God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament – conference presentation

@ Marg (November 21, 2012 at 8:19 am)

I am a little confused by the suggestion that after the resurrection the word “God” refers to TWO, and not just one. Is there a biblical example of its being used that way?

Actually, not only after the Resurrection, but even before the Incarnation, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.” (John 1:1), so Jesus, who IS the Incarnation of God’s Eternal Logs, IS God.

The whole point, as I have repeatedly said, is NOT whether Jesus is divine-human, God-man (he IS, and on sound scriptural basis), BUT whether the pre-incarnated Christ, that is the Word, was a person, a “he”. There is no reason to affirm that he was, and there are many reasons to affirm that he wasn’t

Once again …

[villanovanus, November 20, 2012 at 9:50 am]… not a single non-trinitarian here considers those verses ([1 Cor 8:6, Heb 1:10], “as well as other passages”) conclusive not only for the “co-equal, co-eternal, tri-personal tri-unity”, but even for the more modest “personal pre-existence” of the Logos. In fact, non-trinitarians affirm that there is a perfectly satisfactory non-trinitarian –and even non-personal-pre-existence– explanation for ALL those verses and passages.

… and I notice that you have carefully avoided to come back on this …

[Marg] In any case, I am glad of the confirmation that the earliest readers (and writers) understood the NT in the same way that Clarke does. At the moment, I understand it the same way.

The only Church Father that I explicitly named as a Subordinationist trinitarian, Origen (c.185–c.254), certainly wasn’t one of the “earliest readers (and writers)”. In fact, the problem openly started with a previous Christian author (a convert from heathenism), Justin Martyr (100–ca.165) who, following in the footsteps of the Jewish theologian and Middle -Platonic philosopher Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 CE), affirmed that there was a “second god” (deutheros theos), that manifested himself in the theophanies (divine manifestations) of the Old Testament, before becoming incarnated in Jesus Christ.

This is Christianity’s “original sin”.

All the rest (Subordinationism, Arianism, full–fledged the “co-equal, co-eternal, tri-personal tri-unity”) is only a consequence of the clumsy (maybe worse …) attempts to compensate for this “original sin.”

MdS

Marg,

You have given us not a clue as to the begetting of the SON!

Hebrews 1 says that God did not speak in a SON in the OT times! That is because there was NO Son at that time.

The simplicity of truth is turned into a nightmare of argumentation and confusion once the SON is projected back into the OT. This ruins the whole plan of God to cause His Son to be born in the fullness of times.
A preexisting SON cannot be the descendant of David, which the real Son of God must be.

It remains clear that in Judaism there is no actual, literal preexisting Messiah! The NAME of the Messiah is prepared before creation but not the Messiah himself. If that is not clear Paul makes it clear by saying that the first Adam precedes the second.

Again, we are to test the spirits and cling to the spirit which affirms the Messiah, as the one who was human.

I can honestly see both sides.

On the one hand, I have to wonder, what happened to that fully conscious person who suddenly found himself a seed in a woman’s body? What happened to his awareness, his memories? And when he grew in wisdom and stature before God and men as Luke has it (Luke 2:52), was he merely recalling that which he already knew? It seems absurd and would seem to destroy any possibility of true humanity.

On the other hand, is it so difficult to imagine that the Spirit of Christ is eternal (see I Peter 1:11)? I just can’t fathom how a personage so central to the history of the universe and its salvation as Jesus could have an origin like every other human being (with the exception of the virgin conception, which of course in itself is pregnant with exegetical possibility). The Messiah cannot be just a man, for we are warned in Psalm 146 not to put our trust in a son of man.

Anthony

Maybe she’ll answer you. :/

I can’t improve on the Jewish Encyclopedia, Anthony.

In the meantime,

Dia plus the genitive has a CAUSAL sense too, as you see in TDNT.

This has made me look carefully (again) at what the TDNT says about dia used with the Genitive.
There are five sections, the last of which is 5. Causal:
This again is subdivided into two sections:
a. of the cause: “in consequence of,” “on the basis of,” “on account of”. The cause, in this case, is a THING, not a person, as the examples indicate:
Romans 8:3: For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through (dia) the FLESH…
2 Corinthians 9:13: they glorify God for (dia = on account of) your OBEDIENCE …

The second subheading is b. of the author: “from,” “for the sake of.” The examples referring to God are R. 11:36, Hb. 2: 10, and 1 C. 1:9, which says :
God is faithful, through dia whom you were called into fellowship with His Son …

God is clearly not acting as an AGENT of anyone. He is the CAUSE – the ultimate SOURCE – of the action.
This causal usage is not possible in 1 Co. 8:6, because the CAUSE (the ultimate source) is already identified as the FATHER. So in connection with “the one Lord,” the only possible meaning is through the agency of. As the TDNT states:

The formula “through Christ” … is also to be taken more often in the sense that Christ mediates the action of another, i.e., the action of God, namely, creation (Jn. 1:3; 1 C. 8:6; Col. 1:16); the revelation of salvation and reconciliation (Jn. 1:17; 3:17; Ac. 10:36; 2 C. 5:18; Col. 1:20), miracles (Ac. 2:22); judgment (R. 2:16); the consummation of salvation (R. 5:9; 1 C. 15:57); the impartation of the Spirit (Tt. 3:6). …

Notice: that Christ mediates the action of another, i.e., the action of God, namely, creation …
And one of the examples given is 1 Corinthians 8:6.

That seems to settle the issue, so far as the TDNT is concerned.

I’m not sure what happened to the quotation, but here it is again, without any emphasis added:

The preexistent Messiah is presented also in the Haggadah (Pes. 54a; Ned. 39a; Yal?. i. 20; et al.), where the name of the Messiah is included among the seven things created before the world was made, and where he is called “Yinnon,” reference being made to Ps. lxxii. 17 (which passage probably was in the mind of the author of the Messiological section of Enoch when writing xlviii. 3). That, contrary to the view of Weber (“Jüdische Theologie,” 2d ed., p. 355) and others, it is actual preexistence which is meant here, and not predestination, is evident from the additional remark—”According to another view, only the Torah and the Throne of Glory were [actually] created; as to the other [five] things the intention was formed to create them” (Yal?., l.c.; in regard to “the name of the Messiah” compare the comment above to Enoch, xlviii. 3). Finally, the preexistence of the Messiah in paradise is minutely described in “The Revelation of R. Joshua b. Levi” (see Jew. Encyc. i. 680), in Midrash Konen (Jellinek, “B. H.” ii. 29), and in “Seder Gan Eden” (ib. iii. 132 et seq., 195). In the first two, regardless of the apparent anomaly, the preexistent Messiah is called “Messiah ben David.”

Marg,

These issues will never be solved by struggling with a single preposition!

Dia plus the genitive has a CAUSAL sense too, as you see in TDNT. The PRESENT creation is THROUGH Jesus. The Genesis creation is with Jesus IN MIND. That is because “the word” is the plan through which GOD created in Genesis.

The light is not a person in Jn 1:5 but it is a person in v. 10. The distinction between auto and auton shows how precise John is.

Then in Col 1:16 the passive verb is a DIVINE PASSIVE: “All things WERE created (by GOD) IN Jesus”; i.e., with him “in intention” (Dunn as quoted by Xavier).

The point is that the synoptics are quite clear that GOD made them male and female. “God, [not Jesus], rested on the 7th day”. They also give a full account of the ORIGIN of the Son and they are meant to stave off a non-human Jesus.

Judaism never, EVER, believed that the Messiah was LITERALLY alive before he was born!

Yes, Jesus is very much the ‘agent’ of the NEW Creation, but a pre-human is incoherent and the Trinity winds up making Mary the mother of a BODY and not a person [cp. Catholicism which sees Mary as theotokos].

Once you speak of a LITERAL pre-life you are automatically DENYING the death of the Son.

If Jesus preexisted as an angel, God/god or ANY OTHER TYPE/CATEGORY of Being he cannot die!

These are the huge issues.

Let’s review, Anthony.
On the thread previously noted (comment 39, third page) you said:

‘Through the agency of’ is for me exactly the same as ‘with Jesus as the attendant circumstances’. Jesus is the attendant circumstance of the whole creation. … Have a look at TDNT, if you can (Vol 2:65-70).

Please note: You are talking about Jesus (a PERSON) being the “attendant circumstance of the whole creation“. And you cite the TDNT in support of your statement.

So I looked at the TDNT and found this:

The formula “through Christ” … is also to be taken more often in the sense that Christ mediates the action of another, i.e., the action of God, namely, creation (Jn. 1:3; 1 C. 8:6; Col. 1:16);

Notice that Christ is mediating the action of God in creation, and one of the examples is 1 Corinthians 8:6.

Putting the two together, the TDNT says that in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Christ is mediating the action of God in creation; or, to use your words, the whole creation.

In other words, the TDNT does NOT support your explanation. Instead, it supports the obvious meaning of Paul’s words, namely:
The one Lord is the mediator through whom all things come FROM the one God.
He is also the mediator through whom we are redeemed FOR the one God.

This is Paul’s argument to convince the Corinthians that idols are NOTHING. Nothing comes FROM them, nothing comes THROUGH them. They are worthless.

The argument covers everything, and there is nothing contradictory in it. It’s a powerful argument, just as it is written.

1 Cor 8 speaks of US/WE through him; that is the new creation and THROUGH is right.

Thank you, Anthony. This part of the verse was not discussed previously, so this is something new to add to the rest.

The whole sentence has four distinct parts:

There is one God, the Father, FROM whom are all things, and we FOR him, and
one Lord, Jesus Christ, THROUGH whom are all things, and we THROUGH him.

So:
1 (a) the one God is the SOURCE of all things, and
(b) he is the GOAL of our existence (even though sin has separated us from him).
Also:
2 (a) the one Lord is the AGENT through whom all things come, and
(b) he is the MEDIATOR through whom we are reconciled to God.

That takes care of past, present and future. The one Lord is the agent/mediator through whom God creates, redeems, judges, rules.

As for other suggestions regarding the meaning of 2 (a), they do not fit the grammatical restraints of dia when used with the GENITIVE of a PERSON.

Marg

I am willing to look at evidence to the contrary, so long as the evidence is biblical.

😛

villanovanus

I claim that when the resurrected Jesus ascended and “seated at the right of the Power” is referred to as “Lord” (e.g. Acts 2:36; Rom 10:9; Phil 2:9-11), he is LORD exactly in the same sense that YHWH (the Father Almighty – on this we agree …) is LORD: because YHWH, in His omnipotence, made him LORD on a par to Himself.

Are you saying that there are 2 YHWHs?

Are you familiar with Anthony Buzzard’s work on Ps 110.1?
http://focusonthekingdom.org/articles/adonai.htm

V, I appreciate the fact that you, too, think that

[it is highly recommended to have, here at trinities] a properly controlled written debate, in which ALL the evidence on BOTH sides of the issue can be presented TOGETHER

I look forward to such a debate – if it ever takes place.

As for 1 Cor. 8:6 – it was discussed at length on the thread THE EVOLUTION OF MY VIEWS ON THE TRINITY – PART 8 (DALE). I am tempted to copy the conclusion; but instead I will hope that a debate may yet take place, dealing with the question: Does the biblical evidence justify the conclusion that the Son of God existed BEFORE the man Jesus was born?

Other questions are sure to follow; but that one, I think, is basic.

By the way, I hesitate to do much “asserting,” but one thing I can assert, without hesitation. God is ONE – not three. The only true God – the only one who is subject to NOBODY – is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Even though God, his Son and his Spirit are mentioned in the same context some fifty or sixty times, the word God NEVER refers to three, or even to two. In all of those cases, it ALWAYS refers to one, and that one is the Father.

On that point, at least, we probably agree.

Marg,

You are reading Jesus into the first creation. Yes the LIGHT is the person Jesus in v. 10. But you have noted that light is not a person in v. 5!

Jesus is what the light became.

Jesus is what the word./wisdom became

As the wisdom of God, Jesus is the human embodiment of wisdom.

THROUGH him in v. 10 is certainly true; BY him is not right. All things were made IN Jesus and the new creation is THROUGH him [Col 1:16].

1 Cor 8 speaks of US/WE through him; that is the new creation and THROUGH is right.

You say you cannot tell us about anything that LOGOS was doing in the OT. Is that not amazing?

So you have a Jesus alive for billions of years in the OT and yet not doing anything?

What about all the evidence for the Son beginning in Mary? You are still implying a Jesus in transit from billions of years of existence INTO the womb. That is so odd, since Matt., and Luke could not possibly have meant that!

@ Greg (November 20, 2012 at 12:49 am)

I’m skeptical of the notion that a divine person could “become” a human being in any meaningful sense of that term. It seems to me to come down to this: did a what become a who, or did a who become a who? Maybe it’s just semantics, but then again, would it surprise anyone if it were mere semantics that divides Christendom? I’ll be the first to admit that I’m skeptical of the majority opinion, which is clearly Trinitarian. On the other hand, I’m reluctant to dismiss the testimony of the historical church as a whole. Are we to each be our own church? Are subjective opinions and interpretations of the text what God had in mind? [bolding added]

I also believe that the above bolded question is THE question. In fact it is far more essential and interesting than never-ending hair-splitting on the “trinity” (modalist vs tritheist, Western-Latin vs Eastern-Social, Egalitarian vs Subordinationist, etc.).

After all, if it wasn’t for the questions of the divinity (in what sense?) and of the pre-existence (a “what” or a “who”?) of Jesus Christ, the question of the “trinity” would be totally irrelevant.

Regards,

MdS

Greg

The questions are unending.

Sounds like your wasting your time then. I suggest you go do something else with your life. 😛

Greg, I am with you.

What I wanted to mention, though, has to do with two sayings of the Lord Jesus recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. One is found (worded identically) in all three: Matthew 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33.

The heaven and the earth will pass away, but my words (logoi) will never pass away.

Those words – along with the statements that follow – would be breathtaking in their audacity if they were spoken by any other man. But they seem appropriate from the man who is the divine logos “in flesh”.

The other is Matthew 11:28; but it has to be understood in the light of the previous verse: “All things are GIVEN to me from my Father.” He never claims to be the SOURCE of anything. Everything he says or does is clearly from his God and Father.

But then he makes a statement that is – again – breathtaking:

Come to me, all you who are laboring and burdened, and I will give you rest.

What a comfort that has been! To those who are weary with the labor of trying to please God on their own, to those who are burdened with guilt, he says, “Come to ME, and I will give you rest.”

I did that. And I can testify, the rest he gives is real.

But then he invites us to take upon ourselves HIS yoke (the yoke of loving submission to the will of God) and learn from HIM, because he is humble and lowly in heart.

Notice the word “because“. His qualifications as a teacher are humility and lowliness of heart.

And if we are learning FROM him how to be LIKE him, we will learn to be as he is: humble and lowly in heart. There is no room for arrogance or rudeness in a disciple of his.

“…as well as other passages

One of those passages, Xavier, is Hebrews 1:10, on which you gave your honest reaction not that long ago on the KR blog. You said (and I agree) that wherever the heavens and the earth are mentioned in the OT, they refer to the Genesis creation. The Son is God’s AGENT in that creation.

Rather than repeat the other passages (most of which have been presented before), I would like to request – again – a properly controlled written debate, in which ALL the evidence on BOTH sides of the issue can be presented TOGETHER.

I am not interested in winners and losers. I am interested in learning, and I think there are other readers who are interested in the same thing.

Villanovanus – I wasn’t quoting the prologue of John; I was quoting verse 10. At that point, the Logos was IN THE WORLD. The Logos had ALREADY become flesh. Therefore, the translation is accurate: HE was in the world; the world was brought into existence by HIM, but the world did not recognize HIM. As many as did recognize HIM, though, HE gave the power to become the children of God.

As for what the Logos was BEFORE that, I have no biblical description to quote, so I won’t make up one.

But I DO have 1 Co. 8:6, as well as other passages, to suggest that the Son of God was God’s AGENT – in creation as well as in salvation.

I have also read some words of Jesus about the way he expects his disciples to act. But that belongs on another thread.

@ Vlastimil (November 18, 2012 at 3:44 am)

Thank you for coming back, but there was really no need to. I had already exposed you prolonged “philosophical” bluff.

Take care and … don’t bother any more …

MdS

“The thought in the theology of Israel and early Judaism was never of Wisdom (or Word) as separate beings from God, able to be conceived as independent personalities from God…Earliest Christian Wisdom christology took up the wisdom IMAGERY and METAPHOR and applied it to Jesus [presenting him] as the PERSONAL expression of the divine Wisdom WHOSE personality previously could only be expressed in PERSONIFICATION imagery.” J.D.G. Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? p 124.

@ Vlastimil (November 17, 2012 at 9:47 am)

… the main claims in my argument would be these: 1. Probably, Jesus believed there are three divine persons. 2. Probably, Jesus was a monotheist in the common intuitive sense. 3. Probably, a divine person confirmed these teachings of Jesus by a miracle. 4. Probably, non-supposit views are contradictory or incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. So, 5. Probably, the supposit view was what Jesus had in mind in those teachings. [6.] (Though, antecedently, the supposit view is improbable or even seems impossible.) [bolding added]

0. “Probably”? In what sense? Likely to be true? Why? Plausible? Why? Based on sound authority? Which?

1. And your probable (or plausible) argument, or your authority for this claim is …?

2. What does “monotheist in the common intuitive sense” mean? Does it include the … “trinity”?

3. The teachings of Jesus WERE frequently “confirmed … by a miracle”. Can you indicate any PUBLIC miracle that would corroborate any specific teaching of Jesus on the nature of the godhead? (Of course, BTW, if a miracle is NOT public it may be a simple delusion …).

4. This is a strong claim, if you can corroborate it. A laughable one if you cannot …

5. Same as 4. above.

6. What do you mean by “antecedently”? Relative to what (temporally, grammatically, logically, or what-have-you)?

As such, the argument is a part of historical apologetics — not a part of hermeneutics that proceeds apart from the evidence salient in historical apologetics.

And what, pray tell, would be the “evidence salient in historical apologetics” – obviously as relates your specific claims?

… Sometimes disagreement is trumped by good arguments. Some you may find online at the Library of Historical Apologetics.

The Library of Historical Apologetics website (historicalapologetics.org) is temporarily inaccessible. Care to give us at least a gist of what sort of “good arguments” would we find there, by which “disagreement [would be] trumped”?

As for the supposit view and terminology, you may start with Alfred J. Freddoso’s papers on supposita (in English, online), and proceed to Thomas Marschler’s book on Suárez on the Trinity (in German).

Just out of sheer masochistic curiosity, I looked at Alfred J. Freddoso’s homepage (www.nd.edu/~afreddos) and at ALL the 5 webpages therein which include the words supposit OR suppositum OR supposita. Here they are:

• Logic, Ontology, and Ockham’s Christology (www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/looc.htm)
• Human Nature, Potency and the Incarnation (www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/humnat.htm)
• Commentary on ST 1, qq. 2-4 (www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/comment-st1,2-4.html)
• Why conservation is not enough (www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/conserv.htm)
• Suarez on Metaphysical Inquiry, Efficient Causality, and Divine Action (www.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/suarez%20intro.pdf)

Looking through the above, just confirmed me in what I already knew: it’s all scholasticism and post-scholasticism of the in the most negative connotation of the word, mere obfuscating verbigeration. 🙁

MdS

P.S. The only positive thing about Human Nature, Potency and the Incarnation is that (in spite of Vlastimil‘s evasions), it confirmed the obvious:

Suppositum = hypostasis . The only difference is the difference between Latin and Greek.

@ Marg (November 16, 2012 at 4:14 pm)

I knew nothing about Servetus until you mentioned him, but I have looked at his teaching and am attracted to it. The divine Logos became flesh. So the man Christ Jesus is the divine Logos, THROUGH WHOM the world came into existence (John 1:10).

No, NOT through “whom” BUT through WHICH: for Michael Servetus (and for Marcellus of Ancyra before him), God’s Eternal Logos, of which (which …) we read in the Prologue to the Gospel of John, was NOT a person (in the obvious sense of the word person – a “self-conscious entity endowed with reason, freedom, and will”) one split second before the Logos got incarnated in the womb of the BVM.

Subordinationism seems to have been the view of many (most?) of the earliest Christian writers. One thing is clear: no matter what or who the Holy Spirit may be, the subordination of BOTH the Son of God AND the Spirit of God (to God the Father Almighty) is obvious throughout the NT.

So you’re a subordinationist. Very well. Then surely you have no problem answering once and for all Xavier‘s repeated question: what (or who?) was the Logos BEFORE it (or he?) got incarnated in/as Jesus of Nazareth in a specific place and time (Palestine ca. 6 BCE)?

Thanks in advance for your kind reply. 🙂

MdS

Jace and Villanovanus,

Again, I haven’t tried to corroborate my view. I have tried to sketch why it should be a live possibility.

I have some arguments and references. What I don’t have is time and obligation to spend it on you.

But the main claims in my argument would be these: 1. Probably, Jesus believed there are three divine persons. 2. Probably, Jesus was a monotheist in the common intuitive sense. 3. Probably, a divine person confirmed these teachings of Jesus by a miracle. 4. Probably, non-supposit views are contradictory or incompatible with the teachings of Jesus. So, 5. Probably, the supposit view was what Jesus had in mind in those teachings. (Though, antecedently, the supposit view is improbable or even seems impossible.)

As such, the argument is a part of historical apologetics — not a part of hermeneutics that proceeds apart from the evidence salient in historical apologetics. Of course, all the claims are disputed. But, as a philosopher, I’ve got used to that. Sometimes disagreement is trumped by good arguments . Some you may find online at the Library of Historical Apologetics.

As for the supposit view and terminology, you may start with Alfred J. Freddoso’s papers on supposita (in English, online), and proceed to Thomas Marschler’s book on Suárez on the Trinity (in German).

Marg

” The only true God is the one who is subject to nobody
ALL are subject to Him”

Absolutely ‘spot-on’!!!!

Yet your conclusion is considered to be heretical!!

Regarding the divine Logos, I stumbled accross something in Wikipedia yesterday on the subject of
“John 1 v 1”
I quote- “The Word was God” suggests that ‘the Word’ and “God’ are convertible terms, that the proposition is reciprocating . But the Word is neither the Father nor the Trinity.

This rendering cannot stand without explanation. Translations by Moffat, Schonfield and Goodspeed all render part of the verse as ” and the Word was divine’ ”

Then it says

“An orthodox Bible commentary notes ” This second theos could be translated ‘divine as the construction indicates ‘a qualitative sense for theos’ The Word is NOT God in the sense that he is a divine person as the theos mentioned in (earlier) , he is NOT God the Father ( God absolutely as in common NT usage)
or the Trinity. The point being made is that the Logos is the same uncreated essence or essence as God the Father, with whom he eternally exists”

You will note we are getting into the realm of ‘man-made’ concepts such as ‘essence’ and uncreated’ but I thought you might be interested.

Every Blessing
John

Marg,

I too believe that the divine logos became the man Jesus of Nazareth. I like the way you speak of that, and of divine agency, which I agree is a principle that really opens up scripture to understanding. But I fear that if talk of the “incarnation” is pushed too far in a certain direction Messiah loses his humanity. I think a lot of Christians just think of Jesus as God dressed up as a human being, but I think that is flat out wrong. If Jesus had some kind of conscious preexistence, such that while he walked the earth he had a memory of living with / being God and creating the universe, etc., then I think that he becomes nothing more than a mythological figure — he would just a divine being condescending to live for a short while on earth and then returning back to that glory. As exalted as he is in the New Testament, we have to remember that he still has a God, and it is that being that is the one true God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus himself is NOT the one true God of Israel. What was Anthony’s term, hideous? I think it’s hideous to imagine God as a substance in which 3 persons share, in which one of the persons worships one of the other persons. That’s madness! And it’s not the God presented in Scripture. I know that’s not what you are suggesting, but I’m just sayin’….

• Titus 3:4-6 – … notice the two expressions, “God our Saviour “, “Jesus Christ our Saviour” which suggest that Jesus Christ is Saviour inasmuch as he is the agent of God the Father Almighty.

My point exactly, Villanovanus. Jesus Christ is the AGENT of God the Father Almighty, in salvation as well as creation. The principle of divine agency solves a lot of problems.

I knew nothing about Servetus until you mentioned him, but I have looked at his teaching and am attracted to it. The divine Logos became flesh. So the man Christ Jesus is the divine Logos, THROUGH WHOM the world came into existence (John 1:10).

Jesus Christ is also the one Lord, THROUGH whom all things come, FROM the one God (1 Co. 8:6).

And that goes well with 1 Corinthians 15:47-49. The first man was out of (ek) the earth, and therefore earthy. The second man is the Lord out of (ek) heaven, and therefore heavenly. The divine Logos became a man.

So as we bear the image of the earthy man, we “in Christ” will bear the image of the heavenly man (v. 49) – all on the basis of resurrection.

Subordinationism seems to have been the view of many (most?) of the earliest Christian writers. One thing is clear: no matter what or who the Holy Spirit may be, the subordination of BOTH the Son of God AND the Spirit of God (to God the Father Almighty) is obvious throughout the NT.

The “only true God” is the only “God” who is subject to NOBODY. All are subject to him. That, I think, we can agree on.

@ John (November 16, 2012 at 1:16 pm)

I’m sure you noticed that Psalm 45 v 6 uses the words “thy throne O god…” (note lower case)

I don’t know which specific English translation of Psalm 45:6 you have in mind, but I would not make too much of the “lower case”.

First most English translations have “God”, capitalized.

Second see here:

The Hebrew and Aramaic languages cannot make the distinction between “God” and “god.” Since Hebrew and Aramaic have only capital letters, every use is “GOD.” Furthermore, although the Greek language has both upper case and lower case letters as English does, the early Greek manuscripts did not blend them. It was the style of writing at the time of the New Testament to make manuscripts in all capital letters, so the Greek manuscripts were, like the Hebrew text, all upper case script. Scholars call these manuscripts “uncials,” and that style was popular until the early ninth century or so when a smaller script was developed for books. [Common Verses » Hebrews 1:8 (http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/hebrews-1-8)]

Regards

MdS

@ John (November 16, 2012 at 9:10 am)

Hebrews 1 v8 uses ‘ho Theos’ without any qualifiers/complements etc. when referring to Christ.
This does not disturb me unduly as I regard Hebrews as a ‘cut and paste’ exercise encompassing OT scriptures which are considered to be ‘the type of things’ which would be said to a newly crowned Hebrew king. The ‘ho Theos‘ should therefore be interpreted in this -i.e. OT context.

Apparently the ho theos in Hebrews 1:8 doesn’t fit the “rule” that I stated in my post Jesus, “ho theos” … qualified @ community.beliefnet.com.

A possible explanation (which is not in contrast with yours, based on the “influence” of the direct quotation of Psalm 45:6, but rather complements it) is that ho theos, although it is in the Nominative case, works as a “virtual” Vocative. See her for instance …

Even when a vocative form existed, some koine Greek writers would still use the nominative form instead. The vocative case was beginning to fall into disuse during the first century when the New Testament was being written. [How Greek Cases are Used > The Vocative Case (http://inthesaltshaker.com/drills/cases.htm#CVOC)]

… which fits to a “T” the situation we are examining.

@ Xavier (November 16, 2012 at 9:47 and at 9:52 am)

As for the Hebrew ‘elohiym at Psalm 45:6, of which the koine Greek ho theos in Hebrews 1:8 is the translation, I agree with the general contents of the NIV footnote appended to Psalm 45:6 (I wonder why you omitted from your quotation the initial sentence, “Possibly the king’s throne is called God’s throne because he is God’s appointed regent.”, though …) in particular, I agree that “… it is not unthinkable that he [the Davidic king] was called ‘god’ as a title of honor” and that “[s]uch a description of the Davidic king attains its fullest meaning when applied to Christ, as the author of Hebrews does (Heb. 1:8-9)”.

The footnote 2 sn appended to the NET Bible translation of Psalm 45:6 (http://classic.net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Psa&chapter=45&verse=6) says essentially the same.

John

Hebrews 1.8 is taken from Ps 45.8, a Royal song/hymn for the King. 😉

@ abel (November 16, 2012 at 3:11 am)

I am glad that my post Jesus, “ho theos” … qualified @ community.beliefnet.com satisfied your request.

You may find of interest other posts in my Journal (http://community.beliefnet.com/miguel_de_servet/blog/) starting from my “trilogy” Strict Monotheism (http://community.beliefnet.com/miguel_de_servet/blog/2008/12/13/strict_monotheism)

All the best.

@ Marg (November 15, 2012 at 7:49 pm)

First of all, can you please explain what you meant/mean, affirming that “for many [it] doesn’t matter” that the “trinity … can hardly avoid being either tritheism or modalism …. [o]r both”?

Second, I must admit that I wasn’t particularly familiar with Samuel Clarke (1675 –1729) and his The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity (1712). The main reason for my disregard of this author and work is, probably, that it comes after the end of what is known as “Socinian controversy” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socinian_controversy), which was occasioned by Stephen Nye’s A brief history of the Unitarians, called also Socinians (1687), in which many theologians were involved, and lasted for about 15 years.

Third, herebelow is my quick comment on the 5 passages from the NT, with relative comment by Samuel Clarke, that you have selected from Chapter 4 of his The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity and wherein “the three Persons of the ever-blessed Trinity are all mentioned together”.

• Mt. 28:18-19 – This is possibly the strongest textual support for the tri-personal “trinity” that we find in the NT. (The other one would be the infamous Comma Johanneum 1 John 5:7 “For there are three that testify in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one” but it is considered spurious by general consent of virtually all scholars). Even if ALL extant mss of the NT contain the s.c “Baptismal Trinitarian Formula” (“baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”) I believe with the commentators of the Bible de Jerusalem that it was an early addition to Matthew’s Gospel, probably originated in the same Christian circles that originated the Didache, that also contains the “Baptismal Trinitarian Formula” (almost) identically.

• 1 Co. 12:4-6 – My main criticism of a “trinitarian” use of this passage is that, first, it is not at all obvious that the “Spirit” is presented as a person rather than as a power (dynamis); second, it is not at all obvious that the expression “the same Lord” is attributed to Jesus Christ, the Son of God, on a par with God the Father Almighty, or even exclusively.

• 2 Co. 13:14 – This is an obvious doxology. Same comment as for the previous passage.

• Titus 3:4-6 – Same comment as above. Also notice the two expressions, “God our Saviour “, “Jesus Christ our Saviour” which suggest that Jesus Christ is Saviour inasmuch as he is the agent of God the Father Almighty.

• 1 John 4:13-14 – Again the expression “he [God] hath given us of his Spirit” strongly indicates that the Spirit is a power (dynamis) and a gift (dorôn) from God, NOT a person. As for “the Father sent the Son” it refers to God’s Son proleptically, that is it refers to the pre-incarnated Word/Logos as though it was the person that it (it …) became ONLY with the Incarnation.

In conclusion I deny that, in the NT, God’s Holy Spirit is ever presented as a person (I believe the misunderstanding was mainly originated by the appellative paraklitos, “advocate”, “comforter”, given to the Holy Spirit in the Gospel of John) and I equally deny that God’s Eternal Word/Logos is ever presented as a person, in its (its …) pre-incarnated state.

Fourth, my affirmation that the “trinity” is an “unstable notion … that only by authority (read: abuse) and mystery (read: mystification) can avoid to collapse either into tritheism or into modalism” was a bit of a simplification. There are more possibilities that these two (which, of course and BTW, any sincere “orthodox trinitarian” would deny in horror that they are “orthodox” at all).

Having examined Samuel Clarke’s The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity (http://archive.org/details/scripturedoctrin00clar) in some detail, I concur with the comment of Ezio Vailati, the author of the article on Samuel Clarke at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (see “4.3 Trinitarian Views” http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/clarke/#4.3), viz. that “His views might best be described as subordinationist“. Subordinationism, BTW, was the predominant “trinitarian” view of Christianity at least in the Greek speaking Eastern part of the Roman Empire until the Arian Controversy flared up, was patched up at Nicea (325 AD) and finally settled at Constantinople (381 AD), and with the infamous play on words “one ousia in three hypostases“, copyrighted by the infamous Cappadocian scoundrels (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa andGregory of Nazianzus).

Vlastimil,

I have NOT tried to show here that the supposit view is supported by the Bible. At the same time, I remain UNpersuaded that it isn’t. Your argument to the contrary I simply don’t follow.

Ok, you haven’t tried to show that. To many Bible-believing Christians that is important. Other scholars are also interested in the First Century understanding about God and Jesus, since the subsequent centuries have seen creedal formulation and reformulation of these issues which obviously employed disparate aspects of the issues at hand. But to simply posit a certain view regardless of the support of the supposed source material is anybody’s prerogative, I suppose.

My argument is simply an elaboration of the reality that any construct, regardless how valid at face-value, needs to pass the test of soundness. Is my construct a sound reflection of the reality I’m claiming it to represent? Does it reflect accurately the understanding of its elements as expressed in language? It is HERE where your (and others’, of course) construct of a social trinity simply fails. In every other academic discipline such a deviation in equivalence or reflection of the source concepts would render a proposed construct valueless. But, alas, religion still seems to enjoy preferential treatment…;-)

Regards

Villanovanus – I have been reading your comments with interest. I think most of us agree with you that the “trinity” (the idea that God is tri-une) is a doctrine that can hardly avoid being either tritheism or modalism. Or both! For many, that doesn’t matter.

But a description of the trinity that seems to be NEITHER tritheism NOR modalism is Samuel Clarke’s The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity. Are you familiar with it?

Chapter 4 lists “The passages wherein the three Persons of the ever-blessed Trinity are all mentioned together.”
Clarke lists 42 such passages. I will copy five of them – along with Clarke’s comments:

Mt. 28:18-19 – “All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”
In the name of the Father, (who GAVE the power)
and of the Son, (who RECEIVED it from the Father)
and of the Holy Spirit, (by whom the power is DEMONSTRATED).
[Eusebius: Into the name of the Father, bestowing the grace, as the Original Author;
The Son, being the Minister of it;
And the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, being the immediate Distributor of it.]

1 Co. 12:4-6 – “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.”
[Athanasius: When all things are done by God, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit; I see the undivided operation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: Yet do I not therefore confound together, him by whom, and him through whom, and him in whom all is worked; as to be forced to run the three Persons into one.]

2 Co. 13:14 – “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all.”

Titus 3:4-6 – “… God our Saviour … saved us, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour.”

1 John 4:13-14 – “… he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen … that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.”

God ALONE is Saviour, and beside him there is NO saviour (Isaiah 43:11). But he has sent his Son TO BE the Saviour of the world.

So “God our Saviour … saved us … THROUGH Jesus Christ our Saviour.”

Is that not free from both modalism and tritheism?

Probably it is the three “dots” (…) in the address that screw everything up.

Copy the whole string (inclidng the last part, …_qualified) and past it in the web address box then click GO.

abel,

I see the hotlink is broken. Let me try again.

Villanovanus
You and several contributors to this discussion have mentioned the Hebrew view versus Greek philosophical speculation in connection with the development of the Doctrine of the Trinity.

As you may have guessed I am fairly ignorant of such things.!

My crude understanding has been that the Hebrews tended to have a literal view of history, whereas the Greeks engaged in endless speculation – and, in the case of the Trinity, ended up in the wrong place.

Is this roughly correct – perhaps you could guide me to a web-site which explains this in laymans language?
Every Blessing
John

Dale,

continuing from my previous post, in video Part 3 (of 3) of your lecture, you discuss 1 Cor 8:4-6 and, in particular, you examine 1 Cor 8:6, denying that (as some do, like Richard Bauckham, Gordon Fee et al.) 1 Cor 8:6 entails some “sneaky” insertion by Paul of (the resurrected) Jesus in the Deity, the God, YHWH, of which the Shema (Deut 6:4) solemnly proclaims the oneness (echad).

At 8:20 you introduce a 6-step logical argument whose conclusion is that …

6. Therefore it is not the case that the Son is God.

I believe this to be a valid and sound logical conclusion, within the framework (and consequent limit) of “First Order Predicate Logic”.

Does it mean to say that is a satisfactory conclusion? I believe it isn’t, and on more grounds than one.

1. “First Order Predicate Logic” can only deal with “static” propositions, that is propositions about an ontologically unchanging world, that is best suited Greek philosophy, which abhorred (and, anyway, did not know how to deal with the question of) change.

2. There is no question that the Gospel of John treats Jesus as more than mere man, NOT so much because the GoJ considers him miraculously born (while the GoJ does not exclude this, it doesn’t have –unlike Matthew and Luke – any Nativity Accounts), BUT because it affirms that Jesus is the Incarnation of God’s Eternal Logos (John 1:14), which (outos) is affirmed to be, “in the beginning”, “God” and “with God”, and the agent by which (dia auto) “everything that exists came into existence” (John 1:1-3). The Logos IS God.

3. There is no question that Paul affirms (Phil 2:9-11) that Jesus, with his resurrection and ascension, was exalted by the Father and made Lord (Kyrios).

Are we entitled to say that the title “Lord” (and relative power) that Jesus received from God, the Father Almighty, is different from (inferior to) the title Lord (Kyrios, Adonai) that appertains to God, the Father Almighty?

Why? Isn’t God Omnipotent? What prevents Him from “passing on” His same full divine power to His Messiah, His Son, who is the Incarnation of His Eternal Word (which is God)?

Would Jesus be still a “lesser God” (you even quickly throw in the expression “lower down authority”, as your “explanation” for Paul’s strong “one Lord, Jesus Christ”) because he would not have “aseity“?

I don’t agree that “aseity” is essential, and anyway, who cares about “aseity”? I certainly don’t care …

Would my reading of Phil 2:9-11 (and also of Acts 2:36, BTW) entail ditheism and, therefore, fly right in the face of the Shema? Who affirms this, uses the Shema sophistically and out of context, giving more importance to Greek heathen-philosophical disputes on oneness vs plurality, than to the context of the Shema, which is the affirmation of God’s oneness in front of the plurality of heathen Canaanite “gods”, that are, properly speaking, “worthless idols” or even demons (see Psalm 96:5).

The Shema certainly wasn’t written to exclude the (full) divinity and the (full) lordship of the future God-man Jesus.

Regards

Dale,

continuing from my previous post, in video Part 2 (of 3) of your lecture, about 06:00, discussing the answer that Jesus gives to “the Jews” at John 10:33-36, you say that “it doesn’t matter who the ‘Gods’ were” in Jesus quotation from Ps 82:6, and you quickly add that it refers to “some Jews in ancient times”, anyway “lesser people than the Messiah”.

While I agree that John 10:33-36 is a powerful rebuttal by Jesus of the accusation of blasphemy raised against him by “the Jews”, I wouldn’t be so sure than you can dismiss this point so quickly and out of hand. If you look at the NET translation of Psalm 82 (http://classic.net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Psa&chapter=82) you will find (among others) these two footnotes:

1 sn Psalm 82. The psalmist pictures God standing in the “assembly of El” where he accuses the “gods” of failing to promote justice on earth. God pronounces sentence upon them, announcing that they will die like men. Having witnessed the scene, the psalmist then asks God to establish his just rule over the earth.

4 sn The present translation assumes that the Hebrew term ???????? (’elohim, “gods”) here refers to the pagan gods who supposedly comprise El’s assembly according to Canaanite religion. Those who reject the polemical view of the psalm prefer to see the referent as human judges or rulers (???????? sometimes refers to officials appointed by God, see Exod 21:6; 22:8-9; Ps 45:6) or as angelic beings (???????? sometimes refers to angelic beings, see Gen 3:5; Ps 8:5).

I believe that it makes a lot of difference whether Jesus quoted Psalm 82:6 assuming that the “gods” spoken of therein were (a) “pagan gods who supposedly comprise El’s assembly according to Canaanite religion”, or (b) “[Jewish] human judges or rulers”, or (c) “angelic beings”.

It is depending on whether Jesus meant a or b or c that Jesus’ argument would appear to be merely comparative (c: Jesus is more than an angel), or sophistic (b: “human judges or rulers” are obviously no gods at all, but they are still called “gods”) or even scandalously paradoxical (a: the “gods” referred to at Psalm 82 and in particular Ps 82:6 are “pagan gods”, that is, properly speaking, “worthless idols” or even demons –see Psalm 96:5– yet they are called “gods”).

Regards.

@villanovanus: suppository, lol!!!

Vlastimil wrote (November 14, 2012 at 2:18 pm):

Subsistence (suppositality) is a principle that turns an individual essence (Socrateity, e.g.) into a supposit (Socrates).

So after the word “supposit”, “generally unknown … misunderstood” (except by “Latin scholastics”) we now have the even more … er preciously rare abstraction, “suppositality”. I wonder what Vlastimil will try with, next … perhaps a … suppository?

Subsistence, anyway, far from being a “principle” is, once again the term adopted in Latin (subsistentia) as a philosophical translation of the Greek hypostasis especially with reference to the “trinity”, after the Latin word substantia had been abandoned for this specific use, as it was virtually interchangeable with essentia, as a translation for the Greek ousia.

Anyway Vlastimil‘s a.q. sentence seems (unwittingly?) filched from … er … inspired by this …

… Subsistence makes a thing or Being a Suppositum — Robert South, Animadversions on Dr Sherlock’s Book, entitled a “Vindication of the Holy and Ever Blessed Trinity” (1690), p. 35

… which nevertheless, in spite of the ancient source, does not make it any less senseless than it is … and also rather dubious in its very claimed “traditional orthodoxy”, because Robert South, later on in his work, goes on to say:

«every Person of the Blessed Trinity […] is properly The Godhead as subsisting with and under such a certain Mode or Relation» — Robert South, Animadversions …cit.p. 242

So if South had accused Sherlock of having lapsed into tritheism Leibniz could easily accuse South of having lapsed into modalism.

It’s always the same old story … the “trinity” is a very …er … unstable notion that only by authority (read: abuse) and mystery (read: mystification) can avoid to collapse either into tritheism or into modalism.

Vlastimil

You claim that all relative identity “distinctions change the classical and authentic Hebrew understanding”, at least in the sense of not being entailed by them.

I simply don’t buy that assumption. That Hebrews did not make that distinctions explicitly isn’t decisive. So I don’t see the sort of burden of proof you’re trying to impose.

Well, your constructs can be as valid as you want them to be, if they’re unsound, they’re unsound. Which is precisely what they are. I have shown you how the ancient Hebrews understood these issues and where the flaws lie in your constructs. Your linchpin argument is your peculiar non-Hebraic epistemological categories, which is also your weakest. The Hebrew concept of God was simply not the abstract substance/nature/ousios of the later Gentile Christians, nor the collective/compound unity of desperate modern Evangelicals. Unless, of course, you want to revolutionize the academic world, because that is precisely why the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.

It is easy to set up a valid argument, such as a set of As are B, etc., etc. These simply do not translate into a sound argument once you do the substitutions, though. You’ll have to meet my propositions above in order to present a compelling case for the Trinity the way the Latin philosophers understood it.

Thanks

abel

How bout Heb 1.8?

Vlastimil (November 13, 2012 at 3:21 pm) writes:

… I prefer the supposit view of the Trinity. It was the standard view of Latin scholastics. Today, it is generally unknown or misunderstood. On the supposit view, there are just three divine supposits and just one divine substance. Roughly, substance is a being that is not a feature (or, accident) of anything. Examples: Socrates, a horse, a tree, the Trinity. Roughly, supposit is something that is not a feature (or, accident) of anything. Examples: Socrates, a horse, a tree, a divine person in the Trinity. Being = e.g., a human, an animal, a plant, a feature (such as white, two-feet long, in the market, double as that, yesterday, sitting, having shoes on, cutting, or being cut). Divine is anything that is (say) omnipotent. Cf. the scheme (by Dr. Lukáš Novák) at http://www.skaut.org/ln/docs/trinity.pdf . An obvious objection is this: Three supposits amount to three beings. If there are just three divine supposits, then there are just divine beings which are not features of anything, and so there are just three divine substances, not one. A reply is that three divine supposits may be just one divine substance. And that three times a suppositsometimes may not be three times a being. This, to many people, seems impossible – or extremely improbable. But, again, it is not evidently impossible – and it may be probable on the evidence for Christian revelation. [bolding added]

This is the Merriam-Webster entry for “supposit” that you rightly call “generally unknown …” and also “misunderstood”:

sup•pos•it
noun \s?’päz??t\
-s
Definition of SUPPOSIT
: an individual that is philosophically substance or subject —called also suppositum
Origin of SUPPOSIT
NL suppositum, fr. L, neuter of suppositus, past part. of supponere to place under — more at suppose

Can you be so kind as to explain how “supposit” would differ significantly (or differ at all) from the word “subsistence”, far more common when speaking of the “trinity” as a translation of the Greek word hypostasis (see entry @ http://www.wordnik.com/words/hypostasis, n. In theology, etc.)?

Also, Jaco,

Am I speaking to Dr. Gericke? If so, let me tell you your diss. is interesting.

Dale,

in video Part 2 (of 3) of your lecture, right at the beginning you, once again, misapply Leibniz’ principle of the Indiscernibility of Identicals.

Again, while here …

Invalid argument:
[P1] Barak Obama is called “Barak Obama” [T]
[P2] Barry Obana is called “Barak Obama” [T]
[C] Barak Obama just is Barry Obana [F]

… it is correctly applied, because both Barak Obama (the present President of the United States) and Barry Obana (the –presumably fictional– “mayor of a small town in Alabama”) are both INDIVIDUALS (so much so that it is perfectly appropriate to refer to them with a Proper Name – and even with a nick-name) …
… on the contrary here …

Invalid argument:
[P1] Gg: God is called “God”
[P2] Gj: Jesus is called “God”
[C] j=g: Jesus just is God

… the argument is NOT so much invalid BUT INcorrectly applied because while Jesus is an INDIVIDUAL (with a Proper Name), God (even if it may not be clear to you) is a CLASS.

If you really want to apply your “Leibnizian argument” to the God of the Bible, I suggest that you modify it thusly …

[P1] Yehowah is called God [throughout the OT]
[P2] Yehoshwah is called “God” [in the NT e.g. John 20:28, Titus 2:13, 2 Peter 1:1]
[C] Yeohshwah just is Yeohwah

… that would be certainly be more … er … interesting … 🙂

Xavier says (November 4, 2012 at 5:22 am):

Do you believe the Logos was a Being, an eternal individual, Who became flesh?

If I may, let me try and answer the above question, and the multiple variants thereof (“Was the Logos a Being, an eternal individual, Who became flesh?”, “So just to be clear, the Logos for you was YHWH Who became a human being?”, “What or Who is the Logos?”, “I am trying to establish what category of Being you think he was before taking on human form.”, “What does the ‘biblical EVIDENCE’ say Jesus was before taking the form of a human being?”, “So Jesus preexisted as the Son? If so, WHEN was the Son begotten?”, “So the Son eternally existed with God before his incarnation? Or was he begotten at some point in time as the biblical witness suggests?”, etc.) that you have repeatedly inflicted on poor Marg.
Here is my answer:

Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, that is the Messiah, announced by the Scriptures, who has dwelt among us as a man, and who will return in the Glory. Jesus is Son of God not “from eternity”, but generated by God in the fullness of time from the Blessed Virgin Mary. He is true God and true man, inasmuch as He joins in Himself by generation the Divine nature of God his Father and the human nature of his Mother, the Virgin Mary. This is the central Miracle and Mystery of Christianity. In Jesus has been fully expressed God’s Wisdom, which had already been deployed at Creation. The Logos, or God’s Wisdom, is therefore not a distinct person, neither from God, nor in God, and it is not even a “project” of Creation, but an eternal attribute of the Eternal God. ~~ Miguel de Servet (me), In The Apostles’ Creed There Is All That Is Essential!

Now, I am not at all sure, considering Marg‘s post of November 8, 2012 at 4:56 pm, if she would agree with the above, but, if you consider it worthwhile, you may comment on what I have written. 🙂

John,

I simply don’t know of any proof refuting every version of the relative identity view. All attempts seem to me to beg the question. Mere dropping names won’t do, and I have no need for it, as I am not a novice.

Personally, I’d go with early modern Scotists. Not enough time for details. Sorry.

Best,

V.

John,

The relative identity view of the Trinity as such does not seem to entail the specifics of the lump-statue strategy. (Like those criticized by W. L. Craig in his response to Michael Rea and Jeff Brower.) Some relative Trinitarians even dislike the specifics.

On the relative view, Father, Son and Spirit are, in a sense, distinct selves; in another, they aren’t. Which may be fine, depending on details.

Marg

Ok so if you believe that it was the Son who was “with God” from eternity [John 1.1], how does this not contradict places where it says God alone created [cp. Isa 44.6]?

Marg

…the one Lord (the Son) was God’s agent in creation (1 Co. 8:6; Hebrews 1:10); that he existed before Abraham was born (John 8:58); etc.

So the Son eternally existed with God before his incarnation? Or was he begotten at some point in time as the biblical witness suggests?

Vlastimil,

I think Dale’s assumption is perfectly valid. The Father is not numerically identical to the Son. Distinct selves, independent responding to one another, subordination, relational language, etc. all attest to their numerical distinction, rather than identity. Unless you want to argue Oneness.

Since exclusivist language is used of the Father, then numerical non-identity implies being excluded from what exclusively belongs to the Father. There’s no use pushing for anything beyond that.

I think the ambiguity etc. come in when Trinitarians introduce distinctions and categories completely alien to the biblical mind. You are begging the question if something irrelevant is introduced, adding to it an unwarranted dimension and then argue for that introduced aspect. Your hermeneutic is foreign to the ancient Hebrew world. There is no cognitive distinction ever articulated or conceived in the Hebraic mind to the likes of “being,” “nature,” and “person.” That’s an alien epistemology, whose introduction is fundamentally flawed to begin with. Even today there is no way in how a someone can spontaneously distinguish between person and being. It’s simply an artificial distinction. If the ancient Gentile “Christians” had any interest in understanding God’s and Jesus’ relationship from THEIR perspective, they would have wrestled with the Hebraic mind, not the Greek/Latin mind. As such, we still find theologians uninterested in understanding that ancient thought world and interpreting Jesus’ and God’s relationship using that. An immediate relief to the tension would be the ancient reality of functional identity vs. ontological identity. That is also the starting point to resolving your issue with Jn 1:1 and 20:28. The rest is simply irrelevant. If relative identity is your linchpin argument, then there should be no objection with saying that the Father sent his God to die for mankind. And suddenly one realises how preposterous this is…

John,

I listened to the whole talk. And I made all my comments with it on my mind. I do not deny Father and Son are two persons.

As I said to Dale on Facebook, he needs the assumption claim that Father and Son are not “numerically identical”, plus the assumption that anything not “numerically identical” with Father is not God. I repeat, a relative identity Trinitarian will object that these two claims are ill-formed (for numeric identity involves counting, which is relative to a unit), ambiguous (for depending on the unit of counting), or (if well-formed and disambiguated) not clearly probable on a conjunction of all the relevant verses in the NT (including John 1:1 and 20:18). I grant that on those two assumptions, my suggestion is demolished. I even grant that both assumptions seem to many as implied by Jesus saying to Father ‘You are the only true God’ or ‘Father is my God’. It would seem so to me, too, if there weren’t certain other passages (like John 1:1 and 20:18) or if there was no conceptual space for relative identity logic. Dale thinks that, evidently, non-relative numeric identity is a primitive and perfectly clear concept. But it is not to me. It is much more clear to me that NUMERIC identity is relative to a UNIT, though most times only implicitly.

If Dale posted on John 1:1 or 20:18, I’d like to see his thoughts. So I beg for some meaty links of his.

Good work, John. Dale’s presentation doesn’t really leave any loopholes, does it?

Anthony:
As for the birth narratives, I repeat: If Dale can’t get through to you, it would be foolish of me to try.

As for the lack of reference by three writers to Christ’s agency in creation, that hardly proves that they considered the idea wrong.
There is a fallacy here – I just don’t know the correct name for it.

If we reject that fallacy, then nothing Paul actually said contradicts the three writers you name.

And I notice you are not denying what Paul actually said. You are just rejecting it, on the basis of the fallacy that I can recognize but cannot name.

John,

Son of God still may be God.

Granted, Father and Son are two selves — in the sense of being two persons. But why they can’t be one self in another sense — in the sense of being one being/substance?

Marg, Jesus was a human being! His origin is in Mary, not in ages before Genesis. You cannot be human if you are pre-human.

The Jews were not mistaken when they were to look forward to a human descendant of David.  Deut 18:15-18.

If you read Matt and Luke and Acts and I Peter you will not find a word about Jesus being the agent active in the 1st creation!

Why do you think Peter says that the Messiah was FOREKNOWN? That is quite clear.

Remember to treat Paul with care! He did not contradict Luke and Matthew.

Marg

What I THINK has no bearing on anything at all. The biblical EVIDENCE is what matters.
That’s what you seem to be trying to avoid.

Yet, you keep telling us what you THINK Marg? 😛

Let me try again: What does the “biblical EVIDENCE” say Jesus was before taking the form of a human being?

Right on, John.

Xavier:
First question: If you click on the “Screencast version” at the end of Dale’s post, you will find the answer in comment 7. Briefly:
In connection with 1 Co. 8:6, Dale asked the question, “Does this have to do with the original creation or with the original creation and the new creation that Paul talks about?”
Check the options, Xavier.

Second question: What I THINK has no bearing on anything at all. The biblical EVIDENCE is what matters.
That’s what you seem to be trying to avoid.

Marg

Let me rephrase…

What was Jesus when he was “the agent of the first creation”? We agree he was not an angel. So, was he God/god or man?

I am trying to establish what category of Being you think he was before taking on human form.

Dale,

Ad 1. What about John 1:1 and 20:28? You’ve probably posted on these.

Of course the support for divinity of Jesus from some other verses is weak. I am not sure this is the case for those two particular ones. Or for all conjunctions from all relevant verses.

Ad 2. ‘Bob and George are the same king but different men’ is not, to me, a clear contradiction.

Things (Ben, George) of several sortals (Czech, American) fall under one adjective (surnamed as King). But perhaps some things (Father, Son) of several sortals (begetting Person, begotten Person) can fall under some other one sortal (the only true God). Weird? Yes. Clearly contradictory? Not to me. I am a proof that it does not take Sir Geach to admit this.

Ad 3. Why “from whom …” can’t apply also to Son, and “through whom …” also to Father? You say an implicit assumption is that they can’t. Whence do you gather it?

Ad 4. You assume in your talk that Paul writes to people who take ‘Lord’ as commonly implying a human and exalted but not (fully) divine status. Still, Paul may well be altering the usage slightly, leaving out the third part (i.e. not divine status). Paul assumes Jesus is human; right. But he still may have reason to higlight merely Jesus’ humanity and elevation.

“We through him” is the new creation: “We” is we Christians (1 Cor 8:6). So the dia here does not imply a contradiction with the rest of the Scripture, that Jesus was an agent in the First Creation.

Isa 44:24 is clear and the first Adam precedes the second. So where is the definite evidence of a SON begotten before he was begotten?  Anyone see no difficulty with such incoherence?
 
Why don’t you first exhaust the info of the birth narratives? Do you really see Mary taking a thousands of years old “angel” INTO her womb? It is that hideous picture which I reject.

Mattew and Luke are definitive. 

Hi, John.
This subject was discussed at length on the thread THE EVOLUTION OF MY VIEWS ON THE TRINITY – PART 8 (DALE). However, it covers the second and third pages of comments – which makes it difficult to find. So I hope I can be forgiven if I repeat some of it.

It’s true that dia can denote the reason for an action – IF it is used with the ACCUSATIVE case. But in 1 Corinthians 8:6, it is used with the GENITIVE case. So that meaning is out.

When dia is used with the genitive of a THING, it may denote “attendant circumstances”. But the “one Lord” is not a thing. He is a PERSON.

When it is used with the GENITIVE of a PERSON there are two possible meanings. The usual meaning is “through (the agency of)”. One of the examples is 1 Corinthians 8:6.

It can also denote the ORIGINATOR of the action (as in Romans 11:36). But the context of 1 Corinthians 8:6 makes it clear that the one GOD is the originator of all things. The one Lord is not.

So dia in this verse must mean through the agency of.

John – we had a profitable discussion once about another Greek preposition, and you said you asked a clerical friend who knew Greek for his help.
I wish you would ask that person about the meaning of dia when it is used with the GENITIVE of a PERSON.

One thing is certain. The different meanings that dia can have are limited by the CONTEXT. We are not free to take any meaning we like, and apply it to any context that suits us.

Marg

To speculate about details BEYOND that revelation (sola scriptura) is, in Clarke’s view, presumption.

Great advice so let’s stop speculating whether or not Jesus preexisted as the Logos or Wisdom or Spirit of God shall we? 😉

Xavier, I can sympathize with your persistent questioning on this issue, because I too have a desire to know the answers to such things. I have spent the better part of 3 years intensely studying the issue of the Trinity and asking a myriad questions about the identity of Jesus, the nature of the Logos, the meaning of preexistence, etc. But perhaps it is that feature of the Western mind — the desire to reason our way to the bottom of things — that is the problem here. I think this might be where the early church went wrong, in its determined efforts to hammer out a rational explanation for the Biblical data on God, his Son, and the Holy Spirit. The result was a complex and technical description of God that had to be adhered to….or else. Are we puny humans really so arrogant to believe that we can sum up the Living God in a creed?

I think all Christians — Trinitarians and Unitarians alike — could find common ground if they would only stop trying to play lab scientist when it comes to understanding who God is. Can’t we just unite around the clear Biblical language that declares that there is one true God, and that God is the Father of Jesus Christ? That Jesus is a human being like us in every respect save sin? And that he is, somehow, the Logos of God made flesh? And that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and dwells within us, sanctifying us? Why do we need to go beyond these clear and simple declarations and erect speculative creeds that serve as stumbling blocks to our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ? I don’t think the Hebraic mindset, which informed the New Testament writings, has much patience with this kind of egg-headed approach to spiritual matters. God is beyond all human comprehension, but he has made himself known in Jesus the Christ. That should be enough for us.

Jaco

Someone forcing you to read this blog?

I think the personality of the Logos has been exhaustively argued in another thread. Leaving it to rest, unless you have something new to add would show respect for each other and the readers. Stop the provocation and stop this endlessly beating a dead horse.

Xavier, I think such remarkable perseverance should be rewarded; so I am going to tell you what I believe about the Logos. But I will tell you in MY words, not yours. (You, too, are entitled to express your own beliefs in your own words.)

I believe the Logos was in the beginning with GOD (ho theos = the only true God = YHWH = the Father). (John 1:1)
I believe the Logos was God (no article; God as an adjective = divine). One translation words it, “What GOD was, the Word was.” Sounds good to me.
I believe that all things came into existence through (by means of) the Logos. (v. 3)
I believe that the Logos “became flesh” (v. 14) – became a human person, Jesus, the Messiah.
I believe that through him (the Logos, now incarnate) the world came into being; but the world did not recognize him. (v. 10)
I believe that the Logos came to his own, but his own did not receive him.
BUT to all who received him (the Logos incarnate), to them he gave the authority to become the children of God. (v. 12)
I believe that the conquering Messiah will bear the name, “The Logos of God” (Rev. 19:13).

That, Xavier, is a small part of what I believe, but it’s enough to answer your question.

The other day I was searching for the online pdf of Samuel Clarke’s book and tried the
http://articulifidei.blogspot.ca/2008/09/samuel-clarke-sola-scriptura-and.html

David Walz gives a very fair explanation of Clarke’s work and motive, quoting Clarke’s own words:
…the Books of Scripture are to Us Now not only the Rule, but the Whole and the Only Rule of Truth in matters of Religion.

That appeals to me, because I think that once you include other “Rules of Truth” you are inviting the kind of disunity that presently exists amongst theologians.

David quotes Clarke’s first nine “propositions,” in modern script. Then Walz says something that I found surprising:

I have often confided in my theological friends that if I held to the principal of sola scriptura that I would probably be a Homoiousian, or a Homoian Arian (I am Trinitarian due to Tradition, more precisely, Nicene and post-Nicene Tradition). It is quite interesting to find in Clarke one whose position is nearly identical to what mine would be if I rejected post-Nicene developments.

“I am a Trinitarian due to Tradition, more precisely, Nicene and post-Nicene Tradition.”
Such frankness is – in my experience – unusual. But my experience is limited.

Dale,

Two comments on the talk.

0. Very clear!

1. You highlight that being correctly called ‘Son of God’, ‘god’ or ‘Lord’ doesn’t entail being God. Right. But what about the other relevant verses in the Bible? (Listed at http://socrates58.blogspot.cz/2005/09/holy-trinity-biblical-proofs.html and http://socrates58.blogspot.cz/2007/01/jesus-is-god-biblical-proofs.html )

In a supplement to your SEP on the Trinity, you said that detailed non-deductive argument for divinity of Jesus and Holy Spirit from all the relevant biblical verses are rarely provided. (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html#NewTes) But I guess there are many detailed works of this kind in older literature (17th to 19th centuries). I’d ask Tim McGrew.

2. You assume ‘Father is the only God’ (John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6) implies ‘no x other than Father is God’. And that ‘Father is Jesus’ God’ (John 20:17) implies ‘Jesus is not God’. Surely, relative Trinitarians read the verses otherwise: Father is the only divine being/substance (even if not the only divine person); Jesus is other person than the God Father (even if Jesus is the same divine being/substance). Maybe this reading is logically impossible or unsupported by all the biblical evidence taken together. But maybe it isn’t. Of course, you could’t address every possibility in the talk. But, to me, the said possibility is live.

3. It’s unclear how ‘Paul says (in 1 Cor. 8:6b) different things about Father and Jesus’ implies ‘Paul says Father has a property Jesus lacks’.

4. In 1 Cor. 8:6, by calling Jesus ‘Lord’ Paul may be suggesting that Jesus is not God. But perhaps he is suggesting rather that Jesus is a human. This fits, too, the Fitzmeyer quote you provide.

Best,

V.

I’ve read the post but haven’t listened to the talk. I wonder how you feel your approach as a philosopher, giving a high priority to logical reasoning might contrast and naturally lead to different results from those of a theologian who might be more inclined to place a higher priority on more cultural/social/artistic/historical elements within a text?