The Great Trinity Debate, Part 6: Dave Burke’s Closing Statement

112 replies to "The Great Trinity Debate, Part 6: Dave Burke’s Closing Statement"

• The Great Trinity Debate Index « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

  2010-05-25

  […] Part 6: Dave Burke’s Closing Statement […]
• Ed Kratz

  2010-05-25

  By the way, folks, feel free to ask Dave or me any questions that you like. The floor is now open to discussion.
• Ed Kratz

  2010-05-25

  THE ARGUMENT FROM REASON

  Dave,

  As a debater, I could be pleased by the approach that you took to this debate, since in terms of the debate your approach has played into my hands. However, as a Christian concerned for your spiritual well-being and that of others, I am saddened and even distressed by the approach you take to Christian doctrine.

  Consistent with anti-Trinitarianism in all of its forms, over a third of your closing statement focuses on what you correctly describe as “the argument from reason.” In addition, four of the ten bulleted points articulating the superiority of Unitarianism to Trinitarianism with which you begin your closing statement are rooted in this argument from reason. Yet the debate is supposed to focus on which of our positions best reflects the teachings of the Bible.

  Orthodox Christians have always understood that our views of the nature of God and of the person of Jesus Christ as both God and man are paradoxical. In his Dialogue with Trypho, Justin Martyr, writing in the middle of the second century, represented his Jewish interlocutor Trypho as raising such objections to the Christian belief in the deity of Jesus Christ:

  “And Trypho said, ‘We have heard what you think of these matters. Resume the discourse where you left off, and bring it to an end. For some of it appears to me to be paradoxical, and wholly incapable of proof. For when you say that this Christ existed as God before the ages, then that He submitted to be born and become man, yet that He is not man of man, this [assertion] appears to me to be not merely paradoxical, but also foolish’” (Dialogue with Trypho 48).

  What seems “not merely paradoxical, but also foolish” varies from person to person and from culture to culture. Notice that “Trypho” found the virgin birth of Christ (“that He is not man of man”) to be foolish. You consider the Trinity and the Incarnation foolish, but not the Virgin Birth. My point is that what seems “obviously” irrational to one person often does not seem that way to another.

  Going back even further, the apostle Paul admitted that the gospel of Christ dying on the cross to redeem us was “foolishness” to Gentiles (1 Cor. 1:18-25). It does not seem that way to most professing Christians today, but in Paul’s day the Hellenistic critics of Christianity seemed to have a point. In the view of many Gentiles, any religion in which the central figure and object of devotion was a crucified man was the central figure and object of devotion was obviously superstitious nonsense. The Romans reserved crucifixion primarily for traitors to Rome and runaway slaves—people that most Gentiles in the Mediterranean world viewed as the scum of the earth. That Jesus was a Jew (a race widely despised then as now) added further insult from their perspective. The fact that Christians claimed that this crucified man had risen from the dead did not help matters—it made things worse. Cultured Greeks regarded resurrection from the dead as philosophically impossible (“Rubbish!”) and ordinary Gentiles were likely to regard it as disgusting (“Ew!”). This explains the reaction of some of the Athenians to Paul’s preaching (Acts 17:18-21, 32) and the objections to resurrection of the dead even on the part of some of the Corinthians who professed to be Christians (1 Cor. 15:12-19).

  You attempted to provide biblical support for your criticism of Trinitarian paradox as follows:

  “Patton urges Christians to confess an incomprehensible faith, ignoring any ‘tensions’ which may arise and aspiring to confusion as the benchmark of orthodoxy. But did Jesus or the apostles ever preach God in this way? On the contrary, Jesus said to the woman of Samaria ‘You people worship what you do not know. We worship what we know, because salvation is from the Jews’ (John 4:22). Biblical Unitarians are well positioned to repeat these words to Trinitarians.”

  And I thought only Jehovah’s Witnesses abused John 4:22 in this way. See, I can be wrong! Dave, John 4:22 has nothing to do with whether one’s doctrine of God contains paradox. Jesus does not say, “We worship what we know, because our theology makes sense”! Jesus is saying that by cutting themselves off from the Jewish people and its religious tradition, the Samaritans had cut themselves off from the saving revelation of God that came through the Jews.

  Of course, your characterization of Michael Patton’s position is a caricature. He does not say that Christians should “ignore” tensions in Christian doctrine, but rather that they should let those tensions stand that have proper grounding in Scripture. This in no way precludes Christians from thinking through those tensions are trying to resolve them as much as possible—just so long as they don’t “resolve” the tensions by denying one side of the biblical doctrine. Nor does Michael suggest or imply that Christians should “aspire to confusion as the benchmark of orthodoxy.” Is this how you repay the kindness of your host on this forum, by deliberately misrepresenting his beliefs?

  When I was a young believer, I had intellectual difficulties with a lot of what the Bible said. The Bible appeared to teach that God was omnipresent and yet not diffused throughout the cosmos; that Jesus Christ was both God and man; that God was one God and yet was also Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that God commands human beings to repent and believe and yet also that God predestined those who came to saving faith in Christ; and that human beings are responsible for their actions and yet God is also somehow sovereign over human history and events. I was a rationalist at heart and a skeptic by temperament; in fact, I am still in many ways a skeptic by temperament. My natural inclination was to resist these doctrinal conclusions because they didn’t make sense to me.

  At some point, though, I came to understand and accept what now seems like an obvious truth to me: If the Bible is God’s word, a revelation from the infinite Creator of the universe, who transcends space, time, matter, and energy, it is not only possible, but likely, that some things that the Bible reveals about this Creator will be beyond my comprehension. (I cannot take credit for this insight; I think I learned it from reading Martin Luther.) In fact, rather than expecting everything in the Bible to fall neatly into place in my pea-brain understanding and reasoning, I should expect that some things in the Bible will defy my ability to analyze them rationally. (Imagine reading over a thousand pages of text inspired by the infinite Creator of the universe and nodding in pleasant, untroubled agreement throughout the entirety of the work. “Yep, that’s what I always thought!” “Makes sense to me.” “Doesn’t everyone think this is true?” No one paying attention when reading the word of God could possibly find all their presuppositions and pet beliefs confirmed in this way.) In particular, when the Bible speaks about this infinite, transcendent Creator intersecting with his finite, immanent creation, I should predict some measure of paradox. I eventually recognized that most of the paradoxes or antinomies with which I was struggling in the Bible cropped up precisely at such intersections of the infinite Creator with his finite creation.

  This was quite a “paradigm shift” for me. Instead of trying to force everything in the Bible into neat little logical boxes, I focused on trying to grasp whatever it was the Bible might say on any subject. By no means was I looking to create or manufacture paradoxes—again, by temperament I prefer logical resolution of any intellectual difficulties—but it meant that I was open to following the biblical evidence wherever it led. Before, I wanted to understand completely what the Bible said and how it could be true before I would believe it. Now I wanted to believe completely whatever the Bible says and do my best to understand it. Only later did I find out that this was a principle enunciated by the Christian theologian Augustine of Hippo and reaffirmed by such great theologians as Anselm and Aquinas: “I do not seek to understand in order that I might believe, but rather I believe in order that I may seek to understand.” This principle of faith seeking understanding is basic to my way of thinking now.

  This means that if the Bible teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is each God, and yet there is only one God, that is what I am going to believe, even though I have difficulty explaining it. If the Bible teaches the Incarnation, I’m going to believe it, even though it boggles my mind. And by the way, if the Bible teaches that the Son, who is God, became a man, I will certainly expect some paradoxes—and the Bible doesn’t disappoint here. How foolish would it be if the Bible taught that Jesus is both God and man without any paradox involved! Now, that just would not make sense!

  I’m sorry to have to say this, but the stance that insists on having everything about a biblical doctrine proved using deductive logic to be perfectly coherent before one will accept that doctrine is an expression of unbelief. Again, I’m not saying we turn off our brains and not think about what we read in the Bible. I work as hard as I can to understand what the Bible teaches and to make coherent sense out of it to the best of my quite limited ability. But at the end of the day, I freely confess that I see in a mirror dimly and that God knows better than I do what is true and what makes sense.

  By the way, I understand a lot of things in Scripture better than I did when I first wrestled with these problems—and I would not have gained that understanding, had I not adopted a “faith seeking understanding” approach. The quickest way to short-circuit the learning process is to reject truth because I can’t at first understand how it fits with other truths. On the other hand, I’m not done learning, because I still don’t fully comprehend all of these biblical teachings.
• Ed Kratz

  2010-05-25

  REASON, THE ATHANASIAN CREED, AND THE CASE FOR THE TRINITY

  Dave,

  You quoted the Athanasian Creed, which says:

  “So the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Spirit Lord; and yet not three Lords, but one Lord. Because, just as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge each Person singly to be God and Lord, so are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say three Gods or three Lords.”

  You then commented:

  “This presents us with three ‘divine persons’ who are collectively and individually called ‘God’ and ‘Lord.’ God + God + God = three entities in the category of ‘God’, yet the Athanasian Creed forbids Christians to say ‘three Gods.’ Lord + Lord + Lord = three entities in the category of ‘Lord’, yet the Athanasian Creed forbids Christians to say ‘three Lords.’”

  The Trinity is hard enough to grasp without misstating it. The Athanasian Creed does not view the three persons as “three entities.” An “entity” is a separately and independently existing thing, and Trinitarianism denies that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate, independently existing things. Your arithmetical representations “God + God + God = three Gods” and “Lord + Lord + Lord = three Lords” presuppose this mistaken assumption that what Trinitarianism means by a divine person is an entity or (as you go on to say) an “individual.”

  You continued:

  “Even if we allow the Trinitarian explanation that the three who are called ‘God’ are not individual gods but individual persons who comprise one God, this still leaves us with three Lords within the Godhead. The Creed permits us to acknowledge these three Lords individually as “Lord”, provided we do not refer to them as ‘three Lords’! Thus the Creed demands an illogical confession by insisting we confess three Lords as one Lord.”

  Again, your critique proceeds from premises that you are foisting on Trinitarianism. We do not teach that the three persons are “individual persons who comprise one God.” This description might apply only to the most extreme forms of “social Trinitarianism,” but such forms generally do not claim complete agreement with the Athanasian Creed. The three persons are not individuals, and they are not individuated from one another. When you can claim, “The Creed permits us to acknowledge these three Lords individually…,” in full view of the fact that the Creed explicitly states that we are not permitted to acknowledge three Lords, it is clear that you are critiquing a straw man, not the doctrine of the Trinity. Thus, your conclusion that the Creed affirms both three Lords and one Lord is simply false.

  Note that my point here is simply that you are misrepresenting the Creed. If you don’t believe what it says is possible and you choose to reject it on that basis, you are free to do so. If you want to argue that the Creed is incoherent, you are free to try. However, if you misrepresent what the Creed states, those of us who accept what it says and can see that you are misrepresenting it are also free to call you on it, and we will.

  You wrote:

  “This is just one example of the way Trinitarianism requires unique definitions of words, contrary to regular usage. For example, Rob insists that within the context of Trinitarianism, the term ‘person’ is ‘…stipulated to be used with a somewhat different connotation as compared to its use for human beings.’ But why use the term ‘person’ in a way which differs from its use for human beings in the first place? The OT offers no basis for the Trinitarian view of personhood, so how is the idea deduced from Scripture? Where is the Biblical evidence which demonstrates this is how we are intended to use the word ‘person’ in reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit? The answer: there is no such evidence. The uniquely Trinitarian definition and usage of the word ‘person’ arose as a fourth-Century solution to the logical and rational problems presented by the triune formula. Even in common English versions we can see Scripture does not use the words ‘being’ and ‘person’ in the way required by Trinitarianism. This is a major impediment to Rob’s theology.”

  Theology uses words with unusual connotations or nuances with reference to God all the time. We speak of God’s “presence” without meaning that God is physically localized; we speak of God’s “mind” even though he had no brain; and when you speak of God as a single person, as you have done throughout the debate, you do not mean that God is a human being. Excluding the Trinitarian use of the word person, the dictionary typically gives the following definitions or uses of the word: human or human being, a character in a play, a human being’s body or bodily appearance or bodily presence, a human being’s personality, or one of three types of pronouns or pronominal inflections. None of these non-theological definitions will fit the Unitarian description of God as a “person.”

  It is telling that you would write, “The OT offers no basis for the Trinitarian view of personhood, so how is the idea deduced from Scripture?” (emphasis added). One would think that a Christian would ask the question with reference to “the Bible,” not just “the OT.” Your wording reflects your polemical stance that unless Trinitarians can substantiate their position from the OT alone, it cannot be biblical. Sorry, my Bible has 66 books in it, not just 39.

  Before I answer the question as to how the idea is deduced from Scripture, let’s look at your next rhetorical question: “Where is the Biblical evidence which demonstrates this is how we are intended to use the word ‘person’ in reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?” No one ever claimed that the Bible teaches us to use the word person in this way. In fact, the Bible does not tell us to use the word at all. The word person does not appear in the Bible except in English translations to render or paraphrase various words (e.g., nephesh in the OT, hupostasis in Hebrews 1:3 KJV) that generally do not correspond to our word “person” in its usual senses. So when you answer your own rhetorical question, “The answer: there is no such evidence,” I have to agree, but your question is irrelevant.

  Now, as to your question of how the Trinitarian concept is derived, I have of course been answering that question throughout the debate. Let me put it together for you:

  • The LORD God is one God. (You agree with this premise, so I don’t need to prove it here.)
  • The Father is the LORD God. (You also agree with this premise.)
  • The Son, Jesus Christ, is someone other than the Father. (You agree with this premise.)
  • The Son, who became incarnate as Jesus Christ, is the LORD God. (I have provided copious evidence for this premise.)
  • The Holy Spirit is the LORD God and is someone other than the Father and the Son. (I have also provided evidence and argumentation to support this premise, which is a simplification of three propositions in my closing statement.)

  Now, please notice that up to this point I have not yet used the words person or being. I derive all of the above premises from Scripture alone; no extrabiblical terminology or concepts are needed or employed to support or defend or even articulate the premises. Indeed, you must agree with the first three of the five premises. You may argue that my fourth and fifth premises are not faithful to what the Bible really teaches, but you cannot plausibly claim that I have used any extrabiblical terms or concepts to arrive at or articulate those two premises. Now I put these five premises together as follows:

  (1) The LORD God is one God.
  (2) The Father is the LORD God, the Son is the LORD God, and the Holy Spirit is the LORD God.
  (3) The Father is someone other than the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the Son is also someone other than the Holy Spirit.

  The above three statements still use no extrabiblical terminology or concepts. Now I can simplify further by reversing the first two statements and combining them into one, as follows:

  A. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; yet there is only one God.

  As you can see, I have now arrived at a formulation precisely identical to that of the Athanasian Creed to which you objected, using no extrabiblical words or concepts. Furthermore, I have derived every element of this confession from the Bible alone. You claim later in your closing statement that you had “showed that Trinitarianism is not a necessary conclusion from these propositions” (stated above), but in fact you did no such thing. We can now see that Trinitarianism, à la the Athanasian Creed, is precisely what does follow from these propositions. The only non-Trinitarian theology that can affirm “A.” as stated above is Oneness Pentecostalism, but they cannot affirm statement (3) shown above (which is why they cannot affirm the entirety of the Athanasian Creed).

  I can also reword the above formulation as follows with no change in meaning:

  A.’ There is one God, such that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

  I can simplify the wording of this statement, again with no change in meaning, as follows:

  A”. There is one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

  Next, I go back to statement (1) above and expand it as follows:

  (1) The LORD God is one God—one eternal divine Being.

  One might view the word “being” in the first premise as an extrabiblical use of the term, though perhaps we might cite the paraphrase of Exodus 3:14 in the LXX (“I am the Being”) in support. In any case, you already agree with this premise, so I should not need to defend this possibly extrabiblical formulation. I will stipulate here that Being means a separately existing, individual entity.

  I can restate this statement with no change in meaning as follows:

  B.’ There is one God, i.e., one divine Being.

  Next, I return to statement (3) above, which says:

  (3) The Father is someone other than the Son and the Holy Spirit and the Son is someone other than the Holy Spirit.

  This is cumbersome. I can simplify this a little by stating that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each someone other than the other two. To make it even simpler, I will state that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each a “P,” where P means “someone other than the other two.” Now I have the following:

  (3’) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Ps.

  Since most people don’t like algebra or formal logic, it would be nice if we could use an actual word instead of the letter P. So we use the word that comes closest to expressing the idea “someone other than the other two,” which word in Latin is persona and in English person. Now we have verbally simplified the third statement to the following:

  (3”) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons.

  This formulation adds nothing of substance to what was already derived from the Bible alone when we concluded that “the Father is someone other than the Son and the Holy Spirit, and the Son is also someone other than the Holy Spirit.” It is just a simpler way of saying the same thing. Now we are ready to put it all together:

  A”. There is one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
  B.’ There is one God, i.e., one divine Being.
  (3”) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three Persons.

  I combine these three statements into one confession:

  C. There is one God, i.e., one divine Being, existing in three Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

  I have still still not employed any extrabiblical concepts! I have used two extrabiblical terms, “Being” (to which you can have no reasonable objection) and “Persons” (as convenient shorthand to express the conclusion, derived from Scripture alone, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each someone other than the other two).

  But now I notice that the word “Person” in the above statement cannot be identical in meaning to the word “Being” without resulting in a contradiction. Thus, the above conclusion—which was reached on the basis of Scripture alone, using no extrabiblical concepts—leads to the following definitional corollary:

  D. A “Person” as used of the Father, Son, or Holy Spirit in relation to one another describes each as someone other than the other two, but not as a different Being than the other two.

  This “definition” is not a theological presupposition from which the doctrine articulated in “C.” is derived; the reverse is the case. We derive this stipulated definition from the theological conclusion “C.,” which is derived from Scripture alone using no extrabiblical concepts.

  Now, of course, you may claim that “D.” expresses an impossible state of affairs, that it is irrational or illogical, and so forth. However, you cannot fairly, accurately, or reasonably argue that Trinitarians have derived this conclusion from extrabiblical concepts or sources. The term “Person” comes toward the very end of the argument, as a terminological shorthand for theological conclusions that in their substance are derived from the Bible alone. The conclusion that the term Person is not identical in meaning to the term Being in this context is a conclusion from the biblical evidence as explained above, not a presupposition or arbitrary definition used to distort the biblical evidence.
• On the Importance of Definition and Bowman’s Lack Thereof « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth

  2010-05-25

  […] the Importance of Definition and Bowman’s Lack Thereof Update: Rob has defined his use of the term “person” in the comments following Dave’s closing […]
• Susan Knight

  2010-05-25

  God describes, demonstrates and reveals Himself clearly and logically as a Divine Father with a human son whom He raised from humanity to immortality, through His creative energies, commonly called the Holy Spirit. This is not only easy to understand for people of every age and any level of intelligence, but the greatest assurance that He can and will do the same for us.

  God is not the author of confusion. Yet Trinitarians not only make Him so, but state that He is Himself a Confusion about Whom true believers must stay confused, or they are not true believers!

  It is not the theological/metaphysical/intellectual proofs and arguments which are the real problem for Trinitarians, so much as the psychological hurdle of abandoning their position, in which so much has been invested. It takes true humility to admit that you have been on the wrong road (it’s hard for a man to admit he’s lost especially when he has misread a map!)

  No argument will prevail against that mindset until the time when nations will come from the ends of the earth and confess before God, “Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity and things wherein there is no profit.” Until then, the Wisdom of God will continue to be seen as Foolishness by those who are seduced by the thinking of men, and the still small whisper of Divine reason will be inaudible in the noisy earthquake and fire of human philosophies.

  Thanks, Dave, for all the work and effort you and your supporters have put in to this debate. The ‘score’ is irrelevant, the main thing is that the Truth has been put before anyone with ears to hear, a mind to understand, and a heart to accept. Such will always be a minority – as the scripture warns. Understanding the nature of God and the nature of His Son, is pivotal. Otherwise ‘religion’ is only about ourselves, and what we might get out of it. It’s actually all about God. That we are invited to share eternity with Him, as the Lord Jesus now does,…
• Ed Kratz

  2010-05-25

  REASON AND THE INCARNATION

  Dave,

  I can summarize your entire line of criticism of the doctrine of the Incarnation in one short sentence: It is impossible for God to become a man.

  Your “argument from reason” is really an a priori objection against the Incarnation. All of the paradoxes, which you regard as contradictions, to which you object with regard to the Incarnation arise necessarily if God becomes a man. Thus, your whole line of criticism against the Incarnation proceeds from the a priori assumption that this is something God simply could not do.

  Nothing else really needs to be said here.
• Charles

  2010-05-26

  Dave,

  Thank you for showing us that God is not the Author of confusion.

  Confused is not where HE wants us to be.

  Well done!
• DSA

  2010-05-26

  When I was a young believer, I had intellectual difficulties with a lot of what the Bible said. The Bible appeared to teach that God was omnipresent and yet not diffused throughout the cosmos; that Jesus Christ was both God and man; that God was one God and yet was also Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that God commands human beings to repent and believe and yet also that God predestined those who came to saving faith in Christ; and that human beings are responsible for their actions and yet God is also somehow sovereign over human history and events.

  It’s interesting that most of those dificulties are sorted when adopting bible unitarianism
• Paul W

  2010-05-26

  It is not reason that tells us that it is impossible for God to become man……the Bible tells us that it is impossible

  Reason only tells us that the Trinity is illogical
• george

  2010-05-26

  Thanks, Dave, for all the work and effort you and your supporters have put in to this debate. The ’score’ is irrelevant, the main thing is that the Truth has been put before anyone with ears to hear, a mind to understand, and a heart to accept. Such will always be a minority – as the scripture warns. Understanding the nature of God and the nature of His Son, is pivotal. Otherwise ‘religion’ is only about ourselves, and what we might get out of it. It’s actually all about God.

  —————–
  George
  Certified cfa study material
  Uk
• Paul W

  2010-05-26

  So the debate is over and still no clear Biblical proof of the Trinity – the question that DB posed has been condemned as loaded and invalid by some of the blogs (because it cannot be answered by Scripture) and now we are to understand that reason must be set aside in order to understand the Trinity.

  DB has presented a holistic argument that is not limited to a few difficult passages but takes in the teaching and typology of the whole Bible – both the Old and New Testaments and demonstrates that the Jews had the same understanding of God as did the Apostles (who were also Jews) and Jesus (the King of the Jews). So the Bible is consistent in its teaching and Unitarian Christianity is still accessible to the Jews – who only believe in one God.

  The holistic approach adopted by DB has also demonstrated that the Atonement cannot be understood from a Trinitarian perspective. Where is the victory that man can share in if a sinless God died on the cross? We would expect God to be sinless and righteous (no earth shattering revelation there). Who did God atone for? So a sinless God dying (but not really dying because he is immortal) –means nothing to me. So who died on the cross? Someone who was in the form of a man but was really God? Someone who was weak but really immortal? Can an immortal being really die? Did Jesus pray to himself, trust in himself and raise himself? How does that relate to me? How do I share in that “phantom” victory? The questions keep coming and cannot be answered. No wonder Trinitarians elevate paradox and confusion to the level of virtue and despise reason and clear teaching.

  However, DB did not leave the argument at the level of reason and Scripture but demonstrated from church history that the Trinity was a late innovation imposed on Christianity. So on every level – Biblical-Logical-Historical DB has demonstrated the theological bankruptcy of Christianity’s Self Inflicted Wound – The Trinity
• Paul W

  2010-05-26

  Dear Rob,

  NKJ John 4:22 “You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.

  Jesus is saying that by cutting themselves off from the Jewish people and its religious tradition, the Samaritans had cut themselves off from the saving revelation of God that came through the Jews.

  I thought that Jewish tradition teaches ONE GOD……and his promised Messiah???

  Are you not cutting yourself off from the Jewish people and it’s religious tradition?
• medunkt

  2010-05-26

  Rob Bowman’s summary of his opponent’s “entire line of criticism” against the supposed Incarnation of God in Jesus — “It is impossible for God to become a man” — has a level of truth beyond his intention, I think. Given that man is inherently mortal and subject to unconsciousness in death (which Bowman does not believe, but which Burke does), and that God’s son, the man Jesus, himself suffered precisely this cessation of consciousness while was dead, it follows that Immortal God did not become a mortal man. Why would He wish to? What need would there be when he provided His only son, a mortal but uniquely sinless man, for our redemption, who suffered for us and was raised immortal and glorified by his Father?

  Rendering a simple Biblical truth of what God actually did into “a priori assumption that this is something God simply could not do” is nonsense. Just as Bowman’s “paradoxes”, which Roman Catholics call “mysteries”, are nonsense.

  All the philosophical triple somersaulting and sophistical gyrating of committed Trinitarians widely misses the mark, and it’s distressing to witness. Burke expressed it well in his closing remarks. The one God who revealed Himself to the fathers of Israel and the prophets has never changed and will never change. He is “Israel’s God; the God Whom Jesus himself worshipped; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob — not the God of Justin Martyr, Arius, or Basil the Great”.

  Bowman’s attempt at a unanswerable close-off remark — “Nothing else really needs to be said here” — in his “Reason and the Incarnation” comment above won’t do at all. You’ve got it desperately wrong Rob. If only you’d jettison your burden of church tradition, bewildering dogma and the tyranny of “orthodox” Christian convention, and let the Scriptures speak for themselves. You have the intelligence. You have studied much. You seem to recognise the Bible as God’s Word. But you won’t accept what it says over and over again.
• Andrew

  2010-05-26

  Rob, I like what you say about the Bible containing difficult concepts, almost paradoxical concepts. I’ve always felt that the Bible allows for various depths of understanding, and this applies most importantly to the nature of God.

  A simple belief that Jesus was like us, but through self-sacrifice received the name ‘lord’ is enough to save us (Rom10:9)

  A deeper belief that Jesus became immortal, timeless and at one with God from eternity and to eternity, and yet still remains obediently subject to God until the end of the ages is great, but it’s not vital (Col 1:18, John 17:1, 1Co 15:24)

  A lot of the debate taken place here has been based on ‘logic’ and it has to be questioned whether this logic is God’s wisdom or man’s.
  Perhaps there are no specific statements detailing the true nature of God and Jesus because we can’t comprehend it.

  So perhaps we shouldn’t worry quite so much about it. And try to rather exercise a teaching of Jesus’ that makes it very clear who his disciples are:
  Joh 13:34 “I give you a new commandment — to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples — if you have love for one another.”
• cherylu

  2010-05-26

  Andrew,

  You said, “Perhaps there are no specific statements detailing the true nature of God and Jesus because we can’t comprehend it.

  So perhaps we shouldn’t worry quite so much about it. And try to rather exercise a teaching of Jesus’ that makes it very clear who his disciples are:
  Joh 13:34 “I give you a new commandment — to love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another. Everyone will know by this that you are my disciples — if you have love for one another.”

  I don’t think it is as simple as that. From a statement that Paul W made above, (if I am understanding him correctly) I don’t believe he as a Unitarian believes that the Trinitarian Jesus can save. (Am I correct Paul?) And I know that one of the common things I hear from Trinitarians–if Jesus was only man and not God too–He couldn’t save. If I remember correctly, someone stated that belief very plainly in one of the other comment threads during this debate. And for the record, that is also my belief and understanding.

  So this is not only an interesting question to talk about. It is a concept of utmost importance since it is our faith in Jesus that brings about our salvation. Both sides seem to agree on that–they just don’t agree at all on who this Jesus really is.
• Paul W

  2010-05-26

  Dear cherylu,

  Yes, that is correct. How can we share in his victory if he was God (in disguise)?

  He was the Son of Man and the Son of God – both titles are used to describe him.

  This means that he is the perfect intermediary between God and Man

  It also means that men and woman can identify with his victory……I can point at Jesus and say “I want to be like him…..an obedient Son” I can also share in his victory by “eating his body and drinking his blood” that way I identify completely with him……what I am saying to the Father is…….that is the sort of man I want to be…..please forgive my sins and blot them out……instead look at your Son…..he is what man can be at his best…..your true image……..please remember him when you look at me

  This is something Trinitarians cannot grasp……..
• Paul W

  2010-05-26

  Dear cherylu,

  It is God who saves………..he saved Jesus from death and now he has given his Son all authority in heaven and earth……Jesus will return to resurrect the dead
• The Great Trinity Debate (Comments Part 6) « The Prodigal Thought

  2010-05-26

  […] of Bowman, the Trinitarian, can be read here and Burke’s, the Unitarian, can be found here. Or, if you would like to find all articles at once, you can visit this […]
• cherylu

  2010-05-26

  Paul W,

  Hi again. Am I incorrect in my understanding that Unitarians believe it is through faith in Jesus that you are saved? I thought that I had read that in one of the first installments of the debate.
• sam shamoun

  2010-05-26

  Paul W, are you referring to the same Jews whom Jesus consistently said didn’t know God and didn’t know the Scriptures?

  Those Jews?
• sam shamoun

  2010-05-26

  Paul W, are you referring to the same Jews whom Jesus consistently said didn’t know God and didn’t know the Scriptures and were nullifying the Word of God by their human traditions, i.e. interpretations?

  “Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, ‘Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!’ Jesus replied, ‘And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, “Honor your father and mother” and “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.” But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, “Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is a gift devoted to God,” he is not to “honor his father” with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you: ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.'” Matthew 15:1-9

  “Jesus replied, ‘You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.'” Matthew 22:30-32
• sam shamoun

  2010-05-26

  continued…

  “I have testimony weightier than that of John. For the very work that the Father has given me to finish, and which I am doing, testifies that the Father has sent me. And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form, nor does his word dwell in you, for you do not believe the one he sent. You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. I do not accept praise from men, but I know you. I know that you do not have the love of God in your hearts. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe if you accept praise from one another, yet make no effort to obtain the praise that comes from the only God? But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?” John 5:36-47

  “So they were saying to Him, ‘Where is Your Father?’ Jesus answered, ‘You know neither Me nor My Father; If you knew Me, you would know My Father also.’ John 8:19

  “Jesus replied, ‘If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. Though you do not know him, I know him. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know him and keep his word.'” John 8:54-55

  “But all these things they will do to you for My name’s sake, because they do not know the One who sent Me.” John 15:21

  “These things they will do because they have not known the Father or Me.” John 16:3
• sam shamoun

  2010-05-26

  So Paul W, are these the Jews that you want us to embrace in order to reject the explicit and unambiguous testimony to the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Personhood of the Holy Spirit? More importantly, which of the various Jewish sects and sources do you want us to accept? The Pharisees, the Essenes, the Sadducees etc.? Should we embrace the Messianic views of 1 Enoch and 4 Ezra which teach that the Messiah literally personally preexists in heaven with God?

  And why should we favor the Rabbinic Jewish view that there is only one Power in heaven when this was a later development in response to Christianity and other various sects that held that there was more than one Divine Power in heaven? Why not embrace the view that there were at at least two Divine Powers in heaven, a view that was widespread and held by various Jewish sects both before and during the time of Christ?

  If you don’t know what I am talking about that I advise that you read Alan F. Segal’s book, Tow Powers in Heaven (http://books.google.com/books?id=LRzCB9xSRFsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false).

  So you unitarians need to stop making it sound as if ALL the Jews were unitarians like yourselves when the evidence shows that they were not.
• ScottL

  2010-05-26

  Dave –

  Though you have probably seen my article, I had a specific question for you that I didn’t really put in any of my articles and never really saw you address (though I still need to catch up on all of the rebuttal comments).

  How do you define the words deity and divinity? How do you see them as two words that mean and convey different meanings? Any biblical grounds or philosophical reasoning that you would emphasise?

  Thanks
• Helez

  2010-05-26

  Rob,
  How can a “someone” not be an individual?
• Dave Burke

  2010-05-26

  Scott:

  Though you have probably seen my article, I had a specific question for you that I didn’t really put in any of my articles and never really saw you address (though I still need to catch up on all of the rebuttal comments).

  How do you define the words deity and divinity? How do you see them as two words that mean and convey different meanings? Any biblical grounds or philosophical reasoning that you would emphasise?

  “Divinity” is not a word I normally use, as it means different things to different people (some even see it as equivalent to “deity”). I prefer the terms “deity” and “divine.”

  I define “deity” as “god”, and normally use it as a noun (e.g. “Athena was a Greek deity who represented wisdom”). But it can also be used in a qualitative sense, to mean “the state of being god” (e.g. “Mormons believe they will one day be deified”). I have noticed that Trinitarians do this too (e.g. “Jesus; humanity was united with his deity at the moment of incarnation”).

  I define “divine” as “supernatural”, yet not merely supernatural, since it also bears a sense of perfection and holiness. I refer to Christ as “divine”, since his nature is supernatural, perfected, holy, immortal, etc. I can also say that “a divine wind” brought the quails to the Israelites in the wilderness; an angels are God’s “divine messengers”; God Himself is “divine”, etc. The word “divine” does not denote “deity” and is not equivalent to it.

  The apostle Peter makes an interesting statement in II Peter 1:4 (“Through these things he has bestowed on us his precious and most magnificent promises, so that by means of what was promised you may become partakers of the divine nature, after escaping the worldly corruption that is produced by evil desire”)

  Trinitarian commentators routinely argue against a literal interpretation of this verse, but I don’t see any reason for it (the language is very concrete and militates against a figurative exegesis). I haven’t conducted a detailed study of this passage, but a prima facie reading suggests to me that Peter is referring to immortalisation; the perfected, immortalised body promised to faithful believers (I Corinthians 15). He is not saying we can become gods.

  I hope this clarifies my position.
• Paul W

  2010-05-26

  Dear Sam,

  I am certain that the Jews had many errors in their interpretation of the Law. I am also sure that some Jews worshipped idols. I also have no doubt that we can find later developments of two powers heresies and debates about the pre-existence of the Messiah etc blah. So what? The Jews are not the standard by which all doctrine must be measured………after all they rejected the Messiah. The Bible is the standard.
  However, the Jews have always believed in One God (with some odd exceptions)…..so I suggest that you follow Abraham or the teaching of the Apostles or maybe even Jesus (also a Jew).
• Paul W

  2010-05-26

  Dear Sam,

  Belief in one God is the touchstone of Jewish faith

  And by the way “knowing” the Father implies more than just believing that he is one God:

  NKJ James 2:19 You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe — and tremble!

  You can believe in one God but if you don’t believe that Jesus is the one sent by God or that he is the “true image” (unlike Adam who marred the image) then you do not know God.

  Do you know God? You obviously don’t know the God of the Bible. You believe that God is more than one and that he sent himself………
• sam shamoun

  2010-05-26

  Dear Paul,

  I am sorry but your reply is a non-answer and simply evades my points. Unitarians such as yourself are always abusing Jesus’ statement in John 4:22 to prove that Jesus meant that our views must agree or conform with what Jews believed about God. Yet THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT WHAT JESUS MEANT in light of the nearly dozen verses I posted. This also erroneously assumes that the Jews were united in their respective beliefs.

  This leads me to the next problem with your statements. Unitarians such as yourself are also constantly appealing to the Jews to prove that they believed that God is absolutely one Person. However, this assumes that Jews were united on a single belief concerning the nature of God and whether God’s unity precluded another divine being, called the second power in heaven, from coexisting alongside of him. It further erroneously assumes that the Jews had only one view concerning the Messiah and that this view did not allow for a personally preexistent Messiah.

  It is time for you to stop abusing history and selectively citing sources since it doesn’t take much to show that history is not on your side. Just read Bowman’s comments to Burke where he exposed Burke’ gross mis-citation of scholars and quoting them of context in order to give the misleading impression that they agreed with his assumptions and assertions. It was pitiful to see what Burke had done to these sources. But again this is not surprising when we realize what the true origin of your beliefs are (cf. John 8:44).
• sam shamoun

  2010-05-26

  Dear Paul,

  Thank you for confirming my point and for pretty much refuting Burke:

  I am certain that the Jews had many errors in their interpretation of the Law. I am also sure that some Jews worshipped idols. I also have no doubt that we can find later developments of two powers heresies and debates about the pre-existence of the Messiah etc blah. So what? The Jews are not the standard by which all doctrine must be measured………after all they rejected the Messiah. The Bible is the standard.

  Tell that Burke!

  But I do like the fact of how you pretty much retreated from and abandoned your appeal to the Jews. And do appreciate how you pretty much debunked Burke who kept harping about the understanding and beliefs of the Jews somehow being essential to test whether our beliefs are orthodox and faithful to the Scriptures. Good job and keep it up!
• Susan Knight

  2010-05-27

  …is extraordinary. (2 words too long, sorry!)
• sam shamoun

  2010-05-27

  I missed this part of your comment:

  Do you know God? You obviously don’t know the God of the Bible. You believe that God is more than one and that he sent himself………

  This simply shows that you don’t understand what we believe or, if you do, then you are deliberately and deceptively misrepresenting it which confirms what I said about the origin of your beliefs (cf. John 8:44).

  We believe that God is more than one what exactly? More than one Person? If so we and we do so because of the explicit Biblical witness which Bowman did a masterful job of laying out throughout this debate.

  More than one God? No, absolutely not.

  You then equivocated on the word God, i.e. God sent himself. Your statement is similar to me saying that the Bible teaches that Adam slept with himself and mothered his own children. Now what do I mean? According to Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2 God named both the male and female Adam. However, in Genesis 3 and 4 the female who is called Eve is said to be the wife of Adam and that Adam slept with her.

  So Adam slept with himself per your logic and gave birth to his own children.

  More importantly, Unitarians believe that the Holy Spirit is another name for God the Father:

  “It is important to capitalize ‘Holy Spirit’ when it refers to God, and it is just as important to use lower case letters (‘holy spirit’) when referring to the gift God has given to those who are saved.” (http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=8)

  This means that it is you who actually believe that God sent himself! So can you explain that for me since it makes absolutely no sense.

  But of course you are going to argue that I deliberately misrepresented what Unitarians believe much like you just misrepresented what I believe about the Father sending Jesus Christ his Divine Son.
• Paul W

  2010-05-27

  Dear Sam,

  I like the way you selectively quote me and twist my words……but then being a Trinitarian has given you plenty of practice.

  Am I correct in saying that Trinitarianism is polytheism for sophists? It is so carefully defined and so cleverly designed but it is still false. You should probably add the mother of God to your trio…..the Catholic Church has virtually done this.
• Paul W

  2010-05-27

  Response to Sam #33

  Sam says:

  “We believe that God is more than one what exactly? More than one Person? If so we and we do so because of the explicit Biblical witness which Bowman did a masterful job of laying out throughout this debate.”

  RB did not prove the Trinity……as one of your own said…..the question was loaded and unfair

  Let me remind you RB needed to prove

  1. (a)Jesus=God (b)Father=God (c) Holy Spirit=God
  2. a+b+c=God

  He failed to do this.

  Now you say the doctrine is “explicit” in the Bible…….but during the debate words like “implicit” and “hinted at” were used

  PS regarding #31… I have not abandoned my appeal to the Jews…..it still rests on what Abraham believed (a Jew) what the Apostles believed (Jews) what Jesus believed (a Jew) and what the bulk of Jews past and present believe……..that God is one.
• Paul W

  2010-05-27

  I still don’t understand the Trimity……God is one (person) with three personalities? (a split personality?) All of these persons were immortal yet one of them died? One of these persons achieved atonement on behalf of the whole person/being? One of these persons was tempted even though he never really had the capacity to sin?

  I have yet to see a Trinitarian explain the Atonement. I have asked a few times……..so far no response.
• ScottL

  2010-05-27

  Dave –

  Thanks for clarifying your position.

  I agree that deity and divine don’t necessarily have to be considered equals. But it is more likely that deity and divinity are equals, both referring to the reality of being God, whereas divine is a descriptive word that speaks of carrying God-like qualities but not necessarily being God (which you group Christ into). I understand this and how you have defined these words.

  And I am also good with a more literal interpretation of 2 Pet 1:4. That is actually a very favourite passage to me. I don’t think of it in the Mormon way. But I believe we taste of the divine nature because we are in Christ and the sons/daughters of God. And, knowing that God gives us of His Holy Spirit, well, we have God living in us. So when God’s Spirit takes up residence in us, I think we get just a little bit of the divine nature.

  But here is something I would ask you to consider. Let me allow you to define deity and divine in the ways you have (which I am not opposed to, as I said, though one might quibble over the word divine if it is truly speaking of divinity-deity). I know you are not going to give an affirmation to this, but can Trinitarians not define the words being and person in a way that allows them to communicate what they mean by a Triune God? You have defined divine that allows for Christ to be God-like but not God Himself, though some would argue that this is not acceptable if the word divinity speaks of being God. But I will give you the point on divine and divinity. Can you not allow for Trinitarians to define and explain the two words being and person that are different from, say, your specific context and how you specifically want them to be defined?
• Paul W

  2010-05-27

  Dear Sam,

  response #33.

  Adam and Eve (who became “one flesh”) typify the relationship between Jesus and his Church. It is not a paradigm for the “internal relationships in the Trinity”
• Paul W

  2010-05-27

  Dear Sam,

  Response to #33

  No Christadelphian I know believes that “Holy Spirit” (with or without capitals) is another way of referring to God………sounds like you are getting mixed up with Trinitarian doctrine…suggest you read DB on the Holy Spirit……never heard of the site you refer to?? Don’t understand the point you are trying to make??
• Paul W

  2010-05-27

  Dear Sam,

  I know you are busy with apologetics and particularly with engaging Muslims – I have also done Islamic studies and am aware of the influence of Rabbinic Judaism on the development of Islam. Mohammed was politically astute and unified the Arabic tribes with his “new revelation” he was obviously aware of the internal wrangling among Christians about the nature of Christ and was heavily influenced by Jewish belief in “one God”. It was therefore very astute to demote Jesus to the office of a prophet (albeit a very important one that has an eschatological role) thus circumventing the problem of centuries of contention between Christians about the nature of Jesus and God by simply adopting the Jewish position. Nevertheless Jesus retains a pre-eminent role within Islam thus not overly offending Christians…..the best of all worlds.

  But think how different the outcome might have been if Christians had retained a Biblical belief in the one God of the Bible and not wasted their energies on fighting amongst themselves…..but then the world would have been a different place if the Jewish nation had accepted Jesus as the Messiah the Son of God.
• sam shamoun

  2010-05-27

  Paul W, please document how I twisted your words for all of us to see. You can’t since I didn’t despite your arrogant rant to the contrary. What I like even better is how you TWISTED MY WORDS and attacked straw man. Can you actually address the point I made concernign Adam and Eeve as opposed to raising a red herring which had nothing to do with my argument? And to correct your selective reading of Scripture. It is indeed true that Adam and Eve typifies Christ’s relationship with his Church. HOWEVER, their relationship also exemplies the nature of God (albeit to a vastly limited extent). Just read Genesis 1:26-27 and 5:1-2 where the male and female as the one Adam reflect and bear the image of God.

  I guess my points went way over your head much like Bowman’s points went way over Burke’s who had no clue what hit him.

  And let me correct you once again. Bowman may not have proven his case to your satisfaction, but that is to be expected (cf. John 8:43-47; 1 Corinthians 2:13-14). Anyone who reads the debate honestly and with an open mind will see that Bowman pulverized Burke and proved his position beyond any reasonable doubt. This is why Burke got desperate and started telling Bowman what he needed to do in order to prove his case. Bowman then put Burke in his place by telling Burke to start focusing on establishing his and let Bowman worry about how he was going to prove his position.
• sam shamoun

  2010-05-27

  Paul W, thanks for proving my point again. I had said that you would accuse me of misrepresenting what you believed concerning the Holy Spirit and his relationship to God. You didn’t disappoint. However, your comments suggest that you didn’t read Burke and that you obviously don’t know too many Christadelphians! The site I quoted from was one of the ones that Burke recommended.

  So again, perhaps you can address my question. If the Holy Spirit is another name for God the Father then doesn’t this mean that according to your heretical view God basically sent himself?
• sam shamoun

  2010-05-27

  There you go again begging the question. In # 40 you speak of Muhammad adopting the Jewish position concerning Messiah. WHAT JEWISH POSITION? Do I need to repeat what I said concerning the various, and at times, conflicting views the Jews had at the time of Christ concerning the nature of the Messiah?

  And the Christians did retain the belief in the Bible that there is only God. However, what they rejected was the unbiblical and heretical position of unitarianism. Even Muslim apologists can see that the Bible does not support your unbiblical and heretical beliefs which is why they argue that the Bible has been corrupted. Now they wouldn’t say that if the Bible clearly and explicitly taught unitarianism.
• Jaco

  2010-05-27

  Dave!

  Great debate, brother! Your reasonings were solid, critically logical and valid. You have no dogma to defend by twisting and confounding what would otherwise be considered unambiguous reality. I’m glad I was not your opponent here.

  As demonstrated even by one of our trinitarian posters here, what a pity that civility and courtesy always seem to yield first to pompous and sarcastic snide and name-calling. How are they any better or more exemplary of what Christians should be like? One would expect a greater display of Holy Spirit in their demeanor and behaviour…but alas…had they been in the position of John Calvin…well, I doubt whether they’d have spared the lives of any of us.

  Joh. 8:44 – how true…

  Jaco

  P.S. I’d love to see some of our friends comment on our blog at http://kingdomready.org/blog/2010/02/02/another-trinitymonotheism-debate. I’ll put up my comments for the rest of this debate this weekend.
• sam shamoun

  2010-05-27

  Hey Jaco, you shouldn’t be so hard on your fellow unitarians like Paul W. Just because he is rude and doesn’t know a thing about civility or just because he, like Burke, has the propensity to misquote and distort scholarly sources doesn’t give you the right to attack him that way especially when he espouses the same false heretical beliefs that you do. 🙂
• Paul W

  2010-05-27

  Dear all,

  My apologies if I have offended anyone or been seen as mad, rude or arrogant. Maybe that is true maybe it is not. Then again Jesus was accused of being mad and having a devil and the servant is not above his master. I admit that I become increasingly frustrated by the intellectual dishonesty displayed and am not used to this kind of debate. I am used to interpreting Scripture with Scripture and not imposing a doctrine that is not there. It saddens and upsets me to see the faith once preached by the apostles so abused. I will therefore excuse myself from the debate because it is not my wish to alienate anyone. But before I go I will leave one question to be answered which is fundamental to any doctrine about God and which has not been answered.

  Here goes…….how did Jesus achieve atonement for me? If Jesus was not capable of sin because he is God then how did he achieve atonement? It is not good enough to say that he was also man…….because men are capable of sin. This “paradox” has been recognised by the Catholic Church who in order to make Jesus incapable of sin….must make Mary (the “mother of God” in their terminology) also incapable of sin……

  However, the Bible teaches that Jesus is the “last Adam” and that he bears our nature with is propensity to sin……yet he was sinless. So what victory over sin was achieved by crucifying God (who cannot sin)? Or if you want, what victory over sin was achieved by crucifying a man who never had the capacity to sin (who cannot sin) and therefore was not like me at all and did not bare my nature. Either way the theory of the Trinity cannot explain the Atonement.

  So, I must now leave you all and go and lie down in a dark room!

  All the best
• TE

  2010-05-27

  My family is Jewish but secular. I have married a Gentile and we are raising our children as Christians.
  Christianity has been a real struggle for me as it has seemed to abandon Judaic principles.
  The Trinity is one of my biggest problems and I have really enjoyed Dave’s position. I guess Jews are unitarians. lol
  And having explored other Christadelphian doctrine online, I am very encouraged to find Judaism–that embraces a Messiah.
  This is really good stuff. I think I have found some very specific answers for my family.
  Thanks!!

  And to Paul W–I appreciate your comments immensely and agree wholeheartedly. You were not offensive in the slightest.

  Sam, on the other hand, your tone is hostile.
• medunkt

  2010-05-27

  Not at all impressive, Sam Shamoun:

  “Hey Jaco, you shouldn’t be so hard on your fellow unitarians like Paul W. Just because he is rude and doesn’t know a thing about civility or just because he, like Burke, has the propensity to misquote and distort scholarly sources doesn’t give you the right to attack him that way especially when he espouses the same false heretical beliefs that you do.”

  Where’s the fruit of the spirit we’re ALL supposed to espouse, folks?
• Jaco

  2010-05-28

  Mr Shamoun,

  Wow, you’re no less different, are you? Your being different would have meant a lot. The spirit of Christ, Mr Shamoun, and the encouragement to admit a mistake and repent (for Christ’s sake), if indeed mistaken, is one thing you consistently fail to do, even on other trinitarian and anti-Islam blogs. Instead, even after pointing that out, you resort pointing out the other person’s mistakes (much like two fighting siblings) and regress to name-calling, while I never even insulted you. It’s not about God and Christ, after all, is it Mr Shamoun? It’s about you, and that’s a pity. Now, in public, Mr Shamoun, I urge you to repent of your God-dishonoring habit of mean-spiritedness. Show that you are different. Show that you do have Christ’s spirit. Show that you are different even from the Muslims you have challenged, who clearly do not have Christ’s spirit. From the kind of fruit you consistently produce, you’ve demonstrated to be the exact same tree your Muslim opponents are.

  In hope,

  Jaco
• sam shamoun

  2010-05-28

  Jaco, please don’ try to pretend to be the innocent one here. You indirectly took a shot at me and you know it. And sorry if at times I get angry and repulsed at the deliberate lies and distortions of truth. If you want to see what kind of fruits these happen to be then read John 8:44; Galatians 5:16-21.

  If you also want to see how the prophets, Jesus and his apostles reacted to people who did this then simply read 1 Kings 18:27; Isaiah 1:9-17; Ezekiel 23; Jeremiah 4:22; 10:8, 14; Matthew 23; Luke 11: 37-52; Philippians 3:1-6; 2 Peter 2.

  And while you are at it meditate on Ecclesiastes 3:1-8; Ephesians 4:26-27; 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 4:2; Titus 1:9, 13. There is a place and a time for anger, rebuking and hatred in the Christian life.

Comments are closed.