The biblical case against the Trinity

[davidkc]

I have just published a book setting out the biblical arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity. I have tried to set them in a logical way, and I have tried to deal systematically with the 'trinitarian' texts that are often used to support the doctrine.

One of the main points I make. by textual analysis, is that the trinitarian use of many scriptures (e.g. 2 Cor 13:14) is suspect because they are assumed to refer to a trinitarian First Person. In fact, the terms 'God', 'The Father', 'God the Father' and so on are all references to God Himself, in his entirety, not a First Person.

I try to deal with the key passages that are used to support the doctrine of the Eternal Son, such as John 1:1-3, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1 and Philippians 2, and show that they do not support an Eternal Son. Rather, John 1:1-3 is about the Logos of God, not an Eternal Son. The latter three pasages are about Jesus Christ, the begotten Son of God, not an Eternal Second Person.

Trinitarian arguments for a 'Third Person' because of the alleged personality of the Holy Spirit are shown to be suspect, to say the least.

I would naturally be interested in comments.

Downloads are free, and hard copies available at cost price.
It is available from Lulu.com at
http://www.lulu.com/content/487809 (http://www.lulu.com/content/487809)

[mizpeh]

I have just published a book setting out the biblical arguments against the doctrine of the Trinity. I have tried to set them in a logical way, and I have tried to deal systematically with the 'trinitarian' texts that are often used to support the doctrine.

One of the main points I make. by textual analysis, is that the trinitarian use of many scriptures (e.g. 2 Cor 13:14) is suspect because they are assumed to refer to a trinitarian First Person. In fact, the terms 'God', 'The Father', 'God the Father' and so on are all references to God Himself, in his entirety, not a First Person.

I try to deal with the key passages that are used to support the doctrine of the Eternal Son, such as John 1:1-3, Colossians 1, Hebrews 1 and Philippians 2, and show that they do not support an Eternal Son. Rather, John 1:1-3 is about the Logos of God, not an Eternal Son. The latter three pasages are about Jesus Christ, the begotten Son of God, not an Eternal Second Person.

Trinitarian arguments for a 'Third Person' because of the alleged personality of the Holy Spirit are shown to be suspect, to say the least.

I would naturally be interested in comments.

Downloads are free, and hard copies available at cost price.
It is available from Lulu.com at
http://www.lulu.com/content/487809 (http://www.lulu.com/content/487809)




Hi David,

I am glad to see you on this site. I'm almost half way through reading your book which I had downloaded and I have liked what I have read so far in asmuch as I purchased the book on line yesterday.

God bless you,

Mizpeh

[OriginalPraxeas]

One of the main points I make. by textual analysis, is that the trinitarian use of many scriptures (e.g. 2 Cor 13:14) is suspect because they are assumed to refer to a trinitarian First Person. In fact, the terms 'God', 'The Father', 'God the Father' and so on are all references to God Himself, in his entirety, not a First Person.

I agree! I have made this point for years. And it is especially evident that this was the Jewish thinking when Jesus consistantly refers to THEIR God as the Father or when the Jews accused Jesus of equating himself to the Father...not to God the son

[TheLayman]

I agree! I have made this point for years. And it is especially evident that this was the Jewish thinking when Jesus consistantly refers to THEIR God as the Father or when the Jews accused Jesus of equating himself to the Father...not to God the son

Praxeas:

I have very little time right now but I want to point this out to you again: Jason Dulle does not explain Chalcedonian mechanics correctly. The Doctine of the Trinity does not teach a "God the Son" and a "Son of God." There is no division in the person of the Son. No one claims to be equal to themself, you are yourself. If a claim to equality is made, it is made of someone other than yourself. And the Jews understood the claim of the Son just fine, you don't see the apostle John correcting any misunderstanding is his narrative anywhere.

And as far as the book goes, this is in the introduction:

The doctrine that God is a Trinity has been orthodox Christian doctrine since the fourth century A.D. According to the Trinity God is three co-equal divine "persons" who have existed in association together from eternity.

That God is a Trinity has been Christian orthodoxy for over sixteen hundred years. According to the classical version of the doctrine God is three co-equal divine "Persons" who have existed eternally together in a co-operative social relationship.

(Emphasis above is mine) The doctrine of the Trinity has never been the teaching that God is three co-equal divine persons who have existed eternally together in a co-operative social relationship. What absolute and unadultered tripe. If the best you can do is to lead off with a huge straw man in the forward of your book I would consider it a pointless read. And what's really tough to understand about that misrepresentation is that Trinity theology and Christology is codified in the early statements of faith (creeds) unlike Oneness Pentecostal theology/Christology.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[davidkc]

Dear Layman
Thanks for your comments. I reply in the hope that you are willing to engage in debate.

You dispute that the doctrine of the Trinity is the teaching that God is three co-equal persons who have existed together in a co-operative social relationship. I am a little puzzled as to how you think I am misrepresenting the doctrine.

I am of course aware that nowadays there are many different versions of the Trinity doctrine. Every modern theologian who has had a view on it seems to have his own slant. The late Walter Martin, a champion of trinitarianism, denied the doctrine of the Eternal Son - I understand that this has led some trinitarians to question whether Martin was a real trinitarian at all.

However back to the point you made. I was trying to define what I called the classical doctrine of the Trinity, which 1) dates from the 4th century creeds and 2) is the version of the Trinity which is promulgated by orthodox teachers and writers (if not theologians). I would submit that most laypeople sitting in a pew in a trinitarian church would understand this as the doctrine that their denomination believes in.

For example I remember hearing Jill Briscoe, of Telling the Truth Ministries, teaching on the radio a few years ago of how the the three Persons made a covenant with each other from eternity. I would call that a co-operative social relationship.

The Athanasian Creed states ' ... in this Trinity there is nothing before ot after ... but the three whole Persons are co-eternal together and coequal ...'. So it surely cannot be the co-eternality and the co-equality of the three Persons that you object to. If it is the co-operative social relationship that you think is my 'straw man', I would argue that it is entirely reasonable to presume that the three Persons would have a social relationship from eternity. If they have been existing together from eternity, they are surely going to communicate. And they will surely have been co-operating, as trinitarians understand that there is only one will ('not three Lords, but one Lord').

A trinitarian, as I understand it, interprets e.g. John 17:5 as Jesus the Eternal Son talking about his relationship with the Father before the world was. It is entirely natural, I argue, for the trinitarian to read verses lilke these and understand them in terms of the three Persons co-operating together in some kind of council from eternity. That is, indeed, how many preachers describe it. So it may not be exactly in the creeds, but it is surely the implication from them.

So I really do not see what your objection is. I do not see my opening statements as a 'huge straw man'. If you read the book, you will see that I have tried to avoid attacking straw men by quoting trinitarian authors, sometimes at length, in order to meet what they say on their own terms.

I look forward to hearing from you.

God bless

[OriginalPraxeas]

Praxeas:

I have very little time right now but I want to point this out to you again: Jason Dulle does not explain Chalcedonian mechanics correctly. The Doctine of the Trinity does not teach a "God the Son" and a "Son of God." There is no division in the person of the Son. No one claims to be equal to themself, you are yourself.
Generally speaking, no one claims to be God while being a human. No one claims to have two natures. How do you explain the Kenosis? However, you've wrongly asserted something about Jason. Here is the problem. The context of what is said often determines HOW a word is used.

You've ignored the context of what Jason wrote in regards to HOW he used the word "himself" with regards to Jesus. He uses that word to express the Son's psychological distinction from the Father. He usees that word to express that the one person of God becomes aware of His own existence through a human nature.

The context of what Jason writes is what determines HOW he uses the word "Himself"....but time and time again you chose to ignore that. You did it at CARM where I was warned about quoting too much and you did it here where you told me NOT to tell you what Jason asserts. Sometime rather ironic since that is what you keep doing...telling us what Jason asserts.

If a word is a word is a word and that word must always have the same meaning, then you MUST apply that same rule to the word God as it is used in the gospels. It can't mean only one person of the Trinity in John 1:1 and then mean the Second person in John 20:28. Whose definition do we use of "himself" when Jason is writting? Yours? Or Jasons?

And when personality or personal attributes are given to both Father and Son...so what? Father and Son ARE both Person...they are the SAME person so why would FAther and Son NOT have personal attributes? The issue, as far as what Jason writes, is that it is the NATURE that gives person distinct attributes.

A Person can have a will or mind but that is the person willing or having his mind THROUGH the nature they possess. Even Trinitarians have said the Trinity has one mind and will. Catholics say Jesus had TWO wills (see their encyclopedia). What you are trying to do is to form a strawman argument by redefining in your own terms what others are saying and not rather allowing them to define it themselves.

Im still interested in you explaining the omnipresence and transcendence of the Son....did he continue to be that Transcendent omnipresent Deity beyond his own incarnation? Or did all of the second person of the Trinity literally cease being God and was completely fully all of him incarnate?

If a claim to equality is made, it is made of someone other than yourself. And the Jews understood the claim of the Son just fine, you don't see the apostle John correcting any misunderstanding is his narrative anywhere.
Exactly. Everytime Jesus claimed Deity no where did they equate that to a second person called "Son"....Jesus even confirmed the Jewish understanding of Deity when he said

Joh 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Joh 4:21 Jesus said to her, Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you shall neither worship the Father in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem.
Joh 4:22 You worship what you do not know, we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him.
Joh 4:24 God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth

Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all.

Notice especially that last one...the term Father is not used simply in reference to the Son...God is the Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all

[jstoblikJesus]

I would like to see OP, Mizpeh, MFBlume, davidkc, Beard put your minds together and write a book debunking the trinity. That would be an awsome read.

[mizpeh]

Thanks but leave me out of that one. Read David's book. It is free to download it.

[TheLayman]

Generally speaking, no one claims to be God while being a human. No one claims to have two natures. How do you explain the Kenosis? However, you've wrongly asserted something about Jason. Here is the problem. The context of what is said often determines HOW a word is used.

Have you ever heard of the "Gish Gallop" Prax? It was a description used for a perceived debate tactic of Duane Gish and consisted of : "to spit out literally dozens and dozens of claims, no more than a sentence or two. They are always oversimplified, often just plain false, but by the time you've refuted the first one, 20 more have been thrown out like a machine gun." You are really all over the place and since my time is very limited, I make one exception to answering such a post, next time I just ignore you.

As far as you attempting to relativize a word like himself or yourself by saying no one made the claims that Jesus made, I would first say that if words lose their meanings because of the one using them, then words have no meaning and we can not examine the claims of Scripture or Jesus. In short, there is something called a contradiction of terms and you simply can not escape it. You can not in anyway be other than yourself. If you can't accept that then please don't attempt to appeal to logic anymore.

You've ignored the context of what Jason wrote in regards to HOW he used the word "himself" with regards to Jesus. He uses that word to express the Son's psychological distinction from the Father. He usees that word to express that the one person of God becomes aware of His own existence through a human nature.

Really?? So if I write Jason and ask him how he defines "himself" he's going to tell me that it means "a psychological distinction?" I'd love that.

The context of what Jason writes is what determines HOW he uses the word "Himself"....but time and time again you chose to ignore that. You did it at CARM where I was warned about quoting too much and you did it here where you told me NOT to tell you what Jason asserts. Sometime rather ironic since that is what you keep doing...telling us what Jason asserts.

Bad case of victim going around and if you knew me at all Praxeas you'd know that playing the poor victim does nothing for me. But I don't think you've allowed yourself to acknowledge something keep telling you Praxeas...Jason claims to follow Chalcedonian mechanics. What that means is this: He is my neck of the woods, and my definitions are his definitions, and that is his choice. That's the first thing. The second thing is that according to Chalcedonian the person adding human nature can not be divided up into two persons that relate to each other from the perspective of nature. In other words what Jason's mechanics do is explicitly forbidden by Chalcedon. Do you understand Praxeas, the context is Chalcedon. It is clear to me that you do not understand Chalcedonian Christology which is why I say you don't understand Dullian Christology.

If a word is a word is a word and that word must always have the same meaning, then you MUST apply that same rule to the word God as it is used in the gospels. It can't mean only one person of the Trinity in John 1:1 and then mean the Second person in John 20:28. Whose definition do we use of "himself" when Jason is writting? Yours? Or Jasons?

Your argument is a straw man and your conclusion is non sequitur. Notwithstanding, the word "himself" is a reflexive pronoun. A reflexive pronoun simply refers to the subject of the sentence. Jesus did not pray to "himself." Himself refers to Jesus. So I'm sorry you are having such difficulty with the context of this word Praxeas, but as I said, it is a reflexive pronoun so if you wonder what it means (I don't) just look for the subject of the sentence.

And when personality or personal attributes are given to both Father and Son...so what? Father and Son ARE both Person...they are the SAME person so why would FAther and Son NOT have personal attributes? The issue, as far as what Jason writes, is that it is the NATURE that gives person distinct attributes.

If the Son is aware of Himself (do you know who himself refers to here or does Jason have you confused) as a man but not as God, and if the Father is aware of Himself as God but not as man, then that equals two selfs, one that is not the other. That Praxeas is two separate persons, two separate beings according to Chalcedonian mechanics.

A Person can have a will or mind but that is the person willing or having his mind THROUGH the nature they possess. Even Trinitarians have said the Trinity has one mind and will. Catholics say Jesus had TWO wills (see their encyclopedia). What you are trying to do is to form a strawman argument by redefining in your own terms what others are saying and not rather allowing them to define it themselves.

No Praxeas, no straw man. What you are doing is giving this incoherent rant that really ignores things that I have said to you on more than one occasion. As I said, Dulle claims to use Chalcedonian Mechanics, so he doesn't get to redefine Chalcedon (and neither do you). And once again, I'm sorry your struggle with the concept of a refexive pronoun and I'm not sure I can help you with that. And the number of wills and types of wills is a red herring Praxeas (remember what I said about the Gish gallop).

Im still interested in you explaining the omnipresence and transcendence of the Son....did he continue to be that Transcendent omnipresent Deity beyond his own incarnation? Or did all of the second person of the Trinity literally cease being God and was completely fully all of him incarnate?

Praxeas, as I explained to someone else earlier in a PM, God could give be the attribute of omnipresence and the ability to transcend the boundries of time and space and I would still just be one person. There would not be a second TheLayman that I could converse with or call brother and love and be loved by. That's because it would be "I" that am omnipresent, and "I" that transcend time and space. Just one me. Transcending the incarnation would not mean a division of the person, it does not mean not being incarnate. And omnipresence means everywhere present, it does not mean being more than one person in multiple places. I understand that Dulle tries to use transcendant to mean "not incarnate" but that is simply not what it means (indeed, one can not "transcend the incarnation if one is not incarnate).

Exactly. Everytime Jesus claimed Deity no where did they equate that to a second person called "Son"....Jesus even confirmed the Jewish understanding of Deity when he said

Joh 8:54 Jesus answered, If I honor myself, my honor is nothing: it is my Father that honoreth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God:

Joh 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Joh 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Joh 4:21 Jesus said to her, Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you shall neither worship the Father in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem.
Joh 4:22 You worship what you do not know, we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.
Joh 4:23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such to worship Him.
Joh 4:24 God is a spirit, and they who worship Him must worship in spirit and in truth

Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in you all.

Notice especially that last one...the term Father is not used simply in reference to the Son...God is the Father of all who is above all and through all and in you all

You are really all over the place with the Scriptures Praxeas. I was speaking of your the assertion you made in your previous post.

Jn. 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. Amazing that you can learn about Jewish culture and beliefs of the time of Jesus straight from Scripture. You will see here that the Jews sought all the more to kill him because He said that God was His Father. Making this claim was making Himself equal with God, for you are what your father is in this culture.

Praxeas, my time really is limited so you would do better to focus on some specific something if you want me to respond.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[TheLayman]

Dear Layman
Thanks for your comments. I reply in the hope that you are willing to engage in debate.

You dispute that the doctrine of the Trinity is the teaching that God is three co-equal persons who have existed together in a co-operative social relationship. I am a little puzzled as to how you think I am misrepresenting the doctrine.

I appreciate your friendly demeanor but truly the first thing that comes to mind is, "You've got to be kidding me, right?" With all due respect I would assume that someone who's writing a book to supposedly refute the Trinity has at least read and understood the Creeds. Now, if you could quote even one of the creeds stating that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are exist in a co-operative social relationship I'd love you to copy and paste it. But you and I both know that's not going to happen because they don't say that. And being of one and the same substance is not a co-operative social relationship. The persons of the Trinity are not a co-op, they are a being.

What's more is that no Apostolic father or Early Church Father ever made such a statement either.

I am of course aware that nowadays there are many different versions of the Trinity doctrine. Every modern theologian who has had a view on it seems to have his own slant. The late Walter Martin, a champion of trinitarianism, denied the doctrine of the Eternal Son - I understand that this has led some trinitarians to question whether Martin was a real trinitarian at all.

Walter Martin's belief was heterodox. I will make a limited defense of him to say that He taught that the Word was a person before the incarnation, but that the Word became the Son through the incarnation. So the problem that a Trinitarian such as myself would have with Walter Martin is something that most Oneness people would not understand.

However back to the point you made. I was trying to define what I called the classical doctrine of the Trinity, which 1) dates from the 4th century creeds and 2) is the version of the Trinity which is promulgated by orthodox teachers and writers (if not theologians). I would submit that most laypeople sitting in a pew in a trinitarian church would understand this as the doctrine that their denomination believes in.

I'm apologize, perhaps there was some ambiguity in something I said the first time I corrected you. What you described in the quotes I have from your book does not date to anywhere as far as I know. It is not "classical Trinitarianism" and in fact would best be described as Tritheism. But it is not the doctrine of the Trinity.

For example I remember hearing Jill Briscoe, of Telling the Truth Ministries, teaching on the radio a few years ago of how the the three Persons made a covenant with each other from eternity. I would call that a co-operative social relationship.

I'd call that heretical nonsense. I'd also say you might find a better place to do legitimate research on a topic like the Trinity if you want to be taken seriously by anybody that actually knows what they're talking about. Please tell me you're not going to quote Jimmy Swaggert and Benny Hinn.

The Athanasian Creed states ' ... in this Trinity there is nothing before ot after ... but the three whole Persons are co-eternal together and coequal ...'. So it surely cannot be the co-eternality and the co-equality of the three Persons that you object to. If it is the co-operative social relationship that you think is my 'straw man', I would argue that it is entirely reasonable to presume that the three Persons would have a social relationship from eternity. If they have been existing together from eternity, they are surely going to communicate. And they will surely have been co-operating, as trinitarians understand that there is only one will ('not three Lords, but one Lord').

Ahh, now I see. You think "it is entirely reasonable to presume." To presume is never a good substitute for proper research and facts. The persons of the Trinity are of the same substance and of one substance, i.e. they are one in being. The persons do not act in a co-op but in unity, an absolute unity.

A trinitarian, as I understand it, interprets e.g. John 17:5 as Jesus the Eternal Son talking about his relationship with the Father before the world was. It is entirely natural, I argue, for the trinitarian to read verses lilke these and understand them in terms of the three Persons co-operating together in some kind of council from eternity. That is, indeed, how many preachers describe it. So it may not be exactly in the creeds, but it is surely the implication from them.

The Creeds to not imply the three persons are a council but rather a single being. And your empty assertion of how "many" preachers describe it is just that, and empty assertion which has no bearing whatsoever with regard to what the doctrine of the Trinity actually is or says. In other words not only is it an empty assertion but an irrelevant one. With regard to John 17:5 I read it for what it says.

Jn. 17:5 "And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.

See where the Son said "I had." That verb "echo, i.e. had" means in some form or fashion to possess. But what's more is that it is imperfect/active/indicative. What that means is that the one speaking, the Son, had to actually and personally exist with the Father before the world was, because the Son was the "doer" of this verb before the world was, not the Father. You can't be the "doer" of a verb unless you exist, pretty basic stuff. So all I need take away from this verse is what it actually says, which is the Son actually and personally existed with the Father in glory before the Universe even existed. That is not a Trinitarian bias, that is called simple grammar.

So I really do not see what your objection is. I do not see my opening statements as a 'huge straw man'. If you read the book, you will see that I have tried to avoid attacking straw men by quoting trinitarian authors, sometimes at length, in order to meet what they say on their own terms.

I look forward to hearing from you.

God bless

I repeat, you're book is a huge straw man. And the only purpose it will serve besides misrepresenting Trinitarian doctrine is to give Oneness Pentecostals bad information.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[davidkc]

Dear Layman
Could I just try to reply to your points to me, even though there is a lot of interest in the dialogue between you and Praxeas.

I appreciate your frankness in saying that Walter Martin was heterodox and that Jill Briscoe's teaching was heretical. It is a bit of an eye-opener to find trinitarians disagreeing amongst themselves to such a large extent, because sometimes I get the impression, as a non-trinitarian, that the Trinity doctrine is pretty monolithic and that it is only the non-trinitarians that are the heretics.

I wonder why there does not seem to be any real effort amongst trinitarians to keep the doctrine 'pure' among themselves, contrasting with the large effort devoted to exposing the 'lies' of oneness belief. After all, John Ankerberg invited Walter Martin to lead the trinitarian case against the UPC in 1985. Was JA aware WM was 'heterodox', or perhaps JA is heterodox himself? Perhaps you could comment on this seeming lack of interest amongst trinitarians in maintaining the doctrine of the creeds within the orthodox denominations.

With regard to a co-operative social relationship, I entirely take your point about the absence of such wording from the creeds. However I would submit again that the implication is there. I know you say that God is one being, and you are of course correct. However the understanding of 'personhood' (which you try to define on another thread) must imply the possibility of communication with other 'persons'. Surely you would not say that the three Persons were not in communication with each other from eternity? (sorry about the double negative). An essential part of our understanding of 'person' is that persons exist in society, that they form social relationships.

'Persons' speak to other persons, they work together, they 'co-operate'. And trinitarians cite scripture texts to 'prove' the three Persons in dialogue together and working together. Isaiah 48:16 is much quoted (I discuss this verse in the book). The Father is described as sending the Son (numerous scriptures). The Son agrees to go. The Son agrees to say what the Father tells him to (eg John 12:49). The Spirit is supposed to say what he is told to say by the Father (eg John 16:13). The Son agrees to subordinate his will to the Father's will (as in Gethsemane). If these are eternal Persons, then how can you say that they are not operating in a co-operative social relationship?

You correctly point out the difficulty of three 'Persons' having a social relationship if they are one being. But in my view, the problem does not lie with them having a social relationship if they are three Persons. The problems lies in the idea that God can be three 'Persons' and at the same time one being.

[OriginalPraxeas]

You are really all over the place and since my time is very limited, I make one exception to answering such a post, next time I just ignore you.
If you ignoring me means I no longer have to deal with our pejorative attempts at "dialogue" then please by all means ignore me. I would be gratified.

As far as you attempting to relativize a word like himself or yourself by saying no one made the claims that Jesus made, I would first say that if words lose their meanings because of the one using them, then words have no meaning and we can not examine the claims of Scripture or Jesus. I never said words lose their meaning. However words as used by someone often have their meaning defined in the context. Something you have consistantly ignored over and over and over with regards to Jason Dulle's article

In short, there is something called a contradiction of terms and you simply can not escape it. You can not in anyway be other than yourself. If you can't accept that then please don't attempt to appeal to logic anymore.Jason defines in the context what HE means by "yourself" or Himself. You'd rather fight a strawman argument with pejoratives and ad hominems than deal honestly with what someone says. He defines what mean he means when he refers to Jesus praying to someone other than himself. Text out of context is pretext...even for you.

Really?? So if I write Jason and ask him how he defines "himself" he's going to tell me that it means "a psychological distinction?" I'd love that.This distinction between Father and Son arises because of Christ's humanity, not between His deity and the deity of the Father (Trinitarianism), or between His divine and human natures (Nestorianism). With the assumption of a genuine human nature complete with a human psyche, will, emotions, and consciousness, Jesus' existence is distinct from the Father's existence. By virtue of the fact that Jesus' consciousness is human, it is distinct from God's unlimited divine consciousness beyond the incarnation. Such a distinction in consciousness demands that we speak of the Father and Jesus as being distinct both metaphysically and psychologically. This distinction is not a distinction between eternal persons within the Godhead, but rather between God's existence in the incarnation and His continued existence beyond the incarnation.There is no absurdity in a real man praying to a real God, but there is absurdity in denying Jesus a real human psychology in His prayers, and yet at the same time wanting to confess that He is truly and completely man. Real humans have a real human psychology. But if Jesus' prayers were merely God speaking and acting through a human body without a human mind/consciousness, then Jesus is not a man, but a divine puppet of flesh devoid of any real humanness.Does Jason mean "himself" in the article you partially quoted refers to a second, human person?

The incarnation is not the bringing into being of a separate human person, but rather it was God Himself taking on a new manner of existence as man. Jesus is God Himself existing as man. Jesus' humanity was not that of a distinct human person, but was genuine human nature individualized (made personal) by God Himself. Because Jesus is God Himself existing as man, of necessity there can only be one personal subject in Christ, not two. God is that personal subject. Just as we are the subject of all our acts, likewise God is the subject of all Christ's acts. Yet in Christ God is not acting as God, but as man.A person, however, is immaterial conscious substance, a personality; a person is a particular individual who consists of a certain nature, or the particularization of a generic substance. A person is the concrete conscious self, the ego, defining who it is who is of a particular substance.13 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jesusprayers3.htm#foot13) It takes a concrete person (hypostasis) to actualize the generic nature (physis).14 (http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/jesusprayers3.htm#foot14) In the case of Christ, the person who actualizes the human nature is God, not a separate human person.God came to exist as man by uniting human nature to His divine person, acquiring a human existence complete with all the properties inherent to human nature (human soul, spirit, mind, consciousness, etc.), not by assuming a human person. Because He assumed a human nature and not a human person Jesus' humanity is not an individual person in itself, but is human nature individualized (hypostasized) by the divine person.Christ's prayers do not flow from either of His natures, but from His one person.17 The divine person utilizes each nature to perform the functions peculiar to each, but both natures are motivated by the one and selfsame person.18 The one person of Christ carries out His activities in, through, and with both natures.19 The natures do not act; the person acts. The one divine person "does by means of each nature the acts that are appropriate to it,"20 deciding the actions made possible by the natures.21I think it's a stretch to assert that Jason means two persons...in the same way a Trinitarian means "person" by reading the word "himself". You clearly did not consider the context of which Jason is writting

Bad case of victim going around and if you knew me at all Praxeas you'd know that playing the poor victim does nothing for me. That's getting old TLM. Nobody here is impressed when you play that card anymore..it doesn't work. Im not sure what you hope to accomplish by resorting to pejoratives but it will only hurt your attempt to show us OPs what you hoped to show us. Your attitude stinks.

But I don't think you've allowed yourself to acknowledge something keep telling you Praxeas...Jason claims to follow Chalcedonian mechanics. What that means is this: He is my neck of the woods, and my definitions are his definitions, and that is his choice. That's the first thing. The second thing is that according to Chalcedonian the person adding human nature can not be divided up into two persons that relate to each other from the perspective of nature. In other words what Jason's mechanics do is explicitly forbidden by Chalcedon. Do you understand Praxeas, the context is Chalcedon. It is clear to me that you do not understand Chalcedonian Christology which is why I say you don't understand Dullian Christology.Does Chalcedon teach that a Hypostasis became a human hypostasis? Does Chalcedon teach that a Divine person became a Human person? Does Jason insist on absolutely EVERY aspect of Chalcedon be true, even for a Oneness? Does Chalcedon teach the 1 person of God was hypostatically united with a human nature or does it teach the second person of the Trinity was hypostatically united with a human nature? No I don't think YOU have a clue what Jason Dulle's Christology is and how he views Chalcedon. Sure he insists on a Chalcedonian Christology when it comes to the Hypostatic union, but is it the 1 Person of God or is it 1 of three persons of God?

Even then, that does not prevent the CONTEXT of anything determining how words are used. You know that very well. You would insist on it if we were quoting the bible. In fact if I quoted you out of context you would insist on the context determining what you meant too.

[OriginalPraxeas]

Your argument is a straw man and your conclusion is non sequitur.why do you say that?

Notwithstanding, the word "himself" is a reflexive pronoun. A reflexive pronoun simply refers to the subject of the sentence. Jesus did not pray to "himself."That is right! It's grammar....it's NOT theology unless one is stating they are using it theologically...You are arguing Jason means two persons in the theological connotation of the word....two hypostasis. Is that what Jason means by his grammar? Had he said "two persons" or "two hypostasis"...there would be no argument. Jason is being grammatically correct and theologically specific...you chose to ignore his theology and harp on his grammar.

Himself refers to Jesus. So I'm sorry you are having such difficulty with the context of this word Praxeas, but as I said, it is a reflexive pronoun so if you wonder what it means (I don't) just look for the subject of the sentence. It's not the context of the word...the problem is you ignore the context of what Jason wrote and how he explains what he means.

If the Son is aware of Himself (do you know who himself refers to here or does Jason have you confused) as a man but not as God, and if the Father is aware of Himself as God but not as man, then that equals two selfs, one that is not the other. That Praxeas is two separate persons, two separate beings according to Chalcedonian mechanics.See the above quotes by Jason. It's the one Hypostasis of God, not two.

Praxeas, as I explained to someone else earlier in a PM, God could give be the attribute of omnipresence and the ability to transcend the boundries of time and space and I would still just be one person. There would not be a second TheLayman that I could converse with or call brother and love and be loved by. Jason does not claim there is a second Yahweh or a second God or a second Jesus...Typical strawman argument

That's because it would be "I" that am omnipresent, and "I" that transcend time and space. Just one me.TLM please answer this honestly...does God (the Trinity) ever speak as a collective together using a singular personal pronoun?

Transcending the incarnation would not mean a division of the person, it does not mean not being incarnateNobody claims there is. However still my question was in your view does the person of the Son continue to exist transcendently beyond the scope of the incarnation? See your assertion is that the contradiction is God has the Human nature, God does not have the human nature. That's a false assertion. HOwever even in your view the Son is incarnate and yet continues to exist beyond the incarnation transcendently, omnipresently.

And omnipresence means everywhere present, it does not mean being more than one person in multiple places.I never said it means more than one person in multiple places and neither did Jason. I mean it exactly how you used it.

[OriginalPraxeas]

You are really all over the place with the Scriptures Praxeas. I was speaking of your the assertion you made in your previous post.

Jn. 5:18 Therefore the Jews sought all the more to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God. Amazing that you can learn about Jewish culture and beliefs of the time of Jesus straight from Scripture. You will see here that the Jews sought all the more to kill him because He said that God was His Father. Making this claim was making Himself equal with God, for you are what your father is in this culture.

Praxeas, my time really is limited so you would do better to focus on some specific something if you want me to respond.

Blessings,
TheLayman

And I agreed and posted some verses where John does not make any corrections in the narrative to their understanding of who God is.

[TheLayman]

Hello David:

Dear Layman
Could I just try to reply to your points to me, even though there is a lot of interest in the dialogue between you and Praxeas.

I appreciate your frankness in saying that Walter Martin was heterodox and that Jill Briscoe's teaching was heretical. It is a bit of an eye-opener to find trinitarians disagreeing amongst themselves to such a large extent, because sometimes I get the impression, as a non-trinitarian, that the Trinity doctrine is pretty monolithic and that it is only the non-trinitarians that are the heretics.

Of course you can respond to me. And I was unaware of any interest in the dialogue between Praxeas and me. But in that Praxeas has continued on with the Gish Gallop and my time is limited, I will have to figure out how to proceed.

With regard to the Trinity being monolithic. I’d say the Trinity is pretty much monolithic (if I understand what you are meaning). That’s why I can say that Walter Martin’s teaching regarding the Son is heterodox, because there is an objective point of reference for orthodoxy. Same thing with what you allege Briscoe was teaching.

I wonder why there does not seem to be any real effort amongst trinitarians to keep the doctrine 'pure' among themselves, contrasting with the large effort devoted to exposing the 'lies' of oneness belief. After all, John Ankerberg invited Walter Martin to lead the trinitarian case against the UPC in 1985. Was JA aware WM was 'heterodox', or perhaps JA is heterodox himself? Perhaps you could comment on this seeming lack of interest amongst trinitarians in maintaining the doctrine of the creeds within the orthodox denominations.

From my perspective you tend to make these huge unsupported assertions. But of course when you say, “there does not seem…,” you mean there does not seem to you. I don’t see orthodox Trinitarians changing what orthodoxy is for anyone. And once again, what John Ankerberg and Walter Martin did with Oneness Pentecostals is absolutely irrelevant with regard to what the doctrine of the Trinity teaches. I did not hesitate for a moment to call Martin’s teaching on the Son heterodox, that’s what it is.

John MacArthur was teaching the same thing which I found out when I took a class on the Book of Hebrews from Moody Bible Institute. The class used MacArthur’s Commentary and I took issue with this (along with the idea that Paul didn’t write Hebrews). John MacArthur was stripped of his membership in the organization that licensed him as I recall, but he later recanted this teaching and promised to remove the commentaries which taught this and correct them, though I know after 5 years this still had not been done. This is why I don't recommend MacArthur as a teacher.

On this specific issue I believe you will find this Martin/MacArthur teaching was part of a neo-Trinitarian idea that arose in the last few hundred years. It’s really one of those, “I’m less Catholic than you are…” ideas. What I mean is this, and it is my opinion, that some theologians, teachers, and even denominations take the attitude that the more they can make every doctrine they hold different than Catholics, the more righteous they are. That is not only intellectual suicide, it’s just plain stupid. The idea that the more you disagree with something the Catholics believe the more correct you are is still alive and well (and no I’m not Roman Catholic anymore, haven’t been for more than 35 years). So, some folks thought they’d tweak the doctrine of the Trinity a little but contrary to your assertion, tweaking foundational doctrines of Christianity doesn’t meet with much approval from orthodox (little o) Christians.

So my comment on what you call “the seeming lack of interest amongst Trinitarians in maintaining the doctrine of the creeds within the orthodox denominations,” is not only a completely unsupported assertion but it is a self refuting statement. I say this because one would be hard pressed to claim orthodoxy based upon a creed without holding the creed to be orthodoxy. Now if you were to ask why evangelicals seem more and more to preach and teach Gospel light, that would be a different and very interesting question, but one that I do not have time to discuss right now and one which is certainly beyond the scope of our present discussion.

With regard to a co-operative social relationship, I entirely take your point about the absence of such wording from the creeds. However I would submit again that the implication is there. I know you say that God is one being, and you are of course correct. However the understanding of 'personhood' (which you try to define on another thread) must imply the possibility of communication with other 'persons'. Surely you would not say that the three Persons were not in communication with each other from eternity? (sorry about the double negative). An essential part of our understanding of 'person' is that persons exist in society, that they form social relationships.

'Persons' speak to other persons, they work together, they 'co-operate'. And trinitarians cite scripture texts to 'prove' the three Persons in dialogue together and working together. Isaiah 48:16 is much quoted (I discuss this verse in the book). The Father is described as sending the Son (numerous scriptures). The Son agrees to go. The Son agrees to say what the Father tells him to (eg John 12:49). The Spirit is supposed to say what he is told to say by the Father (eg John 16:13). The Son agrees to subordinate his will to the Father's will (as in Gethsemane). If these are eternal Persons, then how can you say that they are not operating in a co-operative social relationship?

Your admission that such wording is absent from the creeds should cause you to remove the words from your book that state the doctrine of the Trinity teaches something that it does not. What you believe is implicit is once again simply what you believe as opposed to the actual doctrine itself. I would respectfully add that you could only believe such a thing is implied if you were ignorant of what the doctrine teaches and that “seems” quite evident to me in your continued unsupported assertions. The word “person” as it relates to the “persons of the Trinity” has never been synonymous with “human being.” In other words, what you are asserting regarding “persons in a society” and “social relationships” is your understanding of the word “person” as it relates to “human beings.” Again I say this demonstrates your ignorance of the doctrine. Once again, your “presumptions” are no substitute for facts and proper research.

I did not say the persons of the Trinity do not communicate. And it is not a question of cooperating or not cooperating per se, they are a unity, and ontological unity. The same came be said for making “agreements” with one another. They do not make “agreements,” they are a unity. I will not address what you say others quote and the reasons you say they quote it. You may discuss that with them whoever they may be. And at another time we may discuss Scripture (although you brought up John 17:5 and dropped it just as quickly), but your quotes above have nothing to do with whether or not you understand the Trinity and whether or not you are arguing against your own invention.

You correctly point out the difficulty of three 'Persons' having a social relationship if they are one being. But in my view, the problem does not lie with them having a social relationship if they are three Persons. The problems lies in the idea that God can be three 'Persons' and at the same time one being.

Let's define a couple of terms here real quick so we don't talk past one another.

social: (adjective) 1 relating to society, its organization, or hierarchy. 2 needing companionship; suited to living in communities. 3 relating to or designed for activities in which people meet each other for pleasure. 4 (of birds, insects, or mammals) breeding or living in colonies or organized communities; (noun) an informal social gathering organized by the members of a club or group. (Compact Oxford English Dictionary)

This is not the description of the persons of the Trinity. And I will take this opportunity to point out once again that if you had done a minimum of research you should have known this without me telling you. The persons are a Unity:

unity: (noun) the state of being one; oneness; the quality of being united into one; an unreduced or unbroken completeness or totality

So to correct you, the persons of the Trinity are an ontological unity as opposed to a social relationship. And if you see a problem with three persons and one being it is because you must not know the difference between person and being.

Blessings,
Thelayman

[davidkc]

Thanks Layman
A few quick comments, but I will try to reply later when I have had more time to reflect on what you have said.

1. You replied to both Praxeas and myself in the same post - hence my attempt to disentangle what you were saying to me.

2. There do seem to be different views going around about what is the correct doctrine of the Trinity. I understand that you would say that your 'version' is the correct one, but one would expect that everybody - Walter Martin, John MacArthur, Jill Briscoe to name the people mentioned - would say the same about their own 'version'. Nothing wrong in that I would say, it is entirely to be expected. One can discuss the correct interpretation of the creeds defining the Trinity, and perhaps your understanding has more backing than others. But I would also suggest that the biblical support for these different understandings of the creeds is relevant. For instance, how do we interpret Jesus' sayings in the light of the Trinity? I am glad that you see eg John 17:5 as relevant. I try to do that in my book.

3. On 'person', a huge amount rests upon how this term is understood and defined (as I try to point out). I think your definitions on the other post are a praiseworthy attempt to highlight the importance of the term. If 'person' means the same as the ordinary meaning, that I would argue it involves communication - and the posssibility of a social relationship with other 'persons'. If 'person' applied to God means something different, then it should be defined (or a different term should be used).

4. I think you are correct in saying that I do not know the difference between person and being, as applied to God. I am afraid that I just do not understand how God can be three persons and one being. I may know the creeds which define the Trinity, but I do not understand them. In that sense I think your accusations are quite accurate. However I would insist that I cannot see the basis for these creeds in the Bible.

[TheLayman]

If you ignoring me means I no longer have to deal with our pejorative attempts at "dialogue" then please by all means ignore me. I would be gratified.

Should we count how many times you use the word pejorative in your post? Is it your word of the month or something? And from my end Praxeas it is more than just a little annoying to repeat the same thing to you ad nauseam and have you not get it. So I'm going to keep trying to make it simpler for you in the hopes that the light will come on for you:

First of all, Jason claims he follows Chalcedonian (i.e. Trinitarian) mechanics in his Christology. Enter TheLayman, a Trinitarian who is telling you Jason does not follow Chalcedonian mechanics. Are you with me so far?

It is based on this claim (that he adheres to Chalcedonian mechanics) that Jason further claims he does not introduce a second person as a result of the incarnation. To explain further, in that Trinitarians don't end up with 4 persons as a result of the incarnation (an additional person) Jason argues that he doesn't end up with 2 persons as a result of the incarnation (an additional person). Are you still with me Praxeas? If you are, try to track with me just a bit more here.

Trinitarian Christology begins with only one person, the Son. After the incarnation, there is not a theandric Son who could pray to a purely theistic Son. There is not one Son who is incarnate and another who "lacks" the incarnation.

In Jason's Christology, he begins with one person. However, his incarnation results in one person who is theandric who can pray to someone other than himself who is purely theistic. There is one person who is incarnate, and one who "lacks the incarnation." Praxeas, there is nothing, absolutely nothing subtle here. Jason Dulle has two persons. In fact, according to Chalcedon he has divided one person into two natures, whereas Trinitarians unite two natures in one person. It is very basic.

And the only reason Jason thinks he has avoided Nestorianism is he is saying that Jesus Christ who everybody saw in the flesh speaks only as a man, not sometimes as man and sometimes as God. Jason thinks Nestorianism is a matter of geography, so he has the Son who is man and the Father who is not man. The problem is of course he still has divided one person into two persons who are personally interacting with each other.

But I don't want the main point to get lost. Jason, according to Chalcedon divides one person into two natures resulting in two persons. Trinitarians according to Chalcedon, unite two natures in one person, so no additional person is created as a result of the incarnation.

I never said words lose their meaning. However words as used by someone often have their meaning defined in the context. Something you have consistantly ignored over and over and over with regards to Jason Dulle's article

Praxeas, I grew tired of your false assertions about taking Jason out of context a long time ago. The problem is that you don't understand Trinitarian theology proper or Christology. Dulle claims to be using Trinitarian Christological mechanics, that is the context. This is something you refuse to acknowledge.

Jason defines in the context what HE means by "yourself" or Himself. You'd rather fight a strawman argument with pejoratives and ad hominems than deal honestly with what someone says. He defines what mean he means when he refers to Jesus praying to someone other than himself. Text out of context is pretext...even for you.

Did you even read the my post that you're responding to Praxeas? Seriously, this is absolute basic grammar. A personal pronoun ending in "self" is a reflexive pronoun, that's what it is, it is always a reflexive pronoun (how many ways can I say this for you). A given sentence will have a subject and the reflexive pronoun makes the subject the object of the verb, it refers to subject, it indicates the subjects action upon the subject. In other words Praxeas, as I said before, whenever one sees a reflexive pronoun it is referring to the subject of the sentence it is in. Jason doesn't get to "define" what he means by a reflexive pronoun, it's grammar Praxeas, very basic grammar.

Praxeas, the only one putting forth straw man arguments here is you, and you are putting them forth rapid fire. I don't need to, I actually know what I'm talking about. And there is the accusations of pejoratives and ad homs again from you, which is again playing the victim. Would you like me to give you a debate term for it. What you're doing is called the fallacy of appealing to pity. I actually explain things Praxeas, you are just giving long winded whines.

Does Jason mean "himself" in the article you partially quoted refers to a second, human person?

I think it's a stretch to assert that Jason means two persons...in the same way a Trinitarian means "person" by reading the word "himself". You clearly did not consider the context of which Jason is writting

You have not once defined the word "himself" even once Praxeas, you just obfuscate. I have explained what a reflexive pronoun is at length, it is very basic. So, here is a quote from Jason's article Jesus Prayers"

To explain the prayers of Jesus as the human nature of Jesus praying to the divine nature of Jesus poses problems. For one, natures do not pray, people do. Secondly, the Scripture declares that He prayed to the Father, not Himself. It would make no sense for Jesus to pray to Himself. (Dulle)

Okay Prax, this is going to be so simple, so basic, and so clear that I'm sure it will inspire you to new heights of equivocation, obfuscation, and diversion. See where Jason says "Scripture declares He prayed to the Father, not Himself."?

Jason says natures can't pray, only a person can pray. I agree. With that in mind:

1.) In the "He prayed" does refer to a person, yes or no?
2.) Does the "Himself" in "not Himself" refer to the "He" in "He prayed?"

It's simple grammar Praxeas and Jason tries (but fails) to have it both ways. The "not Himself" refers to the "He" that prayed. And since that "He" is a person (only a person prays) and He did not pray to Himself, that means He prayed to a person other than Himself, and that makes two.

Additionally Praxeas, I want to remind you again that if Jason states that Jesus is praying to someone other than Himself, that if He is loved by the Father and if He loves the Father, then contrary to your assertion above, this Trinitiarian is telling you that this is two persons. And I'm telling you that no such division occurs to the Son in Trinitarian Christology.

That's getting old TLM. Nobody here is impressed when you play that card anymore..it doesn't work. Im not sure what you hope to accomplish by resorting to pejoratives but it will only hurt your attempt to show us OPs what you hoped to show us. Your attitude stinks

Are you that oblivious to your own actions Praxeas? First, you continue to bear false witness by implying that I purposely misrepresent Jason by "taking him out of context." You brought CARM up and it sounded like I would post but a few words of Jason when in fact I quote Jason more extensively than I quote anyone. And you were told that you could not post entire articles without permission. And lastly, CARM has absolutely nothing to do with Dulle's Christology or anything going on here. You brought it up, you tried to poison the well, and you played the victim. And it's all just more diversion Praxeas.

Does Chalcedon teach that a Hypostasis became a human hypostasis? Does Chalcedon teach that a Divine person became a Human person? Does Jason insist on absolutely EVERY aspect of Chalcedon be true, even for a Oneness? Does Chalcedon teach the 1 person of God was hypostatically united with a human nature or does it teach the second person of the Trinity was hypostatically united with a human nature? No I don't think YOU have a clue what Jason Dulle's Christology is and how he views Chalcedon. Sure he insists on a Chalcedonian Christology when it comes to the Hypostatic union, but is it the 1 Person of God or is it 1 of three persons of God?

The Chewbaca defense, which is very similar to the Gish Gallop. Praxeas, if you know that you do not understand the issues at all, as demonstrated by your questions, why do you go on the attack. The incarnation in Chalcedonian Christology deals with the incarnation of one divine person. Trinitarians have one divine person who is incarnated. Jason claims to have one divine person who is incarnated. Chalcedon is the mechanics of this one divine person. Now you're trying to relativize the meaning of Chalcedonian mechanics because you have found yourself in an untenable position.

Even then, that does not prevent the CONTEXT of anything determining how words are used. You know that very well. You would insist on it if we were quoting the bible. In fact if I quoted you out of context you would insist on the context determining what you meant too.

You mean it does not prevent you from attempting to equivocate and obfuscate. Nothing does Praxeas. But we had a whole thread on this so let me state this to you once again. If you assert that the Son was truly praying to someone other than Himself (in other words His prayers were not a charade) and if you believe the Son truly loved the Father, and the Father truly loved the Son, then you have at the very least two persons in theology. Lastly, I have never quoted Jason out of context, never. Your bearing false witness is getting old, and it is a pathetic debate tactic.

TheLayman

[davidkc]

I think my reply to Layman has got lost somewhere! I definitely remember typing it and pressing 'post'.

But briefly, I think so much depends on how you define 'person'. If the term is used as in ordinary English speech, that it implies the possibility of communication and social relationship with other 'persons' of like kind. If the term 'person' applied to God means something different, then that new meaning should be defined.

One of my problems with the Trinity doctrine of 'one being, three persons' is that trinitarians use the term 'person' as if everybody knows what they mean by it, and as if everybody else means the same thing. I am not sure that either is true.

I know the creeds, but I really do not understand them. I do not understand how God can be one being and three persons, not can I reconcile that thought with the God of the Bible.

I am aware the Layman has made other comments eg on John 17:5 which I would like to try to reply to later, if I can.

[davidkc]

my reply got lost again!

[davidkc]

Dear Layman
I have tried to post replies three times but they do not seem to get onto the thread! Trying again.

Anyway it does seem to me that one of the main problems of the Trinity doctrine is the understanding of the term 'person'. If it means the same as in ordinary English, it must imply the possibility of communication and social relationship with other 'persons'.

If the term 'person' applied to God means something different from the ordinary sense, then it should be given this new definition - and everybody should be clear about it. I do not find this to be the case.

I confess I do not understand how God can be 'three persons and yet one being', although I know what the creeds say.

But it is clear that you are very knowledgeable. I have just had a look on your recent thread about whether oneness pentecostals teach one or two persons, and I think you make some very good points. I have only just seen Dulle's article on Christology and so I am not well-enough informed to comment myself. But I would like to see some serious debate on the points you have raised.

Also like to talk with you further about John 17:5 etc.

Blessings

David

[TheLayman]

Hello Praxeas:

You made two posts to me (or maybe three). So, I thought I'd finish this out by responding to this one as well. Previously you had said:
If a word is a word is a word and that word must always have the same meaning, then you MUST apply that same rule to the word God as it is used in the gospels. It can't mean only one person of the Trinity in John 1:1 and then mean the Second person in John 20:28. Whose definition do we use of "himself" when Jason is writting? Yours? Or Jasons?

To which I responded:
Your argument is a straw man and your conclusion is non sequitur. Notwithstanding, the word "himself" is a reflexive pronoun. A reflexive pronoun simply refers to the subject of the sentence. Jesus did not pray to "himself." Himself refers to Jesus. So I'm sorry you are having such difficulty with the context of this word Praxeas, but as I said, it is a reflexive pronoun so if you wonder what it means (I don't) just look for the subject of the sentence.

To which you replied:

why do you say that?

It is a straw man because I never said a word must always have the same meaning. With regard to a reflexive pronoun, I have explained it to you (and did in my first response again to your most recent post). A reflexive pronoun is always a reflexive pronoun Praxeas and always does what a reflexive pronoun does, just like a verb does what a verb does, and an adjective does what an adjective does. I told told you that the reflexive pronoun refers to the subject. It would be interesting to see how many paragraphs there are between us now concerning the word "himself" and/or reflexive pronouns. It is a simple and very basic thing to understand and yet you continue.

Secondly, there is no reflexive pronoun in John 1:1, so your conclusion, eroneous as it may be, is also non sequitur. One has nothing to do with the other. And lastly, bringing John 1:1 into a discussion regarding "himself" and reflexive pronouns is yet another diversion, a red herring.

That is right! It's grammar....it's NOT theology unless one is stating they are using it theologically...You are arguing Jason means two persons in the theological connotation of the word....two hypostasis. Is that what Jason means by his grammar? Had he said "two persons" or "two hypostasis"...there would be no argument. Jason is being grammatically correct and theologically specific...you chose to ignore his theology and harp on his grammar.

It's grammar and not theology Praxeas? As if one doesn't need grammar to discuss theology? You can not make a coherent sentence about anything without grammar Praxeas. This all brings to mind one of my favorite quotes:


Nothing is more usual than for philosophers to encroach on the province of grammarians, and to engage in disputes of words, while they imagine they are handling controversies of the deepest importance and concern. — David Hume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hume)


Praxeas, I always deal with grammar first. You have to know what something says before you know what it means. But this is all pointless Praxeas, a reflexive pronoun refers to the subject. Incidentally, speaking of John 1:1 I saw your post on the NFCF and you said something to the effect that perhaps the preposition (with) was used in a reflexive way. When you say things like that you give yourself up as not really knowing what you're talking about regarding grammar. Prepositions are not reflexive.

It's not the context of the word...the problem is you ignore the context of what Jason wrote and how he explains what he means.

That doesn't make any sense Praxeas. Of course the context of the word matters, that's what makes sentences have meaning. And I've ignored nothing, I have been demonstrating why Jason's Christology is contradictory, incoherent, and internally inconsistent. That's a point you don't seem to be getting.

See the above quotes by Jason. It's the one Hypostasis of God, not two.

You're equivocating. Only a hypostasis can do things like pray, love, and so forth. It makes no sense for one hypostasis to pray to himself, so who was the hypostasis praying to. To truly be in a relationship where love is exchanged, a hypostasis must love someone other than himself. See how equivocation falls apart?

Jason does not claim there is a second Yahweh or a second God or a second Jesus...Typical strawman argument

Typical obfuscation Praxeas, and I don't think I've ever seen anyone turn the fallacy of 4 terms into the fallacy of at least 6 terms. See, what I said was: Praxeas, as I explained to someone else earlier in a PM, God could give me the attribute of omnipresence and the ability to transcend the boundries of time and space and I would still just be one person. There would not be a second TheLayman that I could converse with or call brother and love and be loved by. So I was referring to person, there would not be another me. In Jason's Christology, his incarnation of one person does result in two persons, one who can pray to another, love and be loved by another, etc. And the reason I said fallacy of 4 terms is that I'm speaking of "person" and you are using names. In fact, it's the fallacy of 4 terms and a straw man.

TLM please answer this honestly...does God (the Trinity) ever speak as a collective together using a singular personal pronoun?

Your question assumes God is a collective, God is not a collective. However, if I can read through that error and try to get to the heart of what your question may be, if any one person were to speak to man or angels, then God would have spoken. The persons of the Trinity are internal to God and therefore persons only in relation to one another, anyone of them in relation to man is God.


Nobody claims there is. However still my question was in your view does the person of the Son continue to exist transcendently beyond the scope of the incarnation? See your assertion is that the contradiction is God has the Human nature, God does not have the human nature. That's a false assertion. HOwever even in your view the Son is incarnate and yet continues to exist beyond the incarnation transcendently, omnipresently.


Praxeas, you know I'm trying to keep you from misunderstanding transcendence but have it your way. In Trinitarian theology/Christology the person of the Son transcends the incarnation, the Son exists without the incarnation but the incarnation does not exist without the Son. But the person of the Son does not transcend Himself. And I know you do not understand the difference between uniting two natures in one person and dividing one person into two natures, which is why you do not understand the difference in Trinitarian Christology and what Dulle has done in his incarnation of one person (i.e. dividing one into two).

I never said it means more than one person in multiple places and neither did Jason. I mean it exactly how you used it.

Really? I must have misunderstood Jason. I could have sworn he said natures do not pray, only a person does. And I could have sworn he said Jesus prayed, and it would make no sense for Jesus to pray to himself.

Lastly Praxeas, your posts are a plethora of straw man arguments, loaded questions. red herrings, diversions, and empty accusations about me misrepresenting Jason. You have not demonstrated a knowledge of grammar which you try to argue, or Chalcedonian Christology, and so it just becomes senseless argument ad nauseam. So you will forgive me if I don't waste any further time attempting to answer your scores of questions. If you really believe you know what your talking about regarding a given topic you might do better to practice explaining your own views in details that anyone can understand and/or ask questions about. And an old apologetic rule Praxeas is "stick to what you know."

TheLayman

[mbrugh]

Your question assumes God is a collective, God is not a collective. However, if I can read through that error and try to get to the heart of what your question may be, if any one person were to speak to man or angels, then God would have spoken. The persons of the Trinity are internal to God and therefore persons only in relation to one another, anyone of them in relation to man is God.

TheLayman
I'm sorry, but that is talking out of both sides. In bold is your view of God, no matter how you try to explain it away.

To one another.

Always, always, the trinitarian says there is one God, yet also states that there is a trinity. You want it both ways; however, God won't have it that way:

Isaiah 44:8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it ? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

As an aside, I have noticed that the Holy Ghost never gets talked about much, as to what he is doing, or what his role is.

The devils even know that there is one God, and they tremble.

James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

See this wheel (http://www.apostolic-voice.org/tracts/onegod.htm).

[Acts236]

Should we count how many times you use the word pejorative in your post? Is it your word of the month or something?

.............

TheLayman


:icon_laug

[essaias]

I wanted to post this as a reference, to identify how an orthodox divine represents the "persons" and the distinction between the Divine Persons and, say, human persons.

Concerning the distinction of the three subsistences:
and concerning the thing itself and our reason and thought in relation to it.

One ought, moreover, to recognise that it is one thing to look at a matter as it is, and another thing to look at it in the light of reason and thought. In the case of all created things, the distinction of the subsistences is observed in actual fact. For in actual fact Peter is seen to be separate from Paul. But the community and connection and unity are apprehended by reason and thought. For it is by the mind that we perceive that Peter and Paul are of the same nature and have one common nature(9). For both are living creatures, rational and mortal: and both are flesh, endowed with the spirit of reason and understanding(1). It is, then, by reason that this community of nature is observed. For here indeed the subsistences do not exist one within the other. But each privately and individually, that is to say, in itself, stands quite separate, having very many points that divide it from the other. For they are both separated in space and differ in time, and are divided in thought, and power, and shape, or form, and habit, and temperament and dignity, and pursuits, and all differentiating properties, but above all, in the fact that they do not dwell in one another but are separated. Hence it comes that we can speak of two, three, or many men.

And this may be perceived throughout the whole of creation, but in the case of the holy and superessential and incomprehensible Trinity, far removed from everything, it is quite the reverse. For there the community and unity are observed in fact, through the co-eternity of the subsistences, and through their having the same essence and energy and will and concord of mind(2), and then being identical in authority and power and goodness--I do not say similar but identical--and then movement by one impulse(3). For there is one essence, one goodness, one power, one will, one energy, one authority, one and the same, I repeat, not three resembling each other. But the three subsistences have one and the same movement. For each one of them is related as closely to the other as to itself: that is to say that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in all respects, save those of nobeing begotten, of birth and of procession. But it is by thought that the difference is perceived(4). For we recognise one God: but only in the attributes of Fatherhood, Sonship, and Procession, both in respect of cause and effect and perfection of subsistence, that is, manner of existence, do we perceive difference(5). For with reference to the uncircumscribed Deity we cannot speak of separation in space, as we can in our own case. For the subsistences dwell in one another, in no wise confused but cleaving together, according to the word of the Lord, I am in the father, and the father in Me(6): nor can one admit difference in will or judgment or energy or power or anything else whatsoever which may produce actual and absolute separation in our case. Wherefore we do not speak of three Gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but rather of one God, the holy Trinity, the Son and Spirit being referred to one cause(7), and not compounded or coalesced according to the synaeresis of Sabellius. For, as we said, they are made one not so as to commingle, but so as to cleave to each other, and they have their being in each other(8) without any coalescence or commingling. Nor do the Son and the Spirit stand apart, nor are they sundered in essence according to the diaeresis of Arias(9). For the Deity is undivided amongst things divided, to put it concisely: and it is just like three suns cleaving to each other without separation and giving out light mingled and conjoined into one. When, then, we turn our eyes to the Divinity, and the first cause and the sovereignty and the oneness anti sameness, so to speak, of the movement and will of the Divinity, and the identity in essence and power and energy and lordship, what is seen by us is unity(1). But when we look to those things in which the Divinity is, or, to put it more accurately, which are the Divinity, and those things which are in it through the first cause without time or distinction in glory or separation, that is to say, the subsistences of the Son and the Spirit, it seems to us a Trinity that we adore(2).


From http://www.balamand.edu.lb/theology/book_i.htm

I did not correct any spelling in the text. I include this excerpt simply to establish some kind of "base line" for what orthodox trinitarians believe.

[mizpeh]

I wanted to post this as a reference, to identify how an orthodox divine represents the "persons" and the distinction between the Divine Persons and, say, human persons.





I did not correct any spelling in the text. I include this excerpt simply to establish some kind of "base line" for what orthodox trinitarians believe.
Essaias,

You must have posted this as a joke! :icon_craz

This is the most convoluted, verbose, thing I have ever read. After the first paragraph none of it made much sense. It sounds like the ramblings of someone high on drugs.

Listen to this gibberish "When, then, we turn our eyes to the Divinity, and the first cause and the sovereignty and the ONENESS ANTISAMENESS, so to speak, of the movement and will of the Divinity, and the identity in essence and power and energy and lordship, what is seen by us is unity."

I had printed this out awhile ago to read it and recently came across it. A waste of paper and printer ink. Please warn us next time you post something like this you are being facetious. Or at the least a winking smiley face!