This reply of his, honestly, is too danged long, as is this series. Future critiquers – remember, brevity is the soul of wit. But here is part 4 of 5. I’m going to skip a few tangents. Picking up his critique,
…irrespective of whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true, it’s not formally contradictory.
Depends on the version, but my post doesn’t anywhere claim that “the” doctrine is self-contradictory, so the point is not relevant here.
ii. There’s biblical data supporting (or at least consistent with) Trinitarian theology
Various elements, of various theories, yes, as some trinitanians think it is part of their view that the Father is God, our premise U2 that we’ve been discussing. But again, not relevant to the present dispute.
iii. The conclusion of U3 doesn’t take into full consideration both the Biblical data and the theological concept of what Trinitarianism entails.
All that’s relevant about U3 here is that it follows logically from T1 and U2. If they’re true, then so is U3. Being a mere claim and not a person, U3 doesn’t need to take anything into consideration at all! 😉
There is a mountain of Biblical evidence pointing toward something like the Trinity …The doctrine of the Trinity is based the following premises.
P1 There is one God (Jehovah/Yahweh)
P2 The Father is a person
P3 The Son is a person
P4 The Holy Spirit is a person
P5 The Father is Fully Divine
P6 The Son is Fully Divine
P7 The Holy Spirit is Fully Divine
P8 The Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit
P9 The Son is not the Father or the Holy Spirit
P10 The Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son
P11 To be Fully Divine is to possess the attributes of God and therefore be GodEach premise can be backed up by multiple Scripture passages. Therefore, something like the Trinity would seem to be true.
Much could be said about this. Briefly,
- Yes to P1. Notice the personal name – this one god is a self. It’s the self the NT calls our and Jesus’s “Father.”
- P2-P3 are everywhere assumed in the Bible, if by “person” you mean self. (And I don’t think you do!) The Father is one “he” and the Son is another. They talk to one another, cooperate. And Jesus obeys the Father. They love one another.
- P5 entails my premise U2. There’s only one god, so any “fully divine” being just is (is = to) that one god.
- P4 is nowhere clearly asserted or implied in the Bible, if by “person” you mean a self other than, in addition to, the Father and the Son. Christians were still arguing this when the year 400 rolled around. We’re still arguing about it. In my view (see here and here) “the holy spirit” can refer to either the Father, the Son, or to a power of the Father, or to an exercise thereof. So I think P7-P10 are very ambiguous. They’re ill-formed, assuming as they do that “the holy spirit” and such expressions in the Bible have but one meaning.
- P11 – yep. There’s one god. Any “fully divine” being will be none other than (which is to say, numerically identical to) him – to God, aka the Father.
A typical apologist just points at a list like this and says, “See – Trinity!” But I think you know that this group of claims doesn’t clearly point to any precise Trinity theory. I don’t see, in particular, how you get your one-self view to fit with these claims. Take the Father and Son. If they’re not identical (P8), this is to say that they’re not the same being. Well then, they’re not the same god. If both are gods, then we’ve just contradicted monotheism. If one only is a god, surely that’s the Father. Jesus is the Son of God.
[Dale:] And in almost all cases, “God” (“our God,” “my God” etc.) is supposed to refer to this same one. Particularly striking are the greetings in Paul’s letters (all of them, with the possible exception of Colossians) – he sends them blessings from “God our Father” or “our God and Father”, as well as from Jesus.
[Annoyed:] “As well as from Jesus.” Often, Jesus said to be the source of the divine blessing of mercy and grace along with the Father. Why do this if there is not a close association between the God and Jesus? As if they are equally the source of grace and mercy. Almost as if they are equals (whch Trinitarians would agree with).
Annoyed, imagine that you made a campaign contribution, and consequently, you get a Christmas card from Barack and Michelle. It reads,
Merry Christmas from the President, Barack, and from Michelle.
Does this so much as hint that she is equal to him in terms of power or office, or that she too is president? Of course not, even though both are in a sense the source of “presidential” Christmas wishes. Not only does it not suggest that they’re equal, it presupposes that they’re unequal – we all know there’s just one president, and the card tells us this is Barack, and so not Michelle.
Next time: some triad-ish NT passages and other famous disputed texts.
I think P1 needs to be clarified., is it saying there is one God and that God is Yahweh/Jehovah? Or is it saying there is One God in other Words one Yahweh/Jehovah?
If it’s the former biblically then it’s clearly untrue. If you define “God” as that which can be rightly called “God,” Moses is called God, angels are called Gods, Satan is called God, and first corinthians 6 says there are many Gods. The point of monotheism is that there is one ultimate God from which come all Things, and also for US there is only one God, in the same way for me there is only one woman, my wife, but that doesn’t mean there don’t exist others. Strict monotheism in the sense that only Yahweh can be property called God is not biblical, the monotheism in the bible is that Yahweh is the only true God, the only Most High God.
If it’s the latter then nothing else follows, because saying Jesus is fully Divine, doesn’t mean he is Yahweh.
Especially if “Divine” just means what makes one a God, if Jesus is a “god” that’s fine, that doesn’t make him Yahweh. Unless we must affirm the unbiblical doctrine that nothing other than Yahweh can be properly called a god.
The Premises of the “Tri{3}nity” are simply not necessary, and of a post Biblical origin = Non-Apostolic, (for want of a better word).
Tri{3}nitarians. Have you ever considered these points.
Have you ever considered, (objectively speaking that is), that Jesus can agree to do the Father’s
will, as: “…HIS SERVANT JESUS…”, (Acts 3:13), without being His equal?
That he can agree to obey the Father’s will without being His equal. That he can agree to work to accomplish his Father’s will and purpose without being His equal. Thus, at one with the Father, and the Father’s will and purpose – without – being the Father’s equal?
There is nothing in the Bible that says Jesus has to be, or must be, of necessity equal with the Father in order to be CAPABLE of being at any sort of unity or oneness with the Father, the Father’s will, the Father’s purpose, or to do the Father’s work.
If the Father chooses to give His: “…HOLY SERVANT JESUS…”, (Acts 3:13; Acts 3:36; Acts 4:26-27), “…ALL…” the power and authority necessary to carry out His, (i.e. the Father), work, will, counsel, good pleasure, purpose, then who needs to be the Father’s equal? = No one! If He gives His: “…HOLY SERVANT JESUS…”, “…ALL…” the power and authority in heaven and on earth necessary to do it.
It’s so simple really. Only tradition gets in the way.
Again.
Hypothetically speaking, if Gods: “…HOLY SERVANT JESUS…” didn’t have: “…ALL…” the power and authority necessary to do it, (the Father’s work, will, good pleasure etc), beforehand, then the Father could simply: “…GIVE…” it to him. Couldn’t he not?
Fact = Thats exactly what the Bible says He, (the Father), in fact did.
Jesus can agree with:
[1.] The Father’s will
[2.] The Father’s counsel
[3.] The Father’s purpose
[4.] The Father’s good pleasure
[5.] The Father’s commands and orders
[6.] The Father’s work
And therefore be at one with the Father in unity – without – being His equal or “part of” the Fathers substance.
Jesus can obey:
[1.] The Father’s will
[2.] The Father’s counsel
[3.] The Father’s purpose
[4.] The Father’s good pleasure
[5.] The Father’s commands and orders
[6.] The Father’s work
And therefore be at one with the Father in unity – without – being His equal or part of the Fathers substance.
Jesus can do and perform:
[1.] The Father’s will
[2.] The Father’s counsel
[3.] The Father’s purpose
[4.] The Father’s good pleasure
[5.] The Father’s commands and orders
[6.] The Father’s work
And therefore be at one with the Father in unity – without – being His equal or part of the Fathers substance.
When he is: “…GIVEN…” “…ALL…” the power and authority necessary by the Father as His: “…HOLY SERVANT […] WHOM ( YOU ) ANOINTED…”,(Acts 4:27), to do all this, even as a subordinate and created person, he can, and did do it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* No sharing of nature is or was NECESSARY.
* No co-equalness is or was NECESSARY.
* No co-eternity is or was NECESSARY.
* No co-almightiness is or was NECESSARY.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The fundamental premises and theological and doctrinal building blocks of the man made tradition of the Tri{3}nity, are simply NOT:
[A.] Logically NECESSARY or:
[B.] Scripturally NECESSARY!
In order for the Father, (i.e. Jehovah: “HE WHO CAUSES TO BECOME” = the meaning of that name), to carry out, and make happen:
[1.] His will
[2.] His counsel
[3.] His purpose
[4.] His good pleasure
[5.] His commands and orders
[6.] His work of restoration and reconciliation
As the:
Ephesians 4:6
“…( ONE GOD ) AND FATHER ( OF ALL ), WHO IS ( OVER ALL )…”
Romans 8:28-29
“…Now we know that ( God ) – MAKES – all ( His ) works cooperate together for the good of those who love ( God ), those who are the ones called according to ( His ) purpose; 29 because those whom ( He ) gave ( His ) first recognition ( He ) also foreordained to be patterned after the image of – ( HIS ) – Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers…”
Ephesians 1:11
“…In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of ( Him Who ) works out everything in conformity with ( the purpose of His will )…”
Ephesians 3:11
“…This was in accordance with the eternal purpose which ( He ) – carried out – ( in ) – Christ Jesus our Lord…”
I see nothing of necessity, that would prevent the above from happening. I see no obstacle for the Father. Nothing, except men clinging to the Post-Biblical traditions of men, which are, (in practice), taken as more valuable than the holy word of God itself.
Comments are closed.