White/Tuggy Debate: Is Jesus Yahweh?
https://youtu.be/UOHfivnaw-g
A review of the above 1st debate by two Catholics that I recommend even though I'm a Protestant
:https://youtu.be/vGVUNkMytGs
John 1 Is Not Trinitarian | Dale Tuggy vs James White LIVE Debate!
https://youtu.be/9rcImr2vwik
This discussion is between world renowned Christian theologian and apologist William Lane Craig who defends basic Trinitarianism, and leading Unitarian defender Dale Tuggy.
A Discussion on the Trinity & Unitarianism
https://youtu.be/zZIepfBcD94
I've informally dialogue and debated Dale Tuggy on a number of occasions at Triablogue. Here's a blog to a collection of links to some of those conversations:
Interactions with Well Known Unitarian and Philosopher Dale Tuggy
John 4:25 The woman said to him, "I know that Messiah is coming (he who is called Christ). When he comes, he will tell us all things."
John 4:29 "Come, see a man who told me all that I ever did. Can this be the Christ?"
Mark 2:8 And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts?
Mark 13:23 But be on guard; I have told you all things beforehand.
Matt. 9:4 But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "Why do you think evil in your hearts?
Luke 9:47 But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts...
John 1:46 Nathanael said to him, "Can anything good come out of Nazareth?" Philip said to him, "Come and see."47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, "Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!"
John 2:24 But Jesus on his part did not entrust himself to them, because he knew all people25 and needed no one to bear witness about man, for he himself knew what was in man.
John 5:42 But I know that you do not have the love of God within you.
John 6:64 But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.)
John 18:4 Then Jesus, knowing all that would happen to him, came forward and said to them, "Whom do you seek?"
John 16:30 Now we know that you know all things and do not need anyone to question you; this is why we believe that you came from God."
John 19:28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all was now finished, said (to fulfill the Scripture), "I thirst."
John 21:17 He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Matt. 11:27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.- John 10:15
Luke 10:22 All things have been handed over to me by my Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him."
Acts 1:24 And they prayed and said, "You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen
1 Cor. 1:24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
Luke 11:49 Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, 'I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,'
Heb. 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.13 And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
Rev. 2:23 and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am he who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.
Jer. 17:10 "I the LORD search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds."
1 King 8:39 then hear in heaven your dwelling place and forgive and act and render to each whose heart you know, according to all his ways (for you, you only, know the hearts of all the children of mankind), [cf. 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron. 28:9]
Some Christian philosophers, such as Thomas Morris, have postulated an independent conscious life for the incarnate Logos in addition to the conscious life of Jesus of Nazareth, what Morris calls a “two minds” view of the Incarnation. He provides a number of intriguing analogies in which asymmetrical accessing relations exist between a subsystem and an encompassing system, such that the overarching system can access information acquired through the subsystem but not vice versa. He gives a psychological analogy of dreams in which the sleeper is himself a person in the dream, and yet the sleeper has an awareness that everything that he is experiencing as reality is in fact merely a dream.See William Lane Craig's description in a debate Here (at 1 hour, 9 minutes, 21 seconds):
Morris proposes that the conscious mind of Jesus of Nazareth be conceived as a subsystem of a wider mind which is the mind of the Logos. Such an understanding of the consciousness of the Logos stands in the tradition of Reformed theologians like Zwingli, who held that the Logos continued to operate outside the body of Jesus of Nazareth. The main difficulty of this view is that it threatens to lapse into Nestorianism, since it is very difficult to see why two self-conscious minds would not constitute two persons.
If the model here proposed makes sense, then it serves to show that the classic doctrine of the Incarnation of Christ is coherent and plausible. It also serves religiously to elicit praise to God for his self-emptying act of humiliation in taking on our human condition with all its struggles and limitations for our sakes and for our salvation.....
-J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig in chapter 30 of their book The Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
I independently came to the same conclusions as Steve Hays and Thomas Morris due to various types of my own dreams, including lucid dreaming. Some instances came from dreams in which I was talking to other people in deep dialogue. In one instance one of the persons told a joke that was so funny I laughed out loud and woke up. Then I thought, "Who really told the joke?" Barring demonic, angelic or divine communication, I must have told the joke to myself with me simultaneously knowing and not knowing the punchline.A counter argument might be that Jesus specifically said "ONLY the Father knows". That would exclude the Son and the Holy Spirit. However, in my other blogposts I've argued for the full deity of Jesus, and the personality and full deity of the Holy Spirit. Along with the Holy Spirit's omniscience.
I've also had dreams that ran like a movie where everything previous in the dream perfectly lead up to the denouement. It surprised me even though I must have concocted the intricate storyline subliminally.
Here's an example from a lucid dream. About 22 years ago as a teenager I found out about lucid dreaming and realized I'd experienced it a few times before. So, I decided that the next time I had a lucid dream I would fly. Soon afterwards I experienced a lucid dream and found myself in a house. I decided to fly through the roof like Superman. I did so and flew over the countryside enjoying the scenery (especially since I dream in color). After flying for a while I slowly started flying faster and faster and faster. Eventually I flew so fast that it started scaring me to the point that I couldn't take it anymore, so I decided to wake myself up.
What's interesting about this incident (and other lucid dreams I've had) is that in one sense *I* was in control, but in another sense *I* was not in control, it was the subliminal *Me* that was in control and was frightening *Me*.
Steve, "Annoyed", Sam, Anthony. If anyone wants to tell me where this argument goes wrong, I'd be glad to hear it. http://trinities.org/blog/how-trinity-theories-conflict-with-the-new-testament/ Just lobbing truckloads of texts... that's just refusing to engage. I *agree* with those, and have spent more than a decade and a half trying to align my views with them, rightly understood. So, you need to show where this argument, which displays the conflict between the NT and catholic tradition, goes wrong. Feel free to comment there, and I'll answer. God bless, DaleBelow is his blog article with my commentary in blue. It's written as if speaking to Dale Tuggy himself. Though, I don't really expect a response. Especially since these comments aren't posted at Dale's blog. Dale invited comments, and these are mine. I posted them here because I didn't want to flood Dale's combox.
How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament
Most Christians are (at least in theory, according to creeds and statements of faith promulgated by denominations) trinitarians, believers in a triune or tri-personal God, which they call the Trinity. But some have always been unitarians, believers in one God who is one perfect self, who does not in any way contain three selves or “persons.” Nowadays, these are a minority (again, going by official statements and membership rolls – I think the facts about Christians’ actual beliefs are more complicated than the official documents suggest).
In my view, before around the start of the fifth century, unitarians were always a majority. Of course, they didn’t call themselves “unitarians” – that term is of late 17th c. coinage – but arguably most of them were unitarians – for some arguments read this. (Update: or this series.)There were different kinds of Unitarians. Regarding the church fathers, they weren't always consistent with each other or even with themselves. Some of their views could be labelled Unitarian from one perspective and non-Unitarian in another. Views on the Biblical triad in the ante-Nicene fathers was that diverse and ambiguous. They too were struggling to make sense of the Biblical data. Eventually, the Sabellian controversy arose and then later the Arian and Semi-Arian controversy. I myself am studying the early church and I've found many of the comments by David Waltz informative. He holds to what he has termed Nicene Monarchism and I find it appealing. Though, for the meantime I remain a Trinitarian. I do so while admitting the open secret that there are various types of Trinitarianisms (even among Evangelicals).
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 and because it seems better in 1. affirming the unity of God, 2. affirming the plurality of God, 3. affirming the full deity of the Son and Holy Spirit, 4. preserving the genuine and eternal generation/filiation of the Son and the procession/spiration of the Holy Spirit. It also goes without saying that if the New Testament contradicts Trinitarian theories, it may depend on which Trinitarian theory. One or more may survive Dale's criticisms.
In any case, one can’t determine what is true by taking a vote. Truth may be unpopular. But also, it can be popular. So, who is right?Agreed. We don't want to commit the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Nevertheless, it is interesting that the most successful forms of Christianity have been Trinitarian. I'm including Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy even though as a Protestant I have serious problems with both communions (doctrinally, historically, regarding persecution and abuse of political power etc.). Trinitarians have been the most successful in missions and evangelism. Trinitarians have always been at the forefront of apologetics (ever since Constantinople I in 381 A.D.). Trinitarians have always had the best believing (as opposed to unbelieving/liberal) Biblical scholars who are also the most familiar with the Biblical languages. Trinitarians have had the best seminaries and divinity schools. Trinitarians have had the most effective charities helping the needy in Jesus' Name in fulfillment of Matt. 25:31-40. Also, my subjective sense of history is that Trinitarian Christians have had the most miracles as well (see my blogposts at Charismata Matters like Here, Here, Here, Here, Here, and Here). The greatest and best devotional literature seem to have come from Trinitarians. And finally, the holiest Christians in church history (that I'm aware of) have mostly been (self-consciously) Trinitarian. It's almost as if the providential Blessing of God is upon Trinitarianism. I suspect it is.
I propose that the following clear arguments provide a way forward. Which should we accept?Other Christians besides myself would be better able to deal with the deductive logic of your argument. I don't know how to analyze a deductive argument to the degree that a philosopher can. But I'll try to restate your premises in a way that's in keeping with Trinitarianism #2 as I understand it.
T1 The Father is not the TrinityThe Trinity is God in all fulness. This premise might better be phrased as, "God is a Trinity." Though, the premise as is is nevertheless true. Other Trinitarians could better explain this. For simplicity's sake, in this blogpost whenever I refer to the Trinity it is usually with the following basic definition. Three persons eternally and equally share fully 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).
T2 The Trinity is God.
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.]
T3 Therefore, the Father is not God.The Father is not God in all the fullness of God. There is more to God than merely the Father. Since each person of the Godhead fully possesses the entire being of God, what can be said of the being of God can also be said of the persons of God individually. For example, since, the being of God created creation (or possesses all power), each person of the Trinity can be said to be Creator (or can be said to be omnipotent).
T1 The Father is not the Trinity.The Father is one of the persons of God who shares the being of God or the divine nature with two other persons (i.e. the Son and the Holy Spirit). The Father is Divine because He is one of the persons of the Trinity. Therefore the Father can be called "God" as Jesus and the Holy Spirit are called God and Lord.
U2 The Father is God.
U3 Therefore, The Trinity is not God.There's much Biblical data supporting plurality in the unity of God. See the following links to my other blogposts.
“Is” here means numerical identity throughout. If x in this sense “is” y (in logic we write x=y) then x and y are one and the same, numerically one thing, numerically identical, and so x and y can’t ever differ in any way. The order doesn’t matter: it will be true that x=y just in case it is also true that y=x. And if it is false that x=y, then x and y are truly two – those terms name different things. To repeat: every “is” in these arguments is the “is” of identity. This is why we’re dealing with clear arguments. We’re not talking about some less close relation or association.Yet, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are repeatedly associated with Yahweh/Jehovah. See, for example, my blog: Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah (revised version). Also my blogs on the Holy Spirit including The Full Deity of the Holy Spirit.
“God” here names Yahweh, the one true God asserted in the Hebrew scriptures.
Each argument is valid; in each case, if both premises were to be true, then the conclusion would also be true.Yes, Trinitarians should agree with T1
But we can’t consistently accept both arguments as sound. T2 conflicts with U3, and T3 conflicts with U2 (in both cases the pairs are contradictories – pairs such that one must be true and the other false).
So what to do?
Let us start on common ground. All sides should agree to T1. The reason is that if there is a Trinity – however you understand it – it differs from the Father. And so, it (or: he, they) can’t be one and the same thing as the Father, can’t be numerically identical to him. For example, no one thinks that the Father contains three persons (or “persons”), but on any understanding of the Trinity it (he, they) somehow contains or is composed of three persons (“persons”). So trinitarians should agree with T1.
Whatever the relation between the Father and the Trinity it is, however close, however mysterious, we know that it can’t be identity, for it is self-evident that one and the same thing can’t differ from itself at one time (or in eternity).Your blog article title is "How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament." One can do an internal or an external critique of the Trinity (or both at different times). U3 is a conclusion based on an external critique using anti-Trinitarian definitions of key words in the premises. A consistent internal critique would not lead to U3. Besides, this external critique doesn't take into full consideration what the word "Trinity" entails. That is, how and what Trinitarians mean by the term, "Trinity."
But having agreed on premise 1, we’re still stuck.
- Do you think that the Father “is God” in some other sense? (e.g. is wholly composed of the divine nature, possesses the divine essence, is a part of the triune God, is a member of the group of divine persons who collectively are “God”) Fine. Still, you should agree with T1; T1 is consistent with such theories.
- For their part, unitarian Christians also agree with T1, because they think that the triune God is a hypothesized entity that does not actually exist. But if it did exist, it would differ from the Father, and so couldn’t just be the Father.
- If we accept T2, we’ll conclude that the first argument is sound. (So, we’ll take it as a reason to believe T3.)
- But if we accept U2, we’ll think the second argument is sound, and so gives us a reason to believe U3 (which, of course, conflicts with T2).
So far, this has all been easy – just logic, combined with a self-evident truth which everyone knows.I'm not sure which self-evident truth Dale is referring to.
But now things get a little harder. You must ask: which do I have more reason to believe – T2 or U2?Trinitarians don't have to choose one or the other. Trinitarians can affirm both consistently without a logical contradiction.
I suggest that a good Christian should ask: WWJD? (What Would Jesus Do?). And our best information about that is in the New Testament. Does it explicitly teach either T2 or U2?Why limit it to explicit statements? This doesn't take into account Progressive Revelation spanning the course of redemptive history nor doctrinal development both during and after Biblical times. Even within the lifetimes of the Apostles there was doctrinal development and it's recorded in the New Testament canon. For example, the church grew in it's understanding of the Gospel and it's implications with respect to 1. observance of Old Testament ceremonial laws, 2. observance of Old Testament moral laws, 3. relationship between law and grace for salvation, 4. relationship between the Gentiles and the ceremonial law. 5. whether Gentiles could be included into the church and be saved through the Gospel.
Just as Paul was grappling with the relationship of the law with grace and salvation. Paul didn't have the theological vocabulary and linguistic tools in place to express what he meant in an explicit way such that he wouldn't seem to contradict. Hence, the often noted seeming contradictory attitudes Paul had concerning the law. At times he made the most glowing and positive statements regarding the law (e.g. Rom. 3:31; 7:12, 10; 1 Cor. 7:19) and other times the most negative (Rom. 3:21, 28; 4:14; 7:6; 10:4; Gal. 2:16, 19; 3:10-13; 3:21; 5:4).
Surely not T2, for the simple reason that the writers of the NT have no concept of a triune or tripersonal God.
If they had such a concept, it’d be easy for them to assign a term, a word or phrase, to express it, like “the Trinity” or “the triune God.” But they have no such term.Just like Paul didn't have terms like moral law, ceremonial law, civil law, Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, penal substitution, condign merit, congruous merit, prevenient grace, common grace, efficacious grace etc. by which he could approve or disapprove a concept.
At most, they speak in ways which are consistent with the existence of a triune God, and they occasionally speak in ways which kind of suggest such (at least, to some readers). (e.g. Matthew 28:19) If such a doctrine were explicitly taught, then we could just quote the verse. But we can’t. (For a long time, some considered 1 John 5:7 to be the needed verse, but no more; basically all have abandoned it, and rightly so.)There is a mountain of Biblical evidence pointing toward something like the Trinity that 1 John 5:7 is irrelevant. The doctrine of the Trinity is based the following premises.
So a Trinity theory is going to be, in the best case, a doctrine of inference – one which is not stated by the sources, but which either logically follows from them, or doesn’t logically follow, but best explains them.The other doctrines (like divine omniscience, immutability etc.) are also inferences to the best explanation. Such abductively derived Biblical doctrines have the greatest explanatory power and explanatory scope. Sometimes the Biblical data is underdeterminative regarding specifics. For example, the Bible clearly teaches God's eternality. But it doesn't provide enough information to conclusively determine whether it's timeless eternality or temporal eternality. We have to do the best with what God has revealed. That was true in the Old Testament (before the revelation of the Son of God even though He existed before creation and was involved in creation); true in the New Testament (as the church was growing in its understanding of the Gospel); and it's true now. Again, we much factor in Progressive Revelation during times of Revelation and Doctrinal Development which occurred both during and after times of Revelation.
Maybe the NT writers are committed to trinitarianism but don’t realize it.Just like Old Testament believers were committed to a divine Son even though it was progressively revealed to them and they didn't fully understand what that entailed (e.g. Prov. 30:4). The NT writers, Apostles and apostolic church experience of God was triune. They wouldn't have been able to formulate a doctrine of God like modern Trinitarians, but they clearly had a sense of the divinity of each person of the triad. At the very least they were implicitly "Trinitarian." Some would argue they were explicitly Binitarian.
So, you can pick a Trinity theory, and see if it can either be derived from or best explain what is in the Bible. But while you’re doing that, back to our arguments.It's interesting that one of the titles of the Messiah is Everlasting Father (meaning "possessor of eternity", or the divine attribute of eternality). Jesus was willing to call some people His spiritual children. Or at least He sometimes called people "son" and "daughter"
Is U2 explicitly taught in the Bible? I think it is, at least once. But before I get to that, I don’t think any NT author thought it needed saying! Rather, it is constantly presupposed by every NT author, and according to all of them, by the Lord Jesus himself.
They all use “Father” (“our Father,” “my Father,” “our Father in Heaven”) as a term for the one God, Yahweh.
Check all the gospels on this score.Again, the Gospels should be read in light of the rest of the New Testament and with the principle of Progressive Revelation in mind. If Jesus rarely acknowledged His messiahship openly/publically/explicitly, how much more would He have been careful in revealing His full divinity. If He hadn't, then His ministry would have been cut short. He would have been stoned to death very early on. The Gospel of John records a few times when Jesus almost was stoned to death for claiming to be God on those rare occasions when He implicitly alluded to it.
And in almost all cases, “God” (“our God,” “my God” etc.) is supposed to refer to this same one. Particularly striking are the greetings in Paul’s letters (all of them, with the possible exception of Colossians) – he sends them blessings from “God our Father” or “our God and Father”, as well as from Jesus."As well as from Jesus." Often, Jesus said to be the source of the divine blessing of mercy and grace along with the Father. Why do this if there is not a close association between the God and Jesus? As if they are equally the source of grace and mercy. Almost as if they are equals (whch Trinitarians would agree with).
4 Now there are varieties of gifts, but the SAME Spirit; 5 and there are varieties of service, but the SAME Lord; 6 and there are varieties of activities, but it is the SAME God who empowers them all in everyone.- 1 Cor. 12:4-6
In all these cases, “God” (Greek: “the god”) refers to Yahweh, the one true God of the Old Testament. And that term is being used co-referentially along with “Father” (etc.). This shows that the authors assume that God and the Father are one and the same, numerically one.But that's consistent with a Trinitarian understanding of the incarnation. If Christ eternally retains His human nature, then the Father will forever remain Jesus' God from His human perspective. Secondly, there are versions of Trinitarianism which allow for the Father being Jesus' God on account of Jesus' essential and/or personal generation from the unoriginate Father whom some term the fons deitatis/trinitatis. All the while affirming Christ's full deity. If Jesus is truly God's Son, then He must possess all the attributes of the nature of His Father. Therefore He must be God.
But is this same one also also referred to by “Jesus,” “the Lord Jesus,” and such?
No – they all assume that this one who is our God and Father is also the God and Father of Jesus.
Hence Peter,But there are good reasons to interpret 1 John 5:20 to be teaching Jesus as being "the true God" as well.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! (1 Peter 1:3, ESV)And John,
… our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. (1 John 1:3, ESV)John isn’t being redundant here. (e.g. “I know Barack Obama! And also, I know the guy who was president of the USA in 2011!”) Rather, he’s asserting that Christian have personal relationships with God, and with the Son of God.
Back to U2, sometimes it very close to the surface; I mean, it is clearly asserted, though not explicitly so (it is clearly implied). Look, for example, at John 17:3 (ESV), in which Jesus is praying to God, that is, to the Father (see verse 1):
And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.WWJD? According to John he’d affirm U2. And I think we may take the author of the gospel of John to be teaching, asserting that the Father is the one true God here, though he doesn’t assert it in his own voice here.
The one place I know where it’s explicitly taught that the Father is numerically identical to the one God is in Paul’s discussion of Christians eating food offered to idols. While the peoples of the world believe in various gods and lords,But 1 Cor. 8:6 should be read in context. The previous verse states,
…yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor 8:6, ESV)He Paul explicitly asserts that there is exactly one God, namely, the Father. To say this is, in part, to say that God and the Father are numerically one. What would Paul do? Affirm U2.
For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth---as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"--- - 1 Cor. 8:5Here Paul seems to make "gods" and "lords" equivalent. He gives no indication that for the pagans their pagan "gods" are higher than their pagan "lords." In light of that, it makes sense that some scholars see Paul applying the Shema as it is found in the Septuagint to both the Father and the Son based on the Greek of 1 Cor. 8:6. When Paul refers to Jesus Christ as "Lord," does he do so to the exclusion of the "Lordship" of the Father? If not, then why assume Paul refers to the Father as God to the exclusion of the Godhood of the Son? Remember that Paul used the words "gods" and "lords" as equivalents when referring to pagan deities. Why assume Paul is saying the Father's Godhood is greater than Jesus's Lordship? Especially when Creatorship is ascribed to both persons here and in other place (e.g. John 1:1-3; Col. 1:15ff; Heb. 1:2). Also, Remember that Col. 1:16c states concerning Christ, "all things were created through him AND FOR HIM." Remember too that Apostles continued the practice of the Septuagint of translating the tetragrammaton as kurios. Which means, whenever Jesus is referred to as "kurios" it may (depending on context) be indentifying Jesus with Jehovah/Yahweh.
Take it from Jesus, John, and Paul (and the rest of the New Testament authors – check them yourself): U2 is true. And so given that T1 is true, we should accept the second argument as sound. To do this is to be a unitarian Christian. Some such also believe in a Trinity, in the sense that they believe Father, Son, and Spirit to be three cooperating selves, perhaps all in some sense divine – but they hold that the one true God is a member of the Trinity (the Father), not the whole Trinity. So they (e.g. Origen, Irenaeus, Justin, Clarke) believe in a Trinity but not in a triune God (so they are not trinitarians).True, but there are versions and variations of those types of Unitarianisms. Also, some of them were willing to affirm Christ as being homoousios (see for example, David Waltz's and Drake Shelton's Nicene Monarchism).
Others, like me, would reject this sort of Trinity for various reasons, but in any case, we agree that that our second argument is sound, and that premise T2 is false (making the first argument unsound).Exactly. Just as "God", "the God" (ho theos) and possibly "only true God" is applied to Jesus Christ.
Unfortunately, when it comes to 1 Corinthians 8:6, some readers are confused by the fact that “the Lord” can be used to name the Father, and also Jesus.
In Paul, when he’s not quoting the OT, it is normally the latter.But Paul and other NT writers did quote the OT and repeatedly applied passages that use the tetragrammaton, and which clearly referred to the one true God (i.e. Almighty God), to Jesus. Why do that if Jesus isn't fully God? Why would the Apostles and God (who inspired Scripture) do that if they didn't want to imply that very thing? Didn't they know that by so doing they were inviting that interpretation and conclusion? Were they that ignorant of the consequences of their use of terminology, Scripture quotation and application?!?!?
(Nothing strange here; any name, term, or title can be equivocal – that is, can, in different contexts, refer to various beings.)That's true of titles, but ANY NAME? Really? Even the divine name which has a meaning that alludes to the divine attribute of aseity (self-existence, independence, non-derivation)? Since many scholars believe the tetragrammaton (the divine name YHWH or YHVH) derives from the Hebrew verb "to be" (hayah) and indicates God's utter transcendence as the Source and Ground of all being. Not only are OT passages that originally referred to Jehovah applied to Jesus, but the very unique attributes of Jehovah along with it. For example, Heb. 1:10-12 not only quotes Ps. 102 which has Jehovah as the subject. But Jehovah's attributes of Creatorship, Immutability and Eternality in that passage are also applied to Jesus. Just as full divine worship (by the Father's own command no less) originally reserved to Jehovah is applied to Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:6 quotes/alludes to Ps. 97:7(LXX)/Deut. 32:43).
But note that Paul here is presupposing here in this very sentence that the one God and the one Lord differ in some way. (“from… through whom”)It's also said of Almighty God that all things are "through him" (dia).
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.- Rom. 11:36In fact, this might be an allusion to the Triune Nature of Almighty God. It might be objected that Almighty God is said to be "through" (dia) whom all things exist CAUSALLY. Whereas Jesus is "through" whom all things exists INSTRUMENTALLY. In which case, the Greek word "dia" in reference to Jesus implies (or refers to) his inferiority to the Father. However, we have to remember again that Col. 1:16c states concerning Christ, "all things were created through him AND FOR HIM." Creation exists FOR Jesus Christ in a way that seems could only be said if Jesus were fully God as the Father is God. The most natural reading of Heb. 1:3b is that Christ "...upholds the universe by the word of his power." Not that the Father doesn't do so as well. The point being that the author of Hebrews seems to identify Jesus with the God of Genesis chapter one who created by speaking things into existence. Just as John did in John 1:1-3, calling Him the Logos/Word/Reason of God. As well as calling the Word/Logos God (John 1:1c). Though, admittedly, there is a disagreement as to whether the second "theos" in John 1:1 should be translated "God," "a god," or "divine."
So we can be sure that he’s not using the terms “God” and “Lord” co-referentially here; he’s rather assuming them to be non-identical, not numerically one."Not the same" in what sense? Not the same person? Trinitarians would agree. Not the same in nature? Not the same identical nature? But there's evidence and reasons to believe all three persons share the same nature. Though, admittedly, it's more difficult to substantiate that the same nature is the same identical nature. Hence, Nicene Monarchism [NM].
As with all the other NT authors, for Paul Jesus and God are one (in will, purpose, and rule) but they’re not the same.
