Didn’t see the debate? It is now posted in full here, in HD TV quality, thanks to Sharon Gill.
Here’s my whole opening statement, in printable form. I focus on clear, central, and unambiguous NT claims. I know, even though Dr. Brown vehemently denies it, that texts like John 1, Colossians 1, Philippians 2, and Hebrews 1 are and long have been debated by serious scholars as to their proper interpretations. I chose to lead with a consideration of some pan-New-Testament facts.
To whet your appetite, here are the six facts I presented, facts which would be surprising if the NT authors are trinitarians, but would be expected if they are unitarians. Thus, they provide strong evidence that those authors were not trinitarians, but rather unitarians, holding the one God to be the Father alone.
- All four gospels feature a “mere man” compatible main thesis.
- In the New Testament, the word “God” nearly always refers to the Father, while no word there refers to the Trinity.
- In the New Testament only the Father and the man Jesus are worshiped.
- That God is triune or tripersonal is never a clear assertion of any passage in the NT; core Jewish theology is always assumed.
- There is no trace of any first century controversy about whether or not Christian theology is truly monotheistic.
- No New Testament author lifts a finger to limit or qualify clear implications of the Son’s limitations.
From what I remember, correct me if I’m wrong:
- Dr. Brown ignored #1.
- Dr. Brown merely simply asserted, implausibly, that #2 would not be surprising if the NT authors were unitarians, despite the examples of all undeniably trinitarian authors since c. 400 A.D.
- He inadequately addressed #3, ignoring the lack of worship of the Trinity as such, and sort of suggesting that the Holy Spirit should not (yet?) be an object of worship, along the way contentiously asserting that the NT demands that God and his Son get “the same” worship.
- He ignored #4, being content with his many (often contentious and disputable) deductions. To him, that God is a Trinity is an obvious implication of the NT – a view which I hold to be refuted by the fact that there are no trinitarians, no believers in three equally divine persons who are the one God, in church history until the late 300s. About this fact, he just denies it, waving the standard apologists’ list of 2nd c. “fathers” who apply terms like “God” or “a god” to the Son (or the Logos). He simply does not know that Justin, Tertullian, and other “two stage” logos theorists hold that the Logos came into existence just before creation, and is in various ways less divine than the Father.
- He denied #5 on the inadequate grounds that Jesus’s opponents in John claim that he was making himself a god (or God) and that he was claiming to be equal to God. Of course, those charges are wholly compatible with Jesus saying and teaching exactly what biblical unitarians think he taught. (And we should probably consider in this connection the charges brought against Jesus at his trials, according to the gospels. Do you see evidence of the relevant sort of controversy there?)
- About #6, I think he supposes that some two-natures theory and/or some kenosis theory will show how a fully divine being can be limited in power and knowledge, and dependent on another, etc. He doesn’t seem to have developed views on those topics. But more importantly, it’s not clear how those later theories would be to the point. I don’t think he’s really grappled with the significance of fact #6. The NT writers never say or imply or presuppose that it was “as God” that he was unlimited, while “as man” he was limited – whatever such a distinction might mean. (And it might mean several things!)
All in all, I don’t think Dr. Brown put a significant dent in this evidence; he just preferred to go back to what I call the canon within the canon – that set of texts by which it is traditional to argue for “the deity of Christ” – with a few twists. Of course, these facts are part of the wider context of the NT, and they will be relevant to how we read various passages. In particular, #1 should cause us not to go wild in making deductions from, e.g. the “I am” statements.
Pingback: An Observation About the Tuggy-Brown Debate | Analogical Thoughts
Tuggy was irenic, collected and as articulate as can possibly be, as is his consistent custom.
I wasn’t impressed by his opponent. Brown was unwilling to be clear about what he thought the “Bible clearly teaches”. Given the endless schisms within Christianity, indeed even within evangelicalism, it’s clear the Bible isn’t especially “clear” about anything (so help out your sympathetic listeners by answering your opponent’s questions). The unclarity was convenient because it makes him look like a Biblicist (which many Christians mistake as a virtue) and it means Tuggy had to address literally every possible view that might be under a trinitarian umbrella. It stunted the debate before it really started. I think he would have unravelled entirely on the matter of Jesus’ death had there been more time. Shotgunned prooftexts was another obvious way he buried Tuggy in noise. Polemicists and philosophers don’t belong in the same ring. The result was predictable, but no less unfortunate.
Thank you for teaching me the word “irenic”!
Dr. Brown has written over 30 books, as I understand. I imagine his trinitarian beliefs are scattered throughout the pages of every one of those books. So, outside of a modern day “Road of Damascus” experience, Dr. Brown beliefs have been firmly cemented. Dr. Brown’s client for the debate was the Trinity. His client is obviously guilty. As we know, the guiltier the client, the greater the defense is required. Not unlike the first OJ Simpson trial, the lie of the Trinity is preserved by an all star team of attorney’s & a very sympathetic modern day church jury.
I think that the greatest problem with debates like these is that on one side you typically have a real scholar who is committed to textual, historical, and logical facts, coupled with serious thinking about the subject, against the other side who has no firm commitment to history, logic, and serious textual analysis. It is a fact-versus-feelings argument. The Trinitarians FEEL that their verses, when piled high and strung together, are solid proof. Arguing at a scholarly level is irrelevant to most Trinitarians.
I have had the same scenario with my family, which has several Trinitarian preachers. When I bring up history or logic they just shrug their shoulders and smugly say, “Who cares? Historians are often wrong and logic will vary from person to person. We have the Scriptures on our side, and that is all we need! Case closed.” There is no interest in seriously checking the facts or analyzing the texts. Debating with 99% of Trinitarians needs to be done on a text by text basis. Until they see the textual errors, no amount of history or logic will budge them.
KevinG,
People generally have to be at a place in their journey where they are willing to reconsider the evidence. A debate like this is probably not going to be sufficient to change anyone’s mind on either side. There are no winners or losers; it’s a step in the process of encouraging the discussion to continue.
Rivers 🙂
In my opinion Brown won this debate. Although Tuggy is a brilliant school and a profound philospher, Brown seemed to be the better master of the format at hand. I am sure that with enough time, Tuggy would be able to tear apart Browns arguments, however he was not able to do that in this debate. Furthermore, Brown seemed much more passionate and convicted that he is fighting for an important cause, while Tuggy seemed aloof. Moreover I think Tuggy and other Unitarians need to lose some of that dryness for future debates. It might not matter when writing books or blog posts, but when debating live, HOW you say things is almost more important than WHAT you say.
As when Brown and White debated Buzzard a few years ago, the Trinitarians were also able to bring a few arguments that the Unitarians don’t have a short and ready answer for:
1. Allusion to the Lord on the Throne in Isaiah. John 12.41
2. Jesus as creator. Hebrews 1.2
3. Father in to your hands I committ my Spirit. Luke 23.46.
I think Unitarians should come up with some pointed answers to counter these arguments, instead of seeming hesitant and annoyed. Brown was clever in not replying to the the logical challenges, or the discussing the fact that the vast majority of the NT clearly thinks of Jesus as a subordinate person to the God the Father. Instead he managed to shift focus to the verses he knows are most difficult for the Unitarian position.
Wagner, regarding these verses, here is my short version to explain how I see them:
John. 12:41 is resolved by showing the same passage in Acts 28:25-27 where Paul says the same thing and attributes the speaker to the Holy Spirit (another proof that the Father is often the Holy Spirit, not a third person). John 12:38-41 is John’s personal commentary, showing the same pattern of behavior seen by Paul and Isaiah regarding the hardness of people’s hearts to the truth. God’s glory was on display through Jesus (Acts 2:22), yet they refused to give God glory. Verse 41 probably should be translated “these said Isaiah when he saw his [Yahweh’s] glory and spoke of it (not “him”).” Jesus said “I do not glorify myself, but honor my Father” (my paraphrase of Jn. 8:49-50). God was supposed to be receiving glory due to His works through Jesus, but most refused, hence John’s comments.
Hebrews 1:2 The key word here is “di” in Greek, which can mean “by occasion of, of, by reason of, for sake of”, and other meanings as well. In which case, it could read, “for sake of whom also He [Yahweh] made the ages.”
Luke 23:46 “And Jesus, crying out with a loud voice, said, “Father, into Your hands I commit My spirit.” Having said this, He breathed His last.”
The word for “spirit” here is “pneuma” in Greek, literally “breath”. Struggling on the cross, death is normally by slow asphyxiation. Every breath is a desperate gasp for life, especially as the body is losing strength. At last He can breath no longer and has to give up trying. He gives His breath to God, the one who granted it. The verse has nothing to do with a ghost/spirit leaving his body.
Mark 15:37 records it this way, “Now Jesus, letting out a loud sound, expires.” (Concordant Literal Version).
Dr. Tuggy,
I watched the debate and wanted to pass along a few comments. First and foremost, I commend your effort and appreciate you taking this on. I especially appreciate that you did not react in kind to Dr. Brown’s condescension and emotional rhetoric but tried to keep addressing facts and not simply defend your position with the “it is so clear and obvious” statement that seems to always be at the heart of Dr. Brown’s exegesis. Being familiar with Dr. Brown’s work for a long time, I consider him to be a passionate evangelist/activist much more than a serious scholar, and I think you got a good taste of that the other night as he failed to seriously engage with your positions but instead often chose to bluster and filibuster with lists of “clear” verses.
One question: Could you explain why you chose not to take your cross-exam time to layout your challenge from episode 124 or #248 to Dr. Brown. I thought that would have been an effective way to expose his position and hone in tightly on the real issues. I thought that is what you were previewing on #248.
One quick thought on exegesis to consider: Dr. Brown kept referring to Jesus as the alpha and omega in Rev. 22:13. Context and antecedent pronouns demonstrate that all of the alpha and omega passages refer to God, never to Jesus. Jesus is the first and last, the living one that was dead in Rev. 1:17.
It is quite easy to demonstrate that God is: the one on the throne; the one who is, was, and is to come; is coming quickly; the one coming on the clouds; the beginning and the end; the one whom the tribes of the land pierced; the one who will repay every deed, the one who gives the rigth to eat from the tree of life.
Lastly, have you considered interviewing any Jewish scholars on the nature of God in the Hebrew Bible and 2nd Temple literature? I think they can help shed some important light on many of the tortured Christian readings.
PS: My favorite M.L.B. quote from the debate is @ 1:11:14: “Just trying to use biblical language, that’s all I’m good at.”
Revelation 22:13 is actually a reference to Jesus. He says, “Look! I am coming soon!” in v. 12, and in v. 20 John quotes Jesus as having previously said it and replies by saying, “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus!”
If you look at the book of Isaiah, God explains that he’s present from the beginning and will be there at the very end (Isaiah 41:4 and 48:12), which explains meaning of the title, “The first and the last” (44:6). Jesus appropriates for himself that title, which strongly suggests that he’s existed (at least) since the first generation of Israel. Tuggy might take that title as referring to the ‘new’ creation, but it’s a strained reading.
Speaking of New Creation, Hebrews 1:10 mentions that the heavens and earth that were founded “in the beginning” were to perish. How are those a ‘New Creation’? The author seems to be referring to the current heavens and earth. I can’t think of any reference to a ‘New Creation’ that isn’t referring to the eschatological New Heavens and New Earth. The inauguration of the Kingdom of God by Jesus during his ministry or after his resurrection is never equated to a ‘New Creation’, only humans are described that way.
I suppose on Tuggy’s view Colossians 1:1-17 is alleged to be a prime example of just that.
Hi Ariel,
I would encourage you to look again at Rev 21-22. In general, one looks for the identity of a pronoun within the context preceding the sentence in question, not after it. Rev. 22:9 ends with “worship God,” followed by “and He said…” The “He” must either be the messenger or God. Jesus is nowhere in that passage.
Jesus is the firstborn from the dead, which is what is referred to in 1:17-18. Jesus is the first fruits from the dead and the last Adam (1 Cor. 15:45). That is what the context is about.
The main subject in Rev 22:1-15 is God. Everything mentioned there is in reference to what God does, not Jesus. They can all be traced to God throughout Rev. and the Tnakh. Rev. 1:4-5 tells you exactly who the one who is and was and is to come is and that He is God, not Jesus. There is a reason it says God is to come. The coming of God is in reference to His judgment and often spoken of as coming with clouds or on clouds, wind, storms etc. These are standard metaphors in the Hebrew Scriptures but should not be confused with the son of man in Dan. 7 (or Jesus’ references to that in the NT) who comes to heaven on the clouds to sit a the right hand of God.
Hi Ariel, In Colossians 1:16 the Greek says “in (Gr. “en”) Him were created…”. It does not say “by Him”. Furthermore, the verb “created” is passive, which further proves that Jesus is not the creator, but someone else (Yahweh). Reading on, you will see at the end of the verse that the one creating did it “through” or “on account of” (Gr. “di”) Jesus, and “into” (Gr. “eis”) Jesus, meaning into His possession. Yahweh is the one who is doing all these things to exalt and glorify His Son.
I wonder if it would have been a good idea for Dale to have challenged Dr B, in his opening statement, about what Trinity theory he held. Three self, one self or impersonal ‘nature’ shared by three Persons, or something else maybe?
Is the one God of the Bible all three Persons (in modern sense) together (ie a ‘They’), or one Person in three ‘modes’ (ie a ‘He’) or the Divine Nature (ie an ‘It’)?
This question could have exposed Dr B’s apparent confusion on this important point.
As it was, Dale was left to assuming what Brown believed, and could not get there until the cross-examination.
La armonia escritural es indispensable para una comprension correcta de las dictrinas biblicas;¿como podemos atribuirle a YHWH nuestro unico y buen Dios y Padre una doctrina “Trinitaria” que no se encuentra testificada en las escrituras;recordando que “estas” dicen que YHWH DIOS no hara nada sin que lo revele su “secreto”(¿misterio?)a sus siervos los profetas (Amos3:7)y su comprension es por decir lo menos confusa ;recordando que YHWH Dios “no es un Dios de “confusion”(1Co14:33);Shalom hermano desde Chimbote -Ancash -Peru.
Gracias, Juan!
Por mis amigos Americanos, Google Translate dice:
Scriptural harmony is essential for a correct understanding of the biblical dictrines, how can we attribute to YHWH our only and good God and Father a “Trinitarian” doctrine that is not witnessed in the scriptures, remembering that “these” say that YHWH GOD he will not do anything without revealing his “secret” (mystery?) to his servants the prophets (Amos3: 7) and his understanding is to say the least confusing, remembering that YHWH God “is not a God of” confusion “( 1Co14: 33); Shalom brother from Chimbote -Ancash -Peru.
Comments are closed.