the “Functional Polytheism” accusation

At the apologetics blog Ad Lucem young apologist Vladimir Susic ventures to argue that biblical unitarianism should be given the polemical label “Functional Polytheism.”

Biblical Unitarianism can be broadly defined as belief in a Unitarian, Biblical God, who is a singular person, The Father, who is alone eternal. By its proponents, the belief is championed as bastion of Biblical Monotheism, in the light of “Polytheistic” Trinitarian beliefs of the Church.

Correction: not all of us tar trinitarianism generally with the “Polytheism” label. I have always held that some Trinity theories do not imply polytheism, while others do. It depends on what the trinitarian says exactly about the “Persons” in his theory.

This article will seek to demonstrate that the doctrine of Biblical Unitarianism as held by its proponents, at the very least constitutes Functional Dyotheism (Polytheism).

I think he means “Functional Ditheism.” One would think this means that the position requires its adherents to act (“Functional”) as if there were two gods (“Ditheism”). But this is not what he means.

I omit here his needless definition of “Ontological Dyotheism” – but this is just belief in two gods, two (fully) divine beings. Here’s how he defines the label he wants to hang on biblical unitarians:

Functional Dyotheism can be defined as a belief in 2, distinct beings, such that one of them is Ontologically Divine, that is, possesses a divine nature, as defined above, while the other exists primarily in some other form of nature, but has been endowed functional divinity by the aforementioned being. Functional divinity can be defined such that, the being possesses attributes, does actions and has powers fitting only of an ontologically divine being, which however has such by a process of delegation of such powers onto that being by an ontologically divine being. This does not change the primary nature of this functionally divine being; I.e. does not make it ontologically divine, but functionally.

So “Functional Dyotheism” is belief in a god and a non-god, and the god has given the non-god being “actions and has powers “fitting” only of an ontologically divine being.”

“Fitting?” Is this “Functional Dyotheism” being defined as impossible, so that this god gives about powers and enables actions which in principle can’t be had or done by a non-god? Or does he mean only that these “powers and actions” are typically found in a god, not in a non-god – this case being an exception, due to the generosity of the god in this scenario? I don’t know! The first accusation, we of course deny on biblical grounds. And the second claim, we would not object to. Our accuser proceeds:

Are, Biblical Unitarians, therefore “Functional Polytheists”? Well, the question can be more precisely stated by asking some other questions, number of which is extensively large, however, for purposes of the article, I will limit myself to 5: 1. Does an Omniscient being fall into a Functionally Divine Category (FDC)? 2. Does an Omnipresent being fall into FDC? 3. Does a being with authority above all authority fall into FDC? 4. Does a being upon which believers call for salvation fall into FDC? 5. Does a being worshiped by all creation fall into FDC?

What on earth is he driving at? He seems to be arguing that Jesus, according to biblical unitarinas, has properties which in principle only the one God could have. Thus, biblical unitarians think Jesus is “Functionally Divine,” which means that they are “Functional Polytheists.” Rather than coining these new and controversial terms, our author might just simply state his accusation like this: biblical unitarians think Jesus is not God, and yet has features that only God can have.

Next he cites a lengthy text to show that God is omniscient (all-knowing). This is a waste of words, of course, because biblical unitarians agree. He then tries to establish that Jesus too is omniscient (all-knowing).

Is Jesus then, omniscient? Perhaps the most striking example is found in John 21:17: “He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep.”

The author evidently think that this asserts that Jesus is literally (and essentially?) omniscient. But it need not be read that way, and should not, in light of Jesus’s straightforward statement that he does not know something which God (aka the Father) knows – which, conveniently, our young apologist ignores.

He then quotes a text which implies that the exalted Jesus can hear believers’ prayers. But this is not relevant; that ability doesn’t come anywhere close to requiring omniscience. Think about it it. Would this ability require you also to know, say, what was happening in Australia in 10,000 BC? Of course not. So, it doesn’t require omniscience.

Furthermore, Christ is said to know all things, including the hearts of men, something ascribed only to God, (1 Kings 8:39); (Revelation 2:23). He is also said to be the only one who knows the Father and reveals him (Matthew 11:27). Many more examples can be brought, but it more than suffices to demonstrate Christ’s divine omniscience.

None of this implies or assumes that Jesus was or is omniscient. He is nowhere taught to know all things, and is in two places directly said not to know something. And we might cite also many other statements about him and portrayals of him that assume that he learns new things and does not know all facts or truths. Frankly, our author doesn’t seem to have a good sense of a what a strong argument is.

Is Christ, therefore omnipresent, as God is?

Here, he quotes texts that say that the exalted Jesus will be with believers. Does this imply omnipresence? Nope! These claims are consistent with Jesus being omnipresent, but don’t imply that he is omnipresent – but this latter is exactly what our author needs to prove his point. It is a waste of time to cite texts merely consistent with the truth of X in an attempt to prove X.

3: Moving to the third point, Christ is said to have a name above every name and authority above all authority.This is exemplified in a plethora of verses: Matthew 28:18 says;  “And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.”Matthew 11:27 says; “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father…”

Right, so obviously God, not Jesus, here is the highest authority, the one who gave this exalted position to Jesus.

Philippians 2:9-10  says;“For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth.” (Read Isaiah 45:23)

Here he omits what Paul immediately says (Philippians 2:11) which is that this is to the glory of God, the Father, which shows that Jesus is someone else, and someone in a lower position that the God who exalted him! God is not worshiped to the glory of any other. (The reason he cites Isaiah 45:23 is because he thinks that since it is being referenced here, this must imply that Jesus is God himself. But it does not; this is an obvious mistake in reading the NT, which I’ve called the fulfillment fallacy.)

Colossians 2:9-10 says;“For in Him all the fullness of Deity (theotetos, what makes God be God) dwells in bodily form,  and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority.”

Our author seems to read this as implying that Jesus has a divine nature and so is God. But just read the rest of the book, which throughout distinguishes Jesus from God. For instance, Jesus “is the image of the invisible God” (1:15) – so, not God. An image of a thing is not that thing.

In NT christology, the risen Jesus has been exalted, yes above all authorities except God. Jesus is still under God. As before, our author ignores obvious counter-evidence. Thus saith Paul,

For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.

1 Cor 15:27-28, NRSV)

4. Moving to the fourth point therefore, Christ is the being upon which Christians call for salvation. [Romans 10:8-13 – more fulfillment fallacy]… Acts 7:59-60 states that Christ receives the spirits of dead Christians…(Read Ecclesiastes 12:7) …1 Corinthians 1:2… (Read 1 Kings 18:24).

Sigh. This young apologist seems to think this is a valid form of argument:

1. Passage 1 says F about God.
2. Passage 2 says F about Jesus.
3. What Passage 1 says is true and what Passage 2 says is true.
4. Therefore, Jesus is God.

4 doesn’t follow from 1-3. Our would-be apologist ought to learn some logic. None of these passages says, assumes, or implies what he thinks.

5. Moving onto the fifth and last point, Jesus is a being worshiped by all creation. [Revelation 5:11-14] [And also angels: Hebrews 1:6 – and by “everyone” Philippians 2:9-10 – fulfillment fallacy: Isaiah 45:23]

In the NT, however, Jesus is worshiped not “as God” (i.e. in the belief that he is God himself). Rather, he is worshiped in addition to God (see Revelation 4-5), and this is to the glory of God (Philippians 2:7). And evidently the reason he is worshiped, is because God has exalted him into a worship-worthy position, as it were “at his (God’s) right hand.”

Conclusion… The purpose of the article was not to demonstrate Christ’s deity…

It’s a good thing! As the author has utterly failed to prove that point, and has demonstrably misread many passages. But what, then, is his point?

…rather, to demonstrate that attributes, actions and powers Christ has are those that would perfectly fall into the definition of a Functionally Divine Being as outlined above, which would make Unitarians, Functional Polytheists, rather than Unitarians. As such, it is my proposition that Unitarianism be properly renamed, “Functional Polytheism” in light of the material presented. May the Triune God be Glorified!

So is Mr. Susic’s point is that we biblical unitarians are committed to someone who is not God, Jesus, having powers that only God could have, and doing actions that only God could do?

To that point our answer is: no, we’re not. We’re committed to NT teaching, and no NT passage teaches that in principle only God himself can, e.g. hear prayers, judge the world, or receive worship. To the contrary, it is explicit that someone other than God has been empowered to do these things. It is only catholic traditions which say that only God himself or only a “Person” with a “divine nature” can do such things. And when they clash, we prefer scripture to catholic theological traditions.

But the above seems not to be his main point. Remember that his main point is, for polemical purposes, to hang the bad-sounding label “Functional Dyotheism” on us. But we saw that this was unclearly defined. If this means that we think that God has given to another powers such that he couldn’t possibly give them to another, then we just deny this based on straightforward NT teaching. That label would not fit our actual views. If it just means that God has authorized his human Son to do things which, otherwise, we would assume that only God would be able to do, then we agree with that. But then, there is no kind of “Dyotheism” or Ditheism in this – that’s a silly label.

He might say, “Ah, but it is Functional Ditheism that I meant!”

Well, in the above sense, this is not any sort of polytheism! To believe in one God who gives another some surprising powers is by definition to believe in one God, so it is by definition a variety of monotheism.

In sum, this article is just a clumsy and ineffective attempt to pin bad-sounding words (“Dyotheism,” or “Ditheism,” or “Polytheism”) onto biblical unitarian views. It is no more effective than calling trinitarians “Functional Hindus” because some Hindus also talk about something sort of resembling a Trinity (the trimurti). Mind you: I am not giving this label to trinitarians – I am saying that it would be silly to do so! Trinitarians are by definition not Hindus!

Let me help out Mr. Susic. Leaving aside the attempt to pin an unwelcome word on us, which is silly, I think he wants to argue like this:

1. Only God can X.
2. The exalted Jesus can X.
3. Therefore, Jesus just is God.

This is a valid argument. But is it sound? For many Xs, we agree with him about premise 2. However, we know there is a serious NT problem with the conclusion 3 (so 1 or 2 must be false). But if Mr. Susic wants to make an argument like this, he needs to convince us that 1 is true. What sort of evidence might there be for 1? 1 could either be self-evident, obviously true (a claim that does not need to be argued for) or it could be taught or implied by scripture. Now he ought to agree with us that no premise 1 (such that the same X makes premise 2 true) is self-evident. So, he’ll need to show us from scripture that 1 is true.

Good luck with that!