With minor editing and corrections in grammar, the following are some responses I made to a friendly Unitarian on Facebook. His comments are within forward slashes.
//We are admonished to take care of widows and orphans, not to spend our time arguing ad infinitum about a doctrine that didn’t even exist at the time the New Testament was written.//
I'd say that it's not a debate about the Trinity per se, but about the nature of God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit (all prominently mentioned in the NT). Discussing and defending the true nature of God is never a waste of time. Much of the NT is devoted to polemics on who/what Jesus is and why He is in some sense "divine" (e.g. Colossians, Hebrews, Phillipians). Even Agnostic Bart Ehrman has changed his mind and now thinks that all four canonical Gospels teach Jesus is divine in some differing senses. He says that here (already cued up):
https://youtu.be/CTgig9F782s?t=1960
I disagree with Ehrman's assumption that the Bible isn't internally consistent. So, assuming it is consistent, it's important to know in WHICH sense. Moreover, it's not like Trinitarianism is an obscure alternative that has virtually been reduced to an ash heap and then tossed into the dustbin of history.
While it's true that some professed Trinitarians and Trinitarian denominations have sometimes done terrible things, in general God seems to have blessed Trinitarianism. From my perspective, starting with the 4th century the greatest conservative Bible scholars have been Trinitarians. Along with the greatest theologians, apologists, evangelists, Bible exegetes/interpreters/commentators, missionaries, missionary agencies, philosophical theologians, church historians, etc. It has been the Trinitarians who have had the best (or at least the MOST POPULAR) Bible translations, have had the greatest impact in advancing the Kingdom of God, have had the greatest revivals (e.g. the Reformation, The Great Awakening, the Second Great Awakening, etc.). It's been Trinitarians who have had the greatest reports of signs and wonders/miracles throughout Church History (and at present). Trinitarians who have built hospitals, colleges, universities, orphanages (etc.).
When I was a Unitarian 30 years ago, this dawned on me. I asked myself questions like, "Why do the Unitarians I listen to often have to rely on the scholarly works written by Trinitarians?" I found that strange. "Why would God's providence guide history in such a way as to give it that kind of monopoly? Could it be that there's some truth to Trinitarianism? Could I be wrong about my Unitarian views?"
//According to the lexicographers, the word that is translated “begotten” in the older Bibles actually means “unique, one-of-a-kind.”//
The tide is shifting back in the scholarly community. Even Wayne Grudem has changed his mind. See this excerpt of his second edition of his Systematic Theology:
Even assuming that it merely means "unique," the NT's teaching does seem to say that Jesus is God's Son in a very unique way above and different from how humans and angels are sons of God. So special that it has divine-like connotations. Otherwise the Jews wouldn't have found the ways in which Jesus claimed His sonship offensive. Since, generally the term "Son of God" was a Messianic title. Yet, the Jews seemed to understand Jesus sometimes implied something much greater. Even as Jesus said "something greater" than the Temple and Solomon (a type of the messiah in wisdom as David was in piety) was "in their midst" (Matt. 12:6; Matt. 12:42//Luke 11:31). Notice John 19:7; 5:18.
John 19:7 The Jews answered him, "We have a law, and according to that law he ought to die because he has made himself the Son of God."
John 5:18 This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.
Clearly in the mind of the author of GJohn the term "Son of God" sometimes meant more than a messianic title for a mere human.
//It assumes, without justification, that what is true of biological organisms must necessarily be true of spirit beings.//
It's the Semitic default position that like begets like. Given the uniqueness and reality of Christ's sonship as taught in the NT, it suggests actual sonship, not metaphorical one.
//only biblical example I’m aware of in which spirit beings procreate is when they took the form of men and mated with human females.//
I'm open to that interpretation. Assuming it (arguendo), it seems to prove my point. God dislikes hybrids (e.g. Lev. 19:19). God wants kinds to remain distinct. The Bible seems to place Jesus on the Divine side of the creature vs. Creator divide and distinction. Not only are OT passages of Yahweh applied to Jesus in the NT (see Link #1 below), but SHOCKINGLY passages regarding the worship of Yahweh are applied to Jesus (e.g. Isa. 45:23//Phil. 2:10-11; Joel 2:32//Rom. 10:13; Heb. 1:6//Ps. 97:7 & Deut. 32:43 ๐ถ๐ป ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐ซ; 1 Cor. 8:6 ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ฎ๐ฐ๐ฐ๐ผ๐ฟ๐ฑ๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐๐ผ ๐ฎ ๐ป๐๐บ๐ฏ๐ฒ๐ฟ ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ฐ๐ต๐ผ๐น๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ ๐ฃ๐ฎ๐๐น ๐ถ๐ป๐ฐ๐น๐๐ฑ๐ฒ๐ ๐๐ฒ๐๐๐ ๐ถ๐ป ๐ฎ ๐๐ต๐ฟ๐ถ๐๐๐ถ๐ฎ๐ป๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ฑ ๐๐ฒ๐ฟ๐๐ถ๐ผ๐ป ๐ผ๐ณ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐ต๐ฒ๐บ๐ฎ). That despite the OT's strict teaching of worshipping YHWH alone, and despite 2nd Temple Judaism's continued enforcement of it. I believe the NT normatively requires the belief in the full deity of Jesus for the reception of salvation (Link #3 where I briefly argue this).
//You’re reading later theology into the New Testament’s use of “Son of God” in reference to Jesus, which is anachronistic.//
As we Trinitarians see it, we're being forced to Trinitarian models due to the constraints of the full orbed teaching of Scripture (cf. again Bowman's article). Some Trin. models don't see or require Jesus as the literal eternally begotten and generated offspring (e.g. William Lane Craig, Adam Clarke, Walter Martin).
//when in reality they make any claim that there was anything even similar to Apostolic Trinitarianism so problematic as to be essentially impossible.//
The late non-Messianic Jewish scholar Alan F. Segal brought to the forefront the fact that it was only AFTER the Christian era (circa 2nd century) was the "Two Powers In Heaven" doctrine rejected as heresy among Jews. That prior to that it was considered within the pale of orthodoxy to believe, and was a relatively popular view, that there were at least two divine figures taught in the OT. See his book "Two Powers In Heaven." It's even reflected in the Aramaic Targums (๐๐ฒ๐ฒ ๐๐ต๐ฒ ๐ณ๐ฎ๐๐ฐ๐ถ๐ป๐ฎ๐๐ถ๐ป๐ด ๐น๐ถ๐ป๐ธ #๐ฐ). So, we're doing much less reading into the NT as you think. It's the Unitarian position that seems to have historic amnesia and not reading the NT in its original cultural and theological milieu (Link #5).
//so also no one who is thinking clearly should assume that the application of a YHWH text to Jesus makes him YHWH.//
The problem with that is that Jesus is not only the fulfillment of the types, but equal to or greater than the types. Jesus cannot be greater than the Father, but He can be equal to Him. As various NT passage teach e.g. John 5:18, 23; and OT passages of the Angel/Word of Yahweh being regarded, worshipped as and simply referred to as Yahweh ๐จ๐๐ฃ๐จ the phrase "Angel/Word of..." as in Zech. 3:1-๐ฎ;Gen. 16:13; 1 Sam. 3:4; Judg. 6:14; Exo. 3. David is a human anointed one/messiah, and Jesus is that (i.e. equal) AND MORE. But your Unitarian interpretation makes Jesus less than equal to the Father. And *that* contrary to the VERY point the author of Hebrews is making. In Heb. 1:10-12 the application of Ps. 102 makes Jesus the eternal, immutable/unchanging Creator worthy to be worshipped (1:6). To claim it's about the New Creation as some Unitarians do, and not all of Creation itself is ad hoc. Verse 12 would then imply that Jesus could potentially "roll up" the New Creation which is promised to be eternal/unshakeable (Heb. 12:27).
//Interestingly, at 11QMelch a YHWH/ELOHIM text is applied to God’s agent, Melchizedek, and there’s no compelling evidence that Melchizedek was thought to be YHWH.//
That's the freak & infrequent minority report in the Intertestamental period. Never (or virtually so) are agents like Melchizedek, Enoch, Metatron (et al.) WORSHIPPED like Jesus is ubiquitously in the NT (passim). NEVER is there a warning to not overly worship Jesus. Nor even implied teaching to limit one's devotion, worship and prayers to Jesus to a certain degree lest it violate the 1st and 2nd commandments. Even the passages that at first glance seem to do so actually don't. And sometimes do the opposite (see Link #6).
//With respect to agency, that’s all over the Bible, so much so that even orthodox expositors recognize that Christ is God’s agent. //
I'm not denying that the NT presents Jesus as God's agent. Since I believe he's the Angel/Messenger of Yahweh in the OT. What I'm saying is that when passages of the OT regarding YHWH are applied to Jesus, it's never explained as merely being cases of the Law of Agency. Again, see Schumacher's article, Link #7.
No obligation to read the following. ๐ง๐ต๐ฒ๐ ๐ฎ๐ฟ๐ฒ ๐ด๐ถ๐๐ฒ๐ป ๐ณ๐ผ๐ฟ ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ณ๐ฒ๐ฟ๐ฒ๐ป๐ฐ๐ฒ❜๐ ๐๐ฎ๐ธ๐ฒ.
Link #1 https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/07/identifying-jesus-with-yahwehjehovah.html
Link #2 to my blogs where I've linked to resources on "monogenes"
https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/search?q=begotten
Link #3 https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2021/05/does-new-testament-require-belief-in.html
Link #4 Word of the Lord in the Targums http://juchre.org/articles/word.htm
Link #5 See Rogers' series of articles at: https://answeringislam.org/authors/rogers.html
The “Heavenly” and “Earthly” Yahweh: Interpreting Genesis 19:24
The Malak Yahweh: Jesus, the Divine Messenger of the Old Testament
Link #6 https://trinitynotes.blogspot.com/2014/07/why-do-you-call-me-good-did-jesus-deny.html
The Following was posted the next day.
//I don't have much time to continue with this exchange, esp. since I already know that there is no chance of agreement. But a few brief points:...//
I won't take your not continuing the conversation as a sign of defeat. We're all busy and have limited time. NP.
//It's a long, paradoxical road from the two powers view to a tri-personal God. //
Yes, they were striving to understand God and this Divine-like Agent. Trying to understand how in one sense He's not God, yet in another sense is God. So much so that he's worshipped by Joshua with a command to take off his shoes (Joshua 5:13ff.) like Moses at the time of the Burning Bush. In fact, the Angel of Yahweh is in the Burning Bush episode. The point is that they were trying to hammer out some doctrine based on the OT that clearly didn't teach strict monotheism as modern rabbinic Judaism and Islam teach. Christian Unitarians (of all strips?) have the problem of implicit or explicit polytheism. They have a Great God and a Lesser god (explicit in e.g. Arian or Semi-Arian) or god-like human whom they sometimes acknowledge can be worshipped (implicit in Humanitarian Unitarianism). While the greater/lesser God is found in intertestamental 2nd Temple Judaism and some Christian Unitarians (CUs), those Jews didn't have the fuller revelation of the NT and so are less culpable. Moreover, they were willing to call the second person Yahweh, whereas it's only ever agentival among CUs. In a few senses the interestamental Jews had a higher view of the "divinity" of the second Yahweh, than many modern CHs.
//it involved two divine beings//
There are Trinitarian versions that amount to that. As in some of the Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene fathers. I'm open to that view, but I lean toward and have as my default view the one where the 3 persons share the one being of God.
//the sloppy presentation by some scholars (e.g. Boyarin) and not the data that make some think that the two paradigms are friendly to each other.//
One can be friendly without being cousins or siblings. There's an affinity that makes CH less plausible than more. Non-Messianic Jewish scholar Dr. Benjamin Sommer, a professor in Bible and ancient Near Eastern languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary (that’s right, the Jewish Theological Seminary), wrote in his recent book The Bodies of God: "Some Jews regard Christianity’s claim to be a monotheistic religion with grave suspicion, both because of the doctrine of the trinity (how can three equal one?) and because of Christianity’s core belief that God took bodily form. . . . No Jew sensitive to Judaism’s own classical sources, however, can fault the theological model Christianity employs when it avows belief in a God who has an earthly body as well as a Holy Spirit and a heavenly manifestation, for that model, we have seen, is a perfectly Jewish one. A religion whose scripture contains the fluidity traditions [referring to God appearing in bodily form in the Tanakh], whose teachings emphasize the multiplicity of the shekhinah, and whose thinkers speak of the sephirot does not differ in its theological essentials from a religion that adores the triune God."
The fact that Sommer includes post Christian Jews suggests that the Tanakhian data has a tendancy to lead even Jews a kind of pluritarian conception of God. I grant that Sommer's quote is more friendly to Modalism than Trinitarianism. But not to CUs. Those post-Christian Jews (esp. Medieval) who went the other extreme in asserting the strict unity of God were often influenced by Islamic theologians. Admitttedly, some Jews affirming the sephirot were influenced by occultic Kabbalah.
//We know that Jesus isn't the creator because of the prepositions Paul used//
I can't really argue using the Greek because my Koine is very rudimentary. The use of "dia" and "eis" need not deny the deity of Christ. It's says of YHWH, "For from him and ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐ค๐ช๐๐ [dia] him and ๐ฉ๐ค [eis] him are all things" (Rom. 11:36). It seems to me that the same words "dia" and "eis" in Col. 1:16 are also used of YHWH in Rom. 11:36. Suggesting full divinity. [[I meant consistent with full deity, not necessarily suggesting it.]]
//He Himself is never called the Creator.//
//but not แผฮพ (from). ‘From whom are all things’ (แผฮพ ฮฟแฝ ฯแฝฐ ฯฮฌฮฝฯฮฑ) is said of God in 1 Corinthians 8:6. //
He may not be "called" Creator, but He's predicated and described as being Creator (e.g. Heb. 1:10-12 in its citation and application of the YHWH of Ps. 102). Moreover, appeals to "through" and "ex" language to deny the full deity of Christ seems to be implausible given that they're also used in 1 Cor. 8:6 even though it ostensibly is a Christianized version of the Shema where Paul uses the LXX's kurios not for the Father [as one would expect], but suprisingly for the Son. One would think that it would be reversed since "god/theos/elohim" can be legitimately used of beings other than YHWH (e.g. the angels in Ps. 8:5; 82:1 passim). The language of "ONE God" and "ONE Lord" is one of the hints it's a "baptized" Shema. Verse 5 [which refers to many "gods" and many "lords" among pagans] doesn't imply that the pagan gods were higher than the pagan lords. Rather they are equivalent synonyms for deities. In the same way, the One GOD and One LORD are meant to be equivalents, not with Jesus as an ontologically inferior Lord. Otherwise, Jesus wouldn't have been included in the baptized Shema and Paul would have excluded Him, or not used the word "One" in the phrase "One Lord," or would have reversed it and said Jesus was "One god" while the Father is the "One Lord" (with the LXX's background of translating the tetragrammaton as "kurios"). Instead "kurios" IS applied to Jesus. As in Phil. 2:10-11 with the background of Isa. 45:23 (etc.).
//The Father redeems ‘in’ or ‘by means of’ the Son. The Son is intermediate agent of the Father’s ransoming.//
Of course, if the application of Granville Sharp's Rule is correct in Titus 2:13-14, then Jesus is the Yahweh who is redeeming there in that passage that harkens back to the Exodus.
Titus 2:13 waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ,
14 who gave himself for us to ๐ฅ๐๐๐๐๐ us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.
//We have a passive verb, ‘was created.’ What is the subject of the verb? //
What's missing from this and Unitarian interpretations of John 1:1ff., Col. 1:15ff., 1 Cor. 8:6 is that in those passages ALL of creation is said to be through Jesus. If Jesus was created and is a creature, then Jesus was created through Jesus [sic]!!! That's logically impossible. Because one would have to first BE in order to be created THROUGH one's self. Once again showing how the NT places Jesus on the divine side of the Creator and creature distinction and divide. Either Jesus is created or not. Which is it? What's your answer? If he was created, then he was created through himself (per impossibile). If he was not created, then Jesus must be eternal and fully divine.
//The author of Hebrews applied Psalm 102:25 to Jesus because he wanted to make the point that the post resurrection Jesus was now immortal and his “years shall have no end.” (KJV)//
You're limiting the meaning of the passage which doesn't merely affirm continuing existence, but of Creatorship, immutability and not merely future eternality. Titus 1:2 refers to " before the ages began" (alternatively, "before time began" NKJV; "before times of ages" YLT). Implying time itself is a creation of God. In which case, in light of the rest of Scripture, Hebrews is saying Jesus exists outside of time and created time. The same YHWH in Ps. 102 is the same in in Ps. 90 who is "from everlasting to everlasting." Which has similarities to the OT Yahwist title "first and last" which Jesus appropriates for Himself (Rev. 1:17; 2:8, 22:12-13).
//Unlike all prior kings, Jesus isn’t a king who’s going to die and thereby potentially allow his kingdom....//
The author of Heb. could have prevented misunderstanding by limiting his allusions and quotations to persons other than Yahweh. Instead, on Unitarianism, he foolishly applies OT passage of creation, and worship (etc.) to Jesus. The Trinitarian position seems more likely to me. Why did God inspire the author to give a seemingly idolatrous teaching?
//Notice what happens when you omit Ps. 102:25 from the quote in Hebrews 1:...//
I find this kind of funny because you go on to quote the rest of Hebrews that calls the Son "God." It already says of "O God" (i.e. the person Jesus) "is forever and ever" (v. 8). Even if we take the preferred Unitarian translation of "God is your throne," it's forever and ever. Meaning, the messiah will have God as his throne (whatever that means) forever and ever. On that Unit. interpretation, it's already saying the messiah will live eternally forward in time. In which case, there would be no further need for the lengthy quote of Ps. 102 to teach Messiah's forward temporal eternality. Yet he does in a way that naturally implies Jesus' Creatorship, immutability, timelessness, and eternality.
//He was the ‘Wisdom’ or ‘LOGOS’ through whom God created the original heavens and the original earth.//
Yet, the OT teaches that Yahweh created by Himself ("by Myself") in Isa. 44:24. The Unit. interpretation produces a contradiction between the OT and NT. Whereas, a Trin. interpretation can say that there is a sense in which Yahweh created "by Himself" yet at the same time through Christ. Because Jesus is of the Godhead. Similarly, a contradiction is pruduced in Unitarianism when the NT say no one has seen God, even though the OT says God was seen (Ex. 24:10-11; Gen. 3:8; Gen. 17, Gen. 18; Isa. 6 passim). On Trin. it's easily explained because they saw the Son but not the Father.
Exo. 24:10 ๐ฎ๐ป๐ฑ ๐๐ต๐ฒ๐ ๐ฆ๐๐ช ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ ๐ข๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ฅ๐๐๐. There was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.
When it comes to Prov. 8:22-31, that's compatible with either Trinitarianism/Binitarianism or Semi-Arianism/Arianism. Though, it need not be a reference to the pre-incarnate Jesus.
//GJohn bends over backwards to make clear that his development of the Father/Son relationship is defined by agency.//
I addressed this. I said, "I'm not denying that the NT presents Jesus as God's agent. Since I believe he's the Angel/Messenger of Yahweh in the OT. What I'm saying is that when passages of the OT regarding YHWH are applied to Jesus, it's never explained as merely being cases of the Law of Agency."
There are certain things agents can't do. Gotham lawyer Harvey Dent can do things for commissioner Gordon in his place as if he were Gordon, but Dent can't have sex with his wife. Similarly, idolatry (the worship of anything other than the true God) was considered spiritual adultery in the OT. Yet, Jesus receives the worship due to Yahweh alone. Despite the OT's clear and persistent teaching about the nature of Idolatry. Jesus in the NT stands in the place of YHWH in the OT. As YHWH was Israel's wife, so Jesus is the Church's Bridegroom even though the Church is merely Remnant Israel come out of & separated from unfaithful Israel. The same word "ecclesia" for the congregation of Israel in the LXX is used for the church/congregation of the NT (cf. Acts 7:38). Either Jesus is also Yahweh along with the Father, or there is a RADICAL discontinuity between the OT and NT such that Non-Messianic Jews would have to be right about Christianity being idolatrous in bring in a new god.
//...the fact that the answer must be qualified tells us that Jesus was not in fact worshipped as God, because our worship of God is unqualified.//
The distinction Dunn made is not in the NT. I agree that there was obeisance in the OT for human kings (1 Chron. 29:20). But it was not in religious context *toward* the king even if done in a larger religious context. But worship of Jesus is not qualified in the NT and yet it IS in a religious context toward Him and of a spiritual being who is more than merely human. With the exception of the Angel of YHWH who I believe to be the person later named Jesus, there is no worship or obeisance of angels in the OT (cf. Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9). Prayer is an act of worship and prayer is directed to Jesus (2Cor. 12:8; Acts 1:24; John 14:12-14). JC says in John 14:14 in the critical text "If you ask ๐ ๐ anything in my name, I will do it." Contrary to Dunn, Jesus says we ought to honor Him as we honor the Father (John 5:23). "Bowing the KNEE" in a religious context toward Baal or any spiritual entity was idolatrous. The prophets of YHWH refused to bow the KNEE to Baal (Rom. 11:4). Yet the KNEE is bowed to Jesus in Phil. 2:10-11 which applies to Jesus an OT passage about YHWH that's arguably the most monotheistic verse in the most monotheistic chapter in the entire Tanakh. Calling upon a deity was an act of worship, yet Christians are those "who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 1:2 cf. Rom. 10:13 w/ Joel 2:32). Religious invocation of a spiritual entity is worship, yet Father, Son and Holy Spirit are invoked in baptism (Matt. 28:19) and final benediction (2 Cor. 13:14). More could be said, but I must be brief. My blogs go deeper.
//Notice that in the Lord's Evening Meal, Jesus is not the God to whom sacrifice is offered, but the sacrifice itself.//
The "Lord" of 1 Cor. chapters 10 and 11 is Jesus.
1 Cor. 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the ๐ง๐๐๐๐ ๐ข๐ ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ and the table of demons.
22 Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?
Compare with:
Mal. 1:7 By offering polluted food upon my altar. But you say, 'How have we polluted you?' By saying that the LORD's ๐ง๐๐๐๐ may be despised.
12 But you profane it when you say that the Lord's ๐ง๐๐๐๐ is polluted, and its fruit, that is, its food may be despised.
//...Jesus isn't the God who people come to worship, but the 'place' they come to worship God the Father.//
There's no room for debate that when Thomas said, "My Lord and my God" that he was speaking to Jesus because it says, Thomas "answered HIM..." There's also no question that the GK there has "ho theos" with the definite article. Just as "ha adon," which is only ever used of YHWH in the OT, is used of Jesus in Mal. 3:1. The Father and Jesus are worshipped together without any explained distinction in Rev. 5:13-14.
13 And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, "To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!"
14 And the four living creatures said, "Amen!" and the elders fell down and worshiped.
The very fact that Jesus refers to Himself as "first and last", [along with "Alpha and Omega" and "Beginning and End" (in Rev. 22:12-13)] is a claim to deity (Isa. 41:4, 44:6; 48:12). Because just as an author who controls how the letters of the alphabet will be used to create his novel and so has sovereign control over his story, so YHWH has SOVEREIGN Lordly providential control over history (or HIS-story).
//but about your typo correction, dia has both a causal and an intermediary sense. At Rom. 11:36 it's causal.//
Yes, I recognize that. I recall Greg Stafford making that great point in his debate with either James White or Robert Bowman. I don't think either sense requires the conclusion that Jesus isn't full divine [or said another way, that Jesus is ontologically inferior to the Father].
There are Trin. models that deny eternal generation and those that affirm it. I kind of lean toward its affirmation. In which case, due to the the ontology, there is a sense in which the Son is subordinate in order and rank, even if not in dignity, glory, essence, substance, ontology.
Generally, there are three types of subordination.
1. Ontological subordination
2. Functional Subordination
3. Incarnational Subordination.
Trins can affirm 2 & 3 or just 3. I lean toward both 2 & 3.
//It's not just that the Son isn't "called' creator, it's that the Son isn't the creator, the Father is. The Son was his Master Worker.//
I just disagree with your interpretation. Jesus is described as Creator in all those passages, esp. Heb. 1:10-12. See my comments in the two posts you haven't read yet about Jesus either being created or not, and my comments on it.
Moreover, I think the case for Jesus referring to Himself as "I AM" in the Yahwistic sense in passages like John 8:58 (24, 28) is eminently more likely than the ad hoc gymnastics Unitarians use to argue that it doesn't mean what it ostensibly means given background information. See:
See James White's article "Purpose and Meaning of “Ego Eimi” in the Gospel of John In Reference to the Deity of Christ"
https://www.aomin.org/aoblog/1990/01/01/purpose-and-meaning-of-ego-eimi-in-the-gospel-of-john/
IF Jesus is claiming to be the "I AM" in places like John 8:58, [as Jesus' claims to be the "first and last" appears to in light of the Yahwist background of Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12] then that settles the issue. Jesus IS Creator along with the Father.
No comments:
Post a Comment