The following post is by Patrick Navas:
Hello Everyone,
Have any of you been following the debate between Robert Bowman and Dave Burke on the Trinity? I posted some comments in response to one Trinitarian apologist on the associated blog (pasted in this email) that I thought you might appreciate:
Nick,
You wrote:
“I also find it interesting how you freely use the adjective “Scriptural” to describe your belief that God is “self-loving” (although as a Trinitarian I actually affirm this since Father, Son, and Spirit are the same God) in spite of the fact that Scripture doesn’t actually articulate this. It seems that you take issue with Trinitarians doing things along these lines; why is that?”
I used the term “scriptural” to refer to the general scriptural concept/principle of “self-love” (‘…as you love yourself…’ Luke 10:27; Romans 13:9; ‘husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it…’ Ephesians 5:28-29).
This principle demonstrates that the common philosophical-trinitarian argument that says that in order for love to exist there must be, of necessity, another person/object to love, is fallacious. Therefore, since God is “eternal” and “is love,” God, logically speaking, must be “multi-personal” or else he would be dependent on creating someone in order to be “love” and loving, yet he has “eternally” been such. Therefore, Trinitarians tell us, since God is and always has been “love,” there must have been “personal distinctions” within the “Godhead” from all eternity, i.e., the three “persons” of the Trinity “eternally loved one another.”
In response to your argument, I was not “reasoning-from-God-to-man” as much I was calling attention to the legitimate concept of “self-love” revealed in Scripture which shows that the common philosophical-trinitarian argument is not a logical necessity. Trinitarians are the ones who make this argument. I describe the argument as “philopshpical” because Scripture, of course, never presents us with this type of reasoning (nor does it, as you yourself acknowledge, articulate the notion that the ‘one God’ is a ‘Trinity’). The point I made about “self-love” is simply a response to the common philosophical-trinitarian argument. And it just so happens to be that—if we are going to take this kind of philosophical approach—that the only position that actually has some basis in Scripture is the one I presented, in response to the Trinitarian. A person can rightly love one’s self (this is not to say, of course, that Scripture advocates selfishness or self-pleasure at the expense of others). This is a scriptural principle because Scripture speaks of this more than once. It is also a quite valid and logical principle that we all know to be true based on our own personal experience in life. It is right that we “love ourselves.” We do it every day by feeding ourselves, giving ourselves rest, good hygiene, etc.
Trinitarians have often argued that love must have another object/person in order for love to exist. Yet Scripture does not say this. The point being, I do not hold to some kind of formal doctrine of God’s “self-love” nor am I setting it up as some kind of essential doctrine in reference to God’s nature, as Trinitarians do regarding the “three persons of the Godhead.” It just happens to be that, on philosophical grounds, the point I’m making in response to the Trinitarian argument is the one that actually has a supporting principle in Scripture. The Trinitarian argument does not. It’s a simple point.
“And to repeat something I said to another commentator in one of these other posts: not receiving the answer you’d like is not the same thing as not receiving an answer.”
You and Rob responded to my post but neither of you actually answered my simple/personal question. If the Trinity is true, why do you think the writers of Scripture didn’t present it to us in a formal statement of faith, as they did with every other important doctrine they believed and wanted us to believe? Why do you think they refrained from doing this in the case of the Trinity doctrine but did not do so with other important teachings? That’s all I’m asking.
“I find it a bit peculiar how folks are willing to take bare statements or propositions and attribute full fledged doctrines to them.”
With all due respect, this is an extremely bizarre statement. When I and others cite texts like John 17:3 or 1 Corinthians 8:6 (or any plain teaching of Scripture), we are not “attributing-full-fledged-doctrines-to them,” in the sense that we are somehow making something out of them that they are not. These doctrinal statements (and other statements like ‘Jesus is the Christ,’ ‘God raised Jesus from the dead,’ ‘God is love,’ etc.) are examples of the writers of Scripture themselves presenting to us “full fledged doctrines.” They are plain/formal statements of faith. All we are doing is calling attention to their plain and self-evident meaning. And it happens to be that none of the formal statements of Christian faith found in Scripture are actually Trinitarian (statements that teach that the one or only true God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit) but reveal that the one and only true God is the Father and that Jesus the Son is a distinct figure from “the only true God.”
“For example, you think that Paul is articulating some kind of doctrine in 1Cor. 8”
The word “doctrine” simply means “teaching.” Contrary to what you say, Paul is most definitely articulating (reminding and calling attention to) the true Christian “doctrine” or “teaching” that although there may be many that are called “gods” and “lords” out the in the world, for Christians (‘to us’) there is “one God.” In this case, Paul formally teaches/reminds us that the “one God” is “the Father”—an example of authentic Christian doctrine. You (Trinitarians) say that the “one God” is “the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” something Paul did not ever say. We say that the “one God” is “the Father” because that is what Paul said. So it is definitely a problem for you when we actually have verses in Scripture that explicitly teach what we are defending when it comes to the identity/nature of the “one God,” yet you (Trinitarians) do not. Yet people are supposed to believe that your doctrine (something the Scripture never articulates) is more biblical than ours (something the Scripture explicitly articulates on more than one occasion), namely, that the one God is “the Father” and that Jesus is a distinct figure from this “one/only true God.”
The other problem for Trinitarianism is that when Paul speaks about Jesus as our “one Lord” in 1 Cor 8:6, Paul is no longer speaking about the “one God” but a figure distinct from the “one God,” namely, our “one Lord” Jesus the Messiah. Somehow this fact is glossed over by Trinitarian apologists when they strangely try to merge Jesus and the Father into one single entity, in spite of the fact that Paul plainly speaks of two (‘one God’ and ‘one Lord’).
“when in context all he is doing is calling for faithfulness to God over and against idols (just as the Shema does). Yet for some reason Unitarians read these passages and see fully articulated expressions of Unitarianism where there’s is only one unipersonal God even though no such thing is explicitly stated.”
Another bizarre and baffling statement. Christians rightly read this text and others like it as “fully articulated expressions” of the Christian doctrine of the one God’s identity. He is, for us, “the Father, out of whom are all things.” Paul explicitly states that the “one God” is “the Father” (one person, what Christians believe). He does not say that the “one God” is “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (three persons, what Trinitarians believe). And, for Paul, Jesus, our “one Lord,” was a distinct figure from this “one God.” Not because I say so but because Paul himself explicitly presented matters in this way.
“I could ask why Paul didn’t just come out and say that God is only one person in 1Cor. 8:6 when he had the opportunity to do so, but I don’t, since I don’t find that line of questioning very helpful.”
“…to us there is one God, the Father…” What else needs to be said?
“When I read passages like 1Cor. 8:6 or John 17:3 I don’t read them in isolation.”
Neither do I. In fact, that is why I know that calling Jesus “Lord” in 1 Cor. 8:6 does not mean or imply that he is himself “Jehovah,” the “one God.” Jesus is “Lord” because, as Scripture explicitly tells us, God (someone whom Jesus is not) “made” him to be such (Acts 2:36), and the authority intrinsic to Jesus’ “Lordship” is that which his God and Father has given to him, not something Scripture says he has eternally possessed as “God the Son, the second person of the Trinity.” All we need to do is let Scripture itself inform us regarding the sense in which Jesus is our “Lord.” Scripture is not silent on this matter, but explicit. In addition, the Father (Jehovah) is specifically described in Scripture as “the God of our Lord Jesus…” (Ephesians 1:17). Are you and Rob going to argue that the Father is the “God of our Jehovah”? Is that what Trinitarianism teaches? Is that what the Bible teaches?
“So in 1Cor. 8:6 Paul identifies Jesus as YHWH by including him in the Shema”
Paul does not identify Jesus as YHWH by including him in the Shema in 1 Cor. 8:6. Paul could have very easily done so by saying, “God is one, and to us, there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are, and Jesus Christ, through whom all things are.” But Paul didn’t say anything like this. He never merged the identities of the Father and Son into one identity as “one God,” but unmistakably presented the “one God” as “the Father” (not the Trinity) and “Jesus Christ” as a distinct figure from the “one God,” in harmony with every other Scriptural statement.
Not only does Paul not formally cite the Shema in this case (although he very well have been alluding to it in the preceding statement when he said that ‘God is one’), Paul explicitly identifies Jesus as our “one Lord” yet clearly portrays him as a “Lord” that is distinct from the “one God” (the God of the Shema who is ‘one’). “To us there is one God, the Father…and one Lord, Jesus Christ…”
When Paul uses the word “and” after his reference to the “one God,” this means (as if it really required explanation) he is going on to speak about someone distinct from, or in addition to, this “one God” (not someone who is also the ‘one God’), just as Jesus does in John 17:3 by presenting “the only true God” as a distinct figure from himself (‘their knowing you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent’). Did Jesus not do this?
In reference to 1 Cor. 8:6 you simply repeat the fallacious and bizarre argument of Rob Bowman:
“Jesus is the “one Lord.” …I argued that Paul’s reference to that Father as the “one God” and Jesus as the “one Lord” both clearly allude to the Shema, so that the text identifies Jesus as the LORD himself.”
Unfortunately, for Robert Bowman, Paul is not identifying Jesus as “the LORD/Jehovah” himself in this text. How do we know this? Because, as I already pointed out, when Paul speaks about Jesus as our “one Lord,” he is no longer talking about the “one God (= Jehovah).” The “one God” has already been identified. He is, for Paul, and “to us,” “the Father.” If we were to accept Bowman’s claim that Paul’s statement that Jesus is our “one Lord” means “one Jehovah,” then we have Paul telling us the baffling, unscriptural, non-monotheistic, unintelligible, and non-trinitarian statement: “To us there is one God, the Father…and one Jehovah, Jesus Christ.”
How can Christian “monotheists” have a “one Jehovah” in addition to their “one God,” or a “one Jehovah” that is distinct from the “one God”? The God of the shema was not a “one Lord” or “one Jehovah” that was distinct from the “one God.”
So the meaning that Rob wants to give the term “Lord” in this case is (1) not even an intelligible statement; (2) does not even come close to articulating a Trinitarian doctrine of the “one God”, and (3) it is clearly not what Paul means since, in the context, Paul is talking about many “gods” and many “lords” not many “gods” and many “jehovahs” and contrasting this with the Christian belief that there is only one God and one Lord.
The point, for Paul at least, is that even though the surrounding world recognizes a multitude of “gods” and “lords,” Christians only recognize one “God” and one “Lord,” not “one God” and “one Jehovah.”
That is, Paul clearly contrasts the belief of the surrounding world with Christian belief in reference to two specific categories: (1) “gods,” and (2) “lords.” Whereas the world has many “gods” and many “lords,” Christians only have one God (the Father) and one Lord (Jesus).
Scripturally speaking, Christians recognize Jesus as our “one Lord” because he’s the only one (the long-awaited Messiah) whom God has appointed to that status over us. He is the only one to whom the “one God” has given “all authority in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18), the only one whom “the only true God” has given “authority over all flesh” (John 17:2), and the only one God has made to be the “head” of the “congregation” (Ephesians 1:22; 5:23). That is to say, Jesus is “Lord” because the one “God” made him to be such (Acts 2:36), not because I say so but because Scripture explicitly tells us so. Jesus has his authoritative/honorific status (‘Lord of all’) because he has been appointed to that authoritative/honorific status by the one God, his Father, because of his faithfulness to God as God’s “beloved Son” with whom God is “well pleased” (Matthew 3:17) since he “always” did the things that were pleasing to him (John 8:29).
Rob also tries to argue:
“Against Dave’s objection that Paul’s use of the words “one God” exclusively for the Father disproves the Trinitarian claim that Jesus is God, I explained in an important rebuttal comment that this objection confuses vocabulary with meaning. 1 Corinthians 8:6 no more denies that Jesus is God than it denies that the Father is Lord.”
Rob’s argument is utterly fallacious. Why? Because the point is that Paul explicitly teaches what we are teaching. Actually, it is the other way around, we teach that the one God is “the Father” because we learned it from Paul and from Jesus, the Father’s Son. The Father, Jehovah, is the sovereign “Lord” because he created all things and rules over all. But he is, in fact, not the “one Lord” of 1 Cor. 8:6 who was “made Lord” by someone who is “greater” than himself, as Jesus was. Jesus is our “one Lord” in that specific sense. The Father is not. Jesus’ status as “Lord” in Scripture does not mean he is “ontologically Jehovah.” How do we know this? For many reasons: First, Jesus is “Lord” because he was made to be such. It is a status that was given to him by God. Secondly, the Father is described as “the God of our Lord Jesus…” The Father cannot be “the God of our Jehovah” because it is impossible for “Jehovah” to have one who is God to him, since he is the “Most High God.” If I remember correctly, a while back in one of my discussions with Bowman, he actually tried to argue that the reference to Jesus as our “one Lord” in 1 Cor. 8:6 meant that he was somehow “Lord” in a different way than he is “Lord” in Acts 2:37 where he is explicitly said to have been “made Lord” by God, simply because the term “Lord” in this case was not accompanied by the modifier “one.” That is like arguing that the word “God” in this text has a different meaning or referent in mind than 1 Cor. 8:6 because it is not prefaced by the modifier “one.” But the “one God” of 1 Cor. 8:6 is clearly the same “God” of Acts 2:36 who made Jesus “Lord,” just as the “one Lord” of 1 Cor. 8:6 is the same “Lord” of Acts 2:36, namely, Jesus, the one who was “made” Lord by the one God.
“In John 17:3 I see something affirmed about the Father yet nothing denied of the Son.”
That is comparable to reading the following statement…
“To truly experience what our government represents, you must meet the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and you must meet the one he sent, the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.”
…and then arguing, “In the above sentence, I see something affirmed about Barack Obama (namely, that he is ‘the President of the United States’), yet nothing denied of Hillary Clinton (that is, that she is not ‘the President of the United States’).”
In the above sentence the speaker does not have to make it a point to deny that Hillary Clinton is “the President of the United States” because it is self-evident and intrinsic to the language used—a logical necessity. The logic could not be more basic. Hillary Clinton cannot be the “President of the United States” because she is the “Secretary of State” who is distinct from “the President of the United States” (Barack Obama) and was “sent” by “the President of the United States.” It simply goes without saying that she is not “the President of the United States.”
The same is true when Scripture describes Abraham as “the friend of God.” Does Scripture make a special point to tell us that Abraham is not God? Why would it? It is logically necessary that Abraham is not “God.” If you are the “friend of God” you are not “God” because you are “the friend of God.” Common sense that really needs no elaboration.
The same common-sense point applies to texts like John 17:3 and other texts like it. Jesus is not presented as “the only true God” but as a distinct figure from “the only true God” that was “sent” by “the only true God.” Jesus did not have to “deny” that he was “the only true God” just as the above sentence does not have to “deny” that Hillary Clinton is not “the President of the United States.” This is already a foregone conclusion by virtue of the fact that she is “the Secretary of State” that was “sent” by “the President of the United States” who is a distinct figure from herself. Likewise, Jesus does not have to go out of his way to “deny” that he is “the only true God” because his purpose is not to prove who he is “not” but who is “is,” namely, the one that was sent by “the only true God,” a figure Jesus himself presented as someone other than himself.
“I also see that in context Jesus says that salvation is predicated on knowing both himself and the Father so that the understanding that we’re left with is that the Father alone is not enough for eternal life. I also see Jesus recounting the preexistent relationship that he had with the Father when he commands him to glorify him with the glory that they shared before the world existed.”
I agree that salvation is tied to knowing the only true God and the one he sent, Jesus, but I accept Jesus as he presents himself here, as the one sent by the only true God, the “Christ.” Jesus “commands” the Father to give him glory? Does the Psalmist “command” God to “incline his ear unto him” to “hear his prayer” to “have mercy” upon him? Is that the true spirit underlying these statements? Is the Psalmist a member of the “Godhead” because he “commanded” God to do these things?
“And finally, I don’t ask questions of the text that aren’t addressed by the text, such as “why didn’t Paul say something here that I think would have been the ideal place for him to say it?” I wonder, why didn’t Moses mention whether or not Adam and Eve had belly buttons when surely Genesis 2 would have been the perfect place for him to do so?”
Once again, a bizarre and completely irrelevant statement. Your argument would have merit if I was arguing that the notion that “Adam and Eve had belly buttons” is the central doctrine of Christianity and that our very salvation depends upon acceptance of this. Your comparison is utterly without substance. Trinitarians are not positing an aribitrary, non-religious point that has no relevance to the tenets of the Christian faith. They are positing a doctrine about the very identify of the one God that they say you must accept in order to be a true Christian, in spite of the fact that neither Jesus nor his apostles ever taught it. The Trinitarian claim fittingly begs the obvious question. If the Trinity is true, why didn’t Jesus or his aposltes teach it?
“I think the difference is that I, as a Trinitarian, can point out the shortcomings in the positive case presented by the Unitarian. From my reading of this debate and my interaction with Unitarians of various groups over the years it seems that they tend to rely on arguments from silence (as you do when you ask why Paul or anyone else didn’t say what you think should be said at an opportune time) rather than dealing with the positive case presented by the Trinitarian.”
I cannot speak to your past experiences or in regard to your assessment of Dave Burke’s performance in this debate. But I have published a nearly 600 page book (Divine Truth or Human Tradition?) in which I do in fact address essentially every relevant text and positive argument Trinitarians make. I quote Trinitarians directly and represent their arguments accurately, and then proceed to show why I believe their arguments fail, from a scriptural perspective.
Best wishes,
Patrick Navas
The debate is here:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/