The “Great Trinity Debate” has been interesting, exhausting, and a bit hard to follow. It would’ve been better to have somewhat shorter posts and required post-rebuttals. As it is, some of the debate has been tucked away in the comments of the posts, while the blog plugs away on other topics. This sort of substantial, quality content shouldn’t be hidden in comments.
I previously called round 3 a draw. But my call was premature; Burke kept punching, in a long set of comments (#4-15), which substantially strengthened his case. Bowman has left them unanswered for about a week, I believe, as I post this. I re-call this round now for Burke.
Revised score up through round 4:
Bowman: 0
Burke: 3
draw: 1
What he does is address some important texts which as usually read, assert or assume the claims that Jesus created the cosmos, or just that he pre-existed his conception. I can’t summarize Burke’s long exegesis, but I’ll hit a few highlights in this post. What he shows, drawing on some recent scholarship, is that the texts in question can be given non-arbitrary, plausible readings which are consistent with humanitarian christology.
Burke also rebuts some of Bowman’s points re: prayer to Jesus. Bowman argues that Christ can’t be a creature, and must be omniscient (hence divine), if he can hear and answer prayers. This argument is hardly a knockdown one.
How might Bowman know the limits of a glorified human, raised to this pre-eminent position? Given that Jesus is a glorified, immortal human, and “seated at God’s right hand” etc., why couldn’t he have knowledge that far surpasses that of any “normal” human like you or me? Indeed, why couldn’t he be in some sense omnipresent – or at least, widely present? Burke says:
Is it possible for Jesus to hear prayer? I believe so. After all, he received the Holy Spirit without measure (John 3:34); he is perfected and immortal (II Timothy 1:10, Revelation 1:18); he has been exalted to the Father’s right hand (I Peter 3:22) and all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him (Matthew 28:18). Does this prove that he is God? Not at all. The capacity to hear believers’ prayers indicates tremendous supernatural power, but it is still a long way short of omniscience (a quality that Jesus clearly lacks; see Matthew 24:36, Mark 11:12-14, Luke 2:52, John 11:34)
But is it proper to pray to Jesus, if he is not God? Burke argues, in the end, yes – “provided that this is not done as an act of religious worship.” I’m not sure what the word “religious” is doing there… What would “non-religious” worship be? Besides, Burke holds that Jesus is worshiped in Revelation 5. I’m not sure why, then, this qualification is there. But in the end Burke, like many unitarians, emphasizes that “in Scripture prayer is predominantly focused on the Father”, while leaving some aspect of this question “to the believer’s conscience.”
Some key passages Burke covers:
1 Cor 8: 4-6 – Burke shows that the NT writers assume the one God of Israel to be one and the same (being, person, god) as the Father of Jesus. He also shows a consistent contrast between the one God (the Father, YHWH) and the one Lord (Jesus, the Son of God). These are assumed, it seems, to be two selves. Burke points out that Paul’s (and others’) salutations habitually mention the two of them. He argues, following McGrath, that here Paul strikingly sets up Jesus alongside the one God; one needn’t read the passage as revealing a new “person” or personality within the divine nature. Moreover, Paul seems to be making a point against polytheism – contra those idolatrous turkeys – there is one one God, the Father. Oh yes, and there’s only one Lord too.
But doesn’t the latter part imply that God created all things through Jesus? No – Burke argues that we should see Paul’s theme of Christ’s “new creation” here – the idea is that God created the cosmos, and Christ has now saved, renewed, or re-created it. Burke lists the main passages with this theme, giving a plausible take on Colossians 1 along the way.
This brings us to Philippians 2, which many see as obviously teaching the heavenly, glorious pre-existence of Jesus, his Incarnation, and his being returned to his formerly glorious state. Burke has a careful, long discussion of this. He urges that it be read as a piece of “Adam christology” – Jesus as the founder of a new race, a second Adam, as it were – and that there is no reference to Christ’s pre-existence in it, properly understood. Further, Burke argues that his reading fits better with Paul’s point – “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus…”. In sum,
Rob, your interpretation of Philippians 2 is contradicted by standard theological and lexical authorities. It is inconsistent, unnecessarily complicated, and built on presuppositions which you make no attempt to substantiate.
I propose a simpler exegesis, which retains the OT subtext:
- Despite being in the form of God and exemplifying His image perfectly, Jesus understood that equality with the Father was not something to be grasped at or stolen (unlike Adam, who hoped to seize it).
- Instead, Jesus made himself nothing (unlike Adam, whose pride led to his fall), deliberately adopting a humble appearance as if he was merely a servant, and acting obediently in that role all the way to his death on the cross.
- Consequently, God exalted Jesus and gave him a name above every name, so that everyone will bow the knee at the name of Jesus and confess him as Lord — to the glory of God, the Father.
In his #12 comment, Burke makes the interesting point that trinitarians are very divided in how they understand Philippians 2 – really, in how they understand the incarnation doctrine – recent (only since the 19th c.) “kenosis” theories being a case in point. He also raises the issue of docetism, opining that “Most lay Trinitarians are unconsciously docetic…” This is interesting. Suppose it is true. Why exactly, is this bad? And what is its relevance to the current debate? I suggest that this is worth saying more about.
His exegesis (comments #14-15) of Hebrews 1 is interesting.
Arguably the most striking feature of Hebrews 1 is its explicit subordinationism, with Jesus represented as the exalted Son of God who does not possess his glorified position inherently, but receives it from the Father. He is “appointed heir of all things” (verse 2), and “became superior to the angels” (verse 4) by “inheriting a name superior to theirs” (verse 4). This cannot be true of an eternally-existing deity, as even some Trinitarian commentators have conceded.
But doesn’t v. 2 say that Christ created the world, and doesn’t v. 10-12 apply to Christ a text which obviously originally applied to God, and which assigns him credit for creating? Burke argues on grammatical and contextual grounds that in v. 10-12 the author switches back to the Father, contrasting him with the Son (kai translated “but” rather than “and”).
Verse 2? It should be understood as referring to the “new creation” of Christ, and aion would better be translated “age”, the one initiated by the work of Christ, as it says, “in these last days”. Why? You’ll have so see his full discussion.
Time to quit; this post is long enough, and again, hasn’t attempted to justly summarize this heavy volley from Burke. Besides, round 5 is now up.
Thank you. That is not a dogmatic assertion, and I can accept is as reasonable logic – as long as you don’t consider its practical implications.
I, on the other hand, think it is logical to conclude that being “prone to sin” would include the desire to sin, which James says is the basis of temptation. And such a desire would itself be sin, according to Jesus’ own standards.
In other words, I cannot expect Jesus to sympathize with the sinful desires I have, just because I think he had the same sinful desires. He didn’t. Not if he was sinless.
I know you are busy with the debate on tri-unity; but when the debate is over, I hope you will answer the question asked a few posts ago regarding what you felt was my misrepresentation of your position:
* So no one else has received or ever will receive “the same qualities, powers and privileges that Jesus possessed.” And it was those very “qualities, powers and privileges that Jesus possessed” (but nobody else possesses) that shielded him from sinning.
Forgive me if that’s not what you meant. How can I word it to make it right? *
Jesus was a real and complete human being, just like us. He was tempted in all points as we are, but apart from sin.
Is it POSSIBLE for this to mean that – thanks to the “qualities, powers and privileges that Jesus possessed” – he was tempted in every way apart from the sinful desires that actually constitute temptation to sin?
The second half of that final sentence is in desperate need of some brackets. Just imagine they’re there… 😛
Marg:
Which proof text was that?
I think it’s logical to conclude that if we are prone to sin and Jesus is made exactly like us in every way (Hebrews 2:17) then he must have been prone to sin as well. The difference is that he resisted it the propensity to sin.
[blockquote]To me, Trinitarian arguments appear contrived, strained, illogical and arbitrary, while the Trinitarian treatment of Biblical evidence seems inconsistent and poorly reasoned.[/blockquote]
With this I agree, so long as you are talking specifically about evidence for the existence of a tri-une entity.
But this thread has to do with a different topic, and I’m sorry it got lost in a general condemnation of all Trinitarian arguments.
The “proof text” that you give for concluding that the Son of God was “prone to sin” does not necessarily have the meaning you ascribe to it. So – just as you are demanding biblical evidence for tri-unity – I think you should hold yourself to the same standard with regard to this “proneness to sin” question. It isn’t as cut and dried as you insist it is.
Granted, we all have pre-conceptions. But if pre-conceptions on my part cloud my ability to see your point of view (I try not to let that happen), then maybe your pre-conceptions are likewise keeping you from understanding the point of view expressed by several of us in these comments.
So far as tri-unity is concerned, I feel sorry for Bowman. He is stuck with a doctrine that makes no sense, and cannot be proved from the Bible. However, he chose the topic, so he’s stuck with it.
But I wish there could be a debate, assessed by Dale, on some specific aspects regarding the person of the only-begotten Son of God.
Hi all,
I’ve been without internet access for more than 24 hours, due to a dodgy ISP that took forever to fix my connection.
I am busy wrapping up rebuttals to Bowman today, but I’d like to apologise to anyone I’ve offended by my recent comments. They were not intended to be cheap shots; I’m just calling it as I see it. To me, Trinitarian arguments appear contrived, strained, illogical and arbitrary, while the Trinitarian treatment of Biblical evidence seems inconsistent and poorly reasoned.
I do believe Trinitarians have a different relationship to Scripture than Biblical Unitarians, and I do believe they are uncomfortable with it to a certain degree. Bowman has demonstrated this on a number of occasions, as I have previously noted throughout the debate.
History shows that Trinitarians made a deliberate decision to transcend Scripture in order to formulate their doctrine. This is a documented fact which invites careful reflection by any Trinitarian who claims to profess Sola Scriptura. Ask yourself why this was necessary, and look at the doctrinal consequences of that decision.
Dale:
They’re in the presence Jesus, King of the world and Son of God. I’d be shouting praises too! (Well, as best I could whilst lying prostrate…) 😛
Fair enough. I am familiar with passages where the word “other” is obviously assumed (e.g. Luke 13:4). And I don’t think I stated my conclusion dogmatically.
However, my own impression is that the domain in Rev. 5:13 is unrestricted. I can’t see any reason to limit it.
In the meantime, I had better buy some decaffeinated tea, just in case.
This must be a record comments for trinities – thanks to all, for a substantial discussion – or rather, multiple ones.
A gentle reminder:
If you feel yourself getting snippy, go have a non-caffeinated beverage, and come back to it later. We’re open 24/7 here. 🙂
Jumping in late to the tiff re: whether prayer is always a form a worship. I think you guys think this is an important question because you’ve stipulated that “worship” is by definition something appropriate to God alone. But if worship is honoring, then of course praying to is a way of worshiping – but it’s a trivial point.
Dave – I can’t remember what made me think you conceded that Jesus is worshiped in Rev 5. But just look at the verse quoted in my previous comment, #85 – creatures are shouting out his praises (as they are to the Father).
Saith Marg:
Hey Marg – be careful with these kinds of arguments from “all”. The context normally supplies an assumed domain. If I say “Everyone should worship God”, then it would be a mistake to think I implied that God himself should worship God. The domain/group I had in mind was humans, or maybe all selves other than God (the domain can be vague, I think). So in Rev 5:13,
there’s a reference to “every creature” – to all the creatures. But in what domain? Is it unrestricted? If that’s so, then your inference holds (Jesus doesn’t seem to be among their number – he’s on the other side of the podium, as it were, and so must not himself be a creature.) But you might think that the domain is the set of creatures in the sky, on the earth, in the sea, and under the ground. If so, the author doesn’t mean to imply that Jesus isn’t a creature – he’s just making a point about these other creatures.
You’re right. Thank you.
However, verse 13 is clear enough about what kind of temptation is involved. “Let no one being tempted say, By God I am tempted. For God is not tempted by evils, and himself tempts no one.”
The temptation is to do evil.
Then comes verse 1 – “But each one is tempted by his own desire …”
His OWN desire lures him away and causes him to commit sin openly. But the desire is for something evil, or it would not lead to the transgression of the law.
I can see nothing internal about the temptation in Matthew 4:1-3. Physical – yes. He was hungry and he was weak. But he had no internal desire that would lead him to commit a sin.
Instead, he loved Yahweh his God with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his mind. That doesn’t leave any room for desires that would lead to sin.
Jesus saw lots of children. Did he ever have the secret desire to molest them?
If he didn’t, then he is useless to a pedophile, according to your reasoning.
Maybe we should get our minds beyond what WE think is useful to us and look instead at what is useful in the long run. The sinless Savior gave his life for sinners, including pedophiles. Anyone can come to him and find forgiveness.
More than that, a forgiven pedophile (or adulterer or self-righteous Pharisee) can come to the throne of grace and find “strength to help in time of need.”
That is comforting to me. I have a Savior who was and is and always shall be sinless, in thought as well as in deed.
I would get no comfort from thinking that he is prone to the same sins I am prone to.
Marg,
Actually James says ‘desires’, not ‘evil desires’. Sin can come as a result of perfectly natural and non-evil desires. See the very internal temptation in Matthew 4:1-3.
I am indeed.
James 14-15 is quite clear that temptation to sin actually comes from within, from evil desires.
Those evil desires may be prompted by Satan or intensified by circumstances (the outward temptation); but the evil desire within is what actually tempts a man to commit (openly) a sin that breaks the law.
Jesus makes it equally clear that his kingdom is based on a righteousness that exceeds that of outward acts alone. God looks on the heart. So the evil desire itself is sin, even before it leads to a transgression of the law.
Did Jesus have evil desires? Was he tempted from within?
If so, then he was not sinless – by his own standards.
Marg,
Just a quick question before I go to bed. I am not sure I am understanding you. When you speak of, “the inward temptation to sin which, in fact, is itself sin?” are you speaking of inward desires like lust, hate, etc that Jesus said are indeed sin but which also can lead to committing an outward and more visible sin?
By the way Fortigurn, I realize I probably didn’t speak correctly at all when I asked the last time about God fathering Jesus. I don’t believe that part of God split off to form a new person. And of course we do believe that the Son was prexistent to His conception and birth as Jesus on this earth. Beyond that I am way too tired to try to sort it out to say it better. And anyway I believe I have your answer even if I wasn’t speaking correctly there.
I’ve got to get myself to bed–it has been a very long day.
Marg,
There’s your problem right there. Since when was temptation to sin, itself sin? See James 1:14-15.
Marg,
Why would it mean that? It means that he was tempted just as we are, but he didn’t sin. It specifically says ‘one who has been TEMPTED IN EVERY WAY JUST AS WE ARE’. It does not say ‘tempted in some ways that we are, but not tempted internally to sin’. See also Hebrews 2:18. Either Christ was tempted to sin like I am, or he’s useless to me because he is unable to help those who are tempted.
Fortigurn,
Regarding your last commen–did you read the article by Michael Patton that I linked to above? Here is a quote from that ariticle: “This is why we believe that Christ is completely (very) God and completely (very) man; one person, two complete natures without division”.
We DO believe that Jesus was fully man and fully God. And yes, this is the way that we believe He was like His brothers in every way–because He was fully man.
Obviously we are going to get nowhere in the discussion regarding about how being the Son of God does or does not make Jesus different from His brothers. Unless you have been under the impression that we don’t believe Him to truly be man at all but only inhabited a human body. And that is not the case.
You keep talking about Samson’s, Isaac’s, etc conception being different then ours. It was different in that it was miraculously enabled by God. But did they not still have actual human father’s? Yes they did. And Jesus didn’t. There was no human father involved at all. I still think that sets Him apart from the rest of humanity in a signifcant way if it is a way that you want to accept as figuring into this picture or not. Obviously you don’t as you say He was 100% human and that is all that matters to you. So I reckon we can go round and round on this one until the proverbial cows come home! So this is my last comment on that particular aspect of this conversation.
I’m sorry, Dave. I had no intention of misrepresenting you. I was just going by the fact that after listing the “helps” that Jesus had in avoiding sin, you say
So no one else has received or ever will receive “the same qualities, powers and privileges that Jesus possessed.” And it was those very “qualities, powers and privileges that Jesus possessed” (but nobody else possesses) that shielded him from sinning.
Forgive me if that’s not what you meant. How can I word it to make it right?
No one is questioning the fact that Jesus was a real and complete human being, just like us. He was tempted in all points as we are apart from sin.
Is it POSSIBLE that means his temptations did not include the inward temptation to sin which, in fact, is itself sin?
Could it mean that – thanks to the “qualities, powers and privileges that Jesus possessed” – he was tempted in every way apart from the sinful desires that actually constitute temptation to sin?
Or do your pre-conceptions make that interpretation impossible?
I have just read through the comments so far and I find Mike’s to be perfectly polite, indicating a real desire to understand the Unitarian point of view.
In fact, I see no posts that are as dogmatic or as rude as yours.
And please note: that is NOT because I am a Trinitarian. I have already rejected the idea of tri-unity, at the expense of being considered a heretic by those I associate with.
In other words, I am willing to look objectively at any evidence produced, and change my conceptions IF the evidence is valid.
Are you?
cheryl,
That’s not actually true. You believe that the human body which Jesus inhabited was ‘like his brothers in every way’. But Jesus, to the Trinitarian, is a divine being, God, who is nothing like human beings.
cheryl,
Why? That’s not what the context says.
I am back to repeating myself. Of course it makes him different. It makes him different to other humans in the same way that Adam’s conception was different to other humans, that Isaac’s conception, Samson’s conception, Samuel and John the Baptist’s conception were different to other humans. But it does NOT CHANGE THE FACT THAT HIS HUMANITY WAS IDENTICAL TO OURS, just as theirs was.
If you can accept that Adam was a human being, despite being generated through a process nothing like any other human being who ever lived, then you can understand that Jesus was a human being EXACTLY LIKE OTHER HUMAN BEINGS, despite the fact that his birth was miraculous.
It isn’t a valid point in this discussion, because the Unitarian objection is that Trinitarians make Christ DIFFERENT FROM ALL OTHER HUMANS WITH REGARD TO HIS HUMANITY, whereas Unitarians do not.
Christ was conceived in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit, just like we’re told. I don’t know how much you want me to say.
Why? To be conceived by someone means that they were responsible for giving you life, they were responsible for bringing you into being. Do you think God used ‘a part of Himself’ in the conception of Adam? Adam is called the ‘son of God’ after all.
No, I don’t believe that’s what Trinitarians believe. Orthodox Trinitarianism says that Jesus’ divine nature (which always existed from eternity), joined itself to a human nature which God created in the womb of Mary. There’s no sense in orthodox Trinitarianism in which a part of God miraculosuly split off and became a new person who didn’t exist before.
I believe the terms ‘father’ and ‘son’ are used in a completely literal way here. To father someone is to cause them to be conceived. God caused Jesus to be conceived. To father someone is to bring them into existence. God brought Jesus into existence. To father someone is to generate life in a womb which becomes a human being. God generated life in a womb which became a human being, Jesus. That’s as literal as it gets. None of this is true of Trinitarians, which is why orthodox Trinitarianism says that the first person of the Trinity is only ‘relationally’, non-literally, the ‘father’ of the second person of the Trinity.
Remember that we as Trinitarians believe Jesus was both fully human and fully God. So we believe that He was made “like his brothers in every way”–by being fully human. Michael Patton on P and P has a good article on this today: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/05/heresies-nestorianism-a-divided-christ/#comments
Fortigurn,
Thanks for at least giving a fuller explanation of why you believe what you do. I have thought that “in every way” or “in every respect” covers more than meaning only that He will be human as they were. It still seems to me that having God as your Father instead of having an earthly father is a very large difference here. It is not the kind of difference you would find between any other humans–like the fingerprint illustration used earlier. This is certainly a major way He is not made like His brothers. Maybe I am wrong in interpreting it that way, I don’t know. But it seems to be a valid point to me.
I would still like answers to my questions above about how you guys believe God actually fathered Jesus. If I knew more about how you believe this came about, it might help me to understand better just what you guys mean when you use the term “Son of God” when referring to Jesus. To me, God isn’t the Father of Jesus if He only caused a miraculous conception in some way and there was not a way that a part of Himself was actually involved in that conception. That is how Trinitarians believe He received the divine (deity) part of His nature. But I take it you maybe believe that the term “Father” is not used here in any literal way. Of course, then “Son” ceases to be literal too. So, I do not understand where you are coming from here.
cheryl,
Because that’s what it says.
Clearly ‘made like his brothers and sisters in every respect’ doesn’t mean he had to be identical to all of them in every conceivable way, which is impossible.
Mike,
You’re very welcome. I enjoyed your article, and I have appreciated the efforts you’ve been making to understand Unitarian theology.
Thanks Fortigurn. If there had only been one charge laid at my feet, I would have let it go. However, that has not been the case.
Mike and cheryl, while I don’t agree with the personal nature of the charge Dave laid at your feet, it’s difficult to avoid the evidence that Trinitarians have historically been uncomfortable with Scripture given that they:
* Chose to invent unScriptural terms to describe God in their creeds
* Repeatedly corrupted early Bible manuscripts with interpolations and word changes intended to support the doctrine of the trinity
There would be no need for this if they were comfortable with the words of Scripture.
(Please excuse the typos in my last comment. I wish we had an editing feature here.)
Dave,
Three people today have accused you of cheap shots, low blows that were somewhat ad hominem, and being arrogant and condescending. It is not just me that has had a problem with the way you have spoken to me and at one point to MikeB. Besides that you have accused me of rejecting Scripture except when it suits me, and of sounding like a cult victim–twice.
I do believe an apology is in order here. And I am sorry, but until I receive one, your credility is going to be zero with me. How can I take seriously someone that claims to have it all right and everyone else all wrong and then acts like this. The fruits of the Spirit of love, patience, gentleness and kindness have not been evident here at all.
And if I have mistaken your motives for coming across this way, then I will apologize for that.
“Trinitarians have never been comfortable with Scripture.”
Just because we don’t happen to interpret Scripture the same way Dave does doesn’t mean we are not comfortable with Scripture.
That comment certainly promotes more discussion… 🙁
By Mike I assume you are talking to me, and I don’t think that my comments here have shown the mental gymnastics or cheap shots you are accusing me of… you might try looking at your presentation of the facts from how another person might view them – especially if they are not as familiar with your position – and how they could see this as a contradiction then unloading accusations. A little 1 Peter 3:15 goes a long way.
In fact I was accused of “twisting” the Unitarian position in another thread. Because of BB wording and use of Rom 5, I assumed that this was an acceptance of “imputed sin” by Unitarians.
I want to offer a big thanks Fortigurn for his helping me understand the position that the Unitiarian holds without the ad hominem attacks or thinking the worst of me or my motives. I would like to think that having read through some of the material and debate forums that one could recognize the effort in trying to understand the position you are presenting.
Dave,
“Why do you think that Hebrews 2 saying that Jesus has to be like His brothers in all ways refers only to the fact that He has to be l00% human and not God in any way? Would someone please explain that to me? Having God as father and not a human father is not being like your brothers in a very important way. But you seem to just ignore that fact completely and make it totally irrelevant.”
I’m still wondering about the answer to that question?
Margaret:
It may sound like a cheap shot, but isn’t it exactly what we’ve been seeing on this blog from cherylu and Mike? Look at the way they’ve been bending over backwards to argue that Jesus wasn’t made like us in every way, despite the fact that this is exactly what Hebrews 2:17 says in very clear language.
Trinitarians have never been comfortable with Scripture. Their Christology is formulated on unBiblical philosophical propositions which emerged centuries after the ascension of Christ and were totally unknown to the first Christians.
The apostles were able to express their beliefs clearly and succinctly in the language of the Bible, drawing almost exclusively on the OT. Trinitarians cannot do this. Even the simplest verse (e.g. Hebrews 2:17) is ignored, dismissed, undermined, or otherwise attacked if it poses a threat to their beliefs.
I understand how my explanation seems to the uninitiated, and I appreciate it may appear contrived to those whose preconceptions make it difficult for them to think outside their own beliefs. But there is no contrivance. It is a very simple explanation that does not require any complicated thinking, paradoxes or contradictions. Best of all, it’s Biblical!
No Magaret, that’s just another misrepresentation of my position. I have repeatedly said that Jesus was capable of sinning. I have never said that he was shielded from sinning and there is nothing in my explanation that suggests this. Bowman is the one who believes that Jesus couldn’t sin.
I don’t know how much simpler I can put this. Perhaps one day I’ll manage to get through a Christological discussion without anyone putting words in my mouth. (I live in hope!)
It includes the capacity to be tempted, which means Jesus was capable of sinning sin in the way that James 1:14-15 describes. But remember: the capacity to be tempted is not the same as sinning.
Jesus had the potential to experience those inward desires and act upon them – just like us.
I’m not sure what this means. Do you believe he was incapable of sinning?
Margaret, you demonstrated a long time ago that you’re far too sensible to be accused of cultish thinking. It’s obvious that you think for yourself.
I’m going to try formatting a quote:
I am not a Trinitarian, Dave. But I have to agree with Scott that this was a cheap shot. I have experienced the kind of behavior you describe from dogmatists of ALL stripes – not just Trinitarians.
It may be that you recognize how contrived your explanation seems to the uninitiated. It seems to describe a Savior who could have sinned (and therefore is like us in ALL respects), but who was shielded from sinning (and therefore is not like us AT ALL when it comes to temptation).
That means he was virtually guaranteed to remain sinless, while we are virtually guaranteed NOT to remain sinless.
Forgive me if my human mind has a problem with this. IF the likeness referred to in Hebrews 2:17 and 4:15 INCLUDES the inward temptation to sin (as in James 1:14-15), then according to his own words, he was guilty of sinning (Matthew 5:27-28).
But if it does NOT include the inward desires that all of us are subject to, then his temptation to sin was not the same as ours INWARDLY.
My conclusion is that there was nothing in him to RESPOND to the outward temptation to sin.
And please, Dave – I don’t belong to any “cult” (whatever that nasty word may mean). I am a maverick in a congregation that happens to be Trinitarian, but who love me enough to put up with me anyway.
Dave and Fortigurn,
Why do you think that Hebrews 2 saying that Jesus has to be like His brothers in all ways refers only to the fact that He has to be l00% human and not God in any way? Would someone please explain that to me? Having God as father and not a human father is not being like your brothers in a very important way. But you seem to just ignore that fact completely and make it totally irrelevant.
And Dave, very frankly, if it was not so insulting, I would find your repeated reference to talking to me being like dealing with a cult member to be highly amusing. Your group is the one that has been outside the main stream of historic Christianity for thousands of years now. You are certainly in the minority of those who claim to be Christians even today and your views are looked upon as very serious error by the majority, and yet you speak of one that does not agree with your take on things as like talking to a cult member! My, but the pot does know how to call the kettle black doesn’t it!
And I can only assume that your use of such language is meant to be intimadating and is used to get me to “shut up”. I can see no other reason for being so continually insulting and belittling.
Why don’t you go and use the same language to Rob Bowman over on P and P and see how far it gets you there?
OK, I was right. It’s exactly like talking to a cult victim.
Being the one and only Son of God IS different then His brothers–I don’t know how many times I have to say it!! No other human being I know of has God as their father! That IS setting Him apart from His brothers! How in the world can such a thing be irrelevant?
Being the one and only Son of God is not at all the same thing as having different finger prints! That is maybe the strangest argument that I have ever heard.
I think I need to ask you guys a very blunt question here. Exactly how do you think God caused Jesus to be conceived? Did He take a human sperm that was already in existence and place it in her womb? Did He create a human sperm out of nothing and place it in her womb? In either of these scenarios, how is God Jesus’ Father? Miraculously placing a human sperm in a woman’s womb does not make someone a father. So how did Jesus get to be the Son of God? Does God maybe have human sperm Himself so that He is indeed Jesus Father biologically? Or is “Son of God” to you just a term that has no literal meaning at all? Does it only mean that God was somehow active in causing Jesus to be conceived?
cheryl,
cheryl I don’t know how many times we have to say it. The ways in which Christ was different to us have nothing to do with the fact that he was 100% human exactly like us. He had exactly the same humanity.
The fact that he was different IN WAYS COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO HIS HUMANITY is irrelevant. What you’re asking me is equivalent to me asking you how you can possibly be human like everyone else, given that your fingerprints are unique. How can you claim to be human, if your fingerprints are different to everyone else’s?
Mike,
Being mortal isn’t a matter of guilt, it’s a matter of biology. Mortals give birth to mortals. But as it happens not all mortals will actually die before they are made immortal. Paul says some of us will be alive at the return of Christ.
We don’t understand it as the imputation of Adam’s sin. We’re sinners in potentia as a result of being prone to sin (a nature inherited from Adam), and we become sinners in actuality when we transgress.
Got to leave this discussion and get something else done for awhile!
“Being born the only begotten son of God did not make Jesus any more or less human than any other man, any more than other men who were the product of miracles, such as Adam, Isaac, and Samson.”
Didn’t say it did. But Adam was created–not born and Isaac and Samson were the result of a miracle yes, but they certainly were not the only Son of God–the likes of which we will never see again.
So, it seems you have a big problem with this verse when it comes to the idea that Jesus could be God because then He is not like His brothers in all ways. But you don’t have any problem with Him being set apart from them as the one and only Son of God the likes of which we will never see again because there will never be another like Him? It doesn’t seem to me that leaves Him being like His brothers in all ways either.
By
Fortigurn
Thanks I’ll check it out. I have been trying to understand how Unitarian’s handle the atonement given their view of Jesus.
If Jesus (and every other man) had to suffer death is this not seen as the guilt of Adam’s sin being passed on? BB quotes Rom 5 even using that as the reason Jesus and other men have to die – even calling them sinners. (see above).
Typically here sinners is meant more as the nature and imputation of Adam’s sin rather than personal sin.
MikeB
cheryl,
When dave said ‘there will never be another like him’, Dave explained that he meant no other human is going to ‘receive the same qualities, powers and privileges that Jesus possessed’. They were given to one man, the only begotten son of God, through whom God would do the work which no man alone could do.
Dave also said ‘Hypothetically IT COULD BE POSSIBLE if some other human were to receive the same qualities, powers and privileges that Jesus possessed’. In reality it could never happen, because Christ has already completed the work for which he received those qualities, powers and privileges.
Being born the only begotten son of God did not make Jesus any more or less human than any other man, any more than other men who were the product of miracles, such as Adam, Isaac, and Samson.
Fortigurn,
Dave made this quote in a comment above: “I don’t believe it’s possible for any other human to achieve what Jesus achieved. Hypothetically it could be possible, if some other human were to receive the same qualities, powers and privileges that Jesus possessed. But in reality it could never happen, because Jesus is God’s only begotten Son and there will never be another like him.”
Please tell me how in your theology being God’s only beggoten Son which is different then any other man ever born–“there will never be another like Him”–does not make Him different from His brother? How is He made to be like them in all ways if this statement is true?
Mike, when Bible Basics says ‘Because he had our nature, Christ had to die’, and Dave says ‘As a mortal man, he required release from the pains of death’, they just mean that because Jesus was mortal, having inherited mortality from Adam like the rest of us, he was going to die. He was going to die even if he hadn’t been crucified. He had to be ‘released from the pains of death’, not just resurrected but made immortal.
The typical Christadelphian/Unitarian view of the atonement is known as the ‘representative’ or ‘participatory’ view. There is an excellent paper describing that view (which also critiques the other views), here:
http://consequently.org/papers/pa.pdf
Fortigurn
Can you point to a good post or provide a brief summary of Christadelphian/Unitarian view of the atonement? I was looking for one and could not find it.
Thanks
MikeB
Fortigurn
Did I misread Bible Basics
and Dave’s posting #5?
MikeB
cheryl,
Dave is getting frustrated because you keep missing the point. Of course Jesus had all kinds of extra advantages that the rest of us don’t have. But they didn’t make him any more or any less human. Unitarians don’t have the problem that Trinitarians do. It’s just that simple.
Dave,
I utterly resent being told that I reject Scripture! That is not the case in any way, shape or form. Because Trinitarians, myself included, interpret it differently then you do does not mean we reject it.
I can level the same claim against you, but frankly, I have tried to be more polite!
And when I repeatedly try to show that Jesus is not exactly like humans in YOUR theology, it is not because I am not accepting the verse that says He is. It is again because we interpret it differently. I am merely trying to point out that your theology has a very similar problem to the one you say Trinitarians have by giving Jesus all kinds of extra advantages that the rest of us don’t have. They may not be advantages by nature, but they are advantage sovereingly given by God that no one else has the privelege of having.
And NO, as I have repeatedly said, it is not a clear, logical deduction to me that superior intellect is going to be a factor in keeping Jesus from sinning. I see no way that it can keep any one from such sins as greed, jealousy, some types of anger, lust, hatred and lust etc. Jesus said things like hatred and lust are in the heart. Our mind can not keep our heart from sinning. And while superior intellect MAY help a person talk himself out of following through or holding unto such thoughts, it is not at all lilkely that it is going to keep the heart from conceiving them in the first place.
And it has yet to be proven that my whole Christolgy is based on unsriptural ideas. I rather think it yours that is, thank you!
And reading through the comments above, it is obvious I am not the only one that is thinking you are resorting to personal attacks here. If you can’t keep your conversation above board, then count me out!
helez:
No one said ‘proportional’, but let’s move on.
Mike:
Scripture:
Footnote for ‘shrewd person’ in the NET:
Mike,
Unitarians typically reject ‘original sin’ and any belief that anyone other than Adam bore Adam’s guilt. Christadelphians certainly do not believe that Jesus had ‘Adam’s imputed guilt’. Furthermore, because Unitarians typically reject the penal substitution theory of the atonement, we do not believe that Christ ‘paid for the guilt/wrath imputed on him via Adam as well as all of the wrath due us and our guilt and sin’.
@Helez
I agree. In fact the Scriptures say something about God exalting the foolish and not the wise. The wise man in God’s view fears Him and obeys His commands – the fool does not. There is super-IQ that helps people fight sin. In fact many of the smartest people seem to be those who also reject Christ.
I have attempted to look at the Unitarian view of sin, the Fall, and Christ in a recent blog post.
http://awaitingawhiterobe.blogspot.com/2010/05/trinity-sin-and-jesus.html
As I started thinking through some things it seems that there is much in our doctrinal differences that would seem to need to be better defined otherwise we are going to end up talking past each other.
Some examples:
1. The point on total depravity (in Burke’s post #5) – Unitarians deny it, Trinitarians (most I would think) accept it.
2. Another being Jesus having Adam’s imputed guilt. – Unitarians accept it, Trinitarians (most I would think) deny it.
3. Jesus having Adam’s imputed guilt would require Jesus to be under God’s wrath, yet this wrath in Unitarian view (to the best of my understanding) seems to be annihilation at death not eternal punishment. (Do I have that right?)
4. Jesus paid for the guilt/wrath imputed on him via Adam as well as all of the wrath due us and our guilt and sin. Trinitarians would say that Jesus had no imputed sin or sin nature and thus did not deserve to die at all. He in fullness of divinity was holy and blameless not only from being sin free but also from not having the stain of Adam.
Anyway, just some thoughts that seem very much part of the debate on who Jesus is.
MikeB
Adam, Eve and Jesus were perfect human beings, they were not under the penalty of sin, and as such they were not inclined to do what is bad. The rest of us are born as imperfect human beings, due to our inheritance of sin (Ro 5:12). Obviously, being perfect doesn’t make one anything less human and it doesn’t make it impossible to sin, as demonstrated by Adam and Eve’s bad example, or makes it impossible to be tempted by someone else to sin.
To suggest that there is a proportional relation between intellectual abilities and one’s possibility to resist sin is extremely unscriptural and objectionable. There is no direct correlation between intellect and wisdom (or foolishness) either.
Dave: “I realise that you can’t understand this, but your lack of understanding doesn’t make it false.”
A condescending and haughty approach does makes you foolish.
Dave –
That was a low blow, somewhat ad hominem. The same could be said about every person who has a differing belief from another. You and I can found each of our theological beliefs-interpretations in Scripture and at the same time claim that we have the better understanding over any other belief-interpretation. This statement does not prove much.
I know this comment below has been discussed enough already, but I hope to bring in another challenge to consider:
Are we really going to lean on the words of Luke 2:46-47, state that this shows Jesus had superior mental-intellectual qualities, and then list that as a specific characteristic that keeps one from sinning?
I would suggest that, if you are going to lean on that, you either redefine your terminology that doesn’t make inferior intellectual people feel less spiritual or you really look to flesh it out more of how that actually keeps another from sinning. The terminology is not helpful and, thus, I’m not sure this holds much water.
As for the angelic help, I definitely believe angels were sent to ‘minister to’ and ‘strengthen’ Jesus. But, let’s consider it more closely, at least on what this strengthening and ministering actually meant. There are only 2 recorded cases, as you point out. Interesting only 2, though this is one of your three major characteristics of what was able to help keep Jesus from sinning.
In the first, the angels actually showed up after Jesus had resisted the enemy Himself. So the angel had not come to help fight off temptation. It was to provide strength after Jesus had conquered the temptation.
That means we are left with one specific example to consider. The second occurrence seems to very much connect in with the angel being a strength to Christ while He was struggling with the notion of heading to the cross, knowing what was coming forth. So this was a blessing, strength and help to Jesus.
But, in the end, can an angel really keep one who is ‘prone to’ sin from sinning? Yes, they can be an encouragement, even a special encouragement beyond a normal human being there for us. But was it the angel that actually was the deterrent to sin? We’d probably both say no, the angel was in and of himself the deterrent.
I know nothing has been proven here. I only bring this up because I feel you have listed some rather interesting reasons as to why Jesus, one who was prone to sin, never sinned – that he had superior mental abilities and had maybe only 2 angelic visitations, with only one being relevant to your point.
In the end, I would stick with the greater focus of His perfect relationship with the Father. But maybe you would not like to stick only to that, as it might sound you are giving Him an advantage over us in a way that sounds too Trinitarian, although you list that as one of your reasons of why He was able to keep from sinning.
Just some thoughts.
In all, I am not sure all of this is faithfully consistent to what you are arguing.
Fort –
How did you know? 🙂
It amuses me that Trinitarians will fight against Scripture, resist it, ignore it, and undermine it furiously whenever their own beliefs are at stake, but as soon as they come across a belief they disagree with, they demand Scripture and verse for every single aspect!
cherylu:
But you’re not naming any differences that I haven’t already raised myself. The key issue here is that you still haven’t proved Jesus was not made like us in every way. Instead, you’ve tried to digress onto other ways in which Jesus was different – ways which do not make him any more or less human than the rest of us. These differences are irrelevant to the topic at hand, and pose no threat to Biblical Unitarian Christology. They’re just a distraction.
You raise these differences in an attempt to get around Hebrews 2:17, because you don’t believe what it says.
Er, I would have thought this was pretty obvious. It’s a clear logical deduction, wouldn’t you say?
Ah… all of a sudden you care about what Scripture says, cherylu? But you’re a Trinitarian, remember? Your entire Christology is based on unScriptural ideas. You even reject Scripture outright whenever it doesn’t agree with your preconceptions, as you’ve done with Hebrews 2:17. Now all of a sudden you want to have something spelled out by Scripture in full detail?
It’s there in Scripture if you take the time to read it, cherylu. Perhaps not explicitly, but clearly enough nonetheless.
Look at what happened when Jesus was 12 years old. Even at that early stage, he understood that he was the Son of God, destined for a unique role in human history. He understood his mission and the responsibility that this brought. He understood Scripture to an extent far beyond his age. This gave him a tremendous head start in his early life, and ensured that he began with a mature spiritual outlook, which in turn prepared him for a lifetime of resisting sin.
Later, his superior knowledge of Scripture enabled him to refute the tempter’s arguments in the wilderness and resist the temptations offered to him. He was not deceived by the tempter’s misuse of Scripture; he was clever enough to see through the deception and respond with Scripture properly applied.
I realise that you can’t understand this, but your lack of understanding doesn’t make it false.
cheryl,
After that temptation was done, certainly. So what do you think they were strengthening him for? Remember, it’s the same description as in Gethsemane.
Where did you get that idea? The fact that we’re shown angels strengthening at two times doesn’t mean those are the only times it happened. It proves Dave’s case that this was one way he was strengthened.
Actually it’s Nestorians who have no problem with that idea. For Trinitarians, Jesus was tempted.
I’ve been trying to find Dave’s original statement about angels helping Jesus resist sin but so far I haven’t come across it. I thought he included more then those instances in that statement.
However, he did explicitly list Mt. 4:11 as one of the times he was speaking of. This is the verse that I have already said speaks of angels coming to Him after the temptation was done. So that leaves the one time just before His death. So, He couldn’t count on angelic help any other time then according to what you are saying.
Dave said He didn’t think having the Spirit without measure contributed to His being able to resist sin. (If I remember right, this was used at one point as a reason. Am I wrong about that?)
I have yet to hear any Scriptue given to support his idea that a superior intellect helps in resisting sin.
So, out of the things Burke gave as reasons for Jesus ability to remain sinless, that leaves His close relationship with His Father. Do you truly believe that is enough to have accomplished it for His entire life? Never one sinful thought, action, or Word once slipping in there at all?
And for a Trinitarian, we have no problem with the physical, human part of Jesus being tempted, or for that matter for Him needing to be strenghtened by angels to face such an ordeal as the crucifixion.
cheryl,
You’re still missing the point. No one is claiming that there are no differences between us and Christ. There are differences between us and Christ just as there are differences between you and I. The point is that they don’t change the fact that Christ as a human like us, not the trinitarian half-breed ‘God-man’.
No one said that angels helped him resist temptation in the ordinary circumstances of life. But they helped him at this critical point. It’s good that you’ve finally acknowledged Christ was given help by the angels to resist this temptation. God wouldn’t need that help of course. God can’t be tempted at all.
Dave,
Naming obvious differences that are plain to see in your own theology–to everyone but you and other Unitarians at any rate– is not “trying every trick in the book to undermine it”.
By the way, how many times is it recorded in the Bible that angels ministered to Jesus and strenghtened Him? I can only think of two times. The one was after His forty days of fasting and temptation in the wilderness. And significantly, Matthew says that it was AFTER He was tempted by the devil that the angels came to Him. Doesn’t sound to me like they helped Him withstand the temptation. They strengthened Him afterwards, but He didn’t have their help in the temptation itself. The second time was when He was praying right before the crucifixion. And I must say that no other person has ever been asked to do what Jesus was asked to do and gave Himself to do here. This was indeed an extraordinary circumstance, not the ordinary day to day living out of resisting temptation. So I am not altogether certain that it can be put in the same category as saying angels helped Him resist temptation in the ordinary circumstances of life. And there is no record of that whatsoever. If there is someplace it is spoken of, please point it out to me.
And I still want to know where you find Biblical support for the idea that superior intellect helps one to resist sin. You say it is all there in the Bible–where?? And you say it is nonsensical to think it wouldn’t help. To me it is nonsensical to think that a superior intellect could possibly keep one from ever thinking a wrong thought or saying a wrong word, for example. Just how does that work any way?
Mike:
More to the point, how does it not make him a normal human like us in every way? Sure, he was miraculously conceived, but that didn’t make him any less human. Why would it?
Adam didn’t have a human father; in fact, he wasn’t conceived at all! Are you going to tell me he wasn’t a normal human like us? The bottom line is that Jesus was conceived and born, which is exactly how human beings come into existence. What’s the problem? I don’t see one.
Like cherylu, you’re simply trying to get around Scripture. It can’t be done.
Hebrews 2:17 says: “Therefore he had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people.”
The difference between us is that I believe Hebrews 2:17. But you don’t, and neither does cherylu. That’s why you’re trying every trick in the book to undermine it.
Dave, how does the miraculous conception and lack of a physical human father make Jesus a normal human like us in every way?
Dave,
I don’t know how to use the little smiley icon or I would use one here, ’cause guess what? I feel like you are the cult victim I am talking to!!
Have to go visit my Mother in law so no more time to talk.
cherylu:
cherylu, he was made just like the rest of us. That makes him just like the rest of us with regard to the way he was made. In other words: it makes him a genuine, normal human being; not a super-man.
Jesus is certainly “set apart from the rest of humanity”, but not in any way that makes him less human. I don’t know how many different ways I can say this.
The reason you’re having so much trouble trying to grasp this is because you’ve been taught to think about Jesus in unScriptural ways, so it’s almost impossible to describe him to you using Scriptural language because you automatically reject it.
I feel like I’m talking to a cult victim.
cherylu:
They assisted his resistance to sin. They didn’t “make him able to be sinless.” He wasn’t sinless just because he possessed those attributes. He was still tempted and he still had to resist temptation.
Yes, they set him apart from the rest of humanity, just as being governor of Judea set Pontius Pilate apart from the rest of humanity. (How many other people in the world were governor of Judea? Nobody – just Pilate!) But they don’t prove Jesus was made any different to us and they don’t prove that he wasn’t human. They certainly don’t prove that he was super-human.
He was made just like us in every way. He was a human with unique privileges, BUT HE STILL COULD HAVE SINNED. That’s the point you’re missing. He still could have sinned.
It’s all there in the Bible, cherylu.
When I read that angels came and assisted Jesus, I conclude that Jesus needed assistance and that he benefited from it. When I read that Jesus prayed to the Father for help and the Father sent an angel to strengthen him, I conclude that Jesus needed to be strengthened and he was strengthened by the angel. What do you conclude? That the angels just came down from heaven for a chat?
How can you sit there and tell me that superior intellect and divine assistance isn’t going to help someone to resist sin? That’s just nonsensical!
cheryl, while these characteristics set him apart from the rest of humanity, they don’t make him any more or less than human.
If you want to know how angelic help can keep people from sin, try reading Luke 22:41-44.
Dave,
This quote is from your answer to ScottL above:
“I don’t believe it’s possible for any other human to achieve what Jesus achieved. Hypothetically it could be possible, if some other human were to receive the same qualities, powers and privileges that Jesus possessed. But in reality it could never happen, because Jesus is God’s only begotten Son and there will never be another like him.”
I’m sorry, but if there will never be another like Him, it doesn’t sound to me that He is just like the rest of us. Doesn’t that in itself set Him apart from the rest of humanity? I certainly see it as doing so.
Dave,
Sorry if I remembered incorrectly. But then my question has to be how is it that having those mental and intellectual qualities made Jesus able to be sinless?
And the other special priveleges He had–the Spirit without limit and the angelic help that you spoke of–they certainly set Him apart from the rest of humanity. External or not, they do make Him different then the rest of us.
And like I asked above, I fail to see anyway how superior intellect and angelic help can keep any one from sin. And I still want to know what the Scriptural backing is for those ideas as I have certainly never seen them or even heard this idea before.
cherylu:
No cherylu, you are misrepresenting me. Please read what I wrote.
I said that Jesus had superior mental and intellectual qualities. This is not unusual; many people today have superior mental and intellectual qualities. I said it is entirely possible for someone to possess the same mental and intellectual qualities as Jesus.
My point is that his advantages were external, not internal. In other words, there was nothing different about the way Jesus was made. He was a normal human being – not a super-man. He was made like us in every way.
Fortigurn,
As I understand it, (maybe I am remembering incorrectly), part of the objection Dave and others have had here to Jesus actually being diety–the God-Man–is that then He is not just like us in every way when it comes to living His life on this earth and overcoming sin. But I simply don’t see how that scenario is so very different from a man that is given all kinds of extra help and abilities that the rest of mankind can not/do not have to insure that He will be able to go through life without sin. He is not just like us in that case–He has extra powers and help.
And for the life of me, I can’t see how being a genius or whatever–if indeed Jesus was one–and having angelic help could keep anyone from not ever once thinking a sinful thought, etc. I mean, even small children are greedy, get angry, are selfish etc. His intellect was so well deveoloped at this point that He never once had such a thought cross His mind? Or did the angels maybe come and manipulate His thoughts so such a thing never once crossed His mind? I just don’t buy it. And when did He receive the Spirit without measure? At conception, at birth, or at His baptism? If it wasn’t until His baptism He had 30 years or so to go without sinning simply because He was very smart or the angels wouldn’t let any wrong thoughts cross His mind? This whole idea simply does not work in any way that I can see. And again, if He had all of this extra help, He wasn’t just like us in every way.
And for that matter, where did the idea that being very smart is a help in never sinning come from any way? I see absolutely no Scriptural support for such an idea.
Fortigurn,
But isn’t that just the point? Jesus was a man just like us–Dave has been saying that over and over. However, if He was given advantages that we weren’t so that He could overcome sin which the rest of human beings don’t have, then He is not just like us. He is a “super man” if you will and not just like us in every way.
cheryl, when Dave speaks of Christ being just like us in every way, he means he was a human being like us in every way. We could argue that none of us are ‘just like us in every way’, depending on how particular you want to get with regard to physical and mental characteristics, careers, and material possessions.
If I give Scott US$10 million he doesn’t suddenly become a non-human being, or a human being different to you, in the sense of being human. If Scott has a genius level intelligence and an athlete’s physique he doesn’t suddenly become non-human or a human different to the rest of us, in the sense of being human.
Christ was given advantages over sin which we don’t have, but he was asked to do something we weren’t asked to do. He still struggled exactly as we do, and his trial in the wilderness and the struggle in Gethsemane prove that when it came to temptation and sin he had to agonize just like the rest of us.
Dave:
I have been following the debate and I have been forced to think a lot (which is good). I am wrestling (will post on it soon) with the atonement in the Unitarian position but have come to recognize from your recent posting and some reading on Bible Basics that there are many differences in our positions regarding the Fall and its consequences.
Do I understand the the Unitarian position correctly –
1) this view sees the consequence of the Fall on man being related to physical death only and not also a spiritual death (a lost relationship with God).
2) There is also no concept of “sin nature” such that man is not only prone to sin but by nature has a damaged will and is subject to God’s wrath (Eph 2:3) even if he has not committed personal sins? Is it fair to say this is similar to Pelagian teaching? If it differs, in what way?
You state strongly in the debate that Jesus had to be like us in every way, thus arguing that the Trinitarian view that Jesus did not have a sin nature or imputed sin is wrong. Here Jesus has advantages that we don’t have (not to mention the miraculous conception) that seem to imply even in the Unitarian view that he is not like us in every way. How are they different?
Thanks
MikeB
Dave,
It seems to me your answer to the reason Jesus didn’t sin poses a real problem to your basic tenent that Jesus was just like us in every way. He was not, according to you, just like us in every way–He was given “qualities, powers, and priveleges” that the rest of us aren’t. That makes Him different then the rest of us.
Scott,
Thanks for your questions. I think I can give you a basic answer without any trouble.
Yes, that is my position.
Yes, that is my position. And yes, Jesus’ nature was prone to sin, just like ours.
Yes, that is my position.
As I said in Week 5: Jesus’ sinless life was made possible by his superior mental and intellectual qualities (Luke 2:46-47), his close relationship with the Father (John 1:18, 10:30, 38), and the angelic assistance he received whenever necessary (Matthew 4:11; Luke 22:43).
Even if we allow that it is possible for another human being to possess the same physical and intellectual qualities as Jesus (and I believe it is possible), they would still not have the same advantages he did.
Remember also that Jesus received the Holy Spirit “without measure.” While I doubt that this contributed in any way towards his ability to resist sin, it would have been a tremendous comfort in times of trial.
So the bottom line is: Jesus had help! And he needed that help, and we know that he needed that help because Scripture tells us that he asked for it and received it.
I don’t believe it’s possible for any other human to achieve what Jesus achieved. Hypothetically it could be possible, if some other human were to receive the same qualities, powers and privileges that Jesus possessed. But in reality it could never happen, because Jesus is God’s only begotten Son and there will never be another like him.
On the contrary, it’s a subject that emerges regularly in Christadelphian circles. If I had a dollar for every time… 😛
Dave –
It’s been a while… 🙂
Here are some questions I posed to Burke today:
I’ve been thinking through something. Let me see if I can understand what you believe about Jesus and how I think this can lead to some off-base theology, at least an off-base anthropology (doctrine of man). I don’t think you will say that you hold to these conclusions I will share at the end, but I would love to hear you correct me where I misunderstand you and then share why you do not conclude these wrong presuppositions.
1) Jesus was born a mortal man like every other human being that has ever existed and will exist, taking on the fulness of humanity, being made just like us.
2) Every mortal human being is capable and prone to sin. [As a side question, does this include the mortal human being Jesus on the prone to sin part, since he is like us in every way?]
3) But the mortal human Jesus was able to keep from sinning his entire life. Thus, he was able to receive the glorification that he now has at the Father’s right hand, ruling over all heaven and earth. He now has a somewhat divine-Lordship status, though not equal with the Father.
Here is where the problems come in, at least for me, if we flesh this theologyout completely.
1) If all humanity and Christ are alike in every way from their birth, mortal, capable of and prone to sin, but not necessarily ‘born sinners’ (at least you deny any kind of ‘original sin’ view), what happens if another mortal human being were to, in the power of God, not succumb to temptation and never sin? Is this possible? Why or why not?
2) If this mortal human being, who was created and born just like every other mortal human being including Christ, did not succumb to temptation and did not sin, would this person get to join Christ in his exalted state as a kind of Lord-divine person? How would this all play out?
Now I suppose that you will say that you don’t think about these kinds of questions because it is only conjecture. And I understand that. But, my main problem is that your theology (anthropology) at least allows for each human being to live out the sinless life that Christ lived out, since Christ was born like every other human being with the same exact nature.
I suppose an answer would take a lot of time, and I know you have not that time. But just thought I would see your thoughts on this.
This morning I read an antidote for dogmatism:
“Logic is a systematic and reliable method of reaching the wrong conclusion with absolute confidence.”
– “One might still think that the Father is the ultimate or primary focus of the worship in Rev 5.”
I agree – absolutely! Glory to God (the Father) is the ultimate goal of EVERY ascription of praise to Christ, I believe.
Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus the Messiah is Lord – to the glory of GOD, the Father (Philippians 2).
When all things have been put under his feet, the Son himself will pay homage to the Father, that GOD may be all in all (1 Cor. 15).
I believe that the Father is the only true God. That is, he is the only one who is subject to NO ONE. Jesus Christ is Lord; but he is subject (always) to the only true God.
– “You’re inferring, as many do, that if Jesus is properly worshiped, then he must not be a creature. The missing premise: it is inappropriate to worship any creature.”
That is not my reasoning. Whether the worship is “proper” or not (whatever that means) is not the basis of my inference.
I am looking at the description of “every creature” in verse 13. My impression from the language is that it means EVERY creature, without exception.
If that is correct, then he is not one of them. It isn’t every “other” creature, and I think such a reading would be grotesque in the setting.
Maybe I should make a slight qualification to my agreement with your first statement. Read the whole chapter, and I think the focus HERE is on the Lamb. He is being revealed as the only one who can take the book and open it.
He is also being revealed as the only one who is worthy to share with God Almighty such an ascription of praise as is found in v. 13. So in the end, the worship finds its ultimate goal in God.
Marg – thanks for your kind words.
One might still think that the Father is the ultimate or primary focus of the worship in Rev 5.
You’re inferring, as many do, that if Jesus is properly worshiped, then he must not be a creature. The missing premise: it is inappropriate to worship any creature.
I think we should tread very carefully here. Some people *define* idolatry as worship of a creature, and some *define* worship as some act or attitude that can only be done or adopted with respect to God. If we make one of these declarations, the missing premise comes out true. But what is worship, if not honoring, praising, exalting? We do those things, appropriately, to creatures all the time, e.g. the President, the boss, mom and dad. As Burke has pointed out, the biblical language is flexible – just like we’d expect in light of this fact.
It seems to me that both Bowman and Burke would chime in here “But that’s not RELIGIOUS worship”. But, what is that? “Worship in a religious context.” But what is that? In both cases – I have no idea.
There can, of course, be kinds and degrees of honoring, praising, exalting, etc. Maybe some of those are appropriate to God alone. So, in Rev 5, are the people in that scene giving these offerings to Jesus? Presumably not – because Jesus and God (contra Bowman) numerically differ – in this very scene they constitute *two* objects of worship – and the writer assumes that what is going on is good.
I need to do a post, or a series some time, on how we ought to define the sin of idolatry. I think it always involves creature-worship… But does the reverse hold?
Dale – I love this blog. I appreciate your even-handed assessments, and your flags are teaching me a lot about debating. Thank you.
About prayer: It seems to me that the apostles “talked” to Jesus all through the book of Acts. They even argued with him sometimes (Acts 9:10-17). I would consider this to be prayer – but maybe I’m wrong.
And in Revelation 5:13 every creature is ascribing to him the same “praise and honor and glory and power” that they are ascribing to God Almighty.
The trinitarianism I learned from the Anglican catechism I gave up on long ago. It was a real blow to find out that the titles “God the Son” and “God the Holy Ghost” are nowhere to be found in the Bible. Once I began to read the Bible with the desire to learn what it actually says, the confusion began to melt away.
But I am still convinced that the Lamb of God is not a “creature”. He is not an angel, as Hebrews 1 makes abundantly clear; and in Rev. 5 EVERY creature is seen worshipping (sorry; I can’t think of any other appropriate verb) Almighty God and the Lamb TOGETHER – at the same time, in the same place, and with the same words.
I do agree with Dave on the subject of agency; but it seems to me that agency doesn’t quite explain Revelation 5:13.
Dave,
Dave: “I think you need to start by proving that prayer = worship. Until you’ve done that, you don’t really have an argument.”
Helez: Oh, come on Dave, did I say ‘prayer = worship’? Do your maths with the Trinitarians. I said: prayer is a form of worship. And I rather think you are the one who should have started by proving that prayer is *not* connected with worship, because by *usual* definition it is. Just check any dictionary or encyclopedia. Especially in the context of Bible discussion when someone states: “Ultimately, prayer to Jesus is a matter left to the believer’s conscience.”
Dave: “There’s a few places in the NT where Christians appear to direct prayer to Jesus. II Corinthians 12:8 is just one example”
Helez: The Lord here is God. Since Paul asked for the removal of the “thorn in his flesh, a messenger of Satan,” it is logical that he looked to the Lord God to do this, God being the one to whom prayers are directed.
Dave: “Correct. But he didn’t define prayer as worship.”
Helez: Again, if Jesus didn’t say we could pray to him, what makes you think it would have been okay all of a sudden to start praying to creatures instead of to God only?
The relationship between prayer and worship cannot be denied by definition.
Helez, I think you need to start by proving that prayer = worship. Until you’ve done that, you don’t really have an argument.
This doesn’t preclude it from being used in the context of prayer. There’s a few places in the NT where Christians appear to direct prayer to Jesus. II Corinthians 12:8 is just one example: “I asked the Lord three times about this, that it would depart from me.” That’s definitely a prayer, and the context shows that “the Lord” here is Jesus.
Correct. But he didn’t define prayer as worship.
Dave,
Dave: “Oh really?”
Helez: Yes, really. Prayer is connected with worship.
Dave: “When Stephen said “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”, how was that an act of worship? It was just a request!”
Helez: Yes, it wasn’t an act of worship, it wasn’t prayer. The Greek word epikaleo in Ac 7:59 can mean: “to call upon,” “invoke”, or “to appeal to.” Paul used this same word in Ac 25:11 when he said: “I appeal to Caesar.” This brief utterance of Stephen while seeing the resurrected Jesus in vision did not set a precedent for praying to Jesus at all.
Dave: “Well no, he said that we should pray to God, but he didn’t say we wouldn’t be able to pray to him. He said nothing about the relationship between prayer and worship.”
Helez: If Jesus didn’t say we could pray to him, what makes you think it would have been okay all of a sudden to start praying to creatures instead of to God only? Jesus not only *told* his diciples to pray to the Father but *showed them how* to do it. He also said that worship is to be addressed *only* to God. (E.g., Lu 4:8) The relionship between prayer and worship cannot be denied by definition.
Dave: “No, I don’t redefine the meaning of the word “prayer.””
Helez: If you define prayer as something independent of worship, you *are* redefining the meaning of the word.
Helez:
Oh really? When Stephen said “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit”, how was that an act of worship? It was just a request!
Well no, he said that we should pray to God, but he didn’t say we wouldn’t be able to pray to him. He said nothing about the relationship between prayer and worship.
Yes it’s true. In the Christadelphian community, for example, people are free to make up their own minds on the subject. No, I don’t redefine the meaning of the word “prayer.”
Dale, two flags:
1) Where do you guys get this idea about 1Co 8:6b being about the *new* creation? Isn’t this 100% assumed and solely read into the text because of theological bias? Do you really believe it is convincingly argued by Burke why he thinks this is plausible? Is the context of 1Co 8 by itself implying such a thing? Or how can “all [Gr. pas] creation” of God mean the “new creation”? (Col. 1:15)
Burke is right about one thing though: It is the creation *from* the Father, *through* the Son.
2) Isn’t it dishonest to ignore that according to Php 2:7 the “emptying himself” and the “taking the form of a bond-servant” is directly connected to the ‘coming to be in the likeness of men’. The verse doesn’t say: ‘First he came in the likeness of man, and then, as such, he humbled himself like a servent.’ No, the implication is that he emptied himself BY coming to be in the likeness of man, and then, as such, verse 8 continues: “Being found in appearance as a man, He [subsequently] humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death…”
Darby:
1) but emptied himself, taking a bondman’s form, taking his place in [the] likeness of men (verse 7b and verse 7a cannot be turned around, like Burke wants to)
2) and having been found in figure as a man, humbled himself, becoming obedient even unto death (verse 8)
Dave,
Every prayer is a form of worship. Also Jesus himself adhered to the fundamental truth that worship, hence also prayers, is to be addressed only to God, his Father.
You write that Biblical Unitarians “take a balanced view” on the subject of praying to Christ: “Ultimately, prayer to Jesus is a matter left to the believer’s conscience.” Is that true, or do you redefine the meaning of the word “prayer”?
Fortigurn,
One of those articulating that was Michael Patton in his article ‘”The Trinity is Like 3-in-1 Shampoo”. . . And Other Stupid Statements’:
“One more thing. I often tell my students that if they say, “I get it!” or “Now I understand!” that they are more than likely celebrating the fact that they are a heretic! When you understand the biblical principles and let the tensions remain without rebuttal, then you are orthodox. When you solve the tension, you have most certainly entered into one of the errors that we seek to avoid.
Confused? Good! That is just where you need to be.”
(Link: http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/08/the-trinity-is-like-3-in-1-shampoo-and-other-stupid-statements/)
Meaningful admission, isn’t it?
It has rightly been said that if someone believes they have comprehended the doctrine of the Trinity, they must be a heretic.
Dale, thanks for your critique. It’s a tribute to your stamina that you managed to wade through 14,500 words of rebuttal!
I’ll just clarify a couple of points:
That was poorly phrased, I admit. I should have said “religious worship as opposed to courtly ‘worship'”, or simply just left it at “worship.”
I don’t recall ever saying that Jesus is worshipped in Revelation 5. That is not my position. Can you tell me where you read this?
It’s bad for two reasons:
(a) Trinitarians and unitarians agree that Docetism is heretical, so it’s not a viable Christology for either side.
(b) a Docetic Christ is a false Christ who merely pretended to suffer the frailties of human nature (yet somehow managed to deceive Thomas that his body was real). Crucially, the Docetic Christ achieved no atonement for sin because he didn’t die on the cross.
Docetism is relevant to this debate because it is the unconscious de facto Christology of many lay Trinitarians, even those who consider themselves orthodox.
I raise it for two reasons:
(a) to demonstrate that Trinitarianism remains just as incoherent and incomprehensible to modern Trinitarians themselves as it was to those who first heard it preached in the 4th Century.
(b) to highlight the irony that, despite having become the benchmark of Christian orthodoxy, Trinitarianism is almost impossible to define and articulate without falling into one Christological heresy or another – even by Trinitarians themselves.
Comments are closed.