Saturday, December 28, 2013

The Purpose of This Blog

(last updated 2018-01-04)

This blog is a place where I can post miscellaneous notes in defense of (or relevant to) the doctrine of the Trinity so as to help persuade non-Trinitarians of the truth of Trinitarianism. In light of that, I won't always address some of the deeper issues, differences and disagreements among Trinitarians.

This blog is also a place where I can sort out my own beliefs and doubts regarding the Trinity and who/what the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are. Presently, I do believe in the doctrine of the Trinity because it seems to me to do the best in systematizing and harmonizing the Biblical data regarding the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. I have been a Trinitarian since around 1994. However, there have always been small nagging doubts in the back of my mind. So, this blog will also document some of the things I'm learning and thinking about regarding the various alternatives and how I evaluate them along with and in comparison/contrast to the Trinity. Alternatives like Modalism, Nicene Monarchism (and its varieties), Semi-Arianism, Arianism, Binitarianism, Pneumatomachianism, William Lane Craig's neo-Apollinarianism etc. 

With respect to defending the doctrine of the Trinity, this blog is basically a supplementary blog since there are other great books and websites out there that also defend the doctrine of the Trinity. This means, among other things, there are some good arguments and evidences for the doctrine of the Trinity that I don't mention or only scratch the surface of because they are addressed in other blogs or books in a more scholarly and in-depth way than I ever could. For example, for the most part I avoid the intricate debates between Trinitarians and Unitarians who are knowledgeable in Koine Greek regarding Jesus' use of ego eimi as evidence of His full deity. Another example would be the translation of John 1:1. This is why I also HIGHLY RECOMMEND one of my other blogposts (on a different blog). At that blog I've collected many external links to useful resources defending the doctrine of the Trinity. Again, this particular blog (Trinity Notes) is only meant to be supplemental to that blog post. That main blog is titled:

Resources in Defense of Trinitarianism
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/resources-in-defense-of-trinitarianism.html

Additionally, the following is the link to my blogpost were I've collected links to all my main comments on other people's blogs where I have defended and argued for the doctrine of the Trinity. This link includes links to two of my own blogposts where I argued for the doctrine of the Trinity.

Comments and Blog Posts on the Trinity
http://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2013/12/comments-and-blog-posts-on-trinity.html


Because I myself once rejected the doctrine of the Trinity, I can sympathize with anti-Trinitarians and can understand why they reject the doctrine and find it difficult to believe. I understand their reasoning processes and mindset. In this blog I attempt to provide arguments, phrased in such a way, that could help anti-Trinitarians see how plausible and reasonable the doctrine is when one considers the Biblical data holistically.


I write these blogposts as an Evangelical Trinitarian. An open secret among Evangelicals is that there are actually various types of Trinitarian theology among Evangelicals. As one non-Evangelical observer put it:

Now, when we look at “the” Evangelical doctrine of the Trinty, one is forced to conclude that it is “doctrines”, not “the doctrine”, for the following are but a few examples of the different forms of Trinitarianism held within Evangelicalism. 1.) The Son and the Spirit are generated from the Father’s essence, who is the source, fountain-head of the Trinity (Melanchthon, Jonathan Edwards). 2.) It is the person alone, not the essence which is generated from the Father (John Calvin, Francis Turrettin, and most Reformed theologians). 3.) There is no generation of persons within the Godhead; the Logos became the Son at the incarnation (Oliver Buswell, Walter Martin, early writings of John MacArthur). 4.) The Godhead is one person, and within the being of this one person there are three personal subsistences (Cornelius Van Til). 5.) The Trinity is not composed of persons in the modern sense (i.e. three distinct centers of conscious personal beings), but rather of three modes of existence (Donald Bloesch). 6.) Social Trinitarianism (Cornelius Plantinga, Jr., Millard Erickson, Edward Wierenga).
 I don't take a dogmatic stand on any one Trinitarian view. However, I find #2 (maybe in conjunction with #4) attractive. It's the default position I defend and tentatively/provisionally hold to for the sake of argument.

I find Nicene Monarchism slightly plausible (being similar to #1 above), but it does seem to compromise the unity of God. Also, it doesn't seem to do justice to the Biblical data regarding the full deity of the Son and Spirit. For example, Rev. 2:23 doesn't seem to comport with Nicene Monarchism. In this verse Jesus seems to identify Himself with Jehovah/Yahweh Himself, not merely represent Him in name since Jesus clearly alludes to Jer. 17:10 (cf.  Ps. 62:12; 1 Kings 8:39). In other words, Jesus seems to be saying He is the Jehovah of Jer. 17:10.

For simplicity's sake, in this blog whenever I refer to the Trinity it is usually with the following basic definition. Three persons eternally share the one being of God. That is to say, God is one "What" and three "Whos." Again, by the Trinity I mean there is one being (AKA substance, AKA essence) with three centers of consciousness (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).

Or take this definition by Bruce Ware:

The doctrine of the Trinity affirms that God’s whole and undivided essence belongs equally, eternally, simultaneously, and fully to each of the three Persons of the Godhead, so that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each is fully God while each is his own personal expression, in role and activity, of the one eternal and undivided divine essence. So, there is one God—hence, there is one and only one divine essence that is possessed fully and simultaneously by each of the three Persons—but three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each is fully God, since each possesses the identically same divine nature, yet each Person is a distinct personal expression of that one and undivided divine essence.
[The source [[or here]] of this quote is questionable and so might contain typos or grammar which Bruce Ware would take exception to. Since, hypothetically, the ultimate source of this quote might be based on an audio file of Bruce Ware where the listener may have inaccurately typed out Ware's definition and arranged the grammar in a way Ware wouldn't have done so.]

See also my blogpost: My Outer and Inner Trinitarian Options 




My Other Blogs:

7 comments:

  1. Hi Annoyed, I was wondering if you have seen Heiser's work on the Divine Council and whether we (Trinitarians) can defend the Deity of Christ against skeptical unitarians (of the likes of Ehrman) in light of YHWH giving dominion to His Divine Council. The question mostly stemming from the self-identity of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.

    Particularly Ehrman states that John put words in Jesus mouth (I AM statements) and that Paul, Peter, and Synoptic writers thrust their later beliefs of Jesus being YHWH onto their writings.

    Particularly he believes that Jesus believed Himself to be a pre-existent divine being that the Father (YHWH) abdicated Lordship to. I have drawn a connection with what you stated about the Divine Council getting authority. For example defending the idea that God can only forgive sins, BUT Jesus was given this authority as a Elohim (created disembodied spiritual being). Same with being Lord of the Sabbath.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have watched a number of Heiser's videos, and read his book Supernatural which is a summary and introduction to his book The Unseen Realm [which I'm also currently reading]. I'm in general agreement with much of what Heiser says. Though, I'm not dogmatic about the particulars. Even he doesn't see how the concept of the divine council undermines Trinitarianism. Since he's a Trinitarian himself. BTW, I've linked to some of his videos on this Blog. Being a Calvinist, I obviously disagree with Heiser's lower view of predestination and providence which shines through in his books on the divine council and God's program of advancing His kingdom family. But that's fine. I get along with and greatly benefit from my non-Calvinist fellow Evangelicals.

      //The question mostly stemming from the self-identity of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.//

      See the following blogs
      Transcript and commentary: The "I am" statements, again by Lydia McGrew
      http://lydiaswebpage.blogspot.com/2018/03/transcript-and-commentary-i-am.html

      Are the "I am" statements authentic? by Steve Hays
      https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2018/03/are-i-am-statements-authentic.html

      Why Don't the Synoptics Have Jesus Claiming to be the "I Am"?
      https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2018/03/why-dont-synoptics-have-jesus-claiming.html

      The Meaning of the Term "Son of Man"
      https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-meaning-of-term-son-of-man.html

      Jesus the True and Proper SON of God
      https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/05/jesus-true-and-proper-son-of-god.html

      Pre-Existence of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels
      https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/06/pre-existence-of-jesus-in-synoptic.html

      //Particularly Ehrman states that John put words in Jesus mouth (I AM statements) and that Paul, Peter, and Synoptic writers thrust their later beliefs of Jesus being YHWH onto their writings. //

      See my blog: Bart Ehrman's Current Beliefs Regarding Jesus and His Divinity where Ehrman concedes many things in favor of traditional Christian beliefs.

      Even limiting oneself to the historical criteria of authenticity which non-Christians often go by, there's enough certain Jesus traditions that would suggest Jesus believed Himself to be divine. See, for example, the blog on the "Son of Man" I linked to above. See also W.L. Craig exposing Ehrman's shoddy scholarship in his use of the Criteria HERE. The fact that the OT predicted a divine preexistent messiah would lend support that the NT writers weren't just inventing a divine Jesus. As would the OT's teaching of plurality in the one God. See my other blogs on the topic. As well as my links to articles and MANY Videos and Debates by Anthony Rogers in this Blog.

      CONTINUED BELOW

      Delete
    2. See this excellent video by Mike Licona:

      Did Jesus Claim to Be God?
      https://youtu.be/gT2TN6kA5kY


      //Particularly he believes that Jesus believed Himself to be a pre-existent divine being that the Father (YHWH) abdicated Lordship to.//

      According to his book How Jesus Became God, Ehrman has proposed different and converging causes as to early belief in Jesus' divinity. See the response book that came out at the same time with the reverse title, How God Became Jesus edited by Michael Bird with contributions by other scholars. It's an excellent book I had to underline many times because it's chock-full of info.

      //For example defending the idea that God can only forgive sins, BUT Jesus was given this authority as a Elohim (created disembodied spiritual being). Same with being Lord of the Sabbath.//

      Jesus is both divine and human. As the human messiah, He's given authority by the Father. As divine, He has it intrinsically. On account of the incarnation, and from the perspective of creation, He temporarily laid down His divine prerogatives in order to take them back after purchasing redemption via His death, resurrection, ascension to heaven and exaltation to the right hand of God the Father. That He was God prior to His incarnation and descended to earth is taught in Phil. 2:6ff; Rom. 9:5; Dan. 7:13-14; Him being the Angel of YHVH [see Anthony Rogers' videos I've linked to in this blog] etc. BTW, Eph. 4:9-10 has traditionally been interpreted to refer to the lower parts of the earth [i.e. the realm of the dead], but some commentators argue that it refers to Jesus descent not from earth to the underworld, but from heaven to earth [cf. Rom. 10:6-7].

      Jesus forgiving sins was delegated to Him from the Father in a way different than how He delegated it to the Apostles [John 20:23]. The Apostles could do it as creatures, Jesus did it as Creator [see the arguments for Jesus being Creator. E.g. John 1:1ff. 1 Cor. 8:6ff.; Col. 1:19ff. etc.]. Jesus did it as the Divine-Human messiah. The OT teaches only God will judge the world, and therefore Jesus is God [see this video by David Wood]. There are different kinds of subordination. There's 1. ontological subordination, 2. functional subordination, and 3. incarnational subordination. The ontological subordination of the Son is NOT consistent with the Trinity, but the functional and incarnational ARE consistent with the Trinity. Some Trinitarians reject pre-incarnational functional subordination of the Son. While other Trinitarians affirm it. It was a controversy that especially sparked among Calvinists about 5 years ago. I myself lean toward [but not dogmatic on] pre-incarnational subordination. Also known as Eternal Subordination of the Son [ESS], or Eternal Functional Subordination [EFS], or Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission [ERAS]. That's because I also lean toward [but not dogmatic on] the Son's eternal generation/filiation, and the Spirit's eternal procession/spiration. If ERAS is true, then it's especially non-problematic that Jesus received the power of forgiveness from the Father. But incarnational subordination is sufficient to solve the problem if one wants to affirm the least amount of subordination of the Son to the Father. Also, Jesus sometimes forgave sin as if it were an offense to Him [as if He were God].

      CONTINUED

      Delete
    3. //...Same with being Lord of the Sabbath.//

      Actually, this highlights Jesus' Divinity. The Greek word for "lord" used there is, I believe, the same used to translate the Hebrew tetragrammaton [YHWH or YHVH]. Jesus is alluding to His being Yehovah/Yahweh, in a way that wouldn't necessarily be caught by His immediate listeners, but which would be caught by later reflection by the Gospel authors and conveyed to their readers. Keep browsing through my blogposts in this BLOG and the links I've given and many of your concerns will be addressed and answered.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One of the strongest arguments I find for Christ's self-identification as deity is the passage in Matthew about Christ gathering under his wings. However, a unitarian said that while Ruth 2:12 is often quoted to show YHWH's wings, Ruth 3:9 shows that Boaz had wings/garmet (word is apparently the same just one is plural). Do you have any more info on if that defeats the argument?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See a bit more in my blogpost here:
      The Wings of Christ Are God's Wings

      Also, it's not merely about what words are used, but how they are used; in what cultural and Biblical contexts. Jesus' use is in keeping with the common Semitic way that was used to describe gods (both pagan gods and the God of Israel). As well as in keeping with how the Old Testament described Yahweh. See for example Chris Date's comments in this debate here (already cued up): https://youtu.be/c35_uFjEbx8?t=3208

      Delete