Episode 67: Firstborn of Creation
November 26th, 2011 at 12:17 am (Christology, Unitarianism, James White, Arianism, Socinianism, Debates, Patrick Navas)
Debate topic: "The deity of Christ is taught in the following texts or families of texts: John 12:41 (cf. Isa. 6 and 53), 1 Cor. 8:5-6, Heb. 1, Col. 1:15-17, and the "I am" statements of Jesus (John 8:24/58, 13:19, 18:5-6)." Dr. James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and author of The Forgotten Trinity, affirms. Patrick Navas, author of Divine Truth or Human Tradition?: A Reconsideration of the Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity in Light of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, denies. This episode is part 1 of their debate, including their opening statements and interaction with John 12:41 and 1 Cor. 8:5-6. Listen to episode 68, "The Great I Am," for part 2's interaction with Heb. 1, Col. 1:15-17, and the "I am statements" of Jesus (John 8:24/58, 13:19, 18:5-6).
Music
- Chris Allen Band, Firstborn of Creation, from the album, You Are, 2008
Promoted Resources
- The Dividing Line, with Dr. James White, Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries
- Listen online most Tuesday mornings at 11:00am PDT, and most Thursday afternoons at 4:00pm PDT.
- Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes or via direct RSS feed.
Standard Podcasts [01:25:31m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download | Embeddable Player | Hits (1618)
Pilgrimsarbour said,
November 26, 2011 at 1:49 pm
Thanks for posting this link. I have had many conversations with people over the years on varying theological topics. I have seen a great deal of error in the arguments and beliefs of others, and also in my own understanding of things, which needed correction. However, unitarianism is a non-starter. I cannot, under any circumstances, consider one a brother in Christ if our Lord is NOT deity to him. The lame arguments against the deity of Christ presented here may as well have been those of an atheist who does not grasp the harmony of the Scriptures, God’s revelation of Himself. There is no salvation for the one whose Saviour is not God; from this I do not back away nor back down. Ever.
theopologetics said,
November 26, 2011 at 1:52 pm
I agree. This man and others need our sincere prayers, and we need to remember that before we believed, we were no better.
Xavier said,
November 26, 2011 at 9:18 pm
I love it how you guys accuse us of “assuming unitarianism” just because the Jewish-Christian creed is unitarian! Backed by other EXPLICIT verses like John 17.1,3.
But can you guys point to AT LEAST 1 trinitarian verse where “God” means “Father, Son, HS” or is said to be “triune in nature”? How about a Greek lexicon where ho theos/theos is “triune”?!
Adam said,
November 26, 2011 at 10:30 pm
Xavier,
John 17:3 is a perfect text to *prove* the Trinity. There is a clear distinction between the Father, and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. Yet it is eternal life to believe in *both* of them. What mere creature could ever claim that it is eternal life to believe in him? Yet, there is only one God. How can all of this be true outside of a Trinitarian framework?
Again, the only way you are going to get unitarianism out of that passage is if you presuppose that the one true God can only exist as one person [the father], and thus, both the Son and the Father cannot both be identified as the one true God. However, such is mere circular reasoning. By saying that it is eternal life to believe on him and the father, he is, of necessity, putting himself in the same category as “one true God” since no creature could ever say that to believe on himself is eternal life.
Also, what creature could say that he had glory with the father before the world was [John 17:5] only two verses later? How can he say that given that God will not share his glory with another?
Far from being an explicit text teaching unitarianism, this text actually very strongly and powerfully affirms the Trinity. It is only when you isolate the statement from the concept of eternal life, assume unitarianism, and divorce it from verse 5 that it becomes anything even remotely resembling unitarianism.
Also, since when did you get the idea that meaning is wrapped up in individual verses, such that I have to cite a specific verse showing all elements of the Trinity? Modern discourse analysis has blown that apart, and shown that meaning exists, not only in relation the author’s conception of reality, but even beyond the sentence level itself.
That is what James White was trying to point out with all of the “I am” statements, and how they relate to John’s argument as a whole, with the climax in Thomas’ confession, “My Lord and my God” [John 20:28].
The point is that, given the way in which the New Testament presents the Father as God, Christ as God, and the Holy Spirit as God, and yet, the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and that it fully affirms the monotheism of the Hebrew Bible, the only conclusion one can draw is the Trinity. Language simply cannot be reduced down to simple words; we must understand how the New Testament authors understood the reality of Jesus Christ and his relationship to the father. If we do that, Trinitarianism is inescapable.
Also, unitarianism is not the Christian creed. Christians have long declared unitarianism to be heresy. As we saw in this debate, trying to understand how the Bible presents reality from unitarian presuppositions will have you arguing that the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus simply because he thought he was older than Abraham, something that was no crime at all.
God Bless, Adam
Jesse Toler said,
November 26, 2011 at 11:06 pm
These conversations are always exciting because the speakers have to exegete a small number of verses and explain their methods in depth. Much better than tossing out a handful of verses without any context.
The Unitarian did a respectable job of exegeting I Co 8:5,6. The Greek systax does appear to separate the Father God from Jesus as Lord. It may be that the verses’ use of “kai” serves to combine the subjects of the sentence into one description. I don’t have my Wallace: Intermediate Greek Syntax with me.
Xavier said,
November 27, 2011 at 8:35 am
Adam,
If I had a cent for every time we’re accused of making Jesus “a mere man”. The Apostle Paul actually defines for us what “merely human” means as those who revert to a “fleshly” state [1 Cor 3.3-4]. Such people are said to be “jealous and full of strive”. Just like the first Adam, Jesus [the 2nd Adam] is sinless and perfect! There is nothing “mere” about that!
If John 17.1,3 is not telling you God is One Person, the Jewish-Christian creed of the Shema should. YHWH is One Person yet you guys believe Jesus is YHWH. 2 YHWHs cannot be 1 YHWH just as One Person cannot be 2 Persons! See the problem? You break your own trinitarianism when you adhere to this non-contradictory formulation: ‘God is One Person…in 3 Persons’?!
The Biblical language testifies to a unitarian monotheism. For example, in the Hebrew, the singular El and Eloah (God) confirm that God is One Person. And in the Koine Greek of the NT God is eis, one, masculine, i.e. One Person in Mark 10.18; 12.29; Mat 23.9; John 5.44; 1Cor 8.4-6; Rom 3.30; Eph 4.6; 1Tim 1.17; 2.5; Jam 2.19; 4.12; Gal 3.20; Jude 25. Add to this the fact that “the Father” is identified as that One Person God some 1317 times in the NT. Can you show us where this is not so by pointing to 1 single text where “God” is defined as “Father, Son, HS”?!
Xavier said,
November 27, 2011 at 9:09 am
CORRECTION: “…when you adhere to this CONTRADICTORY formulation.”
Anthony Buzzard said,
November 27, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Adam, you have no difficulty with “Obama is now the only one who is true President of the USA.” But you stumble at the plain unitarian definition of the Father as “the only one who is true God” Jn. 17:3). Your point is hardly convincing: Jesus is expressly not the “only true God.” He is the “one sent.” It was the clear unitary monotheism of Jn 17:3 which forced Augustine to rearrange the order of the words of the Greek, to include Jesus in the “only one who is true God.” Have you pondered why Augustine could not find the Deity of Jesus in this verse as the words stand?
From Cambridge, Dr. JAT Robinson: Referring to Jn 17:3 “John is as undeviating a witness to the unitary monotheism of Judaism as any NT writer.” Of course. The word “only” restricts, as normative language establishes, the “true God,” to one Person, the Father. A further 1300 verses in the NT mean the Father, and not Jesus, when they say “GOD.” In Jn. 17:5 the context in v. 22, 24 show that the glory is glory promised in prospect. That same glory has been given (past tense) to those not yet born when Jesus spoke. It is glory (v.5) promised to Jesus as the reward for his completed work. Rewards promised for the future are said to exist, before they are realized, in the mind of God in other verses (Matt. 6:1). No verse in John says that Jesus went “back” to God. The origin of the Son as procreated (begotten) is laid out lucidly in Matt. 1:18, 20 and Luke 1:35.
Adam said,
November 27, 2011 at 9:32 pm
Xavier,
“If I had a cent for every time we’re accused of making Jesus “a mere man”. The Apostle Paul actually defines for us what “merely human” means as those who revert to a “fleshly” state [1 Cor 3.3-4]. Such people are said to be “jealous and full of strive”. Just like the first Adam, Jesus [the 2nd Adam] is sinless and perfect! There is nothing “mere” about that!”
Okay, then let me ask you this. Would it not be blasphemy to say that salvation is knowing the father and Adam in his prefallen state? No matter how sinless and perfect he is, he is still a creature. No creature can ever say that it is eternal life to know him. No creature, even if in a sinless state, can ever enter into God’s presence and say “Glorify me” the way Jesus does here.
“If John 17.1,3 is not telling you God is One Person, the Jewish-Christian creed of the Shema should. YHWH is One Person yet you guys believe Jesus is YHWH. 2 YHWHs cannot be 1 YHWH just as One Person cannot be 2 Persons! See the problem? You break your own trinitarianism when you adhere to this non-contradictory formulation: ‘God is One Person…in 3 Persons’?!”
I don’t believe that Deuteronomy 6:4 is even beginning to address the issue of the personhood of God. Again, the key to its verse is its context:
Deuteronomy 6:4-5 “Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God, the LORD is one! 5 “You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.
Again, the context is the worship of God. The point is that God alone is to be worshiped, and God alone is to be loved with all of our heart and with all of our being. Again, this text says nothing about whether this one God who is to be worshiped exists in three persons or one person.
“The Biblical language testifies to a unitarian monotheism. For example, in the Hebrew, the singular El and Eloah (God) confirm that God is One Person. And in the Koine Greek of the NT God is eis, one, masculine, i.e. One Person in Mark 10.18; 12.29; Mat 23.9; John 5.44; 1Cor 8.4-6; Rom 3.30; Eph 4.6; 1Tim 1.17; 2.5; Jam 2.19; 4.12; Gal 3.20; Jude 25.”
The problem is that the term “one” must be defined by its context. For example, I have one blanket on my bed, but does that mean that it cannot be multiple colors? I have one room, but does that mean that this room cannot have a dresser, chest of drawers, a bed and a closet? Even something like gold is made up of many atoms of gold.
The point is that, just because the word “one” is used, that does not mean an absolute oneness in any sense, because reality is multifaceted. The oneness of my blanket does not negate its plurality in color, nor does the oneness of my room negate the plurality of the furniture in it. Therefore, if you want to say that these texts are talking about a unity of God’s personhood, then that would require showing that the texts are speaking in the context of personhood, and specifically applying the term “one” to his person.
Also, there mere use of the singular does not itself imply absolute oneness, so that one can conclude that God is one in every respect including his person. I have *a book* on Pragmatics. Does that mean that this one book on Pragmatics that I have does not have different pages? Does that mean that it does not have different colors?
In fact, there is one thing about God that we can agree on in terms of plurality, and that is that he has a plurality of attributes. God is not just loving, but he is also just. God is not just omnipotent, but omniscient. I would liken your argument who proves that God cannot be all of these things because of the word “one” and the singular used in reference to God. Such would be totally fallacious.
The reality is that there is the whole question of whether an “absolute one” even exists, and therefore, it really cannot be used to prove the notion that God is unipersonal.
“Add to this the fact that “the Father” is identified as that One Person God some 1317 times in the NT. Can you show us where this is not so by pointing to 1 single text where “God” is defined as “Father, Son, HS”?!”
Again, as I said, modern discourse analysis has blown this apart. One single text?????????????? Is that the way language relates to reality? Give me one single text that shows God’s seity. The notion that God exists in and of himself is not proven by one text, but by the way existence is predicated on God over and over again.
The issue is how the text of scripture as a whole presents reality. The text sees the Son as God [Colossians 1, Hebrews 1, John 12, the “I am” sayings], it sees the Father as God [John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6], and the Holy Spirit is God [Acts 5:3-4], Yet there is a distinction between the Father and the Son [John 17:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6], as well as the Son and the Spirit [the Spirit, for example, is sent by the Father [John 14:16] and the Son likewise sends the spirit [John 15:26]] Yet, they affirm monotheism [John 17:3]. Now, what is the doctrine of the Trinity but that there is one God that exists in three distinct persons?
The problem is that meaning exists beyond the sentence level. Not only is that true in terms of the passage being structures in large chunks of text, but it is also true in terms of how language relates to reality. Sometimes, in order to understand how an author is presenting reality, you have to use intertextuality, and that is what I believe applies here.
Anthony Buzzard,
“Adam, you have no difficulty with “Obama is now the only one who is true President of the USA.” But you stumble at the plain unitarian definition of the Father as “the only one who is true God” Jn. 17:3). Your point is hardly convincing: Jesus is expressly not the “only true God.” He is the “one sent.””
I would say that the structure of that text is not parallel to what we have in John 17:3. What if I put the text this way:
This is an executive order: a command from Obama, the only true president of the United States, and John Doe whom he has has sent.
The question would have to be asked, in such a context, how an executive order could come from John Doe if John Doe is not the president since executive orders only come from the president. Given that background information, we would either have to conclude that the text was untrue, or there was something unique about this president, that he was different in such a way that a command from the president could encompass a command from Obama and John Doe.
The point is that Yhwh is the only savior; it is knowing him alone that saves. How then can Jesus take up these words, and say that knowledge of him can save when only knowledge of Yhwh can save unless we can identify Jesus as Yhwh?
“It was the clear unitary monotheism of Jn 17:3 which forced Augustine to rearrange the order of the words of the Greek, to include Jesus in the “only one who is true God.” Have you pondered why Augustine could not find the Deity of Jesus in this verse as the words stand?”
It was also Augustine who tried to argue that Jerome’s translation of “caster oil plant” in the book of Jonah was wrong, when it was Jerome who was right, and not Augustine. Augustine blew it on a number of issues, and missed many key points. The simple reason he missed it is because those who are limited in our knowledge and understanding are going to miss things from time to time. The issue is whether the text itself teaches the deity of Christ, not whether Augustine saw that it taught the deity of Christ.
“From Cambridge, Dr. JAT Robinson: Referring to Jn 17:3 “John is as undeviating a witness to the unitary monotheism of Judaism as any NT writer.””
And where exactly did Robinson deal with anything I said? Where did he deal with the fact that eternal life in the Bible entails a knowledge of Yhwh alone? Where did he deal with the context of verse 5, and the language of the sharing of glory between Jesus and the Father, something no human creature could ever do? If he did not deal with these things, then why is it relevant to cite him here?
“Of course. The word “only” restricts, as normative language establishes, the “true God,” to one Person, the Father.”
As someone who is studying linguistics, and is applying to a Phd program in linguistics, I can say that there is nothing in the word “only” that would even begin to imply that there cannot be another person who shares the being of “only true God.” The “only” modifies “true God,” not “the father.” In order for the text to say what it needs to say, it would have to read, “that they may know only you, the true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” Again, you would have to get rid of the statement about this being eternal life, since that would be a reference to the deity of those spoken of, but the “only” modifies true God, and not “you.” Hence, this is an identification of the Father as the one true God, and not a limitation of the person of the Father to the one true God. The only way you could get the latter is if you bring unitarian presuppositions to the text.
“In Jn. 17:5 the context in v. 22, 24 show that the glory is glory promised in prospect. That same glory has been given (past tense) to those not yet born when Jesus spoke. It is glory (v.5) promised to Jesus as the reward for his completed work. Rewards promised for the future are said to exist, before they are realized, in the mind of God in other verses (Matt. 6:1).”
The problem with this argument is that the glory in one context is given, and in the other context it is a glory that was already shared; the phrases “together with yourself” and “with you” would pose a problem here. That is a term of relationship. How can it be promised in prospect when they shared it before the foundation of the world? No human being could even begin to say that they shared glory with God before the foundation of the world. Yes, there are times when God exalts people for their faithfulness, but it is the sharing of that glory that is crucial in John 17:5.
“No verse in John says that Jesus went “back” to God. The origin of the Son as procreated (begotten) is laid out lucidly in Matt. 1:18, 20 and Luke 1:35.”
In terms of his incarnation, yes. However, we are also going to have to deal with instances where Jesus is associated with creation, such as the citation of Psalm 102 [Hebrews 1] and Colossians 1, or the citation of Isaiah 6 [John 12] in reference to Jesus. We will also have to deal with language used of Jesus that could only every be used of Yhwh himself. Also, we are going to have to deal with texts like Philippians 2 which specifically speak of Jesus voluntarily giving up equality with God. At some point, the weight of the evidence that Jesus not only took on human flesh, but also is Yhwh, the one eternal God is too much.
God Bless, Adam
SopaterTheBerean said,
November 28, 2011 at 8:54 am
Should we judge a debate on speaking skill or knowledge that is backed by Biblical text? The Apostle Paul confessed to not be greatly skilled in speaking and he speaks of his superiority to those super-apostles who are great with turning words. Paul couldn’t speak as well as others but he was more knowledgeable and he stuck to the Scriptures and advises us to do so. I haven’t listened to the second part of this debate, but I will make a few comments.
1.) On James White’s opening remarks about no “mere creature” being able to accomplish what Jesus has: a.) This is purely speculation and opinion. He did not support his claim with any Scripture. b.) Such a claim is limiting God’s ability to accomplish his purpose through the use of his creation. c.) The whole of Scripture tells us God is doing exactly what James White says is not possible.
2.) Dr. White actually shows that he doesn’t clearly understand the revelation of God’s purpose when he asks how many of “Jesus’” could God create. Holy Writ tells us that God is bringing many sons to glory. The Christian hope is to be exactly like Jesus, who is the firstborn among MANY brothers.
3.) It’s intellectually dishonest to be a Calvinist and pretend that you don’t ever argue that “all” doesn’t always mean “all.” 1 John 2:20: “all things” or “panta”… if we use Dr. White’s logic, it means all Christians are omniscient. Of course he knows better, but it gives me the impression that truth isn’t the issue here, but that winning the debate and looking good is.
4.) In arguing over words in John 12 and 1 Cor. 8, Dr. White ignores one of the most fundamental hermeneutical principles, which is determining the author’s intent or purpose in the context. Go read all of John 12 for yourself in context. It’s about the Son being glorified in his death and the fact that some believe even though God has blinded some, which is why Isaiah 53 is quoted first. Even if we admit that Isaiah saw Jesus, only a few verses later Jesus makes the proclamation that if you have seen him you have seen the Father. Jesus being the image of the invisible God (which Paul tells us that no man has the ability to see in 1 Tim 6:16… hello Calvinists…) makes it certain that he isn’t that God. Then, concerning 1 Cor. 8, Dr. White proposes a false dilemma. He asserts that by using Shema language Paul must be calling Jesus God. Problem is he has to prove his assertions. One can easily say that Paul is only adding to the Shema language that in addition to one God we have also only one Lord. That fits better within the context, in which, Paul is saying others have many gods and many mediators for or ways to those gods. It also harmonizes with the rest of Scripture as the one Lord has a God, so God the Father can’t be that one Lord, which btw would be confusing the who’s with the what and we can’t do that, right? Also, another bit of intellectual dishonesty here on Dr. White’s part because I’m certain he knows when “kurios” is used in the New Testament it doesn’t always refer to the Lord God. See 1 Pet 3:6 for one example.
5.) Did anyone else notice Dr. White’s incomprehensible (and at first incoherent) response to Patrick’s question on why the Holy Spirit is not included in 1 Cor. 8? I want all of you to think about this bit about the revelation coming later and taking time… Seriously think about it. God has been revealing Himself for thousands of years and still hasn’t gotten to the third person of the Godhead, even while Paul is writing his epistles? So when the gospel was preached in Acts, you don’t see Jesus being called God nor a Trinity talked about, but instead of just believing the Biblical account, you are unwilling to call fellow believers in Christ brothers. Using this logic, then the early church would have certainly been anathamatized by Trinitarians. There is not one positive verse teaching the Trinity in all of God’s revelation of Himself to man. But we must believe it to be saved? Get real. But of course if Dr. White is willing to argue that when 1 Corinthians was written the Trinity wasn’t completely revealed yet, will he agree to no longer assert that Matthew 28:19 is a teaching of the Trinity? Probably not. Of course, consistency is not to be expected when one’s doctrine defies the laws of non-contraction and must be upheld with doublespeak.
White is a skilled speaker, but when it comes to testing what he is saying according the Scripture, he’s bankrupt so far in this debate, which is probably why he must poison the well so much. If you’re judging a debate, please judge on content, not speaking ability.
Helez said,
November 28, 2011 at 9:15 am
Please consider the following:
Was it easy for all Jews to accept that circumcision was no longer required to become a true worshipper? Comprehensibly, not at all. Some of them were slow to grasp the point or even kept saying that it was a vital feature of Christianity, even after the apostles and older men in Jerusalem sent their decree about this issue to the congregations. (Acts 15:1-29; Ga 5:1-4; 6:12-13; 1Co 7:18-20; Php 3:2; Tit 1:10-11)
All of this is recorded in Scripture.
Realizing how much discussion was brought about regarding the matter of circumcision, how easy and smoothly would you expect Jewish Christians to accept that God was not one, but three persons?!? Yet, we read nothing about any difficulties in regard of this in Scripture.
Obviously, the reason for this is that the concept of the Trinity was totally alien to first-century Christians, and the idea of the Almighty God being more than one person would have been regarded as being straight-out contradictorily to what they were taught and believed about God. The dogma of the Trinity slowly developed not earlier than centuries after the last book of the Bible was written. The history of the Trinity doctrine is well-documented.
The complete silence in regard of the Trinity doctrine in the Holy Scriptures is rather deafening. The argument that this fact doesn’t mean that it can nevertheless be true is weak. Everything we need to know about God is in Bible. God took care of that. (2Ti 3:16-17) The suggestion that the most central doctrine of Christianity, the one that answers the question: “Who is God?” is not something we should reasonably expect to be in the Bible, but instead, was slowly “discovered” by fourth- and fifth-century philosophers and theologians, should be unacceptable for any faithful Bible student.
Paul warned against those who would come and preach “another Jesus whom we have not preached” (2Co 11:4) and said: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! ” (Ga 1:8) As Paul didn’t preach a Jesus who was the Almighty God, i.e., a Jesus who is one of three persons of God, at all, should we better accept or reject such post-Biblical teaching about the only-begotten Son of God?
Peace.
Xavier said,
November 28, 2011 at 9:16 am
Adam,
Blasphemy to me is worshiping someone else than the Father as Almighty God. This is something people are not doing in the NT & something I am very careful of myself. As to your “creature” argument the fact remains…”God has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by THE MAN he has appointed…Messiah Jesus” [Acts 17.31; Rom 2.16]. I know this is something you and White & the Devil and his demons do not like but it is scriptural. Your choise whether you want to believe it or not.
The Shema IDENTIFIES Who the One God of Israel is. And He [and not They] is very Personal, as per the Divine Name of YHWH dictates! This is why when the word “one” in either Hebrew or Greek is used in relation to the One God of Israel it is assumed you are talking about a Person and not multiple Persons within a triune God. Again, answer me this, if Jesus is YHWH and the Father is YHWH how many YHWHs is that? And how do you deal with this in trinitarian terms when your supposed to believe in, as White and Hannegraff formulate it, ‘One What in three Whos’?! And not ‘One Who in three Whos’! See your problem?
I’ll await someone else who can produce for us a single text or lexicon definition where “God” is “Father, Son, HS”, a “triune God”.
SopaterTheBerean said,
November 28, 2011 at 5:33 pm
Xavier,
Don’t hold your breath! Another of White’s famous lines is “assuming Unitarianism.” Considering Jesus’ words in Mark 12:29-34, John 17:3, John 20:17, among a host of others, and considering the Bible nowhere in anyway explicitly says that God is three persons in one essence/substance, who’s doing all the assuming when approaching these texts? Trinitarians “assume” the Holy Spirit is one person because of the singular personal pronouns but then assume God is three persons in the OT when there are thousands of singular personal pronouns compared to only four plural personal pronouns. Here’s where all sound hermeneutics go out the window for Trinitarians, for they interpret the many in light of the few. Of course I think I heard Dr. White refer to the “triune God” as a he, but that would suggest one person and isn’t he confusing the who’s with the what by using a singular personal pronoun?
It is ironic that Trinitarians will often poison the well by referring to words like “cult,” “Jehovah’s Witness,” and “Muslims” when in fact it’s the Trinitarians who interpret all of Scripture based off of heavy speculation derived from a few Scriptures and then employ fear tactics that scare people away from examining the doctrine and believing anything contrary to what they teach.
In reading Paul’s epistles, especially his pastoral ones, he drives home the point of adhering to what has been taught. In examining the doctrine of the Trinity and it’s planks, I found that neither Jesus nor the apostles taught what is dogmatically proclaimed by many professors of faith today. As a former Trinitarian, I prefer to not stray from the inspired words given to us. As a disciple of Christ, I believe I should worship the same God he worshipped, especially considering he told me that his Father was my God but never instructed me on a “triune God.” And if the “triune God” is the true God, and Jesus came to reveal God, but never explicitly taught about this God, then wouldn’t it be safe to say that Jesus really never did what is said that he came to do? Wake up, folks.
Anthony Buzzard said,
November 28, 2011 at 6:16 pm
Adam, I am assuming that only one person is currently President of the USA.
Obama is the only one who is true President.
His agent J Doe is commissioned by the only one is President, to do some things.
This does not mean to you that J Doe is also the One President! J Doe is the agent of the One President.’ His authority is derived from his superior Obama.
You speak of God as HIM, but you seem also imply that more than one Person is God.
So then what does HIM mean? One person or more than one? Am I understanding you? Anthony
Xavier said,
November 28, 2011 at 6:19 pm
SopaterTheBerean
Are you TrinityDelusion?
SopaterTheBerean said,
November 28, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Adam,
Considering these verses:
Oba 1:21 “Saviors shall go up to Mount Zion to rule Mount Esau, and the kingdom shall be the LORD’s.” Jdg 6:14-15 “And the LORD turned to him and said, “Go in this might of yours and save Israel from the hand of Midian; do not I send you?” And he said to him, “Please, Lord, how can I save Israel? Behold, my clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my father’s house.” Neh 9:27 “Therefore you gave them into the hand of their enemies, who made them suffer. And in the time of their suffering they cried out to you and you heard them from heaven, and according to your great mercies you gave them saviors who saved them from the hand of their enemies.”
Would you consider these human saviors that God raised up to all be fully God and members of a coequal, co-eternal Godhead? Or in light of those verses and the following ones… Joh 17:6 “I have manifested your name to the people whom you gave me out of the world.” Joh 12:44 ‘And Jesus cried out and said, “Whoever believes in me, believes not in me but in him who sent me.” ‘ … is it more Biblical to conclude that “The LORD your God will raise (raised) up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers–it is to him you shall listen– Deu 18:15? Think about it.
Xavier, no I’m not. Btw, anyone else having trouble posting comments?
Patrick Quick said,
November 28, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Sopater,
Dr. White is definitely a seasoned speaker and debater. He has Lots of experience from years of debating, your argument fails, the truth of his position is neither true or false based on his experience. Argue against his exegesis of the text, not a strawman. You also make a false argument bringing in “intellectually dishonest” and his “Calvinism”. You have no basis for such a claim. He has taught Greek on seminary level for many years. He is an Elder at his church. You may not like the claims he makes or his style, then argue against what he presents, not attack his honesty. You do yourself and your position a disservice by making attacks on a person rather than the basis for what you are trying to say.
Blessings, Pat
SopaterTheBerean said,
November 28, 2011 at 8:40 pm
Patrick,
Perhaps you should go back and re-read my comments. I didn’t say White was wrong because of his ability to speak, but rather I wanted people to be aware that speaking ability does not equate to correctness. Certainly I agree with you when you say, “the truth of his position is neither true or false based on his experience.” That’s why I point out that much of what he said was merely opinion unsupported by any Biblical text. It sounded good and all, but it wasn’t Biblical. I brought up intellectual dishonesty and Calvinism precisely because as I also believe in sovereign grace just as Dr. White does, I know he argues completely contrary to “all things” meaning everything in existence when it comes to defending his position on Calvinism. THIS IS INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. As one with seminary training, he certainly knows “kurios” does not always equate to “the Lord God” in the NT. What else can it be to argue as if he doesn’t know these things? You tell me. Just as can not equates to inability in John 6 the can not see God equates to inability to see God in 1 Tim 6. My purpose here is to show how wildly inconsistent it would be to argue otherwise. However, to argue John 12 the way Dr. White does, it shows a high level of inconsistency. I demonstrated that Dr. White’s exegesis does not follow the context or intent of the writer and then showed how his own logic refutes his other usages of passages in favor of his doctrine.
Thus, my point here: Dr. White spoke with great skill, but when you examine what he’s actually saying it doesn’t hold up to context, nor logic, nor his own exegetical standards that he himself uses in other topics of debates.
I won’t apologize for doing so. I am not judging the man’s salvation as many Trinitarians here would judge Unitarians, but his content must be examined and exposed as the illusion that it is.
Patrick Quick said,
November 28, 2011 at 9:21 pm
Sopater,
“always” “every” “all”. All means all and that’s all that all means. That is a very difficult view to hold. All Jerusalem went out to see John the Baptist. Not every single individual, man - woman - child. As Calvinists would say, the most consistent way to understand is “all without distinction, not all without exception”. To be honest, you haven’t demonstrated anything of the sort. (except in your own mind) But that is why we disagree, and you see Dr. White’s presentation as inconsistent and illogical and un biblical. That is how we see your side
I have to leave. I pray God will reveal his fullness to you.
Blessings, Pat
SopaterTheBerean said,
November 29, 2011 at 8:32 pm
Patrick,
I think you have completely misunderstood me. I believe in sovereign grace or election. I am in 100% agreement will “all without distinction, not all without exception.” So, why does Dr. White, who would also agree, argue that all must mean all without exception? INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY.
He does the same with the Colossians argument (which I have now listened to.) If “ta panta” (all things) is referring to the Genesis creation and refers to “all without exception,” according to Dr. White’s argumentation here, will he then apply his own definition back in verse 20? “Ta panta” reconciled to him? This would mean universalism, so I’m confident that Dr. White would have equivocated and waffled if he had been cornered on this in the debate.
Maybe he thinks there are no sovereign grace Unitarians and that he could get away with that, but he’s mistaken. In the context, Paul is speaking of the New Creation. When we compare Scripture with Scripture, the beauty of God’s truth comes to light. 2Co 5:17 “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.” Eph 2:10 “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” Almighty God makes all things new in and through His Son Jesus. Rev 21:5.
Ask God to save you from your traditions with a sincere heart, then watch Him demonstrate His power through the revelation of His word, in the simplicity of His truth.
Nick Batchelor said,
December 5, 2011 at 4:23 pm
Everyone is free to decide what you will but t he word Paul used “panta,” an inflected form of “pas,” can mean “all other.”
F.Blass and A Debrunner, A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature ( Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961, section.480, p. 254. Trans. by R.W.Funk) says concerning ellipses “Further ellipses: (1) The omission of the notion ‘other, whatever’ (§ 306 (5)) is specifically Greek.”
What that means is that it is typical of the Greek to omit one or more words, to be supplied by the reader or hearer.
A place where PAS is certainly used in a limited, restricted sense is Acts 2:17.
Will the Spirit be poured out upon “ALL flesh”, (”all flesh”- NRSV, NAB; “all people”-NIV, “all mankind”- REB, TNT, “everyone”- CEV. Gk.,”e·pi´ par´san sar´ka) also upon those having sinned against the Spirit?
Context must be looked at as a determining factor.
The Greek word “panta” in certain other contexts means “all other,” as in 1 Corinthians 15:24 and 6:18. (See An American Translation and the Moffatt, Common Bible and NIV for 6:18)
Interesting what Koine Greek Professor Jason BeDuhn says regarding “all things.” He said, “In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul catches himself saying that God will make all things subject to Christ. He stops and clarifies that “of course” when he says “all things” he doesn’t mean that God himself will be subject to Christ, but all other things will be, with Christ himself subject to God.”