podcast 249 – Tuggy vs. Brown debate – The God of the Bible is the Father alone

Once I debated a Trinitarian that tried to use a ” machine gun approach” to try to dissuade me and I just looked at him calmly and asked him to pick his best scripture to prove his point. He chose John 1.1. Which was easily dismantled. Sometimes you just can’t answer them all because of time. There really are no good biblical text to prove the trinity without self-contradiction. I like Stafford- White debate and Stafford- Bowman debate. I thought they were fruitful and Stafford made them answer i.e. John 17.3 in the White debate. I also think that the deity of Christ should be granted in such debates and now let’s get to the Trinity. After all like Heiser the word god …el,elohim, eloah,.-Heb theos –Gk carries with it both a representative sense or may even carry an ontological sense like Psalms 8.5 where the Hebrew has elohim and LXX has angelos. I also feel words such as all…no other ….do not carry with them an all..no other in an absolute sense.

Overall I appreciated Dales courage in confronting a very Charismatic, Michael Brown. I thought Dale’s logic won over Brown’s on many occasions. Really like Ecclestiastes points out, “there is nothing news under the sun”. The scriptures used were the same old proof text misunderstood and misapplied.

Thanks to Dale and Brown for making the debate available to those unable to make the debate in person.

Vance,

The writer of Hebrews may have given us a hint regarding the way he intended to apply Hebrews 1:10-12 to what was taking place with Jesus Christ. It’s interesting to note that the verb “growing old” that the writer used in Hebrews 1:11 was also later used when he referred to the “first covenant” which was “growing old” and ready to be replaced with a “new covenant” (Hebrews 8:13) established by Jesus himself (Hebrews 9:15).

After the resurrection, Jesus was appointed “heir of all things” (Hebrews 1:2) which put him over the works that God had done of old (Hebrews 2:7) in order to establish an “eternal covenant” (Hebrews 13:20). He became the source of “eternal salvation” (Hebrews 9:5) for those who would receive an “eternal inheritance” (Hebrews 9:15; Hebrews 1:14).

I was surprised to hear Dr. Brown quote Isaiah 44:24 where God clearly states that he made everything by himself and no one was with him. But then went on to quote John 1 arguing that someone (God’s word as a literal person) was with him. Well which is it? Was he alone or not?

Michael Brown, like his good friend James White, has mastered the fine art of debate; you have not. In my opinion, you were accurate and had the best scholarship on your side in your exegesis of certain of Brown’s key proof texts, but he overpowered you with quick, emotionally-charged replies wherein, in some cases, he made you appear to be saying something you weren’t saying. I think you missed at least a few good opportunities to nail him, but you missed them, primarily, I think, because he dominated the discussion. Brown, perhaps partly due to his involvement in the charismatic movement, expresses himself passionately; while you, perhaps because of you philosophical bent, are laid back.

Brown jumped on your weaker arguments with emotionally-charged rebuttals and, I think, effectively demolished them. This added to the perception that he was the winner. One particular example I have in mind is your interpretation of Heb 1:10. I have always thought the “world to come” argument was fatally flawed, and that the better view is to understand this text (which speaks plainly of the original creation) as underscoring the permanency of the Son’s “throne” mentioned in verse 8. In other words, the heavens themselves will grow old and perish (vv 11-12), but the Son’s throne (v 8) will endure forever, just as God promised David (2 Sam 7:16). The author of Hebrews is not saying that the Son “laid the foundation of the earth,” or that “the heavens are the work of [the Son’s] hands,” but is emphasizing the supremacy of the Son by pointing out that his throne will continue to exist even after the heavens themselves have dissolved.

I’m with Brown on Incarnation, but I think his interpretations of Isa 9:6 and Ps 45:6 are way off base–yet, for him, these are important proof texts. Your responses were good, but he still managed to overpower you. That, in my opinion, is why debates like this are useless. I think written exchanges are a much more effective way of communicating the pros and cons of each side. Emotions are less a factor, and the reader has time to think and objectively evaluate arguments from both sides.