“God is greater than man.“ Job 33:12. Every man. All men. Everywhere. Beginning to end. Forever. — John Piper (@JohnPiper) December 17, 2015 My reply is: let us consider this inconsistent triad. Just as a matter of logic, not all three can be true – at least one must be false. But which? Jesus is God. God is greater than any man. Jesus is a… Read More »Is God greater than any man?
If we stick with objections arising from the text of Revelation itself, perhaps the most obvious one is that raised in a comment on previous post by my friend James Anderson. Reformulated by me, it goes:
The text itself (Rev 19:10, 22:9) asserts that we should worship only God. And yes, Revelation plainly implies that Jesus should be worshiped. And so it plainly implies that Jesus is God.
One might look to one of my favorite translations, the New Living Translation, which has these two verses saying, in part: “Worship only God”.
When you look at the Greek, though, you see that it simply says “Worship God.” Not the same thing! And most translations get this right. (Even The Message and the Good News Bible get it right.)
Where does the “only” come from? From the theological agenda of the translators; they want the text to be making the argument above. So in the ESV Study Bible, which translates these phrases correctly (“Worship God.”) they feel the theological need to add this footnote:
Human beings must not worship even the angels… God alone must be worshiped. Since the Lamb is rightly worshiped (5:8-14), he is God. (p. 2497)
Interestingly, these evangelical commenters agree with those in the recent Jewish Annotated New Testament that Revelation asserts that only God should be worshiped. In their comment on 19:7-10, they assert that
It is God, not the Lamb/Jesus, who is to be worshiped. (p. 493)
And bizarrely, in their notes on chapter 5, they ignore the obvious fact that Jesus is being worshiped together with God, although they correctly note that
The heavenly song makes a clear distinction between the enthroned one and the sacrificial lamb. (p. 474)
I woke up this morning, and realized that there is a problem with how I’ve been defining the concept of a unitarian. In this post, I will attempt a definition of the concept of a trinitarian, after reviewing what is required of a good definition. Next time, I’ll try to define the concept of a unitarian.
According to the textbook I have used for years in my critical thinking class, a good definition should:
Include the genus and a differentia.
Not be too broad or too narrow.
State the essential attributes of the concept’s referents.
Not be circular.
Not use negative terms unnecessarily.
Not use vague, obscure, or metaphorical language. (p. 44)
What is a trinitarian?
Definition 1: someone who believes in a triune god.
Finally, the last part of this long, five-part series. Our friend Annoyed Pinnoy continues, Now there are varieties of gifts, but the SAME Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the SAME Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the SAME God who empowers them all in everyone.- 1 Cor. 12:4-6 Notice how Paul uses the word “SAME” three times. Once… Read More »On a Rebuttal to my “How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament” – Part 5
A couple of equally “bugly” ladies. In his attack, Dan Howard-Snyder goes through four different things one might have in mind by saying there are “two ways to be divine”. Continuing his defense and elaboration of the theory of Trinity Monotheism, Bill goes through each of these, declaring that Dan’s objections beg the question, or saddle the Trinity Monotheist with commitments she needn’t make. I’ve… Read More »Trinity Monotheism Part 8: Bill Fires Back, Part 2
Dr. Ehrman has effectively argued that we can’t know whether or not Jesus was really buried in a donated tomb. (How Jesus Became God, pp. 151-64) For this, we should be grateful. Like many important discoveries, this method of reasoning proves fruitful even in other domains. I am happy to announce the results of my recent investigations now. Like many of you, I used to… Read More »Why we should doubt the Hitler-as-dog-lover traditions
Here are some rough-draft thoughts on another line of thinking associated with social trinitarian theories.
God is perfect. Arguably, an absolutely perfect being could not fail to be “well off” – in classical terminology, a perfect being must be happy, must be in a “blessed” condition. Part of perfection is independence. One kind of independence is the kind which comes up when discussing ontological or cosmological arguments for God’s existence – the idea of aseity, or existing but not because of anything else. But here’s another kind of independence or self-sufficiency: not requiring any thing (i.e. any fact not entailed by your existence) to be well off, to have a good life. Perhaps we could call it the divine property of security, or independent or self-sufficient happiness.
In the recent and ongoing series, I have been showing that famous early “fathers” are not, contrary to popular accounts, trinitarians at all, once we carefully define the term. They are unitarians, again, carefully defining the term.
But these recent comments by reader “Villanovanus” got me thinking.
He finds it outrageous that I call people like Irenaeus and Origen “unitarians,” even though I also call them “subordinationists.” Isn’t a subordinationist by definition a trinitarian? (When one reads the trinitarian authors of histories of theology, they are usually a little more modest, saying that these folks are sort of, kind of, maybe trinitarians, if not good ones, or fully developed ones, etc.) Am I not grammatically challenged, or perversely unwilling to look up terms in a dictionary? If a “subordinationist” is by definition a trinitarian, then “subordinationist unitarian” is a contradiction in terms.
He cites a number of dictionary type definitions of “subordinationism”, e.g.
[subordinationism] the theological tenet of progressively declining essence within the Trinity. (-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.)
Awhile back I provided links to some good, thought provoking commentary by Christian philosophers. Now, some other excellent pieces I’ve read, by philosophers and not. I think Christian philosopher Dr. Kelly James Clark hits the nail on the head: …many Christians mistakenly assume that two people worship the same God only if they have identical or nearly identical descriptions of God. This assumption, which may… Read More »another Doc Hawk / “one god” Wheaton controversy round-up
“…in Dr. Craig’s view…the only true god would be something other than the one who Jesus identified as the only true god, as his own god, and as the god of his followers.”
Thanks to Dr. Anderson for his carefully-reasoned reply to my Challenge. I have always been a fan of both him and his work, and RTS students are lucky to have such a capable and humble professor teaching them apologetics, philosophy, and analytic theology. I was at first puzzled by his use of an allegedly parallel argument – usually, an objector wields one of those in order… Read More »On Dr. James Anderson’s “Brief Response” to the Challenge
Last time we looked at this inconsistent triad of claims, one of which we must deny: The New Testament gospels agree in their core claims about Jesus and God. Matthew, Mark, and Luke don’t teach that Jesus is God. John teaches that Jesus is God. We can look at this from two directions. First, we can ask what the evidence for each of 1-3 is.… Read More »Do the Gospels disagree about Jesus and God? Part 2 – Counting the Costs