{"id":44615,"date":"2024-03-18T21:32:43","date_gmt":"2024-03-19T02:32:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=44615"},"modified":"2024-03-18T21:32:48","modified_gmt":"2024-03-19T02:32:48","slug":"is-new-testament-theology-trinitarian","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/is-new-testament-theology-trinitarian\/","title":{"rendered":"Is New Testament Theology Trinitarian?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Today I had an extended dialogue with apologist <strong>Dane Van Eys <\/strong>on the above question. It was livestreamed for <strong>the <a aria-label=\"Real Seekers (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/realseekerministries.wordpress.com\/2024\/03\/18\/is-new-testament-theology-trinitarian-with-dr-dale-tuggy-dane-van-eys\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" class=\"ek-link\">Real Seekers<\/a> and <a aria-label=\"Faith Unaltered (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@FaithUnaltered\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" class=\"ek-link\">Faith Unaltered<\/a> podcasts<\/strong>. I think it was a productive and friendly conversation. We ranged over logical, theological, historical, and biblical topics.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Below the video are my notes about<strong> identity problems and historical problems <\/strong>for Trinity theories that I all-too-quickly presented. I purposely took a different angle here than in my <a aria-label=\"recent debate with James White (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=ky2SaHscSIo&amp;t=5585s\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" class=\"ek-link\">recent debate with James White<\/a>, presupposing that the listener is willing to think carefully about identity claims. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<div class=\"nv-iframe-embed\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"Is New Testament Theology Trinitarian? (with Dr. Dale Tuggy &amp; Dane Van Eys)\" width=\"1200\" height=\"675\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/q2z5cYpinHI?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe><\/div>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Assumptions<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">We should carefully use our God-given common sense in interpreting the Bible.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">All contradictions are false.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">Appearance of incoherence is strong evidence of falsehood.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">Contradiction-implying readings of the Bible should be an absolute last resort.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Logical properties of the relation <em>numerical identity<\/em> (=), or <em>being numerically the same thing as<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\"><strong>Necessarily reflexive: for any a, a = a.<\/strong>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">Some relations can be reflexive or not: I can make fun of you, but I can also make fun of myself. So the <em>making fun of<\/em> relation can obtain between two things, or between a thing and itself.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">In contrast, the numerical identity relation can <em>only<\/em> obtain between a thing and itself.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\"><strong>Symmetrical<\/strong>: if a = b then it follows that b = a.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">This means it can&#8217;t be that a = b and yet it is false that b = a.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\"><strong>Transitive<\/strong>: if a equals b, and b = c then it follows that a = c.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">It is like many other relations in this way, such as the<em> bigger than<\/em> relation.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\"><strong>Forces absolute indiscernibility<\/strong>: when a = b that means that and b are<em> one and the same thing<\/em> and so a and b cannot differ in any way.\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">It is self-evident that some one thing can&#8217;t be <em>and<\/em> not be a certain way (in the same way, at the same time).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">Of course, we know that things change over time&#8211;I&#8217;m taller than I was in 1980&#8211;but <em>at any given time,<\/em> if a and b are one and the same, then a and b can&#8217;t differ in any way.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">This means that <em>any<\/em> simultaneous difference (no matter how small)&nbsp; proves <em>non<\/em>-identity (numerical distinctness).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In this sense of &#8220;identity&#8221; the NT assumes and implies the identity of the Father with the one God. (I think we agree about this.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Trinitarians assert that each of the Persons &#8220;is God.&#8221;<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Are they thereby <\/strong><strong><em>identifying<\/em><\/strong><strong> each Person with the one God?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It depends! (See my &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/trinity\/\" target=\"_blank\" aria-label=\"Trinity (opens in a new tab)\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" class=\"ek-link\">Trinity<\/a>&#8221; entry in the <em>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy<\/em>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">But <em>if<\/em> they argue like this for the &#8220;deity&#8221; of each, they <em>are<\/em> asserting numerical identity, whether they recognize it or not!<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">Only God is A.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">Jesus is A.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">Therefore, Jesus is God.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This is a <strong>valid argument<\/strong> (the premises imply the conclusion).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>But the logical form of the premises implies that the conclusion is an identity statement<\/strong> (assertion of numerical sameness). Here is a logical partial translation that reveals the hidden structure of 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">For any x, if x is A, then x = g.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">j is A.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">Therefore j = g.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Here are some applications of these insights about identity statements to Trinity theories.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\"><strong>Some Trinity theories commit to f = g and s = g. Theological disaster logically follows<\/strong>. In other words, this is a valid argument:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">f = g&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; trinitarian premise<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">s = g&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; trinitarian premise<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">g = s&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (2, symmetry of =)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">f = s&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (1,3, transitivity of =)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">(Or just: things identical to the same thing must be identical to one another.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">4 is<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">a claim any Trinity theory must deny<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">an expression of heretical modalism<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">contradicted by the NT, which teaches f-s differences.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">But 4 is <em>implied by<\/em> 1 &amp; 2!<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">2. <strong>If, e.g. s = g then it follows that s and g can&#8217;t differ in any way!<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">But the trinitarian also holds that g is tripersonal while the s is not tripersonal, which implies s ? g.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>This also helps us to see how trinitarian orthodoxy clashes with NT teaching.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">g = t&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; core trinitarian claim<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">f ? t&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; implied by f-t qualitative differences<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">f ? g&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (1,2 &#8211; replacing t with g, since they&#8217;re = according to 1)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>This clashes with the New Testament teaching that f = g<\/strong>, e.g. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=John+17%3A1-3%2C+1+Corinthians+8%3A6&amp;version=ESV\">John 17:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:6<\/a>, the greetings in all the Pauline letters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">One way to see this clear teaching f = g, and the clash with Trinity theories:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">f is the god of j.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Many clear texts, e.g. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Rev+3%3A12%2C+John+20%3A17%2C+Eph+1%3A17&amp;version=ESV\">Rev 3:12, John 20:17, Eph 1:17<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">t is a god.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Implied by core trinitarian claim: t is <em>the<\/em> god.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">There is only one god.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Monotheism: taught in many OT &amp; NT texts.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">As I will show, these three premises <strong>imply a contradiction<\/strong>; thus, at least one of 1-3 is false; thus, a Christian must deny at least one of 1-3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">f is the god of j.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Many clear texts, e.g. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Rev+3%3A12%2C+John+20%3A17%2C+Eph+1%3A17&amp;version=ESV\">Rev 3:12, John 20:17, Eph 1:17<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">t is a god.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Implied by core trinitarian claim: t is <em>the<\/em> god.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">There is only one god.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Monotheism: taught in many OT &amp; NT texts.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">f is a god.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; (from 1)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">The one god is both tripersonal and not tripersonal. (2-4)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">At least one of 1-3 is false.&nbsp;&nbsp; (from 1-5)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Which should a Christian deny?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">f is the god of j.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Many clear texts, e.g. <a href=\"https:\/\/www.biblegateway.com\/passage\/?search=Rev+3%3A12%2C+John+20%3A17%2C+Eph+1%3A17&amp;version=ESV\">Rev 3:12, John 20:17, Eph 1:17<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">t is a god.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Implied by core trinitarian claim: t is <em>the<\/em> god.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">There is only one god.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Monotheism: taught in many OT &amp; NT texts.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">It&#8217;s a clear-cut case of Scripture (1,3) vs. post-biblical tradition (2). Therefore, a Protestant should deny 2.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Is belief in a tripersonal god a <\/strong><strong><em>post-biblical<\/em><\/strong><strong> tradition?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Both NT studies and the history of theology tell us that the answer is Yes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>No NT term or phrase was then understood to refer to a tripersonal god, e.g. <\/strong><strong><em>theos<\/em><\/strong><strong>.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In the 100s and 200s there were plenty of speculations about Jesus&#8217; pre-human existence, and his being divine in some way or other.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">But they still had no term for a tripersonal god &#8211; not even <em>trias<\/em> (Greek) and <em>trinitas<\/em> (Latin). Each of those was used only as a plural referring term, for the one god plus two other beings. (compare: the gang)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>Mainstream Christian theology c. 230<\/strong>, the heyday of Origen (Alexandria, then Caesarea) and Novatian (Rome): three groups in the (non-gnostic) mainstream,<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\">Logos theorists: f = g, s (or l) &amp; h lesser &#8220;divine&#8221; beings, a.k.a. lesser gods<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">Modalistic monarchians: f = s (and = h?)<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">Dynamic monarchians: f = g, s a man in whom g\/f worked by his power<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li class=\"\">(trinitarians MIA)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This only changes by some time after 350, deep into the so-called &#8220;Arian&#8221; controversy, where we see <strong>two new word meanings <\/strong>emerge:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\"><em>trias, trinitas<\/em> as singular referring terms for the tripersonal God<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li class=\"\"><em>theos, deus<\/em> now used not only for f, s, and h, but also for t<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">These uses only become widespread after the enforcement of the 381 creed, the first (implicitly) trinitarian creed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\"><strong>These new meanings go hand-in-hand with a new idea.<\/strong> Stung by constant accusations of tritheism (the Nicene adherent holds that each of three different beings has all it takes to be a god)&#8211;see the works of Basil on this&#8211;they urged that <em>somehow<\/em> the Person are, or are all &#8220;in&#8221; one and the same god.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On this see my free online published paper: &#8220;<a href=\"https:\/\/ojs.uclouvain.be\/index.php\/theologica\/article\/view\/23773\" target=\"_blank\" aria-label=\"When and How in the History of Theology Did the Triune God Replace the Father as the Only True God? (opens in a new tab)\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" class=\"ek-link\">When and How in the History of Theology Did the Triune God Replace the Father as the Only True God?<\/a>&#8221; <em>Theologica<\/em> 4:2 (2020).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Their claim was highly obscure then, and clashed with Scripture, and <a href=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/podcast-302-the-stages-of-trinitarian-commitment\/\" target=\"_blank\" aria-label=\"things haven't changed down to this day (opens in a new tab)\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" class=\"ek-link\">things haven&#8217;t changed down to this day<\/a>. But NT theology stands just fine on its own.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>A dialogue with trinitarian apologist Dane Van Eys on Trinity, identity, history, and the New Testament.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":44616,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[37,21,16,15,54,100,4,14,33,10,101,9,43,53],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-44615","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-apologetics","category-bible","category-books","category-christology","category-debates","category-dynamic-monarchian","category-heresy-orthodoxy","category-history","category-incarnation","category-logic","category-modalistic-monarchian","category-philosophy","category-unitarianism","category-worship"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44615","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=44615"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44615\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":44618,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/44615\/revisions\/44618"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/44616"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=44615"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=44615"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=44615"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}