Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
Many apologists offer simple deductive arguments purporting to show that the Bible rather obviously implies a creedal Trinity doctrine.Are those arguments sound?
This episode is my presentation on April 13, 2019 at the 28th Theological Conference. Because the talk is easier to follow with my slides, I recommend the YouTube version below.
First, I show that this influential argument by Reformed theologian B.B. Warfield is invalid (that is, the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises).
- There is only one God.
- The Father and the Son and the Spirit are each God.
- The Father and the Son and the Spirit are different persons.
- Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is true.
Unfortunately, this argument is unthinkingly recycled by countless later trinitarian apologists! Next, I show why this argument from trinitarian apologist Dr. Robert M. Bowman Jr. is valid but unsound.
- All the elements of the doctrine are taught in Scripture.
- The New Testament presents a consistent triad of Father, Son, Holy Spirit (God, Christ, Spirit).
- Therefore, the Bible does teach the Trinity.
Finally, despite these failures I explain how, in principle, a trinitarian apologist might actually show that the Bible is trinitarian. It involves far more work than is usually assumed. To help, I lay out six points which should be acknowledged.
Links for this episode:
- 28th Theological Conference
- Dr. Fred Sanders’s Study of Edition of Warfield’s “Trinity”
- Dr. Bowman’s “The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity”
- This week’s thinking music is “Kalte Ohren” by Alex.
BTW
Ignatius of antioch, a disciple of john the apostle, is not a unitarian
“St. Ignatius’ firm handling of the mysteries of the Trinity, Incarnation, Redemption, and Eucharist, his insistence on the hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons and the primacy of the see of Rome…set up a standard by which all who are eager to adhere to the tradition of Apostolic Christianity may measure the degree of their conformity with this early witness.”
Gerald G. Walsh, “The Letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch,” in The Apostolic Fathers, trans. Francis X. Glimm, Joseph M.-F. Marique, and Gerald G. Walsh, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1947), 85.
Just goes to show you that, once in the hands of former Greco-Roman pagans, it didn’t take long for the Jewish apostolic faith to go off the rails.
where did ignatius says that jesus is not God ?
Why does it matter what Ignatius said or didn’t say? Wouldn’t the Scriptures be a more trustworthy source?
where in the bible that God allows a fully human being to hold the book of life and erase the names of the people ?
Can you give me to prove your unitarianism ?
Only Jesus is given that kind of authority in the Bible, so we don’t have anything to go off of. What should be stressed though is that the authority to raise and judge the dead is not intrinsic to Jesus, it is something given to him by God.
Second Temple Jews were comfortable with humans as exalted agents who could administer God’s prerogatives. Philo for instance says that Moses became the god and king of all Israel on account of his communion with God at Sinai (Life of Moses I.XXVIII).
You didn’t answer the question mr. Unitarian
Stal, I tried to answer you on the other thread – it sounds like you are referring to Rev. 3:5 and Rev. 5. Please don’t keep us in suspense any longer, go ahead and share your real point.
I don’t see in revelation ch. 5 that God allows a fully human being to hold the book of life 🙂
So why not explain what you mean by “fully” human? As opposed to what other type of human? Do you mean to say “solely” human as opposed to a mixture of human and some other type of being? Do you mean that a ressurected human is no longer fully human?
I am asking these things in all sincerity, as I don’t see how Rev. 5 informs us of the actual categorization of being-type, since the being that holds the book is called the “lion of the tribe of Judah”, “the root of David”, a/the “lamb” (as if slain), and a “he”. There is no mention of Jesus by name at all, though I agree that these are standard appelations for him.
Can you clarify what you are trying to get at? Is there something you see in Rev. 5 that suggests Jesus is God?
So do you have a verse that God allows a fully human being to hold the book of life ?
Direct answer
if you dont have direct answer mr. 4qmmt, i dont waste my time on you, no offense
And
Enjoy this Godbless
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lt28H7-mAE
Why is it that so many trinitarians are unable to argue their position through intelligent DIALOG, but instead think that one-sided interrogation with vague and senseless questions and demands for “direct” answers is somehow advancing anyone’s case, except of course for the case that many non-trinitarians make that most trinitarians are afraid to discuss their positions based on anything other than their emotional attachment to illogical and non-biblical-based claims?
I would agree that you are wasting your time if you think that your methods are somehow helping to prove your position. I think they only harm it, so you are liklely wise to stop.
Comments are closed.