There’s a lot of meat in Burke’s second round, and both his and Bowman’s second rounds were cleaner, more free of stray punches than round 1. Here I offer some summaries and brief comments on Burke.
- In a lot of the piece, Burke lays out his positive views about Jesus. This should give a lot of people pause; it is often assumed, contrary to the long but largely forgotten history of this minority report, that unitarians are mere “deniers”, or that they can be lumped together with the amorphous “skeptics” who appear in apologetics writings, or that they are theological “liberals”, or that they are Unitarian Universalists. Not so – arguably, Burke affirms all the really obvious doctrines of the New Testament – messiah, mediator, resurrection, atonement, etc. – roughly, all the items in the “Apostles'” Creed. Burke defends what used to be called a “humanitarian” christology – that Jesus was a human, and did not exist before his miraculous conception in Mary. It would be misleading to describe his position as being that Jesus was “just a man”. In Burke’s view, he’s far from being just a “great teacher” among many, with peers like the Buddha and Muhammad, or even being merely a prophet.
- It is striking to what degree Burke simply ignores some influential (but now largely forgotten) patristic ideas, to wit: the Jesus’ ministry obviously manifested the divine nature (through, e.g. his miracles), that Jesus must be divine so as to be able to divinize humanity, that Jesus and not the Father was the one who interacted with the Jews in OT times, that the title “Son of God” implies having the divine nature, that what is “divine” must be absolutely unchanging and simple. I say this more by way of observation than criticism. With the exception of the first, I expect that Bowman will largely ignore them as well.
- Flag: Burke says that the risen, glorified Jesus is “divine”. What does he mean by this, and whatever is meant, is there scriptural warrant for it? We know he doesn’t mean to say Jesus just is (is numerically identical to) God. Does he mean that Jesus has some, or most, or all (surely not all) the divine attributes? Or is it just that Jesus is somehow related to God? (If so, how?)
- Burke says “Rob and I agree [that] some passages apparently call Jesus “God” literally, directly, and without qualification.” I think some care needs to be taken with this point. If someone predicates divinity of Jesus, this may be done literally or not, directly or not, qualifiedly or not. But if someone addresses Jesus using the name or title “God”, one is not describing Jesus at all, but rather addressing him. There may be some explanation why you used that title, but there is no question about whether you are speaking literally or not, etc. The point may be easier to see in a non-Jesus example; consider an Indian guru, like, say this one. Two disciples address him as “God”. One does this because he thinks the guru is an avatar of God. But the other does it because he thinks God works through this guru, or because he thinks the guru is godly or god-like. One shouldn’t say that the first is speaking literally, the second non-literally. Again, suppose you address Andy Kaufman as “Elvis”.
This could be because you thought he was a reincarnation of Elvis, but it would more likely be because you thought the name just fit. No, I’m not saying that Jesus was a God-impersonator! I’m saying that we often take names first used for one thing, and then use them to refer to something else, based on this something else being related to the first thing in some way. - So many, not all, but many of the passages at issue involving Jesus – particularly the less disputable ones in Heb 1 and John 20, involve this – using “God” as a name or title for Jesus. The question, of course, is why is this done. What does this usage presuppose, or what is the best explanation of it? I don’t think Burke really suggests an explanation. I was expecting to see something about Jesus resembling God, which seems a central theme in Paul and John (e.g. exact image and likeness, etc, and he who has seen me has seen the Father) This would merit a flag, except that Burke does point out that according Jesus himself, men may properly be referred to as “gods” (John 10), and that it is clear that sometimes in the OT various humans are called “god” or “gods”. (We’ve discussed this before.)
- Flag: after listing Jesus’ NT titles, he says “There is no suggestion here that Jesus is God.” Well, there is at least a suggestion that he is, from the application of “Lord” to him. As countless theologians have pointed out, this is the word which sort of euphemistically translates or stands in for the name “Yahweh” in the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew OT). In Paul, sometimes it is not clear who is meant by “Lord” (Father ? Son?), and this is, I think, surprising, and in need of explanation. Again, prophecies which in the OT predict things about Yahweh are applied to Jesus as fulfilled by him in the NT – this too needs explaining.
- In much of the 2nd half of his entry, Burke goes through various “Jesus is God” proof texts, and using trinitarian biblical scholarship, pretty effectively shows that most of them are far from decisive, because of translation, textual, or interpretive issues. He does a particularly good job dismantling the lame argument that Jesus’ title “Immanuel” (meaning “God with us” or “God is with us”) implies that Jesus is God. This doesn’t work, any more that this argument: “Elijah” means “Yahweh my God”, therefore Elijah is Yahweh our God. Again, his treatment of John 1:18 was fair and sure-footed.
- Final flag: Burke doesn’t address some difficult passages for his view, namely passages which seem to imply Jesus’ existence before his conception. And in particular, passages which seem to say that Jesus created the universe. Again, although he mentions the text, he doesn’t tell us how he reads John 1, which most trinitarians consider a slam dunk for their side. Perhaps these will be addressed somewhere in what follows.
Related posts:
podcast 127 - Kermit Zarley's Solving the Samaritan Riddle
podcast 112 - Dr. Joseph Jedwab on divine omnipresence - Part 2
Bock and Loke on Jesus's "blasphemy" in Mark 14 - Part 1
Derivation vs. Generic Theories -- part 3: The Derivation View (JT)
trinitarian or unitarian? 8 – Origen on "God" vs. "a god"
podcast 4 - Anglicans vs. "Athanasius"
modal shootout on the greatest possible being - Part 2
Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 10 - Why Care About Rational Reinterpretation?
podcast 62 - Dr. Dustin Smith on the preexistence of Jesus in the gospel of John
podcast 87 - Kermit Zarley on the deity and preexistence of Jesus
cherylu:
That is not the issue. The issue is whether or not God’s identity is logical and comprehensible. Scripture clearly shows that it is (“God is one”), but Trinitarians insist that it is not (“God is one, except when He’s three; this is a paradox, don’t try to understand it”). Whom should I believe? Scripture or Trinitarians?
Dale,
At this point I guess I am trying to figure out what it is YOU do believe. You keep telling me what I believe is wrong and it doesn’t line up with creedal Trinitarianism. What creed doesn’t it line up with and how do you know that creed is correct? Do you explain these things in the aritcle you referenced above? I haven’t read it at this point as it is a download and I also haven’t had time.
I really don’t see what is so contradictory and vague about it. Yes, it is paradoxical. Do you expect to be able to fullly explain God with the human mind and voice?
cherylu,
I’ve argued in print that what the “Athanasian” Creed posits is apparently contradictory, and have also raised the question why it should be considered authoritative. See this: http://filosofer.googlepages.com/tradition.pdf
I’m not going to tell you how it differs from what went before, because it is very vague – *every* recent theory explained in my main “Trinity” entry is trying to provided a consistent interpretation of it.
Dale,
Here are some excerpts from the Athanaisian Creed which you referred to in your aritcle as “Standard Athanasian Trinitarianism”:
“Now this is the catholic faith: We worship one God in trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither confusing the persons nor dividing the divine being.
For the Father is one person, the Son is another, and the Spirit is still another.
But the deity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, equal in glory, coeternal in majesty.
What the Father is, the Son is, and so is the Holy Spirit.”
And down a little bit further in the same creed:
“Eternal is the Father; eternal is the Son; eternal is the Spirit: And yet there are not three eternal beings, but one who is eternal; as there are not three uncreated and unlimited beings, but one who is uncreated and unlimited.”
And:
Thus the Father is Lord; the Son is Lord; the Holy Spirit is Lord: And yet there are not three lords, but one Lord.
As Christian truth compels us to acknowledge each distinct person as God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords. ”
Please tell me how this is different then anything that I have said or anything that Michael Patton said. As a matter of fact, it makes the very points about Father, Son, and Spirit being separate but there still being only one God in an even stronger way then either of us have. Stronger even then I did in the comment I first made in trying to explain my view on Isaiah 45. The comment that got both you and Dave telling me I was all wrong and you told me what I believed was not Trinitarianism!
http://www.elca.org/what-we-believe/statements-of-belief/the-athanasian-creed.aspx
Patton’s statement suggests one self, one who, who acts, lives, or relates to us in three different ways. This has been a frequent topic here @ trinities – check out this one. What you say at the end is but one kind of modalism – that attributed to Sabellius.
Dale,
Did you read the article from the Blue Letter Bible that I linked above? Here is a quote from it:
“The doctrine of the Trinity, simply stated, is as follows: The Bible teaches that there is one eternal God who is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe. He is the only God that exists. However, within the nature of this one God are three persons, or three centers of consciousness – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons are co-equal and co-eternal. They are also distinguishable or distinct from one another. These three distinct Persons are the one God. Everything that is true about God is true about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
He uses the word “nature” while I used the word “essence” or “being”. Otherwise I don’t see how what I said is really any different then what he said.
I have been rethinking what I said in the rest of my comment above about God and agency and have changed my opinion a bit. If it was indeed the Father speaking in Isaiah 45, and I am not positive about that, and another person of the Trinity–the Son–that actually carried out the plan for our salvation, it was still God that accomplished it all. It was not someone other then God that was sent as His agent. That is pretty much what I was trying to get at in the first place–that this verse says that no one but God can do this for us. Does that make any sence or is it clear as mud?
And I still think that Michael Patton’s first comment above, “Christians believe in one God, i.e., one essence, who eternally exists in three separate persons, all of whom are equal,” is saying the same thing as I am too. And I don’t think it suggests modalism. Modalists don’t believe there are three seperate person’s in the Trinity. Only that God reveals Himself in three different ways at different times.
None of those statements suggest a part-whole relationship between the persons and God, so all are different. The third is super vague. The first suggests modalism. The second is more on track for the patristics thought.
A quote from C. Michael Patton on the Parchment and Pen blog:
“Christians believe in one God, i.e., one essence, who eternally exists in three separate persons, all of whom are equal.”
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2009/08/the-trinity-is-like-3-in-1-shampoo-and-other-stupid-statements/
From the same article and author:
“We don’t believe in three persons who share in a species called “God,” but three persons who share in an identical, united nature.”
And this one:
“It is not one God with three names, but one God in three persons.”
I don’t see how these statements are any different then the one I used above either.
Thanks Dale. Your article and your blog have made me intrigued about the Mysterian Trinitarians. I must investigate further.
Dale,
Here is an article I found very quickly on the doctrine of the Trinity:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=320
As far as I can tell, his explanation of the doctrine and mine are identical although he may use a different word or two to express the same thought.
cherylu:
Unfortunately your explanation does not work, because you have insisted that the Saviour who spoke in Isaiah 44 is the same Saviour who died on the cross. Since you believe that the Father spoke in Isaiah 44, this would mean that the Father died on the cross. Yet we know that it was the Son who died on the cross, not the Father. So your explanation does not match the Biblical evidence and also contradicts basic Christian teaching.
This explanation…
…does not solve your problem.
All you need to do is accept that God is our ultimate Saviour and that He provides that salvation through the work of His Son Jesus, who is our Saviour in another sense, since it was he who died for our sins.
The Father offers the means; the Son provides the sacrifice.
Well said – I’ve found this to be true. This is relevant to Bowman – his contradictory interpretation of the Trinity I sketched (it seems to me that he doesn’t have just one – but this is one he sometimes seems to defend) doesn’t really have scholarly defenders, with the possible exception of the epistemically sophisticated philosophical theologian James Anderson, in Paradox in Christian Theology, and a few other positive mysterians.
Hi cherylu,
I have some bad news to bear. This:
is probably not anything that should be called “trinitarian”. The standard creedal formulas are normally understood to exclude the interpretation that the Persons are so many parts of God, and also the idea that the Son is part of the Father, or (if this is instead what you meant) that the Son is a part of the same being the Father is also a part of. Now it’s mighty unclear how those formulas should be understood, but all the patristics, and all traditional Catholic and other patristic-educated theologians would reject what you’re calling the Trinity doctrine.
Re: being and person. Anyone can see that these are different concepts. The crucial point is that any person/self just is (is numerically identical to) a certain being. If something is a person, this implies that it is a being, though obviously not vice-versa. This is denied by Relative identity Trinity theorists (on which, see my “Trinity” entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), but not, I think, by most trinitarians, or by people generally. A traditional move, which Bowman has tried briefly here, is to obfuscate about “person” – making a “person” not a self, but something like a personality of a self. But then one turns right around and assumes, e.g. the Son to be a self, one in personal relationships with various others. Can’t have it both ways, though.
cherylu, does that mean you believe that when the person of the son suffered, it was actually the persons of the Father and Holy Spirit suffering also?
Furthermore, what died on the cross? Not who, what?
Dave,
On the question of God using an agent to be the Saviou:
I am not certain that a person can always tell in the Old Testament particularly which member of the Trinity is speaking. There is not always a context given. But I do believe the Old Testament does have many inferences to the Trinity. However, in this case I would say that it is likely the Father that is speaking. I am sure this is probably what you are expecting me to say. And then you will say, “But it is Jesus that died on the cross so how was He not using an agent beside Himself?” Am I correct?
However this does not pose a problem for me as a Trinitarian when I believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all persons or members of an essence or being which together makes up God. In this understanding, even if it is the Father specifically speaking here, to have Jesus become the Savior is still having part of Himself–part of the Being that He is part of–becoming the Savior. So, in effect, it is not someone other then Himself that is doing the saving since they are both part of the total entitiy that we understand to be God.
Now I know that you will not accept this at all because you don’t believe in a difference between beings and persons. But that is how I see it.
Dale:
Which is just as well, because I haven’t even got a citation track record! :p
cherylu, I think when Dave says he wants you to tell him which person is speaking, he means is the person of the Father speaking, is the person of the son speaking, or is the person of the Holy Spirit speaking? Unitarians are typically unsure as to how Trinitarians can be confident which person is speaking at any particular time, especially when the context doesn’t provide any indication.
Sound comments Dale, I certainly agree. Bowman is definitely good at presenting the Trinitarian view to which he subscribes, and there’s no doubt his work is extremely popular in its particular arena. I am not questioning his qualifications for this task.
It’s also clear that Bowman is well regarded in the scholarly literature for the value of his populist treatments of difficult subjects. So I’m interested in why Bowman doesn’t return the favour.
The fact is that Bowman’s is a trinitarian model which is not widely accepted at the academic level, and I believe he’s aware of this. He’s in the middle of the trickledown from the scholarly consensus to the layman, which is always difficult. I believe it is important to recognize that, because it has an effect on the way he treats the relevant scholarship.
There’s a raft of well educated populist apologists out there who are extremely well qualified to defend what passes for orthodoxy at the level of the layman, but whose conclusions and arguments are not supported by the scholarly consensus and who feel free to disregard higher scholarship when necessary, as a result. Would Bowman be so dismissive of Wallace, Harris, Dunn, and McGrath if they held the same view he did? I think not.
Hi Fortigurn,
I suppose this is relevant… but I would caution that I’ve seen many authors lauded and considered legit members of the theological or philosophical guild, who nonetheless produce a lot of junky work. And I’ve seen legit people excluded, by not having the right degrees, academic appointments, or connections, who do solid, original, valuable work – but work which is not cool according to current tastes. It is true that good work usually rises to the top and dregs sink, but this takes time, and sometimes just does not work. So I recommend that we all focus on Bowman’s and Burke’s arguments – not on their citation track record or other things. In my view, both are qualified to argue about this, having both put a lot of work into thinking about these things, and both being clear, experienced, effective, and well-behaved debaters.
Out of interest, I searched for Bowman in the following journals:
* Ashland Theological Journal, 1991-2005
* Bible and Spade, 1972-2000
* Bibliotheca Sacra, 1934-2005
* Chafer Theological Seminary Journal, 1995-2003
* Christian Apologetics Journal, 1998-2000
* Conservative Theological Journal, 2000-2004
* Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, 1996-2005
* Emmaus Journal, 1991-2004
* Faith and Mission, 1984-2005
* Global Journal, 1998-1999
* Grace Journal, 1960-1972
* Grace Theological Journal, 1980-1991
* Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhoood, 1995-2005
* Journal of Christian Apologetics , 1997-1998
* Journal of Ministry and Theology, 1997-2005
* Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 1966-2005
* Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, 1998-2005
* Master’s Seminary Journal, 1990-2003
* Michigan Theological Journal, 1990-1994
* Reformation and Revival, 1992-2003
* Reformed Baptist Theological Review, 2003
* Review and Expositor, 1979-2005
* Semeia, 1974-2000
* Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 1997-2005
* Trinity Journal, 1980-2004
* Westminster Theological Journal, 1950-2005
I found only ten references to any of his works. In lists of ‘books received:
* Two references to ‘Orthodox and Heresy’ (Grace Theological Journal (12.238), 1991, Trinity Journal (13.1.121), 1997),
* One reference to ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ (Journal of Christian Apologetics (1.147), 1997)
In an annotated bibliography:
* One reference to ‘Why You Should Believe in the Trinity’ (Reformation and Revival (10.3.155), 2001), where it is described as ‘A brief refutation of the claims of the Jehovah’s Witnesses that the Trinity is an apostate doctrine’
In reviews:
* A three paragraph review of ‘Orthodoxy and Heresy’ by Lightner (Bibliotheca Sacra (150.157.597), 1993), more descriptive than analytical but still positive (‘In spite of this weakness, the book is an excellent and needed word on the subject’)
* A one paragraph review of ‘An Unchanging Faith’ by Pyne (Bibliotheca Sacra (156.623.371), 1999), which concludes ‘Boa and Bowman have provided a wonderful example of popular-level apologetics in service of the church, and this work can be warmly recommended.’
* A two paragraph review of ‘Faith Has Its Reasons’ by Couch (Conservative Theological Journal (5.16.390-391), 2001), with several ringing endorsements (‘This volume is an excellent overview of the field of apologetics’, ‘a superb historical survey’, ‘has in it almost everything you want to know about this important field of study’)
* A three sentence review of ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ (Master’s Seminary Journal (4.2.208), 1993), which notes ‘Bowman has a reputation for skillfulness in refuting cultic error’
* A one paragraph review of ‘Twenty Compelling Evidences’ (Bibliotheca Sacra (160.640.485), 2003), described as an ‘outstanding book on apologetics’
* A two paragraph review of ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses’ (Emmaus Journal (3.2.193-194), 1994), described as ‘very useful’, in which Bowman ‘skilfully examines the relevant passages’, and ‘gives solidly biblical, detailed answers’
I found it striking that Bowman is nowhere used to defend the trinity in any of these journals, nor is he identified in any of them as notable for his defense of the trinity. Without intending any disrespect to Bowman, it does seem that he isn’t particularly recognized in this field within the relevant scholarly literature. This suggests a reason for his dismissal of the academia to which Dave has appealed (he’s not in the club), and suggests further that his ‘fence straddling’ approach as a ‘Type II’ trinitarian isn’t taken very seriously.
cherylu, Jesus Christ is God’s means of salvation.
🙂
cherylu:
No it’s not a specific enough answer, especially for a Trinitarian. You’ve told me that God is speaking but you haven’t told me which person is speaking. Who is it?
Helez,
Do we not have to turn to Jesus in faith and receive Him in order to be saved? This being the case, if Jesus is not God as Unitarians believe, we are turning to someone other then God for salvation. That is where I see a conflict with the verse I quoted above.
We are obviously looking at this from two totally different perspectives here.
cherylu, clearly you don’t fully understand the Biblical concept of agency…
God is our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Jude 25)
Isaiah 45:21-22 “”Declare and set forth your case; Indeed, let them consult together. Who has announced this from of old? Who has long since declared it? Is it not I, the LORD? And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me.
“Turn to Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other.”
Here are another couple of verses where God says, “Turn to Me to be saved”. Not turn to an agent. But “turn to Me.”
Hi Helez,
There has been a similar conversation going on over on ScottL’s blog: http://prodigalthought.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/the-great-trinity-debate-comments-part-2/
Dave Burke has been interacting over there too.
I have explained what I am thinking more fully over there then I have here.
cherylu, did you ever read Jude 25?
o the only God our Savior, [u]through[/u] Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen. (NASB)
or Acts 13:23?
From the descendants of this man, according to promise, God has brought to Israel a Savior, Jesus,
At Judges 3:9, the same Hebrew word for savior/deliverer that is used at Isaiah 43:11 is applied to Othniel, a judge in Israel. Do you believe that makes Othniel God?
Isa 43:1-12 simply shows that YHWH alone is the One who provided salvation, or deliverance, for Israel.
Peace,
H.
Dave,
I answered your question as to who was speaking here twice–same answer both times–over on ScottL’s blog. The last I checked, which was a few minutes ago, you still hadn’t answered my question there either.
The answer I gave there was:
In the context of Is. 43:
In verse 1: The Lord, the Creator
In verse 3: The Lord your God, the Holy one of Israel, your savior
In verse 10: The Lord that no God’s were formed before or will be afterwards
In verse 12: The Lord who states that He is God
In verse 13: The one who has been there from eternity
In verse 14: The Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel
In verse 15: The Lord, your Holy One, the creator of Israel, your King.
In other words–God Himself.
And then I qualified it the second time you asked by saying God Himself–the one that describes Himself in all of the ways listed in those verses above that are taken from the same chapter in Isaiah.
Is that not a specific enough answer? I don’t understand what the problem is.
Hi ScottL,
Thanks for your response. I do think Jesus is God’s special agent, but here I cannot address everything you mentioned in your full sentence which makes you think he must be Almighty God himself.
Peace,
HeleZ
Helez –
God can do so, but when this One comes who is the Son of Man, Son of God, eternal Logos, the Good Shepherd (as God said He would Himself shepherd His people), Saviour, the I Am, the Way the Truth the Life, the resurrection and the life, the Messiah/Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, etc, etc, I’m thinking Jesus is more than an agent of God.
cherylu:
You don’t need to ignore them. But you do need to ask why they’re there, and why there’s only four of them in contrast to 7,000 singular personal pronouns used in reference to God. (Those four passages are easily explained, by the way. Most Trinitarian commentators recognise that they prove nothing for Trinitarianism. Check the NET Bible footnotes for each verse).
I’m waiting for you to tell me who you think is speaking here. I can’t answer until I know that. Surely this is obvious?
Dave,
There are 4 places that I know of that don’t use a singular pronoun. Can we just ignore them and pretend they don’t exist and have no real purpose? I haven’t gone back and reread your first article where I believe you talked about this so am not sure if I remember correctly what you said there. But it seems to me that has to be a good reason why He uses a plural pronoun at all when referring to Himself. Why would He do it at all if He is not more more then in some way?
And that doesn’t at all answer my question about Isaiah 43:11.
Pingback: trinities - SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Bowman 2 (DALE)
More to the point, why does God keep referring to Himself in singular personal pronouns? Hasn’t He noticed the other two guys yet?
Isaiah 43:11 says: “”I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me.”
Here God clearly states that there is no other Savior besides Him. How then could He make someone else–Jesus, if He is not God–that Savior?
ScottL, can Yahweh make use of an Agent for the salvation of the human family, and still be the One?
Should it make Unitarians feel uncomfortable that the Messiah is called “Mighty God,” as he is YHWH’s great appointed Judge? I don’t believe so.
As I said over on my blog about Immanuel:
As for the title of Immanuel. Yes, Isaiah 7:14 (and 9:6) are not unequivocally able to prove Christ’s divinity. But, what happens is that we allow Matthew 1:18-23 to help inform us. I cannot believe that Immanuel was somehow only telling us that God was with us in some sort of special way with Christ. Oh yes, it does teach us that, but not merely that. This was God actually with us, for his birth was specifically of the Spirit of God and He (Jesus) would save His people from their sin. This was already determined before He went 33 or so years without sinning.
So I can’t get around this title of Immanuel informing us about WHO the Son is. Who else has the power to save His own people from their sin? I know we can go back and say so and so saved Israel in the OT. Yes, but what is really happening with Christ is more than mere saving from an enemy. This is the salvation that only Yahweh, and no one else, offers. Saving from sin!
Hey ScottL
I don’t think there’s a clear distinction between names and titles. Names, typically, are sort of more arbitrary – there’s no particular reason why you must be called Scott and me Dale – both names would fit either of us fine. But “Superman” is a name, and it better fits Clarke Kent then either of us, ’cause he’s… super. A title like The King of Rock is more like Superman. But either way, we use these terms to refer to individuals – so they seem to mostly function the same. In sum, I don’t see the point of holding that “Immanuel” is a title rather than a name – it seems to me that either way, Burke’s point holds. It is of course consistent with Jesus being God that he’s called that – but it is also clearly consistent with his having that title that he’s a human (only).
Gotta run – going out of town right now. There will be a post on Bowman’s 2nd salvo tomorrow.
Scott, I agree that a title is different to a name. But a title is not necessarily a statmement of ontology any more than a name is.
A title is a title. It denotes rank, purpose, status, role, etc. It doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about the physical or metaphysical nature of the individual.
Arguments from Isaiah 9:6 and 7:14 are little more than a form of special pleading.
Dale –
You said in your next-to-last bullet point: He does a particularly good job dismantling the lame argument that Jesus’ title “Immanuel” (meaning “God with us” or “God is with us”) implies that Jesus is God. This doesn’t work, any more that this argument: “Elijah” means “Yahweh my God”, therefore Elijah is Yahweh our God.
I think there is a difference with a title and a name. Immanuel stands as a title, while something like Elijah stands as a name. Thus, I think the title, Immanuel, serves a different purpose. I share a little more at my post on my blog. Would love more thoughts from you. I expect them from Dave. 🙂
A fair summary, thanks Dale. I’ll be clarifying the points you’ve raised during my rebuttal of Bowman’s argument, as they will naturally arise in that context.
My primary aim was to eliminate the standard superficial “Jesus-is-directly-called-God” proof texts (ie. Romans 9:5) and show that due to textual/contextual/grammatical problems they are too weak to be relied upon as concrete evidence for the Trinitarian position.
I deliberately omitted some texts that I was otherwise tempted to include, because I assumed that Bowman would raise them himself, which he has. This is helpful because it now means I can address them in my rebuttal instead of trying to find room for them in my 5,000 word limit.
I also have Week 3 up my sleeve to tidy some loose ends and deal with any remaining pre-existence passages. Bowman will be arguing from the epistles by that stage, so I think we all know what to expect. This week he has followed the standard formula, in accordance with my predictions on the other thread. There are no surprises here.
The “Lord/YHWH” equivocation is a popular one, but it falls apart when applied to passages where three different types of “Lord” are clearly in view (I can think of one such passage off the cuff; I’m sure there are others). More on this point as occasion demands.
It would have been nice if I’d had sufficient space in my wordcount to address the patristics, not least because I find a great deal of support here (e.g. Papias, Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius). But there is no need at this stage.
Comments are closed.