Will the real Christian please stand up?
And so the discussion on Christian unity and Christian identity continues. I apologize for my spotty engagement in the discussion. On Friday I drove five hours to another city to teach a Christian worldview course Friday evening and all day Saturday. Too bad y’all weren’t there because one of the points I emphasized is the difficulty in defining what the Christian worldview is. In fact, I stressed that the definite article is a mistake. It is hopeless to speak of “the Christian worldview”. Rather, we should think in terms of “a Christian worldview”. And each Christian needs to ask themselves whether they have one. To suggest that the monk at Mount Athos and metalcore singer Tim Lambesis and Thomas Aquinas and Dorothy Day and Paul the Apostle all had the same worldview is plum crazy.
(Crazy irrelevant fact: the fabled Dodge Challenger could be ordered from the factory with ”plum crazy” purple paint.)
The diversity of Christian worldviews is created not only by cultural distinctives and divergent views of science and ethics, but also by theological diversity. And that pushes us back to the difficult question: where is the unity to be found?
In the discussion I made the following assertion: “For example a straight denial of Jesus’ divinity would warrant the boot.” What does this mean for a theologian like Sallie McFague? She infamously claimed (at least infamously in my book) that those who believe Jesus was (and is) divine are “Jesusolaters”. By calling Jesus God we are turning Jesus into an idol. What do I say?
Imagine that you’re at a meeting of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative pro-capitalism think tank in Washington, D.C. when one of the fellows stands up and confesses that he has become a Marxist. Fair enough, you wish him well. There’s the door.
Does that sound intolerant? Why would it? The American Enterprise Institute exists to promote capitalism.
Christianity also exists to promote something: the person of Jesus Christ and the kingdom he is establishing in the world. And so denial of that person and identity is warrant for exclusion from formal identity in the organization. No hard feelings. That is just how the organization defines itself.
I didn’t explain at length what it would mean to engage in a “straight denial of Jesus’ divinity”. Part of the reason is beacause this is actually very difficult to define. Sallie McFague’s Jesusolatry language may strike me as a clear case akin to a firm embrace of Marxist principles. But there are countless more ambiguous instances that would reasonably court controversy on how to define the boundaries of the organization.
Let’s say the fellow of the American Enterprise Institute becomes a Keynesian. Is that grounds for exclusion? You might think so. But then when many alleged fiscal conservatives were advocating the bailout of investment banks and even insurance companies (AIG) weren’t they being Keynesians (for the rich anyway)? In other words, in many cases it is not obvious or straightforward or manifestly clear what would constitute a violation of the AEI’s manifesto.
Is it any surprise that the same is true in the case of Christianity? In this case we can note that even as both Walter and Jeff disagreed with my statement (or at least appeared to, though since I didn’t define divine the extent of disagreement is not clear) they offered their own strict and necessarily exclusive proposals.
Walter wrote:
“I have heard Thom Stark flat-out state that he did not believe that Jesus was God, a view that is shared by Christadelphians. Does that mean that you do not consider Thom or any Christadelphian to be a true Christian?”
“My view of a Christian is one who believes in the supernatural resurrection of Jesus–regardless of Christology. If a person believes that Jesus was just a man who was not truly resurrected in a bodily fashion, then he should go ahead and admit that he isn’t a Christian.”
This is an interesting view. It shifts the necessary criterion for inclusion to the supernatural resurrection of Jesus. Let’s think about Walter’s proposal for a moment.
In Faith Lacking Understanding I talked about models of divine action. In the book I noted that it is possible to have a non-interventionist model in which God established the initial conditions at the Big Bang such that the Red Sea would part just when it was required to do so due to natural causes alone. Even more radically I noted how there is no obvious objection to God having set up the initial conditions such that at one moment in history a crucified body would reconstitute itself through natural processes leading to the resurrection of Jesus. If God superintended this process and oversaw it with the express purpose of demonstrating the deity of Christ through this event then it seems a view compatible with orthodoxy.
Walter’s proposal would seem to exclude this view explicitly because he requires a “supernatural” resurrection, “regardless of Christology”. Thus, on Walter’s view even if a person is a Chalcedonian Christian who adopts this model of resurrection, that person would not be a Christian. That is surprisingly dogmatic, isn’t it?
Now let’s turn to Jeff:
“Randal, you seem to be taking a harder line on this than I would have thought. Walter asked whether you consider Thom Stark to be a Christian, and if you answered the question I must have missed it. I’d be curious to hear your answer.
“Focusing on this particular piece of dogma or that seems to me to be totally missing the point. I like Marcus Borg’s definition: A Christian is someone who sees in Jesus the decisive revelation of God.”
First, I’m not going to comment on whether Thom Stark is a Christian or not for an important reason: I have never heard Thom say anything that would exclude him from being a Christian. I haven’t heard him say what Walter reports him as saying, and if I did I’d want to probe him a bit to discover what he was meaning to say, not just what he seemed to say.
Second, long-time readers of this blog will know that I think doubt is a healthy part of the Christian community and the Christian life. One can have all sorts of real doubts that are expressed in varying degrees of conviction. You see, the whole discussion is assuming that you either believe p or believe not-p. But what if you are 50% sure of p on Monday, Wednesday and Friday and you are 75% sure of p on Tuesday and Thursday? (Weekends are a toss-up.) Do you believe p with sufficient conviction to be part of the community of faith?
Third, Jeff echoes Marcus Borg’s suggestion that “Jesus [is] the decisive revelation of God.” This is another dogmatic proposal: it includes many but excludes others (e.g. Ernst Troeltsch; John Hick; Paul Knitter). You might be happy excluding those three theologians since they are Christian pluralists. However, consider the following view:
Multiple incarnation view: the view that if there are other alien intelligent civilizations in the universe in need of redemption then God will incarnate within their communities to bring salvation to them in the same way he did for the human community.
If you hold this view then you might not be able to assent without qualification to the claim that “Jesus is the decisive revelation of God.” You could say that “Jesus is the decisive revelation of God for humanity” but if there are other revelations then those might be the decisive revelation of God for those communities.
That kind of view might strike you as strange, curious, perplexing. But if you are seriously interested in SETI then all sorts of perplexing theological questions might occur to you that never would enter the horizon of the average Christian. So by Jeff’s definition a person might be a Nicene Christian orthodox in every detail save his openness to the possibility of multiple incarnations, and this possibility would be sufficient to exclude him from being a Christian.
This brings us finally to Katie:
“It’s interesting that this (and most conversations about what it “means” to be Christian) revolve around orthodoxy, while Christ seems to have been more concerned about orthopraxy. Of course I don’t intend to imply that discussions of orthodoxy are unimportant.”
I discuss this issue in the chapter “Not all liberal Christians are heretics” in my book You’re not as Crazy as I Think (Biblica, 2011). So I would commend to readers interested in following up the discussion in more depth to read that chapter.
Here I will simply note two points. First, a healthy Christian community requires both orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Second in the chapter I present a thought experiment in which I discuss two individuals, real people from the Rwandan genocide. The first was a Christian with outstanding orthodoxy but horrendous orthopraxis. The second was a Muslim with (from a Christian perspective) very poor orthodoxy but outstanding orthopraxis (he saved over 100 Tutsis from slaughter before he died). I then ask the reader: if you had to choose one of these lives as your own legacy then which would it be?
Note that even if you choose the Muslim’s orthopraxis over the Christian’s orthodoxy, it doesn’t mean the Muslim was a Christian. His beliefs obviously exclude him from being a Christian. Rather, by identifying with him you would be taking the position that there are people who are in a saving relationship with God who are not members of the Christian community. There are many Christians who are inclusivists of this sort. They don’t believe works save but they do believe that works are evidence of a saving relationship and they might well think that a man who repeatedly risks his life to save people being massacred in a genocide is providing reasonable evidence for a saving relationship.
This brings us back to an important reminder: discussing who does and does not belong in the Christian community is not the same discussion as who is and is not in a saving relationship with God. The former is a discussion of ecclesiology, the latter of soteriology. And Jesus’ parable of the sheep and goats is a good reminder that we cannot simply collapse the one discussion into the other.
Tags: christology, dogma, ecumenism, exclusivism, heresy, inclusivism, soteriology
100 Comments
3 Trackbacks
-
[...] Rauser recently posted Will the real Christian please stand up? There have been many comments. I entered at several points, mainly to point out the futility [...]
-
[...] limited to carbon-based life at all. A little while ago in the comment thread for my article “Will the real Christian please stand up?” I [...]
Post a Comment
Subscription Options:
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 3:06pm
Walter’s proposal would seem to exclude this view explicitly because he requires a “supernatural” resurrection, “regardless of Christology”. Thus, on Walter’s view even if a person is a Chalcedonian Christian who adopts this model of resurrection, that person would not be a Christian. That is surprisingly dogmatic, isn’t it?
Do we know of anyone who believes that the bodily resurrection of Jesus may have been a uniquely occurring natural event? No one that I have ever met believes that, but I suppose it is remotely possible that someone, somewhere believes it? Sorry if my “formula” may exclude this one person from wearing the Christian label.
randal says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 3:55pm
It is irrelevant whether anybody has ever believed that or not. (However, it is not as extraordinary a position as you seem to think. There are people who have argued that the parting of the Red Sea was a wholly natural event in the way I described.) The point is that your definition would exclude any people of this type who might possibly exist, and that would seem implausible.
Consider an analogy with the famous billion Chinese thought experiment. That experiment demonstrates that if conciousness is an emergent property that supervenes on the firing of neurons then it would seem in principle possible that if a billion Chinese people simulated the firing of neurons then consciousness would supervene on the whole process and that is very implausible. The logistics of conducting such an experiment make it a practical impossibility. But that is irrelevant to the thought experiment’s force in critiquing emergent views of consciousness.
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 4:24pm
My formula may exclude three actual people on the planet, but your definition excludes far more people that I can actually point to. Yet you critique my definition as being too dogmatic? Bear in mind that I am presenting my definition from the standpoint of an outsider, who no longer labels himself as a Christian because I am not convinced of the bodily resurrection of Jesus.
randal says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 4:35pm
The number of people excluded is quite irrelevant. There are many people who think they are Christian in virtue of having been baptized as a Christian when they were an infant. Your definition excludes those people. Your definition also excludes people who call themselves Christian in virtue of their belief that Jesus is their guru. But that is quite irrelevant if those people ought to be excluded. Your proposal is just as exclusive as any other proposal. However, the position I identified provides a real defeater to your proposal in the same way that the philosophy of mind thought experiment I summarized provides a defeater to a particular view of consciousness.
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 4:48pm
So to put it bluntly, in your view, anyone who denies the full deity of Christ may still be saved, but they should not present themselves as Christians, yes or no?
Orthodoxy seems to be nothing but the majority view. Once upon a time the majority of Christians in the world were Catholic (still are), and they considered ALL protestants to be unorthodox heretics. What is considered orthodox is in the eye of the beholder.
BTW, where has the edit function gone?
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 4:59pm
I never claimed that my definition includes everyone, Randal. I exclude myself from the definition of Christian. I claimed that my definition seems closer to what the biblical authors taught. My memory may be failing me, but I don’t remember Paul stating you had to believe that Jesus was the incarnation of God to be saved or included in the church. Paul stressed repentance from sin and belief in the atoning work of Christ on the cross. And if the arguments in Thom’s upcoming book succeed, then your view may actually be more heretical than mine.
randal says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 5:20pm
“I never claimed that my definition includes everyone, Randal.”
Neither did I. I just observed that your definition excludes people who appear to be Christians. Here is another problem. Your view is consistent with believing that a type-3 advanced alien civilization created the universe and resurrected Jesus. But nobody who believed that would be a Christian so your criterion is inadequate.
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 6:57pm
Your view is consistent with believing that a type-3 advanced alien civilization created the universe and resurrected Jesus.
No it would not. You already pointed out that my definition excluded a natural resurrection, and your example would be that of a resurrection produced by advanced scientific abilities that we might mistakenly believe to be god-magic. I said a supernatural resurrection. Are we going to quibble over the definition of supernatural, now?
(I find it ironic that you charged Steve Hays with being a pedant in another comment thread)
Jeff says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 3:13pm
Thanks for the response Randal!
“I didn’t explain at length what it would mean to engage in a ‘straight denial of Jesus’ divinity’. Part of the reason is beacause this is actually very difficult to define.”
Agreed. I was assuming you had something pretty concrete in mind, but if not, then I’m not sure what the value of this criterion is.
I do want to clarify that I was not, nor was Marcus Borg, intending to give some sort of precise, dogmatic definition of what it means to be a Christian. And I certainly hope Christian pluralists are not excluded by that definition, since Borg and I are both Christian pluralists. Of course, much of this hinges on exactly how you cache out the terms “decisive” and “pluralist.”
randal says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 3:59pm
“I was assuming you had something pretty concrete in mind, but if not, then I’m not sure what the value of this criterion is.”
I have something concrete. Jesus is the same person as the preexistent divine logos. But that leads us on to consider (a) whether others agree with my criterion and (b) what it means for Jesus to be the same person as the preexistent divine logos. And so it goes…
I would like to know in what sense you are a pluralist if you believe in the uniqueness of the person and work of Christ.
Jeff says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 5:16am
Sorry for the suuuper slow response.
“Jesus is the same person as the preexistent divine logos.”
But why assume that the divine logos spoken of in John 1:1 is a person? I honestly don’t have much of a horse in the John-1/deity-of-Jesus race, but it seems to a layperson such as myself that a compelling non-trinitarian reading of John 1 is possible.
Anyway, to your pluralism question, perhaps it would be helpful to first define “pluralism.” I’m not adequately familiar with Troeltsch, Hick, or Knitter, so I’m not sure how my position might or might not be distinct from theirs. I do consider Jesus’ person and work to have been unique, but not in some sort of qualitatively distinct, categorically superlative manner. And I’ll be the first to admit that my adherence to Christianity (rather than Islam, or some other religious system) likely has as much to do with social conditioning and ignorance of other religious systems than it has to do with an informed, conscious choice on my part. That said, there is so much in the Christian tradition that I cherish (not least of which is Jesus himself), so why not grow where I have been planted?
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 3:19pm
First, I’m not going to comment on whether Thom Stark is a Christian or not for an important reason: I have never heard Thom say anything that would exclude him from being a Christian. I haven’t heard him say what Walter reports him as saying, and if I did I’d want to probe him a bit to discover what he was meaning to say, not just what he seemed to say.
I could point you to where Thom states his christological belief in an interview on Unbelievable, but for now we can bracket Thom out and instead focus on the Christadelphians. If I read you correctly, you are saying that Christadelphians may actually be saved, but they should not present themselves as Christians because they are too far out of the mainstream trinitarian view that Jesus was God incarnate, coequal with Yahweh. What if Paul or Peter or Matthew did not think of Jesus as being coequal with Yahweh, would we consider them to be saved but not orthodox enough to be labelled Christian?
P.S.
Here is a description of Thom’s upcoming book:
Behold the Man: What the Bible Doesn’t Say about the Divinity of Jesus. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, forthcoming.
This monograph will look at New Testament christological statements traditionally interpreted as claims to the divinity of Jesus. With careful and detailed attention to similar language and motifs in Second Temple Jewish literature, it will become apparent that Jesus is not in fact presented as divine by the majority of New Testament authors. The monograph will cover the motif of preexistence, the practice of worshiping agent figures in ancient and Second Temple Judaisms, the widespread use of the word “god” for figures that are not conceived of as fully divine, and much more. One chapter will also be devoted to comparing the early Christian views of Jesus with the ideas about Jesus found in Islamic literature.
randal says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 4:03pm
Walter: “What if Paul or Peter or Matthew did not think of Jesus as being coequal with Yahweh, would we consider them to be saved but not orthodox enough to be labelled Christian?”
The question misses an important factor: the nature of progressive revelation. For centuries Jews were polytheistic monolaters. Today the only polytheistic monolaters we are likely to meet are Mormons. Being a polytheistic monolater was okay at a particular time in history but it is not okay today.
Consider an analogy: being an orthodox astronomer in the fifteenth century meant being Ptolemaic. But it certainly does not mean that today.
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 4:38pm
So if James or Peter did not have a high christology it was okay because the truth had not yet been fully revealed to them as it was later revealed to Athanasius and other bishops who codified Christian orthodoxy? If you say so. Is the progression of the Christian revelation still occurring? And if so, to whom is God revealing new truths to, nowadays? Billy Graham? The Pope? The Pentecostals? If I claim that God has revealed a new truth to me, how would you determine the veridicality of my claim?
randal says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 4:59pm
“So if James or Peter did not have a high christology it was okay because the truth had not yet been fully revealed to them as it was later revealed to Athanasius and other bishops who codified Christian orthodoxy?”
First, we’d have to define what we mean by “high christology”. Second, Christians believe that the Holy Spirit leads the church into truth and that includes a clearer understanding of Christian doctrine. So it is little surprise that in the same way that astronomers fine-tune their understanding of the natural world over time, so Christians fine-tune their doctrinal understanding over time. Third, there is an important difference between (a) developing a view fundamentally at odds with the cumulative witness of the New Testament documents and (b) developing a view which is quite different from but nonetheless grew organically from the cumulative witness of the New Testament documents. Fourth, the objection to your proposal remains unanswered. Fifth, keep in mind the distinction between ecclesiological boundaries and soteriological boundaries. We’re talking here about the bounds of the orthodox community, not the bounds for who is ultimately saved and lost.
You ask “to whom is God revealing new truths to, nowadays?” Catholics, Pentecostals and charismatics and non-charismatic Protestants all would answer that question differently.
“If I claim that God has revealed a new truth to me, how would you determine the veridicality of my claim?”
First of all it depends which Christian you are posing this question to. If you present this question to a cessationist then the answer is that God has not revealed a new truth to you, and this is known by definition since the cessationist believes God does not do that.
Second, it would depend on what you meant by that. Do you mean that God may have, for example, revealed a person-relative truth for what he’d like you to do? Or are you suggesting he may have revealed a new doctrinal truth to you? Most non-cessationist Christians would exclude the latter a priori but not the former.
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 5:12pm
There is a lot I could discuss in your response, but this one caught my eye:
Second, Christians believe that the Holy Spirit leads the church into truth and that includes a clearer understanding of Christian doctrine.
Just a cursory glance of Christian websites and various blogs convinces me that the Holy Spirit isn’t doing a very good job of leading the church to a clearer understanding of the truth. Ever year that goes by, the Christian faith splinters into more and more factions, each convinced that their sect has been lead to the Truth by the Spirit. But you are correct that the sciences do self-correct over time because they have a method for obtaining knowledge that is reproducible and can be verified by anyone willing to do so. Knowledge obtained from the Holy Spirit seems to be completely subjective and ever changing.
randal says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 5:23pm
Christians do have a range of core beliefs that unify their communities. Even Tim Lambesis and the Mt. Athos monk share certain beliefs that are essential for identification as Christians, beliefs in the Trinity, incarnation, atonement (though they likely diverge in their accounts of these doctrines). And the challenging task of Christian unity week is to work on that visible unity based on a shared set of beliefs and ethical practices. Yes, the task is difficult but not hopeless. There is abundant evidence for that fact for anybody moderately familiar with the ecumenical movement over the last several decades.
Walter says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 2:26pm
Christians do have a range of core beliefs that unify their communities. Even Tim Lambesis and the Mt. Athos monk share certain beliefs that are essential for identification as Christians, beliefs in the Trinity, incarnation, atonement (though they likely diverge in their accounts of these doctrines).
It’s kind of tautological to claim that all Christians share these core beliefs, when you marginalize certain “Christian” groups that don’t share these beliefs by labeling them as not-Christian. It seems to me that you equate the label of Christian with one who broadly holds to the creeds developed by the first seven ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church. Some of the “Christian” groups that I have already mentioned consider themselves as closer in belief to that of the primitive church and the original Apostles. I don’t really have a dog in this fight one way or the other, but it seems out of character for you to marginalize certain groups like you are doing.
Jeff says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 3:29pm
Agreed, Walter.
Jeff says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 5:33am
“There is an important difference between (a) developing a view fundamentally at odds with the cumulative witness of the New Testament documents and (b) developing a view which is quite different from but nonetheless grew organically from the cumulative witness of the New Testament documents.”
Randal, are you saying that non-trinitarian doctrine is fundamentally at odds with the witness of the NT documents? If so, I’m not sure how you could successfully make such a claim. There are plenty of very conservative, inerrantist Christians who do not accept trinitarian doctrine, or a Nicene christology, as Walter and I have both pointed out. Sure, they’re a slim minority, but that doesn’t make their arguments any less worthy of serious consideration. Again, I don’t have much of a horse in this race, because I’m not an inerrantist, infallibilist, or anything of the sort, but it’s not at all clear to me that unitarian (or other non-trinitarian) doctrine is fundamentally at odds with the witness of the NT documents.
If nothing else, I certainly don’t see how you can make the claim that non-trinitarians ought not be considered Christians.
Jared says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 6:38am
Speaking of monolatry: http://www.retheology.net/2012/01/31-rethinking-mono.html
*plug plug*
pete says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 5:19pm
“What if Paul or Peter or Matthew did not think of Jesus as being coequal with Yahweh, would we consider them to be saved but not orthodox enough to be labelled Christian?”
Peter:
“You are the Messiah, Son of the Living God”
(Matt. 16:16)
In Jewish thought, son means equal (cf. John 5:18). I thnk quoting from Matthew also shows Matthew agreed.
Paul:
“Who being in very nature God, did not consider equalty with God something to be used to his own advantage” (Phillipians 2:6)
This passage speaks for itself
James:
“James a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ” (Jas. 1:1)
James also uses the term “Father” in reference to God, inferring that “The Lord Jesus” is non other than the Son. James 5:7 where James speaks about the “Lord’s Return”. I also note that James incorporates many of Jesus’ sayings, parables, and expressions into his epistle.
For a half-brother who believed Jesus was crazy before the resurrection, he sure seems to hold him along side God now.
Walter: In conclusion, the “what if” they didn’t see Jesus as co-equal to God is an irrelevant counterfactual, and can’t be used to support your advocacy for the Christadelphians.
pete says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 5:22pm
where is the edit function?
James use of “Father” is used later in the epistle, while “The Lord’s Return” in 5:7 is used in its eschatological context and refers to Jesus, protagonist of the “Day of the Lord” (Joel)
I mean to say that James speaks and teaches in a way that exegetes to clearly show that he saw Jesus as equal with God.
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 6:49pm
Pete, I am very aware of the standard trinitarian prooftexts. Let me introduce you to the arguments put forth by evangelical unitarians:
http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/category/the-great-trinity-debate/
Biblical unitarians can marshal scripture in their defense as well.
Enjoy!
Let me also say that I am eagerly awaiting Stark’s new book that will drive another nail in the belief that Jesus was/is God .
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 6:59pm
Walter,
Your choice of metaphor for Stark’s next book is telling and, unintentionally, prophetic. Thom’s nail will have as lasting an effect on this truth as an earlier, more physical kind.
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 7:07pm
We’ll have to wait and see.
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 7:24pm
We are not observers in this life; we are the observed.
pete says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 7:32pm
can you ever muster an argument that isn’t simply your unsupported opinion or internet “cut and paste”?
And as far as “The Holy Spirit isn’t doing a good job”:
Mark 3:29
I wouldn’t be so comfortable in saying the Holy Spirit is incompetent.
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 7:41pm
can you ever muster an argument that isn’t simply your unsupported opinion or internet “cut and paste”?
Don’t be lazy, Pete. I am not asking you to go buy a book. I am simply giving you an example of what evangelical unitarians believe, in their own words. The debate is between a trinitarian and a unitarian. They both did a fantastic job presenting their cases.
I wouldn’t be so comfortable in saying the Holy Spirit is incompetent.
I am comfortable.
pete says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 7:53pm
Is it “lazy” to respond with thought and logic based on my own critical evaluation of the totality of the Biblical Witness, in discourse with academic commentators and professors who also proffer there own critical evaluations?
I guess I am lazy then.
Is it diligent to uncritically post an article, without interacting with or elucidating its own premises, in an attempt to discredit sound evidential argumentation or reasonably held beliefs based on sound evidence and argumentaiton?
Then I guess you are “Mr. Dilligent”
In the words of Paul, “You are so wise, and I am foolish”
And another great text of warning for you:
Luke 19:27
I’ll let you have the last word.
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 8:12pm
Pete,
The debate that I linked to would take at most an hour to read. If you are uninterested in the views of Christians who disagree with you, that is your own choice. I won’t lose any sleep over it, nor will I lose any over your insults and hellfire and brimstone style threats.
Have a good day.
randal says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 7:45pm
Pete, I don’t think that Mark 3:29 is relevant here. In other words, there is nothing blasphemous per se about the debate over divine hiddenness and considering the question of whether the apparent diversity of Christian belief provides a defeater to the truth of Christian belief.
pete says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 8:15pm
There’s a difference between saying “I don’t think the Church exemplifes Christian Unity” and “the Holy Spirit isn’t doing a very good job of leading the Church into truth”.
While both are relating topically to epistemology, one is being phrased in a way that the other isn’t.
Whether you agree with my rhetoric or not, if someone wants to ascribe a tone of humiliation to the Spirit, they should be expected that it will be rejoined with equally polemic rhetoric, warning, and rebuke.
I’m all for civil discourse, but what is “epistemology”to some is mockery of God to others.
randal says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 8:29pm
Pete, if a Calvinist says to the Arminian that on their view God the Holy Spirit is impotent to draw believers to faith he is not intending to blaspheme the Spirit. Rather he is intending to point out a perceived problem with Arminianism. Walter is not intending to blaspheme the Spirit. He is pointing out a perceived problem with the way that Christians sometimes construe the action of the Holy Spirit in history. At least that is how I read him. If he is intending to blaspheme the Spirit perhaps he can clarify that for us.
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 8:55pm
“He is pointing out a perceived problem with the way that Christians sometimes construe the action of the Holy Spirit in history.”
That was the point I was attempting to make. Of course, as a deist, I don’t really believe that the Holy Spirit exists; some might consider that admission to be tantamount to blasphemy. Funny thing is, the last denomination of Christianity that I belonged to before my deconversion was binitarian; i.e., they did not believe in the personhood of the HS.
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 3:29pm
This post demonstrates why “Christian Unity Week” is rightfully a lost cause. That is, we are asking the wrong question.
Jesus did not ask His disciples, “Who do men say that you are?” Rather, He asked them “Who do men say that I am?”
The term “Christian” only appears three times in the Bible and it appears then to be an epithet. Even if not, it appears to be a name applied to disciples of Jesus more than one those disciples chose for themselves. The disciples of “the Way,” which was the biblical term for what we would call Christianity, called upon the name of Christ. They did not call upon the name “Christian.”
It’s not about us; it’s about Him.
randal says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 4:06pm
Yes it is about him. And because he is important what we believe about him is important. If a Keynesian can be ejected from a conservative think tank what would be the problem with ejecting an individual from the ekklesia for doctrinal reasons?
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 4:24pm
Nothing. The question this raises, however, is “Whose ekklesia is it?” Do members of the conservative think tank act unilaterally, getting up from their chairs to throw the Keynesian out on their own accord, or does the duly constituted authority of the think tank determine such matters?
pete says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 5:42pm
Mike,
Nicaea (325), Ephesus (431), and Chalcedon (453) were those duly elected councils.
The Arians et. al lost. And they didn’t lose based on political demure.
Eusebius of Nicomidia, Eusebius of Caesarea were both Arians, and by all likelihood, so was Constantine.
The decisions were based on consensus of learned theologians, who differed from other theologians.
Sure there can be dissenting opinions, but that doesn’t make it simply a majority rule.
There are of course fringes of scientists who believe that smoking can’t kill you.
At the end of the day, what do we determine God wants.
I will argue strongly that he glorifies in the worship given to his Son.
That should be the first principle of unity that includes us within the Covenant of God’s People.
If you don’t worship or glorify the Son in totality, you are not worshipping or glorifying the Father in totality.
And you are outside the boundaries of God’s Covenant.
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 7:03pm
Pete,
Do you grant church councils as much authority as the Scripture?
Church councils can say “Thus saith the self-proclaimed people of God,” while those who wrote the Scriptures say, “Thus saith the Lord.”
As for worshiping and glorifying the Son in totality, count me in.
pete says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 7:44pm
Mike,
I have no doubt that you are in.
However, I was pointing to a historical time where the Church was a relatively unified entity, and did exercise its legitimate authority.
But if you want to be biblical, 1 Timothy 4:16 is a great place to stress the importance of orthodox doctrine.
In fact, all 3 pastoral letters (1 and 2 Timothy; Titus) give inspired instruction to the formation of the institutional church.
Paul is consistently warning against and condemning false teachers and false understandings of Jesus Christ
(cf. the “Super Apostles” of 2 Cor. 11:4 and its eschatologial equivalent in Galatians 1:8-9)
Christians simply do not have the liberty to believe “whatever they want” about Christ. The confessions must be derived and lived based on the totality of Biblical witness.
I am unapologetic in drawing distinction that a person who does not believe Jesus to be co-equal to God, is not a Christian by any Biblically confessed standard.
I am happy to discuss and reason with that person. However, delusions and idolatry can only go so far within the church, that salvation is jepaordized for its members. This is the case with people who refuse to give up their false doctrines.
We have a duty to God and man to be a faithful witness and shepherd.
And sometimes, and not taken lightly, believers have to distance themselves from persons espousing false and dangerous doctrine.
Walter says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 7:51pm
And sometimes, and not taken lightly, believers have to distance themselves from persons espousing false and dangerous doctrine.
What about Mike’s non-trinitarian views? Is his non-trinitarianism more acceptable to you because he believes Jesus is God?
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 8:15pm
Pete,
I share your zeal for distinguishing between true and false teaching about Christ. I just don’t share your zeal for distinguishing between Christians and Non-Christians.
As for distinguishing between true and false teaching, I believe the Scriptures are the standard by which we make those distinctions – and not the decrees of church councils. The former represent “Thus saith the Lord,” while the latter represent only “Thus saith us.”
As for the pastoral epistles, they do give instruction for church life and government, but only for that generation. There is no plan of succession given by the apostles because they knew their leadership would be succeeded by the kingdom of God which is ruled by the Lord Himself.
randal says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 8:27pm
Mike says: The former represent “Thus saith the Lord,” while the latter represent only “Thus saith us.”
But that is an impossible distinction to maintain. That much is obvious for those who read scripture in translation. And then there are the interpretive traditions that each of us bring to the text, including many of which we are not even aware. You may decry the Nicene Creed as thus saith us but it is far from obvious that thus saith Mike is preferable.
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 8:52pm
I am not interested in getting anyone to say “Thus saith Mike,” but as for the distinction that you think is impossible to maintain, do not forget that the Protestant Reformation was based on it.
randal says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 9:02pm
Mike, I am aware that the Protestant Reformation believed the Catholic Church had erred in particular ways. My point is simply that your distinction is way too facile. No council sought to pronounce thus saith us any more than you aim to say thus saith Mike. We should always keep in mind that all of our attempts to get at truth are fallible and open to future revision. And it is very possible that by marginalizing much of the history of theological reflection as merely thus saith us you are missing many very important insights to understanding the text and the God that the text describes.
Mike Gantt says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 9:17pm
Randal,
You and I are in agreement that “all of our attempts to get at truth are fallible and open to future revision.” However, for me to state that Scripture has a greater authority than church councils is not to marginalize the latter, nor to ignore all its insights, but merely to be sure that its decrees are taken in proper context, and on those occasions – however rare one may consider them to be – when church councils are found to be at odds with Scripture, that we should side with Scripture. It is not a facile distinction – the Reformers died for it.
randal says:
Monday, January 23, 2012 at 9:41pm
Fair enough. So long as we are clear that while one person reads the scriptures from a perspective that includes the decrees of councils, you read them through another perspective that eschews the decrees of councils but includes a lot of other stuff. And the decrees of councils can helpfully inform our reading of scripture just as the other stuff you have in your background can obscure that reading.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 2:43am
I don’t have a horse in this race. However, I do have a hypothetical question:
If every Bible on earth was destroyed (say by some kind of demonic miracle) and everyone familiar with the Bible was brainwashed so that they retained no memory of it, what do Christians believe would be the result? TAM.
randal says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 4:58am
First, I suspect you’d get as many answers as there are Christians to proffer answers. Second, I am not sure what value any of those counter-factual speculations would be. Would this scenario also include the destruction of Bible manga? Would we still be able to watch the Jesus Movie?
Perhaps Christians could reconstruct the Bible from Chick tracts and Living Epistles T-Shirts with clever slogans like “This blood’s for you” and “God’s Gym.”
Walter says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 12:54pm
I think TAM was asking what would happen if the Christian religion were to totally disappear from the face of the earth, would there be chaos in the streets with everyone trying to satisfy their every personal whim at the expense of others? In other words is it possible that people might behave without a faith tradition that inculcates us with certain moral precepts? I believe that we would still behave as a society since total anarchy is counterproductive to everyone’s wellbeing.
Frankly, though, I imagine that some other organized religion would fill the vacuum.
Mike Gantt says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 1:53pm
Walter, that’s like asking, “I wonder what creation would be like without a Creator.”
Leaving aside that absurdity, and giving your question every benefit of the doubt and more, its answer is found in the world Abraham encountered. And that world did not look quite as you imagine.
Walter says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 3:11pm
Mike,
Atheists would consider religion to be nothing other than a social construct that provides a moral framework for the unwashed masses. If all religion disappeared I am sure that some form of secular ideology would fill the gap.
TAM was apparently asking a completely different question, so disregard.
The Atheist Missionary says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 2:15pm
The point I was trying to get at (poorly it seems) is whether Christians believe that their god would intervene to reveal his word again.
Walter says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 3:13pm
They would claim that God would never allow his word to be lost in the first place.
Mike Gantt says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 3:26pm
Walter, you amaze me. When Pete lays out verifiable historical fact after verifiable historical fact, you respond with, “How can we know for sure?” Yet when TAM poses a hypothetical you are “sure as shootin’” about an answer. Your agnosticism seems highly selective and arbitrary.
Walter says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 3:50pm
You mean to tell me that you disagree with me that Christians would claim that God would never let his word be lost? Really?
As far as your charge of being selective about my agnosticism, all I can say is, “of course, I am selective.” Let me clarify. I *know* that I have a 2007 red Chevrolet Silverado sitting in the carport on my house. I am not one bit agnostic about that tidbit of knowledge. I *know* that I cannot flap my arms and fly over my house. No agnosticism there, either. There are many things in life that I have far less certainty about, your historical “facts” being among them.
Mike Gantt says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 4:19pm
And yet you’re highly confident about the outcome of a situation neither you nor anyone else has ever experienced. This is why I say your agnosticism is not merely selective, but arbitrary as well.
You are not nearly so rational and fact-based as you suppose.
Walter says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 4:33pm
And yet you’re highly confident about the outcome of a situation neither you nor anyone else has ever experienced
I inferred how Christians would respond to TAM’s question by calling on my own beliefs during my thirty years as an evangelical. Have you responded to the wrong comment? Are you upset about my speculation about what would happen if all religion disappeared? If so, then let me assure you that I am engaging in speculation.
Is there something more on your mind that you wish to discuss?
Mike Gantt says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 4:58pm
I inferred how Christians would respond to TAM’s question by calling on my own beliefs during my thirty years as an evangelical.
I assumed you had a reason for your opinion. My comment was about the certainty with which you held it – and the contrast of that certainty to the uncertainty you attributed to facts I had previously seen Pete present to you. Thus you demonstrate that you are willing to let your opinions trump facts. This, in turn, contrasts with your self-portrayal in interactions with Pete that you see yourself as more fact-based and rational than he.
Have you responded to the wrong comment?
Not that I know of.
Are you upset about my speculation about what would happen if all religion disappeared?
I am not the least bit upset. As for religion, I’m not a fan of it. While people have made a religion out of the revelation of Jesus Christ, I do not believe that was His intent. Rather, I think He wants us to believe in His name and love one another (1 John 3:23). Nonetheless, TAM is entitled to his speculative question and you are entitled to your answer – without objection from me.
If so, then let me assure you that I am engaging in speculation.
Understood.
Is there something more on your mind that you wish to discuss?
No, though I always appreciate any opportunity to testify to the reality of Jesus Christ.
Walter says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 5:56pm
Thus you demonstrate that you are willing to let your opinions trump facts. This, in turn, contrasts with your self-portrayal in interactions with Pete that you see yourself as more fact-based and rational than he.
I have never to my knowledge called Pete irrational. I believe that most Christians are quite rational–we simply interpret the evidence differently. You must me confusing me with someone else. I know that Loftus considers all god-believers (which includes me as a deist) as delusional, but I don’t.
When historians attempt to recreate past events, what they are doing is *interpreting* the evidence and forming a hypothesis as to the most plausible chain of events that can account for that evidence. The process is far from being free of error. I simply disagree with you as to which hypothetical reconstruction of past events is more probable.
Furthermore, Mike, considering your worldview, there is no serious consequence if I get it wrong–I’m saved either way.
Mike Gantt says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 7:00pm
Walter,
I’m glad to hear you would defend Pete from John’s charge.
As for your notion that everyone going to heaven means that what we do in this life carries no serious consequences in the one to come, I’d say you have a very limited conception of heaven and of the justice of God – though you would by no means be unique in that regard, whether Christians or Non-Christians are in view.
What, by the way, is your hypothesis for the evidence that Pete and I say points to Jesus’ resurrection? In other words, if resurrection is not the best explanation for the evidence we have, what do you think is?
Mike Gantt says:
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 10:11pm
Walter, not to be nagging but I was hoping you’d answer my question above. I’ll repeat it here:
“What, by the way, is your hypothesis for the evidence that Pete and I say points to Jesus’ resurrection? In other words, if resurrection is not the best explanation for the evidence we have, what do you think is?”
Walter says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 1:43am
Sorry to disappoint, Mike.
I realize that you never grow weary of arguing for the resurrection, but I do tire of it. Even if I were to raise my certainty level above 50% to the point where I believed that a physical resurrection was more likely than not to have actually happened, it would not change much of anything for me on a personal level. I would shift from calling myself a deist to calling myself a liberal unitarian. I still would not be as infatuated with Jesus as you are. I still would not accept that Jesus was God. Acceptance of the resurrection would not bootstrap me into becoming a trinitarian evangelical again — nor would I be likely to accept your non-trinitarian-Jesus-is-Yahweh modalism.
Alas, I am sure that the topic will come around again in a future post and we can all enjoy more endless debate on the subject. TTFN
Mike Gantt says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 9:51am
Walter,
On the Internet, nobody knows you’re a dog, but that doesn’t keep people from making assumptions about you, some of them false. Let me correct some of the false assumptions you have made about me.
- While “I always appreciate any opportunity to testify to the reality of Jesus Christ,” I do tire of arguing. I didn’t ask my question for the purpose of arguing, but out of genuine curiosity as to what hypothesis you think better explains the facts. I thought knowing your view would help me better understand you.
- While I do believe in the full deity of Jesus Christ (that is, Jesus is Yahweh), I take as dim a view of modalism as I do of trinitarianism.
- While I appreciate what you say about how your outlook would and wouldn’t change if you were to come to believe in the resurrection, you still didn’t answer my question. However, if you take this reminder as argumentative I withdraw it. Endless debate does not interest me.
Walter says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 2:13pm
While I do believe in the full deity of Jesus Christ (that is, Jesus is Yahweh), I take as dim a view of modalism as I do of trinitarianism.
Uh…if you believe that Jesus is Yahweh, then how does your view differ from modalism?
Mike Gantt says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 2:50pm
Modalism is essentially another form of Trinitarianism. It seeks to solve the incoherence of three being simultaneously one by saying that the One manifests Himself in three different ways. I don’t find scriptural warrant for either view.
I believe in the doctrine of Christ, which is that God became man and that He subsequently became God again through His resurrection, ascension, and Second Coming. The Holy Spirit never changed through this process; He has always been the personal agent of God.
randal says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 11:58pm
Mike you write that Modalism is essentially another form of Trinitarianism.
But modalism was rejected by the church in Rome in c. 220 and has been consistently rejected ever since straight down to the separation of the AOG with the Oneness Pentecostals that I noted in 1917. So when you say that modalism is trinitarianism you are rejecting the conventional use of both terms in the Christian church for the last 1800 years. Of course you are free to do that but it seems liable to perpetuate misunderstanding.
Walter says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 3:13pm
I believe in the doctrine of Christ, which is that God became man and that He subsequently became God again through His resurrection, ascension, and Second Coming
Hence you believe in a unique form of modalism: Yahweh became Jesus who subsequently became Yahweh? again after the ascension. The incarnation would be one mode of God’s existence.
The Holy Spirit never changed through this process; He has always been the personal agent of God.
So you believe the Holy Spirit is not God but a lesser divinity that serves God? Curiouser and curiouser.
Mike Gantt says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 3:28pm
Walter,
Your restatement lacks precision at several points, but rather that correct it let me simply say with Paul that “For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain,” and with John that “anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ does not have God,” and with Peter “let us sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts.” To the resurrected One be the glory!
Mike Gantt says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 12:22am
Randal,
I’m just noting the mirror-like relationship the two doctrines have with each other. Both are conceptual constructs that identify and focus on three divine entities (not two or four), regard them as roughly equal, and then seek to a way to cling to the idea of one God while holding to the three entities (alternately “persons” or “modes”). And given the fact that what we know of modalism (that is, Sabellianism) comes not from Sabellius directly but from his more-trinitarian minded opponents we should not be surprised that one is the foil for the other. It’s rather like the relationship oppositional relationship between Calvinism and Arminianism encapsulated in the TULIP acronym, which is a means of distinguishing them. Thus when I say that modalism is to me a variation of trinitarianism it’s no different than my saying that Calvinism and Arminianism are variations of each other. That is, it need not imply that they amount to the same thing.
My objection to both modalism and trinitarianism, therefore, lies not in where they differ, but where they’re similar. Same goes for Calvinism-Arminianism. In both debates participants are unwilling to wait for God to remove the ambiguity of the Scripture by revelation of His Spirit (Deut 29:29) and in their impatience impose man-made wineskins unable to hold the new wine God wants to pour. This is not unlike Saul being unwilling to wait for Samuel to offer the sacrifice.
pete says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 8:03pm
From Roman pagan persecution to Communist Russia, God has never let his word disappear, despite the world’s best efforts.
pete says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 8:00pm
Nope,
Many of us would claim that God himself will come down and show us to our faces.
pete says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 8:05pm
sorry…. last comment meant to be tagged to one of Walters……. this looks anachronistic
randal says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 4:23pm
In order to answer your question we’d first have to know why God providentially allowed the Bible’s presence to be effaced from the earth to begin with. Only when we knew that could we begin to have any reasonable input on if and when he would restore the Bible.
Consider this analogy. You drive into downtown one day and discover that all the parking meters on Main Street have been removed. Will the city council restore them? You can’t answer that question until you know why the meters were removed in the first place.
Jeff says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 5:38am
“If every Bible on earth was destroyed [...] what do Christians believe would be the result?”
I think the world would be poorer for having lost any record of Jesus Christ, but we humans would certainly not therefore be without access to God.
nick says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 7:15am
To the TAM in answer to your comment. There hundreds of books that involve biblical studies. Just think of commentaries of the books within the bible itself. There are books on Christian philosophy, magazines etc.
Quotation books, have hundreds of biblical quotations. Internet sites have vast amounts of data too. So, they could easily reestablish their knowledge their past together over time. Even books by Atheists would give them clues to what they believe. So, even the opponents could help rebuild the philosophical and historical Christian church. Probably not what the skeptic would want to be doing indirectly.
pete says:
Tuesday, January 24, 2012 at 8:17pm
To TAM and Walter,
Don’t forget that Christian Scripture does attest to a time when the world will get its wish.
That is found in Revelation 11, where the Beast kills the “Two Witnesses”, and refuses them burial in the streets of Jerusalem.
However, the good guys do win when God gives them the breath of life after 3.5 days, and they are taken up to heaven, invoking terror in their enemies.
I agree with many (not all) commentators that the witnesses are the Jewish and Gentile witnesses to Christ.
Their enemies are said to “gloat over them, because the two witnesses tormented the inhabitants of the earth.” The enemies also send each other gifts.
A typology can be found in the OT Book of Daniel 7 and 12.
Now to “test” the truth of this text:
Would you (Walter and TAM) gloat if Christianity was wiped of the face of the earth?
nick says:
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 4:26am
The proposal of God revealing his word again is totally plausible. Revelation, both general and special are part of the scheme within Christian doctrine. So God can easily start to relate his word again with whom he wants. There may be some criteria for this within the individual. Job and Melchizedek were aware of God’s reality before the Scriptures were written. They are praised because of their character. So, it is possible for God to find such people and begin to work with them.
pete says:
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 5:34pm
Nick,
That’s true, but somewhat of an irrelevant hypothetical.
I know that this is off topic, but the Christian scheme, inclusive of biblical special revelation, testifies to a time when the church will be destroyed, and resurrected under God’s own hand right before the end of this age.
Christian eschatology doesn’t seem to have any room for a world-wide destruction of scripture, and then re-planting of the word for the purpose of the church continuing back as normal.
pete says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 5:50pm
Mike,
A few points of scripture to consider:
1) Yahweh’s personal revelation to Moses (Exod. 3:14); Jesus self personal revelation to Israel (the Gospels); and The Holy Spirit’s personal revelation to the apostles (Acts 13:2).
The conceptual existence of Father, Son, and Spirit are also seen in 2 Cor. 13:14, giving prima facie evidence for Trinitarian Christianity.
2) The Shema (Deut 6:4), re-emphasized by Christ in the First Great Commandment, gives prima facie evidence for Christian Monotheism.
3) Christ’s priestly prayer (John 17), and prayer in Gethsemane (Matt. 26; Mark 14; Luke 22) show that Jesus was praying to someone other than himself (Yahweh/Father). Luke 3:29 shows that there is a difference between blaspheming against Jesus and blaspheming against the Holy Spirit.
4) Relationally, Jesus rebuke to Phllip (John 14:9) shows that the Father is IN the Son, and the Son is IN the Father, helping to clarify the Shema somewhat.
Actually, the best book I have read so far on the issue is Randal’s “Faith Lacking Understanding”.
He brings out both the supports and difficulties of understanding the Trinity. It’s a mind-stretcher, but an important step in seeking understanding of who God is.
pete says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 5:52pm
and the textual evidence for Trinitarian Christianity is MUCH MORE than I have cited here.
And teh textual evidence against non-Trinitarian Christianity is MUCH MUCH MORE than I have cited here.
Mike Gantt says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 7:03pm
Pete,
I appreciate your good will gesture, and hope you will receive my response in the same spirit.
I have written extensively on my blogs about the biblical doctrine of Christ and how trinitarian doctrine obscures it. It wouldn’t make sense to reproduce those arguments here.
The greatest strength of trinitarian doctrine is that it has been promoted by institutional Christianity as both essential and sacrosanct for well over a thousand years. That, however, does not make it scriptural. I have searched for it in the Scriptures and cannot find it. It is a philosophical construct superimposed on the Scriptures to give them a coherence on the identity of God – a seeming incoherence only brought on by the refusal to acknowledge that the kingdom of God came when Jesus and the apostles said it would. The trinity’s defenders “see” it in the Bible in the same way that wearers of rose-colored glasses see the ubiquity of a reddish-pink hue throughout the surrounding landscape.
Because of the long-standing acceptance of trinitarian doctrine, it never gets thoroughly vetted or tested in our age. Almost every book I’ve read about it is a preaching-to-the-choir pamphlet – no matter how many pages it contains. At the end of the day, if the author promotes it, he’s published and extolled. If he denies it, he’s expelled from the circle of the respected.
I’d actually be relieved to learn that the doctrine of Trinity was true. It would remove from me of the pain of estrangement from so many with whom I otherwise hold common cause. But I cannot admit to seeing something that I do not see. Nor does the unattractiveness of all the mapped alternatives in the pathology of heresies make me say that I see what I do not see. That is, I have never found a competing “ism” to the Trinity that made any more sense than it does. All are departures from the emphasis that the Bible puts on Christ.
Take this away: if you can show it to me in the Scriptures, I’ll buy it. But what you’ve listed here doesn’t even come close.
pete says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 8:09pm
Heya Mike,
This is what Christian Unity is about: Communal worship of Christ with love and respect.
What Christian unity is not about is alienating each other over difference of opinion.
The institutional church may have had to do it during the formation of Christendom, but not now.
If you object to traditional schemes in which the Kingdom of God is only sent at the end of the age, I agree with you.
Christ, in his earthly ministry certainly inaugurated the K.o.G. New Testament theologians routinely point to an “already but not yet” system of eschatological fulfillment.
However, the sticking point would be answering who was Jesus praying to in the Garden of Gethsemane.
I’ve only just used the previous text to show the separation between Father, Son, and Spirit – while further showing the oneness of God in view of well known prohibitions on worship of any being other than God.
And I agree that proving Trinitarianism from the texts takes alot more space than this thread affords.
Blessings
Brap Gronk says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 10:28pm
Reading arguments for the Trinity makes my head hurt in much the same way as when I’m reading arguments for transubstantiation from Catholics.
pete says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 12:13am
Mike:
And with all respect how do you explain Jesus’ Baptism?
Here we see the Holy Spirit descending as a dove, and the Father speaking from heaven.
And what of Jesus saying to the Father, “not of my will, but if its your will”, and Jesus saying “you can be forgiven for blaspheming me but never forgiven for blaspheming the Holy Spirit” (my paraphrase)
Trinitarianism was never imposed on the Church. Confessional Ecumenism mainly focused on The Father and Son until it was recognized that the Holy Spirit needed to be reckoned with.
We see more explicit confession at the Council of Constantinople in 381.
It was never a philosophical paradigm.
Mike Gantt says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 12:37am
Pete,
As we’ve previously agreed, this comment thread doesn’t have enough elbow room to resolve this issue.
However, so as not to be completely unresponsive to you, I will say a couple of things.
First, if you already believe in the Trinity and encounter the passage of Jesus’ baptism, you have a template to apply. That is, you believe that God is three and here – lo and behold – is a passage where three divine entities are all capitalized in the English translation so…Eureka! However, if you had never been taught the Trinity concept and had come across the passage, would you have derived the trinity concept from the passage unaided? Honestly, I can’t see how. More to the point, why didn’t the apostles write down that conception AT THAT VERY PLACE in the gospel where it would have been so appropriate?
This leads to my second comment which is that I do not find where the apostles taught the Trinity when they had so many opportunities like this one to do so. Why is it that a word that is considered essential by so many Trinitarians today was not considered essential by those who wrote the New Testament? So often 2 Cor 13:14 is quoted as a proof text for the Trinity, but it does not mention “trinity.” If we are to believe in the Trinity because it lists three, what are we to do about the far greater number of NT passages that mention two instead: believe in a Binity instead?
randal says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 12:42am
If we treat the NT as a single work with a (divine) mind superintending its formulation then it is legitiate to identify not only the views of the specific authors but of the NT on the whole. The NT supports the following:
(1) There is one God
In addition, it supports the following claims
(2) The Father is God
(3) Jesus is God
(4) The Spirit is God
Finally, it supports the following:
(5) The Father, Son and Spirit are all distinct.
Which of those five claims do you believe the NT doesn’t support?
Mike Gantt says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 4:44pm
Yes, Randal, I recognize the traditional boxed canyon into which Trinitarians have driven themselves. However, aside from the contradiction to which it ultimately leads, its weakness is also revealed in its simplistic and ham-handed formulation. Specifically, (2), (3), and (4) are propositions framed in parallel which belies the very different way that the NT describes each. For example, the Holy Spirit is described essentially the same way in the NT as in the OT (save the quantity of humans touched), yet there is no Binity propounded in the OT or in the Talmud, which this formulation suggests should have been the case. Moreover, while the NT comes close to describing Jesus as God it never comes out unequivocally and repeatedly calling Him “God” as it calls Him “man.” Do I believe that Jesus is God? Absolutely! But not because of the trinity doctrine or the modalism doctrine or even because the NT says so. The NT leads me to that conclusion, but it does not hammer me with the point as it does the point “Jesus is Lord.” Which point brings us to the most important contextual fact to acknowledge when discussing this issue. We live in a monotheistic age, while the Scriptures were written in a polytheistic age. We must keep this in mind, if we are to reach scriptural conslusions.
In summary, the trinity fails on at least three points: 1) the Scriptures do not explicitly teach it, 2) it is illogical (i.e. a contradiction; and the Scriptures constantly expect us to reject contradictions), 3) there is no fitting analogy for it (and God is constantly using analogies to tell His story).
However, the most important reason it fails is that it obscures the emphasis that the Scriptures are constantly putting on Christ. How can the One who is to have first place in everything come to be understood as the second person of anything?
Trinitarians are unwittingly and constantly imposing their view on Scriptures such that, for example, orthodoxy is redefined by “rewriting” 2 John 9 to say, “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of the Trinity” instead of “Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ.” Thus when your original post above asks “Will the real Christian please stand up?” your definition rides on altering 2 John 9, and many other such scriptures, to this nonscriptural line of thinking we call trinitarianism. If you think about the word exchange, you should really call yourself a Trinitarian rather than a Christian.
randal says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 5:08pm
Mike, you should be a debate coach. Lesson 1: How to avoid answering a question.
So you agree with (1) There is one God.
After that things get hopelessly muddled. So let’s slow down. Next let’s consider:
(2) The Father is God
Do you believe the NT supports the truth of (2)?
Mike Gantt says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 5:43pm
I figured you wouldn’t like my answer, but I didn’t think you’d say I didn’t give one. In any case, I’m happy to answer again, and in more detail this time.
As for (2), although I didn’t address it singularly above, it is also poorly worded. Specifically, Jesus did call God “Father,” but this was by no means unprecedented in Hebrew thinking (Dt 32:6; Is 63:16; Jer 3:4). Yet Isaiah prophesied that Messiah would be the “Everlasting Father” (Is 9:6-7), recalling the promise to Abraham’s seed to be a “father to many nations.” The NT picks up on this promise and foresees Jesus the Lord becoming “Father” to the people of God (2 Cor 6:18). Are the people of God to have two fathers? No, they have but one Father (Mal 2:10). How can Messiah and Messiah’s God both be father? The NT points the way but it does not explicitly answer the riddle. Thus for (2) to be formulated so simplistically obscures the textured canvas painted by the NT, and it is merely meant to set the stage for a triune conception of God (illogical though it is).
What you called “muddled” Paul called “mystery,” as in “to be revealed.” God’s plan was partially revealed in the resurrection of Christ, but was fully revealed in the Second Coming – in which Messiah was identified as having being God Himself in the flesh.
Jesus was not to be publicly proclaimed as Messiah until after his resurrection and ascension. After that, the proclamation was “Jesus is the Messiah.” At the Second Coming, the proclamation became “The Messiah is God” and thus it eternally will be so.
Is the Father God? Yes, but He became a man along the way.
pete says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 7:38pm
Mike:
The Second Coming of Christ has not yet happened.
2 Thess. 2:1-4.
Teaching that the second coming has already occurred is a dangerous teaching.
Thats my last word on this one. Thanks for the discourse.
Blessings
Pete
Mike Gantt says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 8:00pm
Pete,
Since that was your last word on this one, I don’t want to say anything that would tempt you to engage again. However, I should at least respond to what you said.
Consider that in the passage you quoted, Paul
1) warned that the sign that must be fulfilled before Christ’s coming is the apostasy. Consider also that as testified later in 1 John 2:18 and elsewhere, the apostasy did come.
2) if the coming of the Lord was to have been the earthquake of all earthquakes which would have been impossible for anyone to ignore, then Paul’s instruction in this passage would have been nonsensical.
Danger to me is to disregard the Lord. “May He be witness between us while we are apart.”
randal says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 3:06pm
Mike, I don’t want you to answer “in more detail”. I just want you to answer the question.
There is no “poor wording” in asking whether the Father is God. You keep getting ahead of yourself and wanting to talk about your whole theological theory rather than answering the questions that have been posed.
Based on your final sentence I will instead set questions (1)-(4) aside and ask you to respond to:
(5) The Father, Son and Spirit are all distinct.
Since you said “Is the Father God? Yes, but He became a man along the way” I am taking you to deny (5). Leaving aside the Spirit for the sake of simplicity, your claim is that the Father and Son are not distinct. Rather, they are the same person under different descriptions in something like “Dr. Rauser” and “Randal” are the same person under different descriptions. Is this your view?
Mike Gantt says:
Saturday, January 28, 2012 at 3:16pm
No.
Jeff says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 8:16pm
Randal, sorry to be a pest, but I’m still surprised that you haven’t stepped back from your statement that adherence to trinitarian doctrine is essential for identification as a Christian. Maybe it’s a bit unfair of me to do so, but I want to make this very personal: Mike Gantt, right here in this very forum, has said, “if you can show [trinitarian doctrine] to me in the Scriptures, I’ll buy it.” Would you really insist that Mike ought not identify himself as a Christian? If so, that seems like the type of schoolyard bullying I’d expect from someone like Al Mohler. As Walter said, this seems way out of character for you. Or am I misunderstanding your position?
Walter says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 10:02pm
This may be somewhat offensive to Randal, but I wonder if he is reluctant to back off of his stance on Christian identity because it could get him into trouble where he works? It probably wouldn’t be the first time a person has gotten charged with heresy for revealing a little too much about their personal beliefs on a public blog.
randal says:
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 11:47pm
You have a pretty low threshold of what would constitute offense. (No offense intended.)
Walter says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 12:26am
I did just question your integrity somewhat. I implied that you might not write what you really believe because it might get you into hot water with your employers. That is sufficient to offend some folks.
randal says:
Friday, January 27, 2012 at 12:29am
Walter, after receiving a Triablogging for the last year that is small potatoes indeed.