In round 1, Burke explains that he’s a biblical unitarian, not a “rationalist” or “universalist” unitarian. Further, he confesses that:
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but not God himself
and
The Holy Spirit is the power of God, but not God himself.
Further,
The Bible is the inspired Word of God and the sole authoritative source of Christian doctrine and practice.
He neither affirms or denies inerrancy, though I doubt that will matter to this debate. That he really holds the Bible to be the sole source of Christian doctrine is doubtful, even though he reiterates this old Protestant slogan. I predict we’ll see him using principles justifiable only by reason, for example in interpreting the Bible. But he is asserting that councils, bishops, etc. have no underived authority, no authority that is independent of the Bible.
I will be using the words “God” and “Father” interchangeably.
This is familiar from John, Paul, and Peter. And Jesus in all the Gospels. (Yes – there are a very few passages where arguably Jesus is addressed as or called “God” – these are infrequent exceptions, but any theory will have to account for them as well.)
Here’s my first flag:
Arguments from silence are inadmissible
An argument from silence (“argumentum ex silentio”) is a logical fallacy defined as a conclusion based upon a lack of evidence. For example:The apostle Paul does not refer to the virgin birth in his epistles
Therefore, Paul was ignorant of the teaching that Jesus’ mother was a virgin when she conceived him
This argument is flawed because the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Arguments from silence can be good arguments. Argument from silence is an informal fallacy, and for any informal fallacy, there can be circumstances where the inference in question is reasonable. If someone doesn’t say P, we oftentimes can’t conclude with any probability that not-P – it depends, though.
- But when I got home tonight, my wife didn’t mention anything about being mugged today. I conclude that she was not mugged today. This is a perfectly fine argument, although the premises don’t entail the conclusion. (The missing premise: Probably, if my wife had been mugged today, she would have told me that she had been some time between my arriving home and now.)
- Again, I don’t see a pink elephant in here, so there is no pink elephant it here. No problem with that argument at all.
- Still, Burke is right that the example argument he gives is a weak one, or at least not obviously very strong.
Flag 2:
Any proposed definitions of a word must be supported from several examples of identical usage
This principle is self explanatory.
No, there are cases where you can reason to the meaning of a word when there are no parallels. I’m going to itch my frack right now; it is itchy, because I used Crusty Brand Shampoo too many days in a row. I’ll itch my frack right after I push my hair out of the way, and remove my hat. Probably, some loose dandruff will be released.
Now, I’ll bet you’re pretty sure what I meant by “frack”. I take it Dave’s point, though, is that he doesn’t want to allow arbitrary, special-pleading, theory-saving definitions for words. Fair enough.
Flag 3:
the Christian God is the Jewish God and everything that we know about Him through the Christian message was already known to the Jews through Judaism.
I don’t think he really wants to say this. But it can be argued that the NT concept of God pretty much is the same as the OT one, though the NT writers may have presented a better or more complete representation of his character. I mean, where does any NT author assert some essential attribute of God that that can’t be found somewhere in the OT?
Flag 4:
Since it is now widely accepted that the first-century church was not Trinitarian, it has become necessary for Trinitarians to explain (a) why this was and (b) how Trinitarianism successfully emerged from an ideological climate which was wholly unfavourable to it.
This is, in my view, true and important. Further, there’s a unsettling disconnect here between biblical specialists and theologians on this score. But I throw a minor flag, because the point does need arguing in this context. Bowman appears to hold that the NT writers implicitly held trinitarian views. If this is so, then in a sense some early Christians were trinitarian. This is probably out of bounds for this debate, but if anyone is curious, read what we have from Justin Martyr, and ask yourself whether or not he’s a trinitarian in anything like the sense on which Bowman would insist.
Burke points out that on the face of it, the God of the Bible is a self. There are the personal pronouns. And there is the way he’s clearly assumed to be someone other than, and hence some other being than (any person / self just is a certain being) Jesus – someone Jesus obeys, prays to, loves.
- I think Dave goes too far when he asserts that Deut 6:4 features “explicit Unitarian language”, but I’ve posted on that passage before. (Again, here.)
- He doesn’t need to say that, though. Yahweh is supposed to be what? A god. What is a god? A certain sort of self. That puts the burden on one who accepts the accuracy of the Bible, but denies that he’s a person / self. We’ll look next time at how Bowman responds.
He anticipates that Bowman won’t be impressed, so he asks:
(a) What would you consider valid evidence of a Unitarian God?
(b) If God is one person how would you expect Scripture to say so?
Good questions.
Finally, Burke points out, like Samuel Clarke, that only the Father / God is called pantokrator (all – powerful), and according to two gospels, only he is all-knowing, and Jesus is not all-knowing. (Mt 24:36) God is omnipresent, self-existent, essentially immortal, morally perfect, invisible, and incorporeal. Jesus doesn’t share these last two attributes.
But according to Burke, Jesus is morally perfect, and this entails that he can neither sin nor be tempted. But was he not tempted, according to Burke?
Next up: Bowman’s opening salvo.
Before Augustine of Hippo, early Christian writings do not reflect anything resembling unconditional predestination.
Dave,
You agree that “from the foundation of the world” could also mean “from the beginning of mankind,” and append that this doesn’t affect your argument either way.
Well, at least it means that Re 13:8 doesn’t confirm your claim that the concept/idea of a Saviour, the Messiah, was already there in God’s plan before the rebellion in Eden.
You explain that “the fact that God is omniscient and knew that it would be necessary,” makes you believe the concept of a Savior was already there in God’s plan” before the world existed. And: “Yes, God knows everything so He knew that Adam and Eve would sin.”
This is a common misconception about God. God is omniscient in the sense that nothing can be hidden from him. But does God’s divinity and perfection require that he is all-knowing, not only respecting the past and present but also regarding the future? That would be an arbitrary view of things. Just like God’s almightiness and perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases, God can choose to exercise his infinite ability of foreknowledge in a selective way and to the degree that pleases him. So, it is not a question of ability, what God *can* foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, but of what God sees fit to foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “He does whatever He pleases.” (Ps 115:3)
This selective or discretionary exercise of God’s powers of foreknowledge, harmonizes with God’s own righteous standards and is consistent with what he reveals of himself in his Word.
If God would have known, even before he made Adam and Eve, that they would disobey him, God’s placing before Adam and Eve the prospect of everlasting life would have been a sham. So would the Bible’s invitation, “let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.” (Re 22:17) But God would never offer something he knew that it was impossible for one to obtain. Also, if God, for example, long ago foreordained precisely who would gain eternal salvation and who would be eternally destroyed, why does the Bible say that God “is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance”? (2Pe 3:9)
You seem to believe that when God told the first couple: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth,” (Ge 1:28) he already knew that their wonderful prospect of life in a paradise was doomed to failure. I do not.
You affirm that you believe it was God who knowingly and deliberately has been setting all the wickedness in motion. Though you add that God’s foreknowledge does not cause events. But his creating of Adam and Eve most certainly did *cause* events. So how do you believe God is not *also* responsible for the wickedness? If I give my child in custody with an imperturbable murderer, knowing in advance that he will kill the child, am I not *also* responsible for its death, even though I was not the one murdering it?? If the full weight of all the wickedness of the world was deliberately set in motion by your God, he would be partly to blame for it.
By the way, isn’t your God terribly bored, all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained?
Shalom,
H.
Helez,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that “from the foundation of the world” could also mean “from the beginning of mankind.” It doesn’t affect my argument either way.
The fact that God is omniscient and knew that it would be necessary. Jesus wasn’t a backup plan.
Yes, God knows everything so He knew that Adam and Eve would sin. This does not make Him responsible for their sins, nor does it make Him responsible for ours. God’s foreknowledge does not cause events; it merely grants Him advance knowledge of them.
Do you believe God knew there would be a need for a saviour?
Dave, thanks for your response. I hope you will be better soon.
Re 13:8 speaks of “from [apo] the foundation of the world,” not of “before [pro] the world was.” (Joh 17:5)
apo vs. pro
You will presumably agree with me that the word kosmos in Scripture can have various meanings. Generally there is a clear connection between kosmos and the world of mankind. This helps us to understand what is meant by the phrase ‘from the founding of the world’ (also used in Lu 11:50, 51; Mt 25:34; Re 17:8, compare Mt 13:35; Heb 9:26).
“The founding of the world” relates to the beginning of mankind. Heb 4:3 shows that God’s creative works were, not started, but “finished from the founding of the world,” and since Eve evidently was the last of God’s earthly creative works, the world’s founding could not precede her. Lu 11:50, 51 speaks of the ‘shedding of the blood of all the prophets since the foundation of the world’, i.e. from the time of Abel onward.
The world that God started when he created Adam and Eve was “very good,” it was absolutely free from sin and corruption. (Ge 1:31) It did not need a “redemption.” (Eph 1:7). The particular world in Re 13:8 is the one that came into existence after Adam and Eve rebelled in Eden, a world very different from the one originally purposed by God.
So, again, what makes you believe “the concept” of a Savior “was already there in God’s plan” before [pro] the world existed?
And, if you believe that Jesus’ life and work on earth were foreknown and planned by God “before the world was,” does this mean that you also believe that Adam and Eve’s disastrous disobedience were foreknown by God before he created them? It was He who knowingly and deliberately has been setting all the wickedness in motion?
I simply believe the person known as Jesus existed with God very literally, not just as an idea in the mind of God in a time before there was a need for ‘a concept of a Savior.’ The latter is not taught in Scripture.
cherylu:
I don’t know about Rob (he’s probably just very busy) but I have been very ill this week. I have spent most of the past three days in bed, unable to write or think clearly. I am gradually improving, but remain in poor health.
I can’t make any promises about a rebuttal; as it stands, I will struggle to get my Week 4 argument finished in time for Monday.
Helez:
I don’t think of it in terms of “need.” I simply observe that the concept was already there in God’s plan. Look at the way John expresses it in Revelation 13:8:
Here John tells us that the Lamb (Jesus) was “slain from the foundation of the world.” This is clear predestination language, expressed as if referring to a literal event. Yet we know that Jesus was not literally slain at the foundation of the world.
The allusion is most likely to Genesis 3:21, where God made coats of skins to cover Adam and Eve, a process which required the death of an animal (typifying Christ).
Dave,
I can’t help but wonder where both you and Rob have disappeared? It is Saturday and we have not seen any official rebuttals from either one of you on the official debate site.
Dave, something else: why do you believe there was a need for (the idea of) a Savior, the Messiah, “before the world existed”?
Dave, if you want to believe John 17:5 reflects “predestination language,” then I’ll respect that.
You ask: What do you mean by “the most natural reading of the text”?
Well, can’t you at least acknowledge that the most natural reading of this text simply is Jesus asking his Father to glorify him with the glory that he had (no the idea about him in the mind of God) alongside God, before the world was?
My reading doesn’t turn him into the misconceptions you presume.
I believe the Bible shows us that Jesus had a prehuman existence as a created spirit person, the firstborn Son of God. His life was miraculously transferred from heaven to earth to be born as a human soul, the man Jesus Christ. He didn’t have two natures bound together in a single person. He was a perfect human man, like Adam was. When he died he didn’t exist anymore until he was resurrected by God, his heavenly Father. Yes, Jesus gave up his human life as a ransom sacrifice for the benefit of mankind. (Heb 10:5; Joh 6:51) After his death and resurrection Jesus is a mighty, glorious spirit person, incorruptible and immortal. He returned to an even higher position in the heavens.
🙂
Helez:
Sure, that’s perfectly reasonable. But look at the rest of Jesus’ words in John 17, where he repeatedly uses the language of predestination (as I showed in my post at P&P). He constantly refers to events which have not yet occured as if they already have. So the context matches my interpretation perfectly. I don’t need to force it onto the text; it’s already there.
Well mate, you’re entitled to your opinion. But the evidence is all there and it looks pretty good to me.
What do you mean by “the most natural reading of the text”? The most natural reading of the text is the one which is in perfect harmony with the rest of the Biblical evidence. I believe my interpretation provides that reading.
Your reading turns Jesus into a divine super-being who pre-existed, was never truly a human in the first place, and probably didn’t even die on the cross.
Dave, I do not object the legitimateness of “predestination language” in itself. I object to your attempt to apply this concept on a verse like John 17:5. The fact that such language is used sometimes in Scripture doesn’t prove *at all* that the concept can be forced upon verses that actually do not resemble such language at all. So, because “predestination language” is used somewhere else, doesn’t mean that it is used in this verse.
(If what you posted on P&P is the best you can do, than that kind off underlines my point.)
Dave, besides, what would be the reason to force such interpretation upon verses like this if accepting the most natural reading of the text is actually in perfect harmony with the Bible as a whole?
Helez:
That would be pretty bizarre, since my post at Parchment & Pen demonstrates via reference to Jewish writings that this is exactly how they viewed such passages. Are you claiming that they suddenly changed their minds in the 1st Century AD?
What would you consider evidence? I suggest you take a look at Hebrews 7:9, where the same language is used.
I’ve already established that Jewish tradition treated passages of this nature in a non-literal sense and I’ve shown that they were still doing this in the 1st Century. That’s good enough for me.
Hi Dave,
Dave wrote:
“Yes I can accept it without any qualification whatsoever. I simply read it as its original Jewish audience did, understanding that it speaks of predestination rather than literal existence.”
Well, actually you don’t seem to read it without qualification at all, and I disagree with your opinion that the original Jewish audience understood this verse as speaking of predestination rather than literal existence. Can you show me *evidence* in ancient writings for your claim that the original Jewish audience read this verse as speaking of predestination? I would appreciate it. (To support my position, I *can* show you ancient writings of Jewish audience who understood the Christian Greek Scriptures as speaking of Jesus’ literal prehuman existence, and as such I believe the historical evidence is on my side.)
John 17:5, ESV:
“And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”
Predestination language? This verse was read without qualification to say that it predestines the Messiah’s existence with the Father before the creation of the world? That makes sense to you? Or was it the glory of the idea of Jesus in the mind of God that he didn’t have now anymore?
An Hebraic concept of notional pre-existence doesn’t match this verse. But again, I would appreciate any substantial evidence in support of your opinion.
Shalom,
H.
Fair point, Dale.
I use the term “Biblical Unitarian” to distinguish my Christology from Rationalist Unitarianism (predominantly held by Deists and secularists) and Universalist Unitarianism (to which I am theologically opposed).
If I simply called myself “unitarian”, I would still need to qualify it further. “Biblical Unitarian” ticks the boxes without requiring additional explanation.
For what it’s worth, I don’t like the term “biblical unitarian”. It’s a polemical label, like “pro-choice” or “pro-life”. Drawing on some early 19th c. sources, I’d call Burke’s theory a unitarian (small “u” – this is not the name of any denomination, but a description) view of God and a humanitarian Christology. The unitarian view that Jesus is not God but pre-existence and served as God’s instrument of creation (which Burke is not defending) I call “subordinationism”. One might call it a “middle” (vs. a high or low) christology. In the old days I think it was called a “high Arian” view, but it really depends in no way on Arius, nor was it originated by him.
Scott, have you considered the Boethian reconciliation of foreknowledge and free will? I believe it is logically robust, and it does not involve the Molinist appeal to middle knowledge.
Scott,
I don’t believe Arius would have read it this way at all. He believed that Jesus literally pre-existed, whereas I do not.
I can’t see how middle-knowledge comes into play here. I believe God has full knowledge of all things, but this does not preclude or limit our free will.
Dave– at least, that’s how Arius might’ve read this. However, does this commit you to a particular view out predestination? For Arius, this amounts to middle-knowledge. But some, arguably, have shown that middle-knowledge is untenable.
Helez:
Yes I can accept it without any qualification whatsoever. I simply read it as its original Jewish audience did, understanding that it speaks of predestination rather than literal existence.
Dave,
(1) I didn’t say you were Socinian and didn’t claim that Jesus pre-existed, although I’m convinced he did. I did say: “Early Christianity cannot be harmonized with Trinitarianism or Socinian Christology” and “The historical argument supports the belief that the Father alone is Almighty God and that Jesus Christ, the Messiah, preexisted as the Son of God in heaven, and was God’s agent in creating the world and delivering salvation.” I asked if there was objection to this proposition (about the historical argument), not if you objected to my alleged claim of Jesus’ prehuman existence.
(2) About the Shema you said that “Biblical Unitarians can read this verse and accept what it is saying without any qualification whatsoever,” can you do same with John 17:5? Jesus is speaking here about the glory he had alongside God before the world was.
(3) Do you know of more people in this world who regard the belief that Almighty God is only one person, the Father, and that the pre-existent Jesus Christ is a distinct, created and inferior being than God, nevertheless “essentially Binitarian”? (I’m fine with agreeing to disagree, but words do have a meaning, and this sound to me like insisting to call a table a chair. So, your position in this is a bit confusing to me.)
By the way, I don’t think you will care but I object to your claim of the phrase “Biblical Unitarianism,” insisting that this phrase includes a Christolgy that excludes Christ’s pre-existence.
🙂
Peace 2u,
Helez
Helez:
OK, then we’ll agree to disagree. 🙂
Andrew –
I might word it that Christ was capable of sin. Now, you would say he was born in our likeness and we are prone to sin, therefore he is prone to sin. It seems one prone to sin will sin. But it seems one capable of sin might not sin. Hence, Adam was capable of sin (not prone) and he choose to sin. We are capable (and prone) to sin and we choose sin. Christ is capable (but not prone) to sin and he chose not to sin.
Again, one prone to sin will inevitably sin, right? One capable of sin can choose not to or to sin.
Helez,
(1) I am not a Socinian. I am a Biblical Unitarian. I object to your claim that Jesus pre-existed. I believe he did not.
(2) I treat John 17:5 in the same way that I treat the Shema. It refers directly to the Father and confirms that He alone is the only true God. Trinitarians try to pretend that there’s room for Jesus as well, but they’re wrong.
😛
Sorry, Shema.
Dave, I predict you treat John 17:5 like Trinitarians treat the Schema. Correct?
🙂
Dave,
So you regard someone who believes that Almighty God is one person, and that only the Father is Almighty God, and who believes that the Son, who preexisted in heaven, is a created being, distinct from God, and inferior to him, essentially a Binitarian? I would disagree…
Early Christianity cannot be harmonized with Trinitarianism or Socinian Christology.
The historical argument supports the belief that the Father alone is Almighty God and that Jesus Christ, the Messiah, preexisted as the Son of God in heaven, and was God’s agent in creating the world and delivering salvation.
Any objections to this proposition?
Helez, subordinationism is a subset of binitarianism. You’ve said nothing here that I don’t already agree with.
🙂
Dave,
You stated: “Justin was essentially binitarian”.
But that isn’t true at all. Though he believed in the preexistent Jesus Christ, like all of the early Church Fathers, even calling Jesus “God,” he was a subordinationist.
Justin believed that the Father alone is Almighty God and that the Son was created, distinct from God, and inferior to him.
The early Church Fathers reflected to a great degree what first-century Christians taught about the relationship of the Father and the Son.
Hello
Ok, but there is nothing new here. I am not talking about ‘original sin’ which I define as an inherent sinful status inherited from Adam and on account of Adam’s sin. Instead, ‘capability’ is like ‘possibility’ and this is not ‘probability’. So, human beings are born prone to sin; they do not become prone to sin on account of their environment. This is not a comment about statistical probability but about a characteristic of the mental in human beings: it has a tendency to sin.
Anyone prone to sin may not sin. Christ was prone to sin if we are born prone to sin. We sin but he did not sin.
Pre-fall Adam is not prone to sin but he is capable of sin. As a result of the Fall, human beings were made prone to sin.
Andrew
Andrew –
Please share more of your thoughts on capability and tendency to sin. Were both categories of sin present in both pre-fall Adam and Christ?
Dave and Scottl,
I am following this debate and have read the posts here on moral perfection. I am wondering why you are discussing ‘capable of sin’ in relation to Adam and Christ but not ‘tendency to sin’ – this latter concept is not ‘original sin’ and it is stronger than ‘capable of sin’.
Andrew
Scott:
That’s right, I’m Australian.
Yes, absolutely. Justin would be scratching his head and wondering how I could possibly have got it all wrong. Tertullian would probably write me a few aggressive letters. 😉
LOL, you’re right – history does tell the story of the winners, though in the case of the Arian controversy we have plenty of information about the losers as well.
Who won at Nicaea? Well, as a Biblical Unitarian I view both sides as heretical, so in my view: the the Athanasian heretics won! 😛
Ah, yes, I wish I could go back and edit comments. That’s why I like Parchment & Pen.
By the way, my historical study is limited. Much less than yours. I am aware of some things, have read a little. But that is one area I lack – historical theology (as well as excretology). 🙂
But doesn’t history tell the story of the winners, as they say? So who won out at Nicene? ;P
Dave –
But they might still look at your theology and say, this guy is somewhat off-base.
I think your an Australian or British, so this statement is good for you: Damn, I’ve just messed up my quote tags. I wish we could edit our posts!
But Americans will freak out and might just discount you. I’m not, but just letting you know how Americans react. 😉
I think I can figure out your comment.
Scott:
But we don’t redefine them. We simply reject them outright. There is no Christadelphian equivalent for these concepts.
Yeah, me too! But that’s not what I believe, Scott. I believe that I was born with the ability to sin.
Yes, Adam was created sinless; just like a baby. But he was still capable of sin, as we know from Scripture. Yes, Adam had that ” internal battle between flesh and Spirit that exists in us now”. But that battle did not commence until he received the commandments of God and was presented with a choice between obedience and disobedience (Romans 4:15 & 5:13).
BTW, don’t get too carried away with the hyperbolic language of Psalm 51. 🙂
Damn, I’ve just messed up my quote tags. I wish we could edit our posts!
:/
Scott:
Dave –
Ah, but you can redefine those two words and join the club! Mormons do that with almost every term in Christian vocabulary. 😉
Whew, if I was born with the ability not to sin! So, this internal battle between flesh and Spirit that exists in us now, did Adam have this? I think Adam was created sinless, I was conceived of sin in my mother’s womb (Ps 51). Rom 3 helps show our motives from day one. But Adam’s (and Christ’s) motives from day one were not like ours.
But I’m sure you have an answer to these as well. 😉
Dave –
So are you admitting to an evolving (or developing) Christology? Could not Nicene been one of the final cherries on top in helping make conclusive statements about what the full tenor of Scripture teaches about Christ?
Wouldn’t making such statements about Justin Martyr and Irenaeus cause problems to your Christology. Let’s say Justin was specifically binitarian and Irenaeus was modalistic. These two guys would, then, also refute you of making Christ less than God. So why quote them?
Yes, we are all products of our time. Martin Luther was and hence why those in the ‘new perspective of Paul’ camp would argue that justification is not properly seen in its first century context.
But, 100-200 years later, if Justin and Irenaeus had lived then, would they not have worked with the Nicene group or find themselves having serious problems amongst the developing Trinitarian doctrine? This is here no there, and even fallacious, but something in me seems to think these guys would have moved along with the rest of the church in those early centuries and not stayed a product of 100-200 years previous. But we don’t know.
Yes, but the metaphysical arguments were ultimately being weighed through Scripture. Of course, nothing is proved here. But they were formulating metaphysical (or philosophical) concepts based upon the illuminating effect of what was seen as Scripture. Again, not one or two guys doing this, but a whole host.
Scott:
You suppose correctly. 😀
Christadelphians don’t believe in “original sin” or “total depravity.” Adam was made like we are. Adam and Jesus were both were capable of sin. Adam succumbed; Jesus didn’t.
Stay tuned for more of this in Week 2 of the debate. 😉
Dave –
I’d say there is something in Scripture that we can see different between the creation of Adam and the creation of us. Adam was created perfect (no sin). We were sinners from our birth/creation. But, I suppose, you don’t like the idea of ‘original sin’ from Rom 5?
Scott:
Yes, that is my argument. If Jesus can sin whilst still being God, he’s not much of a God in my opinion.
Well, as we have seen, this question turns entirey upon which defintion of “absolutely morally perfect” we choose to employ. I don’t agree that Adam was “absolutely morally perfect” because he was clearly capable of sin.
There is nothing in Scripture that suggests he was made in any way that is different to you and I. If he had been “absolutely morally perfect” (ie. morally perfect by nature, not merely by choice) he would not have sinned in the first place. So if “absolutely morally perfect” is used as an ontological statement, I argue that (a) Adam was not morally perfect in this way, which is why (b) he sinned.
The pre-resurrection Jesus was morally perfect by choice, but not by nature (hence his capacity to sin). The post-resurrection Jesus is morally perfect by nature and therefore incapable of sin.
Yes, the standard Trinitarian defence is a retreat into some form of Nestorianism. Reformed apologists have recognised this as a major problem. It also presents difficulties when attempting to argue purely on the basis of Sola Scriptura.
Scott:
Thanks, I appreciate your attitude just as much as you appreciate mine. I’ve been debating Trinitarians well for over a decade, and I’ve taken all sort of abuse during that time. It’s refreshing to have such a courteous exchange on a higher intellectual level.
Excellent points, with which I agree. It is easy to cherry-pick the Early Church Fathers for quotes which appear to support our respective theologies and claim that “they believed what I do” or “they rejected your Christology”! I like the way David Bercot puts it in his Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Hendrickson Publishers, 1998):
Of course one quote from one scholar does not prove a case. But there can be no doubt that the greater body of evidence, when objectively considered, demonstrates that classical Trinitarianism was simply not a feature of pre-Nicene Christianity. Each of the major church fathers left his mark on the evolving Christology; Justin contributed Logos theory, Irenaeus provided substance/essence terminology, Theophilus coined the term “trinitas”, Tertullian attempted to define the precise nature of the relationship between the persons, Origen confessed the eternal generation of the son, and so it went on throughout the early centuries.
An error frequently committed by Trinitarian laymen is to read the early fathers’ works and conclude: “Although they didn’t say what we’d expect them to say if they were truly Trinitarian, we think they probably meant what we mean when we use similar or identical language, so it is safe to conclude that they believed what we currently believe.”
This is a fundamentalist approach which is easily exposed as simplistic and anachronistic. Modern Trinitarian scholarship takes a more sophisticated view, recognising that the Trinity was an evolving doctrine within an evolving theological environment (see for example the work of James F. McGrath and Larry Hurtado). We cannot speak of Trinitarian orthodoxy prior to Nicaea; instead we merely have a loose collection of roughly defined heterodoxies all jostling for position in the ideological marketplace.
I personally believe that Justin Martyr, Tertullian and the others I have mentioned were not Trinitarian in any true sense of the word, and I believe you will find that standard authorities agree with me on this point. It is an issue which presents logical and epistemological difficulties for Sola Scriptura Trinitarians (particularly of the Type II variety) which is precisely why I have mentioned it here and will be raising it in my debate with Rob Bowman.
Yes it is quite likely, depending on whom they interacted with. I say this because we must recognise that there were some insuperable differences between the Christologies of these men.
Justin was essentially binitarian; Irenaeus would have rejected this as a dangerous division of the essence which unites the persons. Irenaeus attacked the concept of “another god” which formed the backbone of Martyr’s Christology, but stressed the essential unity of the persons to such a degree that he occasionally appears almost Modalistic. This would have been offensive to Tertullian, who pushed Christology in the opposite direction, to the extent that he himself appears almost tritheistic.
In fact, Stuart G. Hall (Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church; Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1992) suggests that Adversus Praexean might even have been written as a polemical response to Irenaean Christology! And of course, Origen was an ontological subordinationist, blatantly denying that Jesus is autotheos.
So you see, it is not quite as simple as everyone sitting down together to compose a definitive Christology over a plate of doughnuts and a few beers. Even if they had all been contemporaries, there is no guarantee that they would have agreed on a universal Christology. 🙂
You make some odd assumptions here. Why would they have “led and championed the whole church towards non-Trinitarian beliefs”? No reason that I can see. They existed as products of their respective environments and times, in which their views were by no means unusual. Justin’s Christology was acceptable to him and to most of those around him, so there was no reason to champion anything. The same is equally true of Tertullian.
However, Justin makes a significant admission: he tells us that he knows of Christians who do not believe that Jesus is God, and he tells us that he still considers them Christians!
Note this excerpt from his Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter XLVIII:
Martyr therefore acknowledges the existence of Christians who do not believe that Christ pre-existed; who believe that he was a “man of men.” Yet he refers to them as “of our race” and “my friends.” So although he disagrees with their Christology, he does not consider them heretics.
This is just one of the many lines of evidence which demonstrates the prevailing heterodoxy that existed within the second-century church. At this time there was little or no attempt to establish a concrete, universal orthodoxy. Theology was frequently localised and individual; “orthodoxy” varied from place to place. Heterodoxy was commonplace and widely acceptable.
John C. McDowell’s monograph ( Arius: A Theological Conservative Persecuted?, 1994 sums it up rather well:
(Emphasis mine).
Your assertion that the fathers of Arius’ era “saw that [Arius’] Christology failed to stand up to Scripture” is not strictly accurate. Arius was attacked primarily on the basis of metaphysical arguments, not Scriptural ones. Additionally, Arius and his supporters made extensive use of Scripture (sometimes even more frequently than the Athanasians) which was a source constant of frustration to the emerging orthodoxy.
It was this “abuse of Scripture” (as they saw it) which led the Athanasians to frame the new Christology in unbiblical language, using philosophical terms specifically constructed for the purpose (see Edmund J. Fortman’s The Triune God; Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1971).
You ask if Justin and Tertullian’s views would have been found wanting by the Nicene Christians – yes they would, and yes they were! In his Deposition of Arius, Bishop Alexander of Alexandrian wrote:
But is this not the very language of Tertullian? Indeed it is, as we saw in one of my previous posts:
Irenaeus rejected the analogy of “light from light” to explain the generation of the Son (a metaphor previously employed by Justin) and the Arians also considered it heretical. Yet the Nicenes embraced this symbolism and wrote it into their creed (“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father”, as the Chalcedonian version would later express it).
Point made, I believe?
Yes, this is a good point well made.
I disagree with the second half of this sentence (emphasis mine). 😉
Dave –
So, I guess you would argue that, because Jesus had the capacity to sin, this cuts at any possibility of being divine? Of course, I would argue that this is does not cut at His ability of being divine.
And, can one not be absolutely morally perfect and also capable of being tempted? I.e. the first Adam pre-fall?
Of course, I know the argument will weigh heavily on James 1:13 – that God cannot be tempted – and because Jesus was, He is not God. Then a Trinitarian would argue along the lines of the implications of what the incarnation entails, or the eternal Logos becoming human. Then you’d argue against that. Then we’d dance in a circle all night long. 🙂
Scott:
OK, now we’re on the same wavelength. You’re using the term “morally perfect” to mean “never sinned”, whereas I am using it an absolute sense. For the sake of argument, I can agree with your definition and say that yes, Adam was morally perfect before the fall, just as Jesus was morally perfect throughout his entire life.
However, I am using the term “perfection” in an ontological sense as well, which in the context of the post-resurrection Jesus means that he is totally impeccable (an attribute he did not possess prior to his change of nature).
Dave –
Again, I commend you for your amazing interaction with people like myself. I don’t usually receive such from non-Trinitarians. And I am sure the testimony of non-Trinitarians is that they do not receive gracious interaction from people like my hard-headed self. 🙂
With regards to your quote from Tertullian, it is easy to go back and quote a passage of church fathers to show a certain belief held. Some universalists do this by quoting a few statements from someone like Origen to support universalism in the early church.
I could go back and quote Augustine to support cessationism, but then he changes his mind by the end of his life, due to the overwhelming events and experiences he saw in Hippo near the end of his life, which now supports continuationism. As a continuationist, I could quote him later in his life, and I have before.
So it is important to study these beliefs, to stay connected to church history, to refer back to them. We like sola Scriptura, in that the Scripture is the starting point and basis of our beliefs, but not solo Scriptura that the Scripture is the only basis of our beliefs. So church history is important. But one quote from Tertullian or Justin Martyr would not substantiate that the church was substantially non-Trinitarian or even Trinitarian in the early century. Just as we encourage the holistic study of Scripture and its holistic revelation, so such is important with the church fathers.
I’m sure more quotes can be provided for non-Trinitarian theology. But, though this is not provable, let’s say that it could be proved by a few of their statements that Justin Martyr and Tertullian were absolute non-Trinitarians in the more formulated sense. Is it not more likely that, as these men interacted with the next generation of fathers, their beliefs would have developed in line with the tenor of the Nicene discussions (and other discussion)?
Of course, if these 2 were really non-Trinitarians, they could have led and championed the whole church towards non-Trinitarian beliefs. But, interesting that when a guy like Arius arrives, the father’s of the present time (a whole host, not one or two) saw that his teaching failed to stand up to Scripture. So, would Tertullian and Justin Martyr’s non-Trinitarian beliefs (if such can be absolutely established from a few statements) not have been found wanting amongst the Nicene discussions as was Arius’s?
Nothing I’ve said proves Trinitarianism nor non-Trinitarianism. I guess I have simply taken a long way around to ask that we recognise quoting one or two passages from the writings of one or two early church fathers does not establish non-Trinitarian theology as the norm of the early church. The norm of the early church moved towards recognising a Triune God presented in the whole revelation of Scripture.
Dave –
It’s interesting that the first Adam was capable of sin but was perfectly sinless prior to the Fall. He was morally perfect prior to sinning, though he had the capability to sin.
So, the second Adam arrives who had the capacity to sin (since he was tempted as a humanity shall be) but, whereas Adam failed to maintain moral perfection, the second Adam maintained moral perfection. Just as Adam was morally perfect prior to sin, so the second Adam was morally perfect prior to sin. But, he never sinned, thus remaining morally perfect always.
I suppose we are going to quibble over the definition of ‘moral perfection’, just as we might quibble over the definition of being and person (or solid and liquid).
Kenny,
Good response and well reasoned. This statement had particular resonance:
I notice that you’ve raised the typical Trinitarian “contradictions” objection. This is consistent with my observations about Trinitarian methodologies in another thread (see the post here: https://trinities.org/blog/archives/1715#comment-91907).
From what I’ve seen so far, you’re what I call a Type III Trinitarian (which explains why you seek compromise on the application of Sola Scriptura). This is slightly qualified by your use of the “it’s-the-best-way-to-make-sense-of-the-evidence” argument, which is a distinctly Type II approach.
The question that necessarily arises for me when I read your post is: “What is the nature of the ‘contradictions’ to which you refer, and are you absoutely sure that they cannot be resolved without the aid of other intepreters?” You seem to rule out the possibility of Scripture explaining itself, which implies that prima facie contradictions require extraBiblical solutions.
What if I told you that Scripture provdes all the necessary data for resolving the apparent contradictions without abandoning Sola Scriptura?
Dave – What I meant by my concession was this: suppose you endorse a strong individualistic sola scriptura formulation: I should only believe about God those things which I can clearly see for myself to be the teaching of Scripture. If I endorsed that principle, I would have to be agnostic, because as far as I can see for myself (without the aid of other interpreters) the texts relevant to this question amount to a mess of contradictions. I can try to resolve the contradictions, but the thing I end up with after trying to resolve them won’t be something I can clearly see to be the teaching of Scripture; it will just be what the Scripture seems to me to be getting at. In fact, I endorse no such strong principle, but if I did, whether I endorsed Arianism, Oneness theology, orthodox Trinitarianism, or some heterodox form of Trinitarianism, it wouldn’t be more than a conjecture. Texts can be found which seem, prima facie, to tell against each of these views. But when we weaken our sola scriptura principle and drop the excessive individualism, I think a strong case for orthodox Trinitarianism can be made.
ScottL:
“Dave –
What does it mean to be ‘morally perfect’?”
Exactly what it says: perfectly moral. No capacity for sin. Utterly impeccable.
Prior to his death and resurrection, Jesus was capable of sin. God made Jesus immortal upon his resurrection, at which point Jesus also became incapable of sin.
Kenny,
That’s a fair summary. I agree with your observation about the traditional Western Christian approach; however, it is one thing for the church to believe this and quite another to prove it. Is the doctrine of the Trinity really harmonious with early Christian beliefs?
I doubt that Justin Martyr would recognise modern Trinitarianism as orthodox theology, and I doubt that modern Trinitarians would be thrilled by this bold statement from Tertullian’s Adversus Hermogenem:
“Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin.
There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”
That is precisely the type of language and theology for which Arius was later anathematised!
I appreciate your concession on (2), though I am intrigued by your statement that “…we would end up being agnostic on this point, rather than embracing unitarianism”. It’s an interesting and unexpected conclusion.
Dave – Traditional Western Christians believe in doctrinal development, so from that perspective it is sufficient that (1) the doctrine of the Trinity is not in direct conflict with early Christian beliefs, and (2) it can be justified by some other route than appeal to tradition. This, I think, is what most traditional Western Christians would in fact hold.
I’ll agree, however, that (2) is very difficult to justify. On certain strong interpretations of sola scriptura it may be impossible to justify, but I would think that on those views, we would end up being agnostic on this point, rather than embracing unitarianism.
Dave –
What does it mean to be ‘morally perfect’?
Dale,
That’s elegantly expressed. I believe Jesus’ moral perfection is necessarily a post-ressurrection attribute, which he gained when he was immortalised. Thus, Jesus was not originally morally perfect, but he is now.
I think it could even be argued that since Jesus’ nature has changed (according to my Christology) he is now “essentially” morally perfect. You may disagree, depending on your definition of this term.
Hi Dave,
Thanks – this does clarify things. Your view is that the Son is NOT essentially morally perfect. He once was not, but then he became so. So yes, he was once temptable, but is not so now (or ever after).
I agree with the thust of your historical story, btw.
^^ Oops, I meant “Irenaeus”, not “Ireneus”.
Additionally, your qualifier should really be “in no other way.” There is no room for “perhaps” here.
Kenny:
I mean more than this. I mean that the doctrine was neither implicit or explicit in the first-century church, gradually became implicit in the late second/early third-century church, and finally became explicit in the fourth-century church. For some Trinitarians this is not controversial, but Bowman will object to it strongly.
In the 2nd Century we find the first gropings towards Trinitarianism via binitarianism (e.g. Justin Martyr) and some sophisticated discussions about the ontological relationship between Father, Son and Holy Spirit (e.g. Ireneus & Tertullian).
By the start of the 3rd Century the Trinitarian nomenclature has become increasingly formal, but ontological subordinationism is still accepted and strongly argued by even the most advanced theologians (e.g. Origen).
Heterodoxy prevails until the early 4th Century, when the Nicene Creed is finally drafted and forced into orthodoxy. Unfortunately this does not solve the problem and additional councils are required to produce new formulae in the years which follow (e.g. Council of Constantinople, AD381; Council of Chalcedon, AD451).
A persistent feature of this theological evolution is its increasing reliance on philosophical speculation and metaphysical language, as opposed to Biblical data and Scriptural terminology. This should ring alarm bells for anyone who professes Sola Scriptura.
It is not enough to speak of “a combination of beliefs and practices which can be rendered consistent by introducing something like the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity”. This statement lowers the bar for Trinitarianism’s burden of proof to an absurd degree. With such a vague frame of reference, you could argue the theological validity of just about anything.
Your qualifier (“and perhaps in no other way”) is not optional but essential if your proposal is to carry weight.
Dale:
True. Nevertheless, I affirm that the Bible is God’s inspired Word, written in the language of its times, reflecting contemporary speech, popular expressions, approximations, idioms and phenomenal language. Apparent cases of errancy are often the result of over-reading this phenomenal language.
Here you seem to equate doctrines with principles of reason. They are not equivalent. If I based a doctrine purely on logical/rational deduction alone, that would certainly breach the principle of Sola Scriptura. But this is not how I proceed.
Bowman and I have both agreed that Sola Scriptura does not preclude the derivation of doctrine from Scripture via logical/rational methodology. Provided that the primary data is Biblical, the use of logic and reason is perfectly valid.
Dale,
Thanks for your analysis. I’d like to clarify a point for you:
If you are familiar with Biblical Unitarian Christology (and perhaps you’re not), you should be aware that we believe Jesus’ post-resurrection state was different to his pre-crucifixion state.
Prior to his death, Jesus was (a) mortal and (b) peccable (ie. capable of sin). After his resurrection, Jesus was (a) immortal and (b) impeccable. Thus I believe that Jesus possesses the attribute of moral perfection now, but not that he has always possessed it. This also applies to his immortality, of course.
In what sense is it widely accepted that the early Church was not trinitarian? I mean, clearly none of the standard enunciations of the doctrine had been formulated, so if that’s all that’s meant, then I doubt if it has ever been controversial. I would think that the traditionalist view would be that the early Church held a combination of beliefs and practices which can be rendered consistent by introducing something like the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity (and perhaps in no other way). Is this the view that’s being denied?
The EOC, since they deny doctrinal development would, I think, want to say something stronger. The view I’ve just outlined would say that the early Church was suffering from a kind of confusion which could be resolved by introducing the doctrine of the Trinity. (Not that the doctrine makes most of us any less confused, but you get the idea…) The EOC would want to say that the early Church had the doctrine implicitly and it just needed to be made explicit. Is this the view that’s being denied?
Comments are closed.