No TrinityInBible,
1). Regarding your response method. I would ask of you, as I did of HiddenNChrist2, that your replied be able to stand on their own and you not merely insert comments into my own texts. This method is very difficult to respond since your statements are scattered and often not coherent. I would also appreciate scriptural support with exegesis and elaboration of your points. So far, you have given me plenty of statements but have not tied them together in an argument (premises leading to a conclusion). At one point in your last response you criticize me for not being able to respond to your arguments. Frankly, I am still waiting for an argument. I will deal with this in another point.
2) In regards to your Ad hominem/personal attacks. I was pretty sure that we agreed that there would be no personal attacks in our approach to each other, yet I was able to find a total of five ad hominems:
These are absolutely not appreciated. If you are so wise in all these matters that
I am not, then it is your responsibility to enlighten us who are not. But if all you will do is criticize and not
build up (edify), then you are only compared to one who destroys. But Scriptures says that our words should
edify others (Ephesians
2. Regarding CARICATURES of the doctrine of the Trinity. You said,
It was my understanding, from yourself, that
you understood the doctrine of the Trinity.
But these assertions of your show that you do not.
These are not what I believe and you would search in vain in my writings that I
have said these things! If you know the
doctrine of the Trinity, as you say you do, then you should know that the
proposition, “God is His own Son” is not in any Trinitarian works or
Creeds. Jesus is the Son of the Father
and both are God. That is the
Trinitarian understanding! Not one being
their own Father or Son. That I am saying that God had a little baby. To my knowledge, I said that I was a Reformed
Protestant and not a Mormon. That God
doesn’t have blood. If you read my paper
correctly, within the doctrine of the Trinity, I asserted that the second
member of the Trinity, God who became a man, shed His blood for the remission
of sins. I never asserted that a “spirit
being” shed blood. A man shed His blood
who was fully God at the same time. That
is the Trinitarian belief. That YHWH
doesn’t change: I never said that He “changes” into the son or at all. In fact, if you read my paper, you would see
that in the exegesis of Hebrews 1:10-12 and Psalm 102:25-27, I asserted the
immutability of God. Sabellianism,
rather, teaches that God “changes” form to become the Son or the Spirit. I have not asserted Sabellianism
at all.
4. Regarding Straw man arguments.
a) all the caricatures (see above). When you argue against a straw man/caricature , you have NOT refuted the point that I made since you are arguing against your own created point.
b) “Purgatory? Transubstantiation? Etc…” (pg. 2) I never argued those doctrines came from Scripture…I thought I made it clear that I was a Reformed Protestant, which puts me far from Roman Catholicism in terms of soteriology and authority for doctrine. Yes, I stand with them on the doctrine of the Trinity, but not for the same reasons. Myself, from the Scriptures alone; them from Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
c) “Please don’t try to prove an entire doctrine of a plural nature of God with a Hebrew…” (pg. 2) Notice I said, “on a side note”. Right away, this should hint that I am not making an argument from this, nor would I ever attempt to. Again, these types of responses lead me to believe my paper is not being read thoroughly or with understanding of what it is that I am saying.
d) “Please tell me that you know that the Jews never thought that their God was a plural being.” I have never argued that the Trinity was a Jewish doctrine! Nor have I based my arguments for the Trinity on O.T. Scriptures. The Trinity is an exclusively Christian doctrine. What I have argued from O.T. passages of Scripture is that N.T. writers have applied passages that, in the O.T., refered to YHWH to the person of Jesus Christ. I have gone no further than that from O.T. passages. I have also offered refutation on your understanding of “elohim” as used in Exodus 7:1 and Psalm 82:6. But I have not argued from any of those passages the Doctrine of the Triune personality of God. Again, please read my paper thoroughly.
e) “There is no concept of Christ being a GodMan nor of a Triune God to be found here…” (pg. 3). I was not even arguing that, thus I will not even attempt to respond to that.
f) “God is not an heir, God already has all things…” (pg. 3) I have not argued that God does not own all things! Your deficient understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity has lead you to beat against the air here. I totally believe with Psalm 24:1 that the “earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof…” What on earth lead you to believe that I did not believe that? That is not even our topic.
g) “You are completely ignoring what ‘appointed heir’ means in v2…” (pg. 5) I am not ignoring it at all. I have not even argued from it. I am in v8-12 at this point in the paper and these are able to stand on their own and sufficiently to teach about the supremacy of Christ.
h) “…but you just said that
earlier…” (pg 5) If you read what I said, I said that the
Psalm was more than likely a coronation ceremony for the king of
i) “it doesn’t change the nature of God as you Trinitarians are trying to do…” (pg. 6). Nobody is attempting to change the nature of God; that’s impossible. What we are all doing , or should be doing, is understanding what God has revealed to us about His own nature in the sole place where He reveals Himself to us today: the Holy Scriptures. I have offered plenty so far; you have offered none on the nature of God. You have only used texts to assert that there were others who were gods and saviors, but these say nothing about the nature of the one true God.
5. In regards to the accusation of “begging the question” You accuse me of “circular reasoning” (begging the question) on page 6 where you say, “you are using the Deity of Christ to prove the Deity of Christ.”
a) First, your presupposition about me is that I believed the doctrine of the Trinity irrationably (you mention that “preacher have taught it to me; surprisingly, at best I have heard no more than 10 sermons on the deity of Christ in my eight years as a Christian and I have yet to hear one single sermon on the Trinity).
b) Begging the question fallacy. To commit the fallacy of “begging the question” is to assume a premise or using your conclusion as a premise. Essentially it is an argument that is missing/assuming the crucial premise. Your accusation, then, of circular reasoning, is saying that I am essentially arguing: I know that Jesus Christ is God because I have been taught that Jesus Christ is God, therefore, He must be God. My friend, your charge is without warrant. If you would have truly read my paper, you would notice the logical flow of my argument that is embedded within the paper in my arguments for the Deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit. I will put the argument in a non-exegetical form so that you will see that I am not begging the question.
(1) Only God is the Creator of all that exists (Gen. 1:1)
(2) Christ always existed before creation (“the beginning”, cf. John 1:1)
(3) If only God created, and Christ was with God before creation then:
a) Christ existed before Creation (John 1:1)
b) Christ must have been active in Creation (John 1:2-3, Col. 1:15-17)
(4) If God eternally existed before creation (Psalm 90:1-2), and Christ was with God before Creation, then Christ shares in the eternal nature with God.
(5) Now, if it is true that there is only one true God (Monotheism) and the Father is clearly a partaker in this substance that is the one true God (see my first paper intro) and Christ has the same attributes as this person (Creator, eternal), then it must be that these 2 persons share the same substance as God together.
(6) It cannot be that both Christ and the Father are both distinct Gods (2 creators and 2 eternal beings) for if that they are two beings is true, then one must abandon the truth of monotheism (Isaiah 40-48, Deut. 6:4).
(7) But Monotheism is essential to Biblical theism, thus, it may not be abandoned at any cost.
(8) Thus, in order to still hold to monotheism AND that the Father and Jesus Christ are both creators and eternal, one must maintain that these are of the same substance/essence/ being that is God.
(9) Thus, within the Godhead (so far) there are two persons who share in the one being that is God. Both are co-creators and co-eternal.
Such logic, my friend, is hardly begging the question. This is the argument that runs through both my papers that I have responded with at length thus far, albeit this is only the one for the doctrine of Christ, the arguments for the Deity of the Spirit are similar in that I compare the attributes of the one true God alone and show that the Holy Spirit has several of them in common with God that are God’s alone [incommunicable]. If that is true, then the Holy Spirit must be fully God as well and, thus, share in the Divinity of the Godhead. From there, I put them together and assert three persons in the one being that is God. Only a surface glance at my work would yield an accusation that I am begging the question. As a philosophy minor, logic is certainly something I am familiar with, trained in and something that I thoroughly enjoy as I read logic books for fun. As such, I know how to be logical and avoid fallacious argumentation in my works.
6) Regarding your assertion that “I am unable to respond to [your] points or Hidden’s so far.” Sir, I have been responding at length!!!! So far I have written almost 20 pages (not including this work) of material to both you’re your 5 pages.
Again, I ask you to respond with exegesis and with an argument (premises leading to a conclusion). So far it has been difficult to respond to you since you only offer negative statements with proof or exegesis of interpretation or understanding. I have been responding. Perhaps not in the manner that you see fit but that does not mean that I am not responding. My responses, so far, have been exegetical. Yours have simply been something to the effect of “No, that’s wrong”; “Wow! You believe that?!”; “No, that can’t be true” ; “No, you’re making that up.” What am I supposed to respond to these kinds of assertions? How do I critique them back? They are simply statements with no support either in Scripture or with justification. Instead, they proceed from presuppositions that what I say can’t be right, no matter what justification I offer for them. The lack of satisfactory response, I believe, does not lie with my responses but with your lack of clarity in what I am to respond to.
I do with to respond to certain portions of your paper because they deal with some simple grammar and syntax of the Scriptures that, I feel, was overlooked or not taken in to consideration.
a)
Regarding Matt. 16, I asked, “what is the substantive difference with
that confession and what the other apostles said?” to which, you
said, “The [difference] is that Jesus was not the people that were
listed.” I think something has been
overlooked in your understanding of the text here. Namely, that Jesus is not those prophets of
old that were listed is the obvious. The
problem with such an understanding and assertion is that it totally avoids the
context, especially Jesus’ assertion to Peter:
‘Blessed art thou Simon bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed
this to you, but My Father in heaven.”
The problem with “the obvious” is that if Peter’s recognition was “the
obvious” then how can Jesus say, “flesh and blood has not revealed this to
you”? The assertion that “Jesus is not
the people that were listed” can be deduced my mere logical inference and
reason. These are things that are “flesh
and blood.” It is knowledge that can be
deduced by man. If that is really what
is happening here, then how can Jesus say, that “the Father in heaven” REVEALED
it to him? Also, I don’t think that the
saving confession of the Church is “Jesus is not the people listed by the
apostles”. That makes no sense. What is so special about the understanding
that Jesus is not those listed that merits a blessing on Peter? What is the significance of Jesus building
his Church on the understanding that “he is not those listed by the
apostles”? I think your answer really
overlooks and ignores the context – both preceding and proceeding.
b) Regarding “sons of God”. You assert that we are sons by adoption. I agree.
That the angels are called “sons of God” (B’nai Ha Elohim) I agree. That
the angels and us are “sons of God” in the same sense as Christ? I would certainly disagree. Again, bring out Hebrews 1:5-14, here is an
argument for the supremacy of Christ over angels and uniqueness of the sonship
of Christ to God the Father.
Furthermore, I think it can be added to that argument, that God has
never said from heaven, “this is My beloved Son in
whom I am well pleased” (Matt.
c) Some further comments on Colossians 1:15-17
that will help support my assertions over yours. You assert that the context is of the “resurrection
of Jesus Christ” and this would mean that Christ is “resurrecting all of
Creation.” I obviously do not agree
with the context because I think you completely ignore the background of the
Gnostic heresy that prompted the letter to the Colossians.
Gnosticism, at least one
form of it, taught that matter was evil.
Gnosticism rejected the God of the O.T. because if matter was evil and
the God of the O.T. created the world, then He must be evil as well. This is indeed what the Gnostics of the time believed. J.N.D. Kelly’s work, “Early Christian Doctrine” is extremely helpful in understanding the
background to this work as well as Phillip Schaff’s “History of the Christian Church,” vol 1. Because matter is evil in Gnosticism, there was the
tendency to think that Christ could not have been “God in the flesh” , for if matter was evil, then the true God could not appear
in a medium that was evil. Here,
Gnostics affirmed that Christ was a mere “spirit” that looked like a man or
that the Christ-spirit came up Jesus at the baptism and left him before the
death on the cross. In order to combat
the Gnostic heresy that was creeping into the Church, Paul affirms that Christ
is also responsible for the creation of all that exist (“all things” –
spiritual and material “visible and invisible”, etc…). Understanding Gnosticism is the key to the
context of Colossians. Any good N.T.
survey work will also help to see that this is the historical background of the
work.
That
this passage is about the “resurrection of all of Creation.” The text will not bear this interpretation or
understanding at all. If that is what
the text is about and that has not happened yet, then that event is a future
event. If it is a future event, why does
Paul use the aorist tense (past tense) of the verb “to create” and the perfect tense. Let me give
the significance of each of those. The
aorist tense denote past tense
completed action. It signifies that
something has happened once. The perfect
tense denotes an action which took place in the past and is “perfected” or still has lasting effects at the time of
the speaking, or the present time. Now,
in light of these two past tense usages of the verb “to create” (aorist and
perfect tenses), how can the text bear a future tense understanding of
something that Christ will do? Does not
the text clearly say something that Christ has already done and completed –
namely, that He has created and His creation still exists to this day? Your assertion is simply a grammatical error
that the text will not support at all.
About
the mention of “resurrection” in the context. I simply do not know how you can assert that
a “resurrection” is in mind since the word or the concept of it is not even
mentioned until verse 18! Even then, the
description of the nature of Christ in verse 15-20 are
intended to assert His primacy. The
mention of Christ being the “firstborn over all creation” is not intended to
say that Christ was created for then Paul would be contradicting himself in the
very next verses where He asserts that “all things” created were made by Him
and through Him and for Him. How can
Christ create “all things” if He is Himself a creature according to your
doctrine of Christ? How can something
create itself when it did not exist before the moment of creation? The mention of Christ being the “firstborn
from the dead” is simply to show that Christ has “preeminence” in all
things. And he does this by being the
first to be resurrected even before the saints and prophets of old. Thus, By creating
all things material, and being the first to be resurrected from the dead,
Christ has the preeminence in all things, over creation and over the Church –
God’s spiritual creation.
d) Regarding the Acts 20:28 text. You say, “When you study this verse with your
Greek Concordance, you will find that the earlier word is "kurios" and was later changed to "theos" buy the Roman Church Scribes. So the correct
translation is "Lord" not "God." First, I am lead to
believe that you have never seen the Greek text on this. Why I say this is because “theos” is not the word used here. It is “theou” which
is the genitive rendering of “theos”. This has grammatical and lexical
significance. Interestingly enough, I
looked at my Greek Bible and the textual notes that it has on the bottom
regarding “theou” here.
What I found, was that there are some manuscripts that do have “kuriou kai theou”
(notice, kuriou, genitive; not kurios”
as you say). The translation, then of
some of the manuscripts should read, “Be on guard for yourselves and for all
the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the
Church of the Lord and God which He purchased with His own blood.” Your assertion stands corrected at this point. The “Lord and God” are the same person since
the pronoun that is used is singular (“He
purchased with His blood”). The change then, that
has taken place has not been one of theological change but of theological
simplification. That is, instead of
calling Christ (the one who purchased the Church with His blood) “Lord and
God”, the text was changed to simply “God”.
Here is evidence that early Christians believed that Christ was
God! To my knowledge, there was no text
that simply has “kurios” or even “kuriou”
by itself. Your textual criticism, here,
falls to the ground and will not support your refutation.
7) Regarding comment response time in pg. 6. After some explanation on a certain portion of my paper, you say, “I explained it above, again, you’ve ignored it.” Sir, how can I respond , much less ignore, something that I have not yet seen. Really, that is just ridiculous.
This is enough for now. I will respond to your last letter with comments on Phillippians 2:6-11 as soon as possible. I am in the middle of overlooking that paper and Hidden’s latest response. I hope that you will avoid the logical fallacies that I have pointed out in the future, particularly the ad hominen personal attacks. I hope that this debate is not about US but about the truth of God.