.

          1. Realized also now why you think my reply was non-sequitur. You didn’t really make an argument initially though. You just made a claim that B.U. cannot account for “word/logos/dabar” and did not explain why. Making the claim and my making a counter-claim by showing trinitarianism cannot really account for it was to show by questioning[which Aaron attempted] where pre-existent believers in a person/Word get their definition prior to John 1. I did not think it necessary to list all the numerous verses that show we can account for it… since really all it takes is a simple look at a Lexicon to see our definitions are everywhere to support our position as a whole. If you need me to further explain that, I’d be a bit disappointed but I surely can do so if need be.

            1. You just made a claim that B[iblical] U[nitarians] cannot account for “word/logos/dabar” and did not explain why.

              First, I am not even sure what the expression “Biblical Unitarian” really means. In theory, it should mean a Unitarian who is fully capable to account for the Biblical evidence. But, as you know, Dale Tuggy, for instance, includes under the rubric “Unitarian” such vast array of positions (from Socinus to … Origen) as to be not only historically and conceptually unfounded, but totally useless.

              But let’s suppose, for the sake of argument that …

              Unitarian = Someone who denies the divinity of Jesus Christ

              … then, of course, this definition is incompatible with the Scripture because, for a start …

              1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 14 Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father. (John 1:1,14)

              Hope you are (reasonably) satisfied. 🙂

              1. And the John 1 debate begins… again, without a reason to claim why any B.U. cannot account for their understanding of “word/logos/dabar”?

                Again, find me justification for your [assumed] understanding of “logos” prior to John’s writing unless you believe John is creating an entirely new understanding of “logos” alien to the entirety of Scripture prior to his lifetime. Is that your position?

                From the B.U. position there are many justifiable possibilities with regards to John 1, yes even those that may agree with your [assumed] interpretation. I am not a literal pre-existent believer of the Messiah personally, but I grant why others do believe in it.

                Biblically speaking, “logos” could refer to the “Memra” of the Aramaic Targums[which would then make it a metonym for YHWH, meaning the Father—and this ties into the translation of “with” in John 1:1b]. It could refer to the “Torah” of God. It could refer to a “prophecy, message” or literal “words.”

                Then we could go into whether capital-G “God” even though it’s anarthrous is really the best translation of John 1:1c, or the “with” translation of John 1:1b more in detail if you’d like.

                But again, back to the point. You seem to think it’s incompatible… but you’ve not made any argument *why* it is incompatible other than your assumptions in quoting a text. I see perfect compatibility… are you a oneness of some form? It does help to know how you’re viewing the text.

                1. Sean,

                  You make some good points.

                  In fact, I would suggest (from an exegetical perspective) that we don’t even need to concern ourselves with what LOGOS (“word”) meant prior to the time of Jesus because the writer of the 4th Gospel consistently used LOGOS simply to refer to something spoken by a human being (usually, Jesus himself, during his public ministry).

                  Thus, why even speculate about things like Memra or DBR or other connotations of LOGOS that could be found in other sources? There’s no reason to presuppose that LOGOS in John 1:1, 14 must be isolated from the rest of the uses in the same book and then restricted to a lexical definition derived from an uncorroborated sources.

                  A more reasonable approach is to yield to the preponderance of the internal evidence (usage) and try to determine and articulate how the occurrences of LOGOS in the context of John 1:1, 14 could be understood with the same connotation. This is likely to give the meaning intended by the writer himself (and is the reason that most translations simply render LOGOS as “word” throughout all of the John books).

              2. Mario,

                Not all Christians agree with your theory that John 1:1 or John 1:14 was referring to “the divinity of Jesus Christ.” Thus, it doesn’t follow that “Unitarianism” must be defined according to your perspective.

                  1. Mario,

                    My understanding is that John 1:1 is referring to the human being, Jesus Christ. I take “in the beginning” to be referring to the time of John’s baptism when the first disciples heard from Jesus and realized that he was the son of God.

                    What is your explanation?

                  2. Mario,

                    I don’t hold the BU position but I would say that the best case for it is made by Dr. Dustin Smith’s view. You may have seen and heard from him here as Dale has had him on a couple of times. Arguing using contemporary Jewish sources outside the Bibe which speak of things pre-existing which in fact were only ideas or plans of God which would not be realized until a specific time in history he makes what I think is the best case for that position.

                    https://dustinmartyr.wordpress.com/

                    1. Aaron,

                      None of the “Jewish sources outside of the Bible” say anything about “preexistence.” Something that is part of an “idea” or a “plan” doesn’t “exist” at all.

                      For example, if my wife and I say we are “planning” to have a baby next year and consider it a good “idea”, nobody concludes that our child actually “exists” (or “preexists”) simply because we have want to start a family and “realize” it at a later time.

                      We have to be careful with irrational concepts like “notional preexistence” or “existing in the mind of God” because this is not how the biblical writers actually described or explained anything.

                    2. Rivers,

                      That’s not my position and I did state that it is not. If you disagree with the idea of notional pre-existence then you should probably debate Dale and Dustin Smith. I won’t retrieve the references for you but Dr. Smith is on Dale’s podcast with multiple examples of extra-biblical Jewish sources which talk about the Messiah, the Temple, etc. existing or being with God eternally in such a way as would be be explained by notional pre-existence. To say that the Biblical writers don’t ever actually write in this way is what is being debated by people on this point. Dr. Smith believes he can demonstrate that they did and that this is why the Bibilica Unitarian position is best. You agree with him on his position but have a different view of the verses so…that is really between 2 adherents of the BU position and not myself. I was just trying to give a helpful resource.

      2. Sean, I would propose that there are several passages which say that God appeared to people in the Old Testament in visible form as “the Word of the LORD.”

        In each of these cases it is most definitely a person (or as Dale would say, a “self”) who is present and obviously, these instances are such that the word is both personal and pre-exists Jesus Christ as man who wasn’t yet born.

        Of course, most occurrences of the phrase “word of the LORD” in the OT are simply references to what God has commanded or said. Examples of this are sentences like “and he did everything according to the word of the LORD” or “he despised the word of the LORD.” Certainly these are times when it referencing the commands and statutes of God. But on a few occasions, it refers to a vision or direct physical appearance of God specifically said to be his “word.” I would also argue that this is interchangeable for the authors with the “Angel” (Messenger) of the LORD as well.

        1. Aaron,

          I would love you to list those “several passages”. If these alleged “several passages” are none but those where the “Angel of the LORD” appears, then yours is mere wishful inference, because not once the “Angel of the LORD” is referred to as “word of the LORD”.

          1. -“I would love you to list those “several passages””

            Sure. Genesis 15:1-6 has the word of the LORD appearing to Abraham as a visible person. It also states that whoever this “word” is that he “brought Abraham outside.” This means he was physically present and personal.

            Another place is 1st Samuel 3:1-21. This passages states that the LORD “appeared” to Samuel “by the word of the LORD.” It states that the LORD “stood” before Samuel in verse 10. Check it out. It’s Yahweh appearing physically by means of “the word of Yahweh.”

            The third place would be Jeremiah chapter 1:1-9. This again is a physical appearance of Yahweh by “the word of Yahweh/LORD” where this time he reaches out his hand in verse 9 and touches Jeremiah’s mouth.

            These three instances are all what Sean was asking to be demonstrated. Namely, personal pre-existence tied to the idea of the word/logos/dabar of God. I don’t think this means Trinitarianism is true simply because of this or anything. I don’t have the agenda to prove that doctrine anyways. I’m simply stating that I see these texts as containing what he was looking for in his investigation.

            “not once the “Angel of the LORD” is referred to as “word of the LORD”.”

            I never claimed this to be the case. I simply stated that I believe the Angel of the LORD and the Word of the LORD (when spoken of as a someone who is personal physical and communicates God’s will to someone) are synonomous titles referring to the same person. Whether or not this is absolutely the case and who this person is, including whether this person is the pre-incarnate Jesus people certainly do disagree about. My only agenda is to try to be faithful to the scriptures…whether they teach the Trinity or otherwise.

            1. Genesis 15:1-6 has the word of the LORD appearing to Abraham as a visible person.

              The expression “the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision” (repeated at Gen 15:4) simply means “the Lord spoke to Abram”. The Hebrew word improperly translated with “vision” is machazeh, which doesn’t mean that sight is involved, but simply an ecstatic experience.

              Another place is 1st Samuel 3:1-21. This passages states that the LORD “appeared” to Samuel “by the word of the LORD.” It states that the LORD “stood” before Samuel in verse 10. Check it out. It’s Yahweh appearing physically by means of “the word of Yahweh.”

              That the “word of the Lord” was first experienced by Samuel as the voice of the Lord is even more clear in this passage. When it says that “the Lord came and stood nearby” it doesn’t say the “word of the Lord”, but “the Lord”. Somehow the Lord was near Samuel. All the rest is pure projection.

              The third place would be Jeremiah chapter 1:1-9.

              For the third time, the expression “the word of the Lord came [to Jeremiah]” simply means “the Lord spoke [to Jeremiah]”. Again, it was the Lord, NOT some imagined “word of the Lord” person, that “reached out his hand and touched [Jeremiah’s] mouth”.

              1. Mario,

                Your replies are the same ones that I gave when someone first showed me these same passages. Certainly, I did and do say that people don’t completely agree about it. However, I don’t think that the position that the Word of Yahweh being a visible manifestation of Yahweh to the patriarchs and prophets is simply imagination. Incorrect, perhaps, but not dismissable as out of the question fantasy. Each of the instances has in common a visual encounter with Yahweh who is supposed to be invisible. And while I admit that there is more than one way to account for the Yahweh appearing visibly despite this fact, I also believe that the Trinitarian out working and view of these passages is consistent with their entire OT and NT view of the Bible, which is important.

                In particular the passage in 1st Samuel I find most interesting, directly stating in 3:1 that “the word of Yahweh was rare in those days and there was no frequent vision.” You said that the word of Yahweh coming to someone just means God spoke to them. I agree it does mean that and as I stated in my original reply to Sean, sometimes it only means something like that. However, it also clearly refers to something visual that is happening in the literal eyesight of the prophets in other cases. “Yahweh revealed himself by the word of Yahweh” is quite a weird expression for mere audible speech, it seems that these few passages are referring to the direct physical presence of God and that this happens “by the word of Yahweh” whoever or whatever that is. All of this is not supposed to be justification for some hardline, dogmatic defense of the Trinity, but simply a point to Sean that it is not insanity to state that the word/logos/dabar be associated with personal, pre-existing presence of God in direct communion with someone in the OT which then has implications for John 1. Certainly he is correct that Arians and Subordinationists alike can account for all of this in a sensical manner and not be Trinitarian. I merely think that some allowance for conversation and the consideration of plausibility is warranted here. I try to be gracious toward people whether they are Trinitarian or non-Trinitarian concerning this issue, and have respect for people who can show internal consistency of their viewpoint, even when I disagree. Thanks again and take care.

                1. I think Mario already did a pretty good job replying but thanks for the references Aaron. Yet I do not see a necessity to interpret those texts as a “person” as the “word.” They seem to be referring to “prophecy” or “messages” contextually each time which then were later spoken BY the prophet[Jeremiah 22:29 as example]. They spoke the “word.” Jesus was ultimately a prophet who spoke God’s “word,” which was “God”[Father]. I simply see it as a message about the Father overall since it’s his words that create but John 1 would be a long go through here.

                  I can of course see how you may interpret those texts in light of your position, but what then would you do with very clear verses that seem to say otherwise?

                  Heb 1:1-2
                  1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son,

                  I think it’s quite clear this writer believes that “God” is the Father here who spoke in the past times. You seem to think it was the “Word/Son” who spoke to others though? Yet the text states clearly that it was various ways in the past times, yet in these last days by Son. So which is it? Is the writer confused or do you think it’s both?

                  I appreciate the good conversation Aaron and the way with which you presented your arguments. I also appreciate the clarity of understanding that even non-trinitarians can believe in John 1 the same way as Trinitarians yet still clearly not be Trinitarian. So many trinitarians act like John 1 is just a nail in the coffin yet don’t see the non-sequitur they create.

                  Thanks

Comments are closed.