the sophistical Jude 4 argument

Before my debate with Dr. Brown, someone tipped me off that Dr. Brown had been advised to use the argument I discuss below. I read it and thought – surely not! Surely a scholar like Dr. Brown won’t try to use such a confused line of reasoning. He did though, briefly – and it fell flat. Here, an instructive look at an attempt by young apologist Vladimir Susic to show that biblical unitarian theology is incoherent (self-contradictory). The piece doesn’t start well:

Unitarian Scholars like Dr Dale Tuggy like to make deductive arguments trying to put forth that doctrines of a Multipersonal Deity, such as that of The Trinity would be in some way Illogical because of the Law of identity.

Nope! This is a common misunderstanding of my work. My point all along has been that Trinity theories are late and many. And because the many Trinity theories differ, it is pointless to object that “The Trinity” is incoherent. Some Trinity theories are demonstrably incoherent, others are not. Of course, like other biblical unitarians, my main concern is not coherence but rather fit with scripture.

…the goal of today’s article is to show that the doctrine of Biblical Unitarianism… is purely illogical based on deductive argumentation derived from certain Biblical passages. The passages in mind today will be Jude 1:4 and 1 Corinthians 8:6. These passages state that Jesus is “The only Sovereign Lord” and “One Lord” respectively.

Here then, comes the first Anti-Unitarian deduction…

1. Jesus is our only Sovereign and Lord (Jude 1:4)
2. Unitarianism is true (Optionally False Premise)
3. Since only one Person is God (thus Father and Son do not share attributes…), Father could not possibly be our only Sovereign and Lord.
4. If the Father is not our only Sovereign and Lord he could not possibly be God
5. Conclusion: Therefore either Unitarianism is NOT true (Optionally False Premise is Factually False) or Father is not God (Optionally False Premise is NOT False but True)

This argument is poorly put together, and is not clearly valid – 5 doesn’t seem to follow from 1-4. He goes on to say that every premise but 2 is self-evident, which shows that he doesn’t know what “self-evident” means. This argument clarifies nothing. Our young apologist needs to learn what a valid argument is.

I think he means to argue something like this:

1. Unitarians must accept that Jesus is our only Lord. (Jude 1:4).
2. Unitarians must accept that the Father is our only Lord. (scripture)
3. Unitarians must deny that Jesus and the Father are the same being. (definition of unitarian theology)
4. Unitarians affirm of two different beings, that each is the only Lord. (1-3)
5. Unitarians are committed to incoherent claims. (4)

Here, we have a valid argument. Hence, one must either affirm the conclusions (4,5) or deny at least one premise (1-3). We of course accept 3. We would simply point out that the NT term “Lord” is ambiguous. It can be used of God, and of the exalted Jesus. In these last days two rule over us: the Lord God, and under him, the Lord Jesus. If you like, call these two meanings of “Lord” Lord1 and Lord2. Then we can see the mistake in the above argument. Let’s go through different ways to remove the ambiguity. If Lord1 is meant in premise 1, then we deny premise 1. If Lord2 is meant in premise 2, we deny premise 2. But for the argument to be valid (for 4 to follow from 1-3, we must used “Lord” in the same sense in 1 and 2). But however we do that, we get an argument that anyone has strong biblical reasons to reject as unsound (because of a false premise, either 1 or 2).

Now, what’s unusual about Jude 4 is the application of “Master” (or “Sovereign” – Gr. despotes) to Jesus. This is unusual in the NT explains the textual variants here (see note 20 here). Those scribes, not wanting the reader (like some ancient monarchians) to confuse together Jesus and God, tried to clarify by adding the word “God.” (Reflected in the KJV’s translation.) But of course there is no problem with calling both God and Jesus “Master,” any more than there is a problem with calling each “Lord” – so long as we make clear which one is meant!

Here’s how our young apologist presses his objection:

From my experience in defending the aforementioned deduction, Unitarians, like Dr. Tuggy, in desperation, knowing that the only premise that could plausibly be twisted in some way is Premise 1, have tried stating that Jesus is just our Lord in the human, Kingly sense. That he is a Human, enthroned in Heaven ruling over us. Completely ignoring that this is utterly blasphemous….

Well, Mr. Susic has a problem with the NT here, not so much with us! He just refuses to accept that God has exalted this man, his unique Messiah and servant, to his right hand.

He gives another version of his argument above in relation to 1 Corinthians 8:6. But this again just ignores the obvious ambiguity of “Lord” in the NT. Sometimes it is used of God, and sometimes it is used of the Son of God, the man Jesus. (See the various meanings in the lexicon entry for kurios here.)

Lexicons are our friends. Let us gladly accept their help. Logic too is a gift from God. Let’s learn it and argue clearly.