The Trinity: What Must Be Believed

God, Christ, & The Holy Spirit
User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Trinity: What Must Be Believed

Post by Homer » Sat Jan 07, 2023 3:32 pm

Darin,

I read most of what you posted by Emlyn (a unitarian). What I did not see was any discussion of the kenosis (Philippians 2:7) and how it might affect our understanding. What did the Christ give up and when; when did He have and not have what was given up? If he did not pre-exist it is difficult for me to see where in His life he emptied himself.

It seems to me in the kenosis He went from "the Word" to being born the Son which He will forever be.

As I said I tired of reading the screed; if I missed discussion of the kenosis let me know and I will go back and re-read it if he elaborated on it.

Thanks, Homer

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: The Trinity: What Must Be Believed

Post by darinhouston » Sat Jan 07, 2023 4:59 pm

Homer wrote:
Sat Jan 07, 2023 3:32 pm
Darin,

I read most of what you posted by Emlyn (a unitarian). What I did not see was any discussion of the kenosis (Philippians 2:7) and how it might affect our understanding. What did the Christ give up and when; when did He have and not have what was given up? If he did not pre-exist it is difficult for me to see where in His life he emptied himself.

It seems to me in the kenosis He went from "the Word" to being born the Son which He will forever be.

As I said I tired of reading the screed; if I missed discussion of the kenosis let me know and I will go back and re-read it if he elaborated on it.

Thanks, Homer
Screed is pretty harsh (if meant as a prejorative - it was long as posts go but not as the subject requires and certainly not tedious) - I find it a temperate piece, though I read it in the larger context of the rest of the book. He does talk about arguments of pre-incarnation vs. post-incarnation, though doesn't use the term kenosis. I find the conventional kenosis theory total conjecture and certainly not exegetical. It's worthy of a totally separate topic thread, but generally I find that passage to be meant as a contrast to the first Adam - he didn't elevate himself and try to be God and so forth but lowered himself and subjected himself to God. That's very brief, but the word isn't really a theology word but has been given meanings I don't think were understood - certainly not in that passage.

Note also this was written in the 1600s - way before any discussion I'm aware of suggesting a "kenosis" theory per se. It is a modern edition so it is much more readable, but only edited for readability.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: The Trinity: What Must Be Believed

Post by darinhouston » Sat Jan 07, 2023 5:16 pm

Further to Homer's question on kenosis, I posted a separate topic to discuss kenosis generally. But, if you want to interact with Emlyn's "screed" on the subject, there is a chapter on the "dual nature" argument (which is a little different from kenosis).

2.2 Why “Two-Natures” Speculations Don’t Help

What can be said against these clear arguments? I imagine our opponents have only one move left for evading them, and that is a distinction which serves them in all cases: they say Jesus Christ says these things about himself “as man only,” while he had another nature “as God,” which he reserved and excepted out of the case, so that when he says “I cannot do this myself,” or “I am not to be called the chief good,” or “I do not know this,” etc., according to them, the meaning is: “I don’t have these perfections in my human nature, nonetheless I know and can do all unassisted, and am the chief good in my divine nature, which also is more properly myself.”[131]

I intend now to expose the futility of this tricky move by showing how absurd it is to suppose that this distinction of two natures removes the force of such expressions from Christ’s own mouth which in their natural and ordinary appearance proclaim his inferiority to God, even the Father. And I shall dwell more on this because it’s the most popular and common evasion, and comes in at every turn, when all other relief fails.

It’s reasonable for us to ask what hint of such a distinction of two natures they can point us to in any of these discourses of Christ. Should we devise or imagine for him such a strange and seemingly deceitful way of speaking simply to uphold our own precarious opinion? But I have several remarks to make about this common answer.

My first objection is that our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, if he was the supreme God in any nature of his own, he could not have said, it seems to me, consistently with truth and sincerity (which he always maintained strictly), that he could not do or did not know something which all this while he himself could do or did know very well—as surely as if he were the supreme God, he could and did. This would be to make him say what is most false and to equivocate in the most deceitful manner. Even if we should suppose he consisted of two infinitely distant natures, and so had two capacities of knowing and acting, yet since he includes them both, it follows that when he denies something of himself in absolute terms, without any limitation in the words or other obvious circumstances, he plainly implies a denial of its belonging to any part of his person, or any nature in it. Although we may affirm a thing of a person which belongs only to a part of him, as I may properly say a man is wounded or hurt, though it only be in one part, suppose, an arm—yet I cannot rightly deny a thing of him which belongs only to one part, because it belongs not to another. I can’t say a man is not wounded because although one arm is shot or wounded yet the other is unharmed. For instance, I have two organs of sight, two eyes. Now suppose I converse with a man with one eye shut and the other open. If being asked whether I saw him, I should dare to say that I didn’t see him (without any qualification) meaning (to myself) that I didn’t see him with the eye which was shut although I saw him well enough with the eye which was open, I fear I would be criticized as a liar and deceiver, notwithstanding such a mental reservation as some would attribute to the holy Jesus. For knowledge is the eye of the person; Jesus Christ is supposed to have two of these knowing capacities, the one weak, the other strong and piercing, discerning all things. Now as such a one, the disciples come to him and ask him when the end of the world and time of his coming shall be.[132] He answers them by giving them some general account of the matter, but says that he didn’t know the particular day and hour, nor did any know them except the Father, meaning (say my opponents) that it wasn’t included in his human knowledge, although he knew it well enough with his divine nature, at the same time that he said absolutely and without qualification that the Son doesn’t know it.

If Jesus Christ had a divine knowledge and nature, no doubt his disciples (who, if anyone, must have believed it) would have directed their question to that divine capacity of his rather than to the imperfect human capacity, and yet in answer to their question he says he didn’t know the day, which would not be counted as sincere or truthful in ordinary people. But surely we mustn’t think Jesus Christ was dishonest in this way, for in his mouth was no guile.[133] Let us not impute it to him.

That you may see this is good reasoning, hear how some of the other side admit it when out of the heat of this controversy. See Dr. Stillingfleet’s sermon on Matthew 10:16[134] on the equivocation of Catholic priests whose common answer, when questioned about what they have known by hearing confession, is that they don’t know it. And they think it vindicates them from the charge of lying to say that in confession the priest knows matters “as God,[135] not as man,” and therefore he denies knowing them, meaning “as man.”[136] But, says the Doctor, this is absurd, because to say he does not know is as much as to say that he does not in any way know.[137] Now if this is a good answer against the Catholics, as no doubt it is, then it surely is so in the present case.

Therefore, when Christ says he doesn’t know the day of judgment, it is as much as to say that he does not in any way know it, and consequently it is a useless trick to say that his ignorance was “as man only.” We must beware lest we make the holy Jesus as liable to the charge of equivocation as are the Catholic priests, and lest we make the Jesuits think they have a good claim to that name[138] because in their practice of lying they are imitating Jesus’ example—a great advantage, they imagine, of this “mental reservation” interpretation of his denying knowing the day or hour.

As a further evidence that Jesus Christ intended no such distinction of two natures, as is supposed, it’s to be observed that he doesn’t distinguish between the Son of Man and the eternal Word (as some would) but between the Son and his Father; the Son doesn’t know, but only the Father.[139] Thus it is clear that he had no thought of including any person or nature of his own among those excluded by his phrase “only the Father.” For whatever was not the Father, he says was ignorant of that day. Now it’s certain that in no nature was the Son the Father, and consequently where no one but the Father knows, no one who is not the Father can be intended. And since our Lord was making an exception in the case, he would not have forgotten to except the eternal Word too, if there had been such a divine agent in himself, equal to the Father and distinct from him. For it’s a known rule that an exception from a general assertion confirms that general assertion in other instances not excepted.[140]

Will they say that “the Father” here means all three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? What?! Can “the Father,” as opposed to “the Son,” mean both the Father and the Son? What woeful work will this make with Scripture, to suppose that things opposed to each other are included in each other because of the very titles by which they are opposed? They may as well say that in the baptismal formula,[141] by “the Father” is meant “Father, Son, and Spirit,” though he be distinguished from the other two. And I should despair of ever understanding the Scriptures above all books that were written at this rate of interpretation. There is no doubt, therefore, that “the Father,” as opposed to “the Son,” excludes all that is the Son. Thus, there can be no Son of God who knew of that day which only the Father knew of, and consequently no Son that is God equal to the Father.

Moreover, that interpretation must be unreasonable, which if admitted would make even the clearest statements uncertain and utterly meaningless, as this interpretation of Christ’s words would do. I ask the patrons of this opinion: in what words could Jesus Christ have straightforwardly denied himself to be God Most High, if he had a mind to do it, more clearly and fully than these, in which he says that he didn’t know all things, as the Father did, nor could do all things, etc? I would like them to show me what words of that sort he could have used, which the same way of interpretation as they use here will not evade and make meaningless. For had he said, or sworn in plain words, saying, “I tell you I am not the supreme God, and none but my Father has that glory,” they would for the same reason still have said that this was to be understood of him “as man only.” If this method of interpretation were

to be allowed then no words professing himself not to be God could be a proof of it. I may therefore safely say this much, that the blessed Jesus has declared himself not to be the supreme God, or equal to the Father, as clearly as words can speak or briefly express, and that this declaration made by him already can be evaded only at the cost of making it impossible for him to say such a thing using any words whatever. Let anyone test this to see if it holds true; surely, it must be an absurd way of interpretation, which leaves a man no opportunity or power of speaking his meaning clearly, so as to be understood.

Again, this way of interpretation, which the advocates of the opinion I oppose need so badly to uphold their cause, clearly overthrows it again, and may be turned against them. For if it be reasonable and true to deny of Christ absolutely what belongs to him in one nature, because there is another nature in which it doesn’t belong to him, then since to be the chief God belongs to him (according to our adversaries) only in one nature and not in respect of the other (or human) nature, it follows that it may as rightly be said that “Jesus Christ is not God, nor to be worshiped or trusted as such,” even that “he did not exist before the virgin Mary,” according to them, and the like. And we could say this without adding any limitation or restriction, any more than our Lord Jesus does in the place mentioned.[142]

What would they say to one who should speak or preach that Jesus is not God, that he cannot do all things, nor is he equal to the Father, etc.? Would they not concede that such a person was a denier of the deity of Christ, otherwise he would never say such things? For the same reason, when Jesus Christ himself says that he cannot of himself do all things, nor knows all things, making no verbal qualifications, we may conclude that he also denies that he is the supreme God—otherwise, if it is an accurate way of speaking for him, it can’t be inaccurate for us to imitate him by simply denying him to be what he is not in one of his natures, i.e. that he is not God, without adding more. Moreover, by following this way of speaking which they attribute to Christ, a man may be taught to say his creed backwards, and yet make a true profession of his faith, by denying of Jesus Christ, in absolute expressions, whatever may be denied of one of his natures. Thus, since the Apostles’ Creed[143] mentions nothing to be believed concerning Christ except what belongs to his human nature (which would be strange, if there were any required doctrines relating to his supreme deity, which must be most important), one may venture to deny them all, with this secret, unexpressed qualification, namely, meaning it of the divine nature (to which they don’t belong). In this way one may say, “I believe that Jesus Christ was not conceived by the Holy Spirit or born of the virgin Mary; I believe that he never was crucified under Pontius Pilate, nor was he ever dead or buried. I believe that he never rose nor ascended, nor will he return visibly again.” For his divine nature (which it’s supposed that he had) was not capable of these things. And since they say that his personhood is divine, there seems all the more reason to be bolder in denying without qualification of the person what does not belong to the divine nature whose the personhood is, than in denying of the person what only doesn’t belong to the human nature, as this interpretation makes Christ to do.

Finally, it seems significant to me, in opposition to this way of interpretation, that the evangelists never take any occasion (when they had so many) to add any warning against taking Christ’s words in their obvious sense, when he says that he did not know the hour, and the like. If, as is said, our Lord didn’t intend to reveal his divinity (although I still don’t see why he should deny it in this way), nevertheless his apostles, who wrote so many years after and intended to reveal all important truths most clearly, would not fail to have guided the reader by removing such obvious objections against the supreme deity of Christ, and by saying that he said this only in respect of his human nature, that he didn’t know all things, etc. But there is not one warning given, as often we find they gave about lesser matters.[144] No doubt it was because they wanted Jesus’ words to be understood at face value, not thinking of any such secret qualification in Christ’s mind, of a divine nature in his person which is an implied exception, when he had denied such perfections of his person without qualification.

Thus it remains good that Jesus Christ denies infinite perfections to belong to him as they belong to the Father, and therefore that he is not the same infinite God with him, if we can believe his own words. But before I conclude this argument, I shall endeavor to answer what our opposers offer on the contrary side. They say there is abundant evidence from other Scriptures that Jesus Christ has those perfections in him which I have showed in the aforementioned places he denies of himself. These they weigh against the other, and since both sides cannot be proved, we will have to determine which ought to yield. In particular, they say that omniscience is ascribed to Jesus Christ, the sort of knowledge which only the supreme God has. And since this indeed is that infinite perfection for which they seem to have the most plausible prooftexts, therefore I choose to focus on this in particular. I think I have proven the negative claim already from his own mouth, that he did not know all things, nor can anything of equal evidence and force be produced in favor of the affirmative claim, as will appear upon careful examination.

Emlyn, Thomas. An Humble Inquiry into the Scripture-Account of Jesus Christ: A Short Argument concerning His Deity and Glory according to the Gospel (pp. 37-38). Theophilus Press. Kindle Edition.

User avatar
dwight92070
Posts: 1550
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2011 12:09 am

Re: The Trinity: What Must Be Believed

Post by dwight92070 » Sat Jan 07, 2023 6:36 pm

After reading the long article: My earlier statement does not change: All little g "gods" are false, in the sense that they are not the one true God. Moses, the angels, the magistrates, were never the true God. The word "god" is used simply to describe authority, never to imply deity. Satan and demons were never the true God. There was, is, and always will be only one true God. "And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. Little children, guard yourselves from idols." 1 John 5:20-21

John's wording here is amazing. We know God is true. We know Jesus is the truth. Jesus, the truth, gave us understanding, that we may know His Father, who is true. And we are in the Father and in His Son. This, being in the Father, and in His Son, is the true God and eternal life. It's not enough to just be in the Father, to claim we have the true God. We must be in the Father and in His Son - This is the true God and eternal life. It's a package deal. John calls this package "the true God and eternal life". Anything else is idolatry.

The author of the article spent a lot of time giving scriptural evidence of the distinction between God and Jesus. He spent no time giving scripture which shows they are One, just as John is showing us that the true God is the Father and His Son.

Steve Gregg has a good analogy:

A man went to the ocean and filled a bucket with water and he took that water back to his home in Kansas. There he had scientists analyze the water, without telling them where he got it, and he asked them for their conclusions. They said, "That's the ocean." Obviously, there is more to the ocean than just that one bucket of water, but nonetheless, it is genuinely ocean (water).

That is like God and Jesus. Jesus is genuinely God, even though there is more to God than just Jesus. While Jesus was on the earth, God was still holding the universe in place, taking care of millions of people and animals who were not in Israel and answering the prayers of millions. So there was more to God than just Jesus, but Jesus was still God.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: The Trinity: What Must Be Believed

Post by Homer » Sat Jan 07, 2023 9:44 pm

Darin,

No insult meant, it just seemed tiresome to me; perhaps my 83 years has something to do it.
From Websters:

screed

1. a long speech or piece of writing, typically one regarded as tedious:
Not used to reading long posts., seemed tedious to me.

dizerner

Re: The Trinity: What Must Be Believed

Post by dizerner » Sat Jan 07, 2023 10:41 pm

darinhouston wrote:
Sat Jan 07, 2023 9:14 am
and therefore, in all reasonable interpretation, he cannot be supposed to be that self-same god from whom he distinguishes and to whom he opposes himself. How manifestly are the one God and the one Lord distinguished in 1 Corinthians 8:6?
This is just self-defining what he thinks is "reasonable" BEFORE he comes to see what the text says. Notice the order of his logic here: 1. determine what I think is reasonable 2. make the Scripture fit #1. That is not the proper way of faith and respect to approach the text.
I think that no one who impartially considers the scriptural records can doubt whether God and his Christ are two distinct beings.
Straw man. There is a distinction of persons that no Trinitarian denies.
This is a glory unique to the Father as supreme.
So then, Jesus Christ, in his highest capacity, being inferior to the Father, how can he be the same god to whom he is subject, or of the same rank and dignity?
This is 75% of his argument, that a order of heirarchical rank means "inferiority."

The husband is head of the wife, the pastor is head of the church, neither of these superior rankings indicate inferior being or substance.

The woman is an equal partner in God's image, and this kind of idea that submission equals inferiority is a trick of Satan to foster rebellion.
Our adversaries will gain nothing by prooftexts in which the title of “God” is given to Christ, since that may be, and yet it will not prove him to be the supreme and independent God, but only one who is inhabited and commissioned and enabled by him who is so.
This is the kind of argumentation that is unfalsifiable, that is preconditioning the field in their own favor in such a way by imposing their presuppositions, that there is no possibility they admit of being wrong. It's like taking away the other king and boasting one cannot be checkmated.

No, the term God is not some fast and loose thing slapped all over the place, it is used very circumspectly and deliberately.

And his claims that Christ admitted imperfection runs in the fact of hundreds of verses, it's laughably undefendable.

Just really not impressed with this, it's bald assertions with bad logic, not a cogent argument.

dizerner

Re: The Trinity: What Must Be Believed

Post by dizerner » Sat Jan 07, 2023 11:15 pm

I would like them to show me what words of that sort he could have used, which the same way of interpretation as they use here will not evade and make meaningless. For had he said, or sworn in plain words, saying, “I tell you I am not the supreme God, and none but my Father has that glory,” they would for the same reason still have said that this was to be understood of him “as man only.”
This is unfair argumentation.

Christ said hundreds of things that sound directly, blatantly and overtly idolatrous.

There is no man nor any angel that ever said "Love me more than any other person or thing."

And with no qualifications or warnings "But I don't mean God, of course."

Christ said there is none good but God, and if you are taking this line you will have to say Christ is not good.

If you are willing to even say Christ is not good, I do not think you know him at all, nor have you been born again.

God forbid we have merely intellectual Christianity!

dizerner

Re: The Trinity: What Must Be Believed

Post by dizerner » Sat Jan 07, 2023 11:16 pm

The rest of his arguments only apply to the orthodox understanding of the hypostatic union, they do not at all apply to functional kenosis.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: The Trinity: What Must Be Believed

Post by darinhouston » Sun Jan 08, 2023 3:14 pm

dwight92070 wrote:
Sat Jan 07, 2023 6:36 pm
After reading the long article: My earlier statement does not change: All little g "gods" are false, in the sense that they are not the one true God. Moses, the angels, the magistrates, were never the true God. The word "god" is used simply to describe authority, never to imply deity. Satan and demons were never the true God. There was, is, and always will be only one true God. "And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life. Little children, guard yourselves from idols." 1 John 5:20-21

John's wording here is amazing. We know God is true. We know Jesus is the truth. Jesus, the truth, gave us understanding, that we may know His Father, who is true. And we are in the Father and in His Son. This, being in the Father, and in His Son, is the true God and eternal life. It's not enough to just be in the Father, to claim we have the true God. We must be in the Father and in His Son - This is the true God and eternal life. It's a package deal. John calls this package "the true God and eternal life". Anything else is idolatry.

The author of the article spent a lot of time giving scriptural evidence of the distinction between God and Jesus. He spent no time giving scripture which shows they are One, just as John is showing us that the true God is the Father and His Son.

Steve Gregg has a good analogy:

A man went to the ocean and filled a bucket with water and he took that water back to his home in Kansas. There he had scientists analyze the water, without telling them where he got it, and he asked them for their conclusions. They said, "That's the ocean." Obviously, there is more to the ocean than just that one bucket of water, but nonetheless, it is genuinely ocean (water).

That is like God and Jesus. Jesus is genuinely God, even though there is more to God than just Jesus. While Jesus was on the earth, God was still holding the universe in place, taking care of millions of people and animals who were not in Israel and answering the prayers of millions. So there was more to God than just Jesus, but Jesus was still God.
One of us is very confused. I grant that it could be me, but I truly don't understand how you don't see the illogic of what you're saying. I'm not trying to prove Jesus is not Yahweh by showing how many non-Yahweh uses there are. I'm trying to discount your use of the term "god" as applied to Jesus as such a determinative proof that he is Yahweh. You seem to agree that there are many uses of god that aren't related to Yahweh, but don't seem to understand that this negates your argument completely. My only point here in this discussion is that even if Jesus is "Yahweh," the use of the term "god" is not as helpful or determinative as you seem to make it.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: The Trinity: What Must Be Believed

Post by darinhouston » Sun Jan 08, 2023 3:29 pm

point 2 wrote:
article wrote:I think that no one who impartially considers the scriptural records can doubt whether God and his Christ are two distinct beings.
dizerner wrote:Straw man. There is a distinction of persons that no Trinitarian denies.
Well, he’s not making an argument about this so it’s not a straw man - it’s a statement of a shared premise to underly further argument. But, I will add that the traditional distinction between persons is not the same thing as two distinct “beings.” So, I’m not sure there is full agreement on that point anyway. But, that point is not made here.
point 3 wrote:
article wrote:]This is a glory unique to the Father as supreme.
dizerner wrote:]So then, Jesus Christ, in his highest capacity, being inferior to the Father, how can he be the same god to whom he is subject, or of the same rank and dignity?

This is 75% of his argument, that a order of heirarchical rank means "inferiority."

The husband is head of the wife, the pastor is head of the church, neither of these superior rankings indicate inferior being or substance.

The woman is an equal partner in God's image, and this kind of idea that submission equals inferiority is a trick of Satan to foster rebellion.
He’s not making a “value” distinction so much as a hierarchical one - the term “inferior” doesn’t have to mean lower in value (though it might be relevant) but is a statement of relative authority and power. This is true in a marriage as well — a man is superior to a woman in a hierarchical and authoritative sense, just not in a subjective inherent “value” sense. Submission doesn’t necessarily mean “worth less” but does imply an imbalance of authority and power and so forth. That is precisely the point he is making - if Jesus does not have equal authority as the Father, then they do not share the same qualities as being God, the ultimate Supreme power.
point 4 wrote:
article wrote:Our adversaries will gain nothing by prooftexts in which the title of “God” is given to Christ, since that may be, and yet it will not prove him to be the supreme and independent God, but only one who is inhabited and commissioned and enabled by him who is so.
dizerner wrote:This is the kind of argumentation that is unfalsifiable, that is preconditioning the field in their own favor in such a way by imposing their presuppositions, that there is no possibility they admit of being wrong. It's like taking away the other king and boasting one cannot be checkmated.

No, the term God is not some fast and loose thing slapped all over the place, it is used very circumspectly and deliberately.

And his claims that Christ admitted imperfection runs in the fact of hundreds of verses, it's laughably undefendable.

Just really not impressed with this, it's bald assertions with bad logic, not a cogent argument.
Your point makes no sense. He’s only making the conclusory statement that due to the many uses of the term “god” in scripture that only apply to derivative authority and so forth, then the term is not determinative as an argument that Scripture clearly calls Jesus God and so, therefore, he must be Yahweh. You seem to have the same difficulty as Dwight in this regard. You don’t have to be impressed - but it is a very straightforward argument for anyone willing to consider what he is saying. There is another chapter on Christ’s “admissions” but that’s really a completely other topic. This was really only a discussion to show how varied and flexible the terms translated as “god” are in Scripture.

Post Reply

Return to “Theology Proper, Christology, Pneumatology”