Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
This episode is my edit of a 2018 online debate between trinitarian Andrew Schumacher and biblical unitarian Andrew Griffin. Agreeing on the authority of the Bible, here each tries to show that his theology best fits biblical teaching.
Both debaters have undergone significant theological shifts as a result of thinking about biblical theology; Mr. Schumacher went from biblical unitarian to trinitarian, while Mr. Griffin went from Oneness Pentecostal theology to biblical unitarianism.
Who made the stronger argument? Did either debater change your mind? Why or why not?
Links for this episode:
- Restitutio 159 Refuting Michael Brown’s Case for the Trinity 1
- Restitutio 160 Refuting Michael Brown’s Case for the Trinity 2
- Restitutio 161 Refuting Michael Brown’s Case for the Trinity 3
- Beginning of Wisdom
- Is the Trinity Biblical? Debate Trinity Vs Unitarian | Debaters Only No Moderator Questions
- Is the Trinity Biblical? Moderator Questions (the full length video)
- This week’s thinking music is “I Dunno (Grapes of Wrath Mix)” by spinningmerkaba.
Related posts:
Steve Hays fails to rebut the charge of tritheism
Hays's self-inflicted dental injury
Do the Gospels disagree about Jesus and God? Part 1 - Three Options
podcast 294 - Dr. Jo-Ann Brant on the Gospel According to John - Part 2
podcast 16 - How is Jesus "the one Lord"?
reading John 10: with axe-grinding and without
the sophistical Jude 4 argument
podcast 226 - Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 3 - post-biblical uses of biblical words, ...
podcast 14 – One God, One Lord, Two Interpretations
trinitarian or unitarian? 5 – Origen's Against Celsus - Part 1
I think it’s interesting to see someone go from B.U. to Trinitarianism…. obviously we all the the ability to change our minds, but to not recognize(or to recognize and abandon) that Jesus is a Unitarian by definition and go to that seems odd. That was one of the main reasons I abandoned the Trinity–it’s a different God than Jesus’ God.
Case and point, that fact ends all the debates because the only response is usually an affirmation of the fact but Trinitarians try to act like it’s rebuttal.
“Of course Jesus has a God, he was a man too and not an atheist–duh!” they say.
That’s not the point of the argument.
Pingback: Dale Tuggy Has Posted My Trinity Debate – Beginning of Wisdom
Schumacher seems to think of God in terms of essence. Having the “divine essence” appears to be his requirement to be God. But this perspective must then make the “divine essence” to be the One God in order to avoid polytheism. If the “divine essence” is not the One God, then believing in 3 who are independently fully God is flat-out polytheism. (Unless, that is, one simply appeals to mystery as an escape mechanism.)
Schumacher also dismisses Griffin’s textual points as if they are simply irrelevant, when it is Griffin who is actually trying to take the texts seriously.
Schumacher ends with the typical appeal that “you must believe Jesus is fully God to be saved” (not an exact quote). That seems to be his stake in the ground, and something that I also believed most of my life until I tried to defend it textually, and found it was an assumption that is being read into the text, while ignoring the textual, linguistic, and historical realities of the Bible. It was wrestling with the texts (all of them, not a few favorites) that forced me, contrary to my expectation and desires, to abandon the Trinity doctrine.
Thank you Dale, for putting this up, and editing out that which was unhelpful. Both of the debaters have focused on innovative arguments that are a breath of fresh air. Most of us older folks have heard the standard “proof texts”, that are claimed to be what I call, ‘Jesus-is-God’ texts. I am always hoping that someday, a Unitarian will showcase how Jesus Himself, masterfully defined the much-argued-about “the Logos of God” in John 17:17 as “Truth”. I am confident in His definition of the Logos, to help my understanding of John 1. The biggest problem I have with hearing the case for the Trinity, is the nearly universal lack of admission of ANY inference on their part. This was evident in Schumacher’s testimony. He cited several texts that he interpreted with pure inference, and don’t even give the listener a valid reason why that can be the only understanding, just from the authority of Tradition. It is like someone saying to me, [with authority] “ice is as cold as it gets”…while my doctor is burning my skin with liquid nitrogen. If we believe the Scripture where Jesus reveals that the Father teaches us, who the Son is, (so we can come to Him) and the Son reveals the Father, to whom He wills…Matt.11:27, then the Truth in Christ Himself is living in us, and experiential, as John 1 declares. I believe this, therefore the Unity in God is through obedience to the faith in and from Jesus Christ Himself. I wait for the day when all can hear what Lord Jesus said, “My brethren are those who DO, the will of my Father”, so the libel of ‘heretic’ is abolished for those who love the Christ Jesus, who the Father alone revealed to those of us who have sought, knocked, and asked earnestly for the Truth from Him! After all, He chose working class fellows; fishermen, a tax collector,etc. They knew the law of Moses, and Isaiah, and obeyed our Lord, not how to parse specious grammar rules to find out how many YHWH was!
Comments are closed.