Just a Fundamentalist

Truth,

Well, you are not the only one who has been cut off from posting over there at IM. My last post was not accepted.

It’s interesting that Spencer will use such language about us who uphold inerrancy, yet he never had one thing to comment about what the denial of inerrancy IN HIS OWN DENOMINATION did to my father.

My father was a fairly new christian in the late 70’s and wanted to go into ministry. He was directed to Southeastern Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, an institution within the Southern Baptist Covention. In those days, those who were denying inerrancy had an almost impregnable foothold in the classrooms. My father lasted about a month. I still have some of his books to this day. Martin Noth’s History of Israel, ripping to shreads the historical veracity of the Hebrew Bible, German higher critics on the NT saying Peter and Paul didn’t write half the stuff under their name.

What about those victims? Who tore apart the body of Christ in that situation? My father didn’t have people around him that could help him with the onslaught of doubt like I myself have.

“I think it was your reasoning that denying inerrancy makes God out to be a liar that caused the fuss. I hold to inerrancy, yet thought that statement went too far and the reasoning used to get there was insufficient.”

Ranger,

I suspect that what we have here is two different views of the nature of inspiration.

If one’s view of inspiration is such that the prophet speaks “by God” and “for God” such that the words of the man are recognized as the words of God Himself, then a denial of inerrancy does make God out to be a liar. How could it not? If you feel it does not, then though you may claim a similar view of inerrancy, your underlying view of inspiration must somehow be logically different…

For instance, someone may view inspiration as something like “God inspires the ideas to the mind of the prophet, and then the prophet to the best of his human ability reproduces those thoughts in words of his own choosing, also allowing for the possible intrusion of human errors of thought as well, inspiration logically applying only to the thoughts given to the prophet and not the words chosen by the prophet to communicate those God-given thoughts, so that the end result is that the prophet has given a general and adequate account of what God said, but included in that account may be errors of the prophets own doing, couched in words of the prophet’s own choosing.”

Someone with such a view may still accord authority to the prophet’s writings and truly believe they convey to us truth that God wanted us to know, and my even say that it is inerrant with respect to those truths. But there may be some errors nonetheless in the prophet’s writings respecting other matters that originated from the intrusion of the prophet’s own input.

One important point to remember in all this is that it is “Scripture” (what is written down) that is given by God breathing out (2Tim3:16) and not merely thoughts/words to the prophet/apostle. Therefore, what is written is breathed by God just as much as the thoughts/words that came to the apostle/prophet’s mind before putting it on paper.

I caught Spencer’s claim to being a Barthian, which now clears up alot in my mind. But now I’m left to wonder why a Barthian carries a ‘post-evangelical’ flag?

Now all the IMonk supporters are guilting his detractors for being “unloving.” They are saying he really has no problem with “inerrancy” but just the way it’s used. Yet, he well knew that to deny it is throwing a firebomb in front of those whom he knows will respond just as they have. He could’ve attacked the abuse of inerrancy rather than taking on the word itself. But I’m not at all convinced that he really is kosher with the concept itself per se. And I don’t completely by into his claim that there are no errors in the book.

Spencer claims to be a Barthian.

Here is Karl Barth’s words…

“As truly as Jesus died on the cross, as Lazarus died in Jn. 11, as the lame were lame, as the blind were blind, […] so, too, the prophets and apostles as such, even in their office, even in their function as witnesses, even in the act of writing down their witness, were real, historical men as we are, and therefore sinful in their action, and capable and actually guilty of error in their spoken and written word (Barth, 1963 [1938], CD I/2, 529).”

“For that reason every time we turn the Word of God into an infallible biblical word of man or the biblical word of man into an infallible Word of God we resist […] the miracle that here fallible men speak the Word of God in fallible human words – and we therefore resist the sovereignty of grace… (CD I/2, 529).”

More Barth on Scripture….

“If God has not been ashamed to speak through the Scriptures with its fallible human words, with its historical and scientific blunders, its theological contradictions, with the uncertainty of its transmission and above all, with its Jewish character, but has rather accepted it in all its fallibility to make it serve Him, we ought not to be ashamed of it when with all its fallibility it wants anew to be to us a witness, it would be self-will and disobedience to wish to seek in the Bible for infallible elements” (K. Barth, Kirchiche Dogmatik, 1, 2, p.590,

Aaaah, my part in the little controversy is over. Michael and I had a couple email exchanges and have sort of amicably departed with a degree of mutual understanding.

Now that I’m over my little agitation, I realize something at least. It’s kind of silly for me to give the monkster too hard of a time. I’ve been a solid trinitarian for over 15 years, and due to my years of bible study coming of age I’ve begun to question the doctrine quite vociferously.

In other words, if I was the man running that blog over there, and I posted a post against the word “trinity” like Michael did with the word “inerrancy”, what would be happening to me right now would make Michael’s little fallout look like a mass-huggy.

So, peace.

Stephen,

From the extensiveness of your post I have to assume that you have spent more time in this line of critically comparing the gospels and looking for contradictions than I have, so I may not be able to address all the points you raise. In the beginning of my christian life, some 19 years ago, I spent a lot of time reading books that dealt with supposed contradictions, but since then having taken the leap of faith I’ve been more of a commentator of Scripture rather than it’s critic.

But I will address the ones I can, and really trying to focus on the logic of your argument, which may help me even where I don’t have the expertise you do in the critical angle.

I’ll start with point #1…

“Mark 12.9 attributes words to Jesus that Matthew’s version of the pericope attributes to the crowd (Matt 21.41).”

Let’s agree that both accounts deal with the exact same telling of the parable, though we may assume that Jesus repeated these parables in his travels. But, let’s assume it’s the same telling in view.

We can really simplify this as follows….

In Mark’s version, we have Jesus telling the whole parable, start to finish without any input from the crowd. Therefore, when Jesus asks the summary question “What shall therefore the lord of the vineyard do?” Mark’s version has Jesus answering His own question, where as Matthew gives the added detail that when Jesus asked the question, someone from the crowd spoke up and gave the answer “he will come and destroy…”

It’s the same answer, but one version has Jesus answering the question and one version has the crowd answering it.

Purely from a logical point of view, in light of the fact that these are two seperate eye-witness accounts, there is no clearly no contradiction.

All one has to do is imagine a scenerio where the two perspectives can co-exist, thus clearly ruling out a contradiction. If there was a true contradiction, you could not put them together side by side in a hypothetical scenerio.

Let’s imagine such a scenerio…

Jesus tells the parable. He asks the question, “What will the lord of the vineyard do.”

Someone from the crowd answers “He will come and destroy…”

Jesus says “Correct! He will come and destroy…” (repeating the correct answer from the crowd.

Now, we can understand how you can have two distinct eyewitness testimonies to this, one including the detail of the exact origin of the answer (the crowd), and one leaving that detail out and starting at the next logical event in the story, ie, Jesus repeating the correct answer.

I will honestly try and get to as many of these as I can, and if I encounter a point where I don’t possess an adequate knowledge base to equal yours, I may still be able to examine the underlying logic you employ.

Joe

Stephen,

Addressing your next alleged piece of evidence against inerrancy, you say….

“For another fun synoptic ‘who said what’ instance compare Matt 19.16-17 with Mk 10.17-18. In Mark the man said to Jesus ‘Good teacher.’ In Matthew the man says uses good with reference to the deed in question. What is going on here?”

So we be clear….

In the byzantine texts of both gospels, the man calls Jesus “Good Master” That the alexandrian sources give a different reading, one in my opinion is very obviously inferior in this case, is more of a text-crit question than inerrancy.

I sense in this example that not only have you spent more time than I in looking for contradictions than I, but you have dug deeper.

To be continued….

btw, on my last past I mentioned the problem with that verse was more in the realm of textual criticism, and by that I meant deciding which textual family has more authority regarding these variants, not that inerrancy has NOTHING to do with textual criticism.

Moving on to point #3 (I will get to #2 later, after a bit more research.)

You say…

“Does Jesus tell the disciples to take a staff (Mk 6.8) or not (Lk 10.10)? In a comment on a different post Jerry suggested that the only way to ‘deal with’ this is positing autographs that did not have this problem and corruption in the transmission history of either Mark or Luke. This would seem like an extreme case of ‘special pleading.’ What do you all think?”

First of all, its Mat. 10:10, not Luke 10:10.

Secondly, notice the contradiction, again, comes from accepting Alexandrian corruptions. I’m not a KJB only guy, but I generally appreciate the Byzantine family of texts with only a few major exceptions where I prefer the Alexandrian.

In this case it’s rather telling that the contradiction only occurs by accepting Alexandrian variants. Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and D give us staff singular in Mat. 10:10 creating the obvious discord with the singular staff in Mark 6:8. But the Byzantine reading gives us staffs/staves plural.

Read the two passages from the KJB….

Mar 6:8 and commanded them that they take nothing in the way, except only a staff; no bag, no bread, no copper in the belt,

Mat 10:10 nor a bag for the journey, nor two coats, nor sandals, nor staves. For the workman is worthy of his food.

In the Mat passage, the meaning is that they are not to take STAFFS, similar to how it qualifies coats with “two”, ie, don’t take two coats, don’t take staffs (plural).

That the unspoken assumption here is that one staff only is sufficent is given in the Mark passage, “ONLY a staff.”

John Gill writes….

“”And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey,…. To accommodate them in it, except those things after directed to: save a staff only; a single one, for staves in the plural number are forbidden. Matthew 10:10 does not forbid the taking of shoes, but two pair of shoes; as not two coats, nor two staves, but one of a sort only, that is, with more than one staff, which was sufficient to assist them, and lean upon in journeying: for, according to Mark, one was allowed; as though they might take a travelling staff, yet not staves for defence, or to fight with.”“

Unrelated to Stephen’s arguments against inerrancy, here is a ‘Spencerian’ one being made over at his blog.

Michael Spencer writes…

“If I have to read one more explanation of a discrepancy or a non-fact so that the special definition of an error-isn’t-an-error can survive, I’m going to pull my eyes out.

Psalm 148:4 Praise him, you highest heavens,
and you waters above the heavens!

Turning this kind of thing into “facts” (instead of appreciating it for the poetry that it is) is enough to make you lose all contact with reality.”

One can only guess that Spencer is reacting to some creation science attempt to prove something more is referred to by the “waters above the heavens” than simply water-filled clouds.

One of his comrades chimes in….

“Those who claim that “the waters above the heavens” refer to some sort of vapor canopy seem to be suggesting that David, in this case, wrote those words based on knowledge that David the man could not have, but that were somehow inspired the Holy Spirit. At the same time, we’re asked to give the writers a pass when they suggest that the circumference of a circle is three times its diameter, because they were just human, and it’s close enough.”

This just shows the absolute confusion going on with these guys in their attack of inerrancy. They go after the name, which simply means “without error”, but yet arguments like this have more to do with certain types of arguments made by inerrantists.

What if the psalmist meant neither ‘water canopy’ (Spencer’s pet straw man) nor some poetic mystical something that somehow is supposed to make sense here, but simply referred to plain old clouds?

John Gill thought as much….

“and ye waters that [be] above the heavens; divided by the firmament from the waters below; and are no other than the thick clouds, in which the waters are bound up, and not rent, but at the pleasure of God, Ge 1:7; so Seneca {d} calls the clouds the celestial waters. And these give men occasion to praise the Lord, that those vast bodies of water that are over their heads are not let down in such large quantities upon them as would destroy them; and that are carried about from place to place, and let down and gentle showers, to water and refresh the earth, and make it fruitful, so that it brings forth food for man and beast. The Targum is,

“ye waters, that by the Word (of the Lord) hang above the heavens;”

in which is displayed the glory of amazing power, wisdom, and goodness. The most ancient Syrians and Arabians were thoroughly persuaded, that beyond the bounds of the visible heavens there was a great sea, without any limits; which some {e} suppose to be the waters here meant.

{d} Nat. Quaest. l. 3. c. 23. {e} Vid. Steeb. Coelum Sephirot. Heb. c. 7. s. 3. p. 126, 127. and Gregory’s Works, p. 110.”

Where is all the angst over this verse in Gill? And why are these post-evangelicals/emergents so quick to see a problem here in relation to inerrancy?

Michael,

Can anyone ever say a critical thing about what you write without you getting all bent out of shape? I thought one of your big words is “conversation.” To have one is not to just entertain compliments, but you gotta be willing to converse with those who differ and challenge.

Do you have to get upset? You kick people off your blog, withhold posts, pour out your contempt in other posts…

Why not just allow us in “the conversation?”

And, about my problems with the trinity. It’s BECAUSE of my belief in inerrancy and the absolute authority of the Scriptures that I re-examined that doctrine.

Also, for you to hold up the ‘Nicene Creed’ as something that I must assent to or else I am not worthy of interacting with is NO DIFFERENT than Rome’s insistence I submit to her doctrines. The Bible isn’t enough apparently. One of your cronies lampooned inerrancy as something that should be spelled ‘shibboleth.’ Well, for you, the Nicene Creed operates the same way apparently.

You appear to have a huge double standard. You dish it out, but cannot take it. You like to be provocative, but you act astonished when people respond the way you expected. You despise fundamentalism and evangelical culture, but you just love to launch theological molotov cocktails their way and watch the carnage, all the while you and your tavernistas have a good laugh over their beers. You decry how edgy fundies get, yet you act the very same way when something dear to your heart gets challenged.

My creed, the only one I will assent to and identify with is a book - the Bible. I simply don’t have a shorter version.

If you can’t deal with that, you’re frightened. I’m a religious leper and the only way you know how to deal with it is to get upset and scram.

I’m not nearly so energized over trinitarian discussions as I am over this inerrancy discussion. In fact, I am still a faithful member of a trinitarian church and will probably remain that way - I don’t see it as that vital a doctrine to divide over. Inerrancy on the other hand is absolutely vital. As I said, God and His word are one. You cannot know God apart from His word, you cannot obey Him apart from His word, you cannot please Him apart from His word, and you cannot TRUST Him apart from His word. You can’t separate a person from his words. They are eternally one. People want a God who has been gagged, or they want a nice literary classic of religious words apart from the deity it speaks of.

I find your attack on inerrancy very curious. I think it needs to be challenged. I don’t think you are being upfront about what you really believe. I think alot of your language is highly political. You dart and dodge and fail to talk straight. Your reasons for rejecting the word are highly suspect. You have failed to give us a CLEAR idea what you really mean by inerrancy and authority from a clearly biblical view.

You need to be challenged. Iron sharpens Iron. And if you think my trinitarian issues need to be “sharpened” then be my guest.

BTW, what do you mean by your comment on the blog about “taunting monkeys” as being a good preparation for running your blog? This sounds to me like you rather enjoy taunting others, rather than having a genuine “conversation.” This sounds to me that you have a rather low view of those you are in disagreement about, and see them as fun sport.

I did read the context…some guy conversed about the kid who taunted the lion at the zoo and got killed. Then you said…

“Taunting Monkeys is outstanding preparation for the pastorate. (jn)

Or for running my blogs :-)”

There you go. Like you say. You love to taunt “the monkeys.” You get entertainment out of it. Unfortunately you don’t respect the “monkeys” enough to let them in on the conversation.

And it’s interesting how you are going to try and turn the focus on my issue with trinitarianism.

So interesting. You have a problem with the word “inerrancy” BECAUSE it is not found in any of the creeds.

Yet the word “trinity” is not found in the NT. Nor is any word for God found in the NT that denotes “three-ness.” Nothing. Nill. Zero.

You can apparently dissent from orthodox christianity by disputing inerrancy, yet you act JUST LIKE the fundamentalist in going after my non-trinitarianism as point of criticism.

Interesting.

You poured out your heart about the vicious work being done by those “evil” inerrantists, how they would refuse you the status of being a christian.

Look what at your attitude toward my issue with trinitarianism. You are treating me as if I’m unworthy to observe your blog and comment.

DOUBLE STANDARD.

You cannot dispense with inerrancy and then try to blackball me for not being a trinitarian. Face it. We are both heretics to a lot of people in the church.

If you think you can read the Scriptures and come out with a belief that it isn’t inerrant, why cannot I reread the Scriptures and come to the conclusion that perhaps trinitarianism is not the best way to explain the Scriptural data? Aren’t we doing the same thing.

I guess “trinitarianism” is one of the passes to the country club of orthodoxy. You’ve got the pass, so you are in, and you can look at me and turn me away.

I hope others take the time to read through some of your blog entries and witness the incredible hypocrisy you exhibit.

You can dispense with inerrancy, but I can’t dispense with trinity. I think I’m catching that facial tic you mentioned at BHT.

Michael,

I will show how, regardless of whether the Bible is inerrant or not, historic creeds are definitely not inerrant.

The Athanasian creed tells us that unless you believe the following, you cannot be saved….

Each of the three co-eternal, co-infinite individuals within the trinity are each said to be the very same thing in the same exact measure, via the doctrine of perichoresis.

This is a bare naked logical contradiction. This leaves no ontic or logical basis to make any real distinction between the individuals. All one can do is verbally insist there are distinctions, but logically it is not so.

There you go. Error. No way to explain it. The Athanasian creed is not inerrant. It fails the test. I have no need to accord it any authority, anymore than the latest post at the Boar’s Head Tavern. :-)

One last thought before nighty-night….

When Michael raises a critical eyebrow at my non-trinitarianism, what does he do? He challenges me NOT WITH SCRIPTURE, but rather whether I can assent to the Nicene Creed.

Get it?

He knows deep down he can’t challenge me with Scripture. He denied inerrancy. He doesn’t have the confidence, or at least the integrity to argue from it. He must hold up a council to me!

This shows me he has more confidence in a human ecclesiastical council than he does in the ability of Scripture to establish a doctrine clearly, forcefully and inerrantly.

Oh the depths….G’night.

“I…believe in infallibility, inspiration, truthfulness and sufficiency”

Michael,

You must be redefining those terms because you simply cannot say that the Scriptures do not err. I’ve read some of your language by which you make such a claim, and it’s extremely confusing.

Stephen - Well, I won’t take any more time answering your questions if you don’t accept my byzantine-priority convictions. BTW, Maurice Robinson down at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary is a good and savvy advocate for this position..http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html

It’s amazing to me that you have no problem assuming that the people of God for well over 1500 years had one text type, but now because we found some scraps in garbage heaps buried in the sands of Egypt we should adjust our Bibles, yet your reasoning is that because the Trinity was formulated for 1500 years, it deserves an impregnable place in the church. If the people of God had the wrong text type for all those years, perhaps maybe they had the wrong doctrine spoonfed to them from mother church.

This is just as problematic as Michael’s position, ie, how laughably ironic can it be that he would criticize my reassessment of the trinity when he himself cannot admit that the Bible is without error? If we don’t have an error-free basis for doctrine, how can he argue from that basis? All he can do is hold me up against church councils. (Does Michael swim laps down at the YMCA pool there in Kentucky to prepare one day for an attempt to cross the Tiber? (joke Michael…don’t get upset, laugh over your beer.) He’s pretty close to “the Roman way” in his reasoning, in terms of his view of the authority of councils and creeds. I hope he never crosses.)

The Catholics will tell you that the clear evidence of the trinity understanding developing over centuries is proof that Sola Scriptura is wrong and the Roman Catholic magisterium is right and necessary. They cite that as proof that the Scripture alone is not sufficient and that doctrine DOES develop through God-ordained ecclesiastical authorities.

If you want to turn this thread into a discussion of why the trinity is not strictly biblical, that’s fine with me, and I regularly post over at Reformed apologist Matt Slick’s CARM trinity board…but I don’t know that this is fair to Mr. Challies, to have his comment box turn into a “why I don’t believe in the trinity” affair.

The amount of time the faithful have held a doctrine is no argument for it’s veracity. Mary has been worshiped, icons (a clear violation of biblical iconoclasm) revered, human merit deposited in the treasuries, etc., since very early in the Christian era down till today. The argument doesn’t work. If it was valid, Luther could never have gotten the Reformation started,

The fact is, the Hebrew Bible has absolutely no evidence of a trinity, ie three co-eternal, co-infinite centers of personal consciousness, and the already existing categories of Philonian Logos, Aramaic Targum’s Memra, the wisdom literature’s personifying of chokma, the 2nd temple divine agency concepts, etc,, prove clearly that there are other ways to account for the Messiah’s inclusion into the identity of the one God of Israel rather than ascribing “ontological deity” to the Son which leads to all sorts of biblical and logical issues.

Nonetheless, if you feel that the fact that the weight of church councils are against me, then I have no invitation to the table, as the formerly fundy-baiting and non-inerrantists become rather fundamentalist all of a sudden in their dealings with me. I’ve been nothing more than a gadfly in the ointment here, but maybe like one Athenian gadfly, I’ve been able through my efforts in this comment box to show the folly in the positions of my opponents.

IMonk,

So far, you have cited exactly one council (Nicene) and one confession (WCF) as reasons why I should not be invited in on the “conversation” and allowed to challenge your attack on inerrancy.

Michael Bar Merton, thou art not far from the kingdom of Rome.

But, do tell me whether you consider this council and this creed inerrant.

Show me from the Bible, that the Bible teaches the synthesis that took the church a couple hundred years to develop and hash out, without doing as Michael is (citing councils).

Demonstrate your contention rather than just throwing stuff out there.

Art,

Your approach to me so far has been one that is really a natural outgrowth of a faith based on creed and council rather than on the word of God directly.

The bible is a big book. It takes some time to become familiar with it and gain a working knowledge of it to be able to challenge those who might be in disagreement with it.

Creeds on the other hand are easy. You can usually read through the entirety of them in a few minutes. Creeds are cheap “cliff notes” versions of God’s word.

Creeds are cards that when shown at the gate allow one entrance into the country club. If one tries to simply bring the Bible itself, they are shown the way out and denied entrance.

Creeds are like cradles. They rock the faithful to sleep because they take the hard work out of knowing God’s word. You don’t have to dig into the Bible yourself, you can just take a nap with the creed emblazoned on your crib.

And you can’t say the same thing about inerrancy. The tavernistas would like to say that I use inerrancy like a card that gains one entrance into the country club. But it isn’t. Inerrancy is simply the way christ Himself viewed the Scriptures. It’s a natural outgrowth of the idea that God breathed out not just what was given to the agent of revelation but also what that agent wrote down. It’s what is written that is God-breathed. And God breathes no error.

You never challenged my dissent from trinitarianism with any scriptural data. Neither did Spencer. You guys took the lazy way out, a way that is made of the very same clay that lines the banks of the Tiber. But you don’t care.

The creed says! You are a heretic BECAUSE you simply can’t be anything else when you deny the trinity.

Well, I will respond here by giving you something to chew on. I know I earlier said it would be impolite to turn Mr. Challies combox here into an anti-trinitarian discussion, but I don’t see any other way to approach this discussion in terms of the way it has devolved.

I was a trinitarian believer for over 15 years, nurtured in Reformed theologians like Calvin, Edwards, Turretin, Warfield, Hodge and most importantly Cornelius Van Til. I still to this day regard Van Til as the most brilliant theologian and Christian philosopher ever.

Incidently, Van Til’s brilliantness got him in a bit of trouble with regards to the trinity. If you are familiar with the incident, he taught in his syllabi that we must be able to say that God is both 1 person and 3 persons. Van Til well knew the philosophical problem of having 3 co-eternal co-infinite knowers in terms of a biblical and reformed epistemology. He and his followers certainly tried to tame and clarify these statements, but I remain unconvinced of the success of those efforts.

Logic is a big problem. As I mentioned before, trinitarianism involves a bare naked logical contradiction of mammoth proportions, and those naive christians who insist there is no logical problem usually can be shown to have an implicit tritheism in their minds despite their orthodox confession. In other words, they don’t really fully grasp what they confess.

Logic can never survive when one states there is three distinct persons in one being. ‘One being’ means that you cannot make any ontic distinctions. No ontic distinctions means no logical distinctions. Trinitarianism is inherently irrational.

It simply cannot be intellected. If you think you have intellected it, your notion is tri-theism.

Creedal trinitarianism states that each individual is exactly the same exact thing in the same exact measure. But there is no logical or ontic basis in this for distinctions.

Now, lets look at the scriptural data….

There is absolutely no evidence for the existence of 3 co-eternal, co-infinite and distinct divine persons in the Hebrew Bible. All the arguments proposed by trinitarians based on certain aspects of Hebrew grammatical constructs are laughable and only serve to show how little they know of the Hebrew language. This includes the attempt to prove that the Shema proves that God is three. Echad is simply the counting number for one in the Hebrew language. In order for there to be a compound unity construct, there would need to be a grouping term, such as “one bunch of grapes.” The Shema simply says that Yehovah is “one Lord”, not one “bunch” or “group” of Lords. There is no hint of plurality in the Shema and until the gentile-christian era many years after Christ, no one ever found one. It’s a made-up ignorant and laughable argument.

As is the whole “let us make man” thing. Before the christian era, the plural pronoun was always taken to be God speaking and conferring with His angelic council, and there is significant biblical support for this interpretation. The angels were obviously already in existence since in Job it states that they rejoiced when the heavens and the earth were made. And also in Job we see the council gathered before Yehovah. In Kings we see God asking His council “who will go and…”

And the same goes for the plural “Elohim.” Nothing is more preposterous for a trinitarian to cite this as proof of plural persons in one god, since a literal interpretation that takes the plural as indicating more than a fullness of majesty would yield “gods.” Indeed in many places in the Hebrew Bible, the pagan pantheons are referred to as “elohim.”

By the time of the Christian era, we have the Wisdom literature as exemplified in Prov. 8 where an attribute of God, Wisdom, is personified as God’s associate by which He created all things. The same goes for His d’bar (word.) The western Jews in Alexandria, especially Philo, developed a full-blown logos theology where the logos was seen as an intermediary between Creator and creation, and the instrument by which God created. Many of the same things Paul said of Christ Philo said earlier of the Logos. The salient point here is that the logos was not seen as a co-eternal person distinct from Yehovah Himself. Rather it was an hypostasis abstracted from God and understood as that intermediary by which God interacts with the world. The logos was both called God and seen as distinct from God.

Meanwhile the eastern Aramaic-speaking Jews betray this same idea of a mediatorial personification of the Word, in their use of the term ‘memra’ in their Targums (Aramaic paraphrases.)

John and the rest of the apostles lived and breathed in this tradition.

Only by ignoring this tradition and thinking in the mental ruts created by later church councils and creeds would one interpret John’s prologue as saying that the Logos was, prior to the event of being “made flesh” in v. 14 as being a distinct person from God Himself, co-eternal and co-infinite. Furthermore, only by reading John 1 in translation would one get a heavily personal conception of the pre-incarnate logos. The pronouns translated as “him” could just as well and should’ve been translated “it” and indeed pre-KJV english translations such as Wycliffe and the Geneva Bible did so.

John would appear to be simply and elegantly saying that the Logos which his audience was well aware of, as being that mediatorial instrument by which God created all things, His Wisdom, actually became a human being - Jesus the Messiah.

All the “pre-incarnation” verses applied to Jesus are fully accounted for within this tradition, Jesus was never said to be the one who created, but rather the one BY WHOM God created. He was the instrument. But He was not a He prior to being conceived in Mary’s womb, but was the “it” of the Word/Logos/Memra/Wisdom which was with God and by which God created.

Many of the so-called proof texts for the divinity of Christ in the NT can be accounted for by Alexandrian corruptions, which was where gnostic activity was prevelant. One of the most important in this class is the verse in Acts which speaks of “God’s own blood.” The Byzantine witness is “the blood of God’s own” ie, of His son.

And of the texts that are left, there is no denial from me that Jesus is identified in some way with God. Trinitarians say the identification is one of ontology, ie that Jesus is ontologically and exactly God in the most definite sense. Why? Many visible manifestions of God in the Hebrew Bible were identified as God, despite the fact that God is not visible and cannot be seen. God has no legs, yet the LORD God was said to walk in Gan Eden with Adam and Eve. The Angel of the Lord was identified with God. Even human judges in a psalm were called “elohim.” None of this can be used to say that was visible or human was ontologically and definitively divine.

Jesus is included in the identity of the one God of Israel because God uniquelly begot Him, in such a unique way that from the very beginning He was and is God’s visible and audible representation to humanity. He is not ontologically divine, but God is in Him in such a unique way that you cannot divide the two, so that to have seen Him is to have seen the Father, to have heard Him is to have heard the Father. He is the human manifestation of the Father, not some incarnation of a 2nd person of a trinity. In terms of 2nd Temple Jewish divine agency, He is the ultimate divine agent, being the sole visible means of encountering and interacting with God. God speaks to us through Him, and we speak to God through Him.

If any one would care to discuss biblical and not creedal data, I’m all for it. I will challenge you on any verse anywhere in scripture for as long as you want to engage me and as long as Mr. Challies tolerates me.

correction: my argument regarding Acts 20:28 and God’s blood was not an issue of the Alexandrian text - I had that mixed in my mind with another passage. Here is something I wrote earlier on another forum….

Even with the byzantine manuscript underlying the KJV, the KJV translators got it wrong. I don’t know why they did - perhaps for theological reasons.

Let’s look at the greek underlying verse 28 at the point in question…

*dia tou aimatos tou idiou* which the KJV translators have rendered as “with his own blood.”

If you can read greek, you can check the greek here..
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~fisher/cgi-bin/gnt?id=0520

The problem with this rendering is huge. There is no possessive pronoun (his) existing in the greek here.

The literal meaning of the greek text is…

“with the blood of his own.”

Now, this is the basis for the fact that even Trinitarians translated the RSV as…

“blood of his own son” with the word ‘son’ implied.

Is this wrong to add the word son? Absolutely not. It would appear so if you are not aware of the koine greek usage of the word idious (‘own’). But it was common to use that word without the noun it was qualifying IF the noun was strongly implied by the context. This common usage is all throughout the NT. Just a couple…

1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own (with family implied.)

Acts 4:23 And being let go, they went to their own (with the church being implied)

Now, what is interesting is that there is another passage where the translation reads like Acts 20:28…

Heb. 9:12 “by his own blood..”

Acts 20:28, again states “with his own blood..”

Because of the similar translational structure, we would expect the underlying greek to be the same. If they are not the same, we have to ask why? Why did the translators take two different greek constructs and translate them the same in english.

Let’s compare the underlying greek. Even if you don’t know the greek, you can see right away the big difference…

Acts 20:28…dia tou aimatos tou idiou

Heb. 9:12…dia de tou idiou aimatos

See the difference? Now, let’s compare the greek structure of Acts 20:28 to a place where idious appears without the noun it qualifies (since context strongly implies it) and you will see the similarity, with the implied noun in brackets…

Acts 20:28…dia tou aimatos tou idiou (with the blood of his own [son])

Acts 4:23…pros tous idious (to his own [fellow christians])

Notice that the noun, blood (aimatos) does not appear after own (idiou).

Greek scholar J.H. Moulton (who is trinitarian) writes:

Quote:
Before leaving [idious] something should be said about the use of [ho idios] without a noun expressed. This occurs in Jn 1.11; 13.1; Ac 4.23; 24.23. In the papyri we find the singular used thus as a term of endearment to near relations: eg.[ho deina to idio khairein.] In Expositor… I ventured to cite this as a possible encouragement to those (including B.Weiss) who would translate Ac 20.28 ‘the blood of one who was his own.’” (Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol.1, Prologomena, 2nd edition, 1906, p.90).

In summation, trinitarians and OPs should further explore this issue and not be blinded by what their english translations say without verifying the veracity of it thoroughly. For myself, I treasure the KJV, but I am learning more and more that those translators were fallible and were not above injecting their theological biases into their work.

Art,

Thanks for the response. I must’ve composed my post while you posted this, so apologies for not crediting you as of yet for bringing some Scriptural evidence to the table. You’ve brought some here, rather than a creed - so we can deal with what is ultimately without error and authoritative in the church.

You mentioned Isaiah 45:5…

“I am YHWH, and there is none else, no God besides Me; I clothed you, though you have not known Me;”

I don’t know how much Hebrew you know, but if you look at it in the Hebrew you will notice that God is not speaking in some abstract manner of His being. Rather, the verse says “I (not my being), ‘ani’ in Hebrew, am YHWH and there is no (ein in Hebrew) ‘od’ which means simply an iteration of the subject which in context was “I” and not “my being.”

In other words, God is saying “there is no God besides Me” (the center of personality). To take from this that God is saying “there is no divine being besides my divine being” is a mangling of the grammer and a clear case of eisegesis.

There is no clearer way in the Hebrew language for God to state a uni-personal view of Himself.

You write….

“John 10.30 makes it pretty clear that Jesus and the Father (YHWH) are one. I’m not sure how you could get around this flat out statement.”

Here is your problem. In the very SAME gospel, Jesus says the following using the very same greek word for “one.”…..

John 17:20-21

” And I do not pray for these alone, but for those also who shall believe on Me through their word, that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be one in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me.”

Do believers become one in being the very same way that the divine persons are said to be one in being? You may answer yes, but that only shows you don’t understand trinitarianism.

Back to the context of John 10. In the verses prior, Jesus said that no one can pluck His people from the Father’s hand. Then He says likewise no one can pluck them from His hand. We clearly have a unity of will, objective and purpose rather than some foreign category of an ontological unity of being. The Jews were offended not because they thought Jesus claimed to be ontological deity, but rather that He was claiming to be one in purpose and power as God’s agent, the Son of God.

Jesus verifies this when later He asks why they should be offended that He claimed to be the Son of God. Notice also that Jesus did not even go so far as to claim what was applied to human Judges in the OT who were called elohim. He said rather that if it was ok for God to call judges elohim, why should they be offended if he claimed to be the son of God. Argument from greater to lesser. Not exactly a strong argument for a direct claim to pure ontological deity if that is what Christ was claiming.

You wrote…

“Acts 5.3-4 equates God and the Spirit. John also uses God and the Spirit interchangeably in that believers are both born of God (John 1.12) and equally born of the Spirit (John 3.5).”

Why cannot this be simply two ways to refer to the one divine person, using words with a slightly different connotation? For instance, when one wanted to emphasize the direct manifested power of God that moved among men in the earth in an immanent sense, they referred to God as “the Holy Spirit.” This has the benefit of a clear OT background, and indeed this is how Judaism from the very beginning to this very day understands the ‘Ruach haKodesh.”

To identify the Ruach with God is not to prove two distinct persons unless you were reading that back into the text. Two ways to refer to God, depending on context and aspect of God under consideration.

Ditto for Paul’s “trinitarian formula.”

I don’t deny that there is a three-fold way to refer to God: by referring to God as He is in Himself, the Father; by referring to Him as He manifests Himself through the man Christ Jesus, the Son; and by referring to Him as the moving, powerful manifestation at work in the church through acts of love and works of power, the Holy Spirit.

Does not prove three distinct co-eternal persons.

You wrote….

“For instance, Paul uses a Trinitarian formula to close 2 Cor: “May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all” (2 Cor 13.14). Likewise, when talking about spiritual gifts he uses the Spirit, Jesus, and God in parallel Greek grammatical constructions: “Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of services, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who actives all of them in everyone” (1 Cor 12.4-6).”

Again my point is clearly shown in this verse, especially if you get into the greek.

Notice that each of the three terms He uses corresponds to the context of the aspect under consideration….

When he speaks of varieties of “charisms”, you are speaking of spiritual endowments, so you would naturally refer to God as Spirit.

When he speaks of “services”(diakonia) where the theme is servanthood, it is naturally to refer to God as Lord.

When he speaks of of “activities” (energema) he speaks of God directly since He is ultimately the source behind all working and God is all in all.

You simply cannot prove from this three co-eternal co-infinite persons. They are three aspects of God that are relevant to God’s people in their encounter and relationship to Him.

You wrote…

“All of this is just a footnote to St. Augustine who wrote one of the most brilliant works on the Trinity. And he did so not too long after The Bible reached a somewhat solid state, although the East and the West were still bickering over some books to be included.”

And you should read what Cornelius Plantinga wrote of Augustine with regards to the Trinity.

http://www.berith.org/essays/pt/pt03.html

He was heavily, heavily influenced by the notion of the neoplatonic One, and his formulation shows it. Augustines version of the trinity is completely irrational and logical. It is the same as…

There is one doctor in the hospital.

Dr. Reed is a doctor in that hospital.
Dr. Smith is a doctor in that hospital.
Dr. Peters is a doctor in that hospital.

Many now opt for a more “social trinitarian” view even though that reeks of tritheism.

More clarifications coming from Spencer on just what he means by error and why he rejects inerrancy. I’m more confused than ever, but I supposed by the time this all blows ever, it’ll be shown that Spencer was a narrow-minded inerrantist afterall and the joke is on us for thinking otherwise. And the tavernistas will have a laugh that the monkeys were so entertaining when taunted.:-)

IMonk says….

“You can join any conversation you want. You’re banned at my blog for sending harassing email to members of the BHT. That’s behavior, not belief.”

WHAAA????

I respectfully pressed the email button for a particular tavernista who was challenging something I said, and sent an email to him. I was never hostile to him, and he never replied back that I was or that I should cease to email him, which if he had I would’ve. As it was, I didn’t send another email because he didn’t reply at all.

I think you banned me because I’m too hot for you to handle.

Ironically, that’s a very ‘fundamentalist’ way to act. But I guess because it’s about your issues and not theres, so it’s a different species.

Stephen,

I have it on good authority that the ‘recension theory’ was soundly refuted by Dean Burgon a while ago. Any thoughts?

Bill,

You said….

“disbelief in the Trinity puts you outside of most people’s definition of true Christianity?”

Oh really? Let’s see a more “kindler, gentler” side of Michael Spencer, in his compassionate dealings with someone in another time and context stumbling over the trinity….

“”Our church recently started a men’s ministry, and it’s all about conversation. One young believer shared about just not getting the concept of the trinity. It just doesn’t make sense to him. Old school thinking would have been to get his ducks in a row, and the quicker the better. But if we did that, I know he would have been frustrated, most likely feeling as if he would be forced to subscribe to something, not because of conviction, but because of outside pressure. Instead, I just let him share his concerns, and asked the other guys for input. We talked about scripture, logic, mystery, etc. Next week we’ll bat it around some more.”

http://www.internetmonk.com/archive/book-review-common-grounds-by-ben-young-and-glenn-lucke

So, that’s how Spencer deals with someone struggling with the trinity.

It would appear that by his estimation, you Bill are a bit “old school” since you don’t even want to allow me a place at the table of conversation…I’m not within “true Christianity.”

You argue from lesser to greater. You say that not acknowledging the word inerrancy gets you merely “dirty looks and snide comments” while denying the trinity is worse than that.

But, even Michael himself in this latest flare up of tensions shows himself to have suddenly lost that compassionate approach to those unable to get the trinity.

He wrote to me on his blog…

“Your pathetic reposting of BHT posts is bad enough, but I’d think that a guy who- by his own admission- is doubting the doctrine of the Trinity would find a better sport than watchblogging IM and the BHT.

Really, if you can’t say that Nicene Creed straight up, what do you care what I have to say about inerrancy? You’ve got bigger fish to fry.”

The well of compassion appears to have suddenly run draw. I won’t even mention the attitudes expressed by others on the Tavern regarding my struggle with the trinity. It was immediately apparent that I was a persona non grata. The emergents started to show a little tenacity and fight for doctrinal integrity, which maybe makes my brief appearance a good thing.

You said….

“Inerrancy=non-negotiable, Belief in the Trinity=optional? And the two of you can’t see the reason for anyone’s astonishment?”

And you don’t see my astonishment at the fact that those who don’t subscribe to an inerrant Bible will still nonetheless argue that my doctrine of God isn’t biblical.

Maybe all those verses that you think are so clear in support of trinitarianism were human thoughts in error. Maybe the apostles chose the wrong words, when what they had received from God was a clear uni-personal view of God.

What also is astonishing is that Michael never addressed my problem with trinitarianism FROM THE SCRIPTURES, but rather from a human creed. That’s telling.

The difference from my point of view is that the doctrine of inerrancy is clearly taught in Scripture, where as the trinity is not. The very word itself, nor ANY WORD THAT MEANS THREE is ever found in OT or NT to describe God. None. Pure silence. But, because it is enshrined in creeds and councils, you guys suddenly become “inerrantists” and “fundamentalists” with regards to YOUR sources of authority - those creeds and councils.

That’s the nature of what I see going on. You guys lampoon fundamentalists and inerrantists as just so many “monkeys” who should be “taunted” for sport. Yet, you guys exhibit the very same fundamentalist shtick when it comes to YOUR OWN SOURCES of authority, ie, creed, council, Lutheranism, etc.

Bill, if you think trinitarianism is that clearly spelled out in Scripture, present your evidence.

The Crucible: Non-Trinitarianism vs. Non-inerrancy

Definition of crucible…

. A severe test, as of patience or belief; a trial.

This is a perfect trial to reveal what lies beneath the denial of inerrancy on the part of ‘Spencer and the Tavernistas.’

If I dispute the trinity, they will reject me. On what basis? The Bible? But the Bible is not inerrant. It can contain human interjection which may be in error. To attack the veracity of a belief formed from the Bible from the weak position that the Bible is not inerrant is completely illogical and untenable. Then, non-trinitarianism may be disputed from the basis of historic creeds of christianity. But then, the authority base is shifted from the Scriptures to ecclesiastical councils, revealing a papist-like approach to truth.

Go ahead….jump in the crucible. Let’s all see what is revealed.

“The point is that I can use the words trustworthy, reliable, profitable and inspired in my doctrine of the bible”

And those words are meaningless tripe if you cannot also say that because what was written was “breathed by God” that it contains no errors.

“But elevating the doctrine of inerrancy above the doctrine of the Trinity puts you very much alone. Well, not entirely. It puts you with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and TD Jakes.”

Not entirely. I’ve been a christian for almost 20 years, and I’ve seen a lot of change occuring. The popularity of a TD Jakes was only a portent of what is occuring with regards to the trinity. The ‘Messianic Movement’ and all it’s various branches has been growing quite a bit and there are many non-trinitarians among them. We also have the ‘biblical unitarians’ and their growing presence. I think you are a bit naive there. The average evangelical pew-sitter could care less about the trinity. They don’t understand it. It’s been this way for years, and most pastors don’t preach on it to deeply.

Let me add that there would’ve been more non-trinitarians in church history but the fate of souls like Servetus amply illustrate what the limiting factor was there. Thankfully, Mother Church no longer has any such means to prevent someone like myself from dissenting from the trinity.

She still has the Scripture, but a denial of inerrancy nullifies that means to refute error.

Why should I feel threatened by someone attempting to correct me with a book with errors, despite his/her belief that it is authoritative? If it has errors, it must bow to my authority since if I am smart enough to notice an error, I’m smart enough to correct it.

Still waiting for some Scriptural evidence from you, Bill, that I should assent to trinitarianism…..

Amazing.

Bill, you still fail to ground your protest in Scripture. I know the Bible is a big book, and it takes effort, but really….

Your argument is absolutely no different than what the Catholics were saying about Martin Luther. The Church simply cannot have been wrong for so many years!! But she was, and still is.

“If 2000 years of historic Christian doctrine developed on the concept of the Trinity is insufficient, I’m sure I will not be able to convince you.”

That’s a really dangerous logic. Mariolatry developed. Indulgences developed. Images and Icons developed. False priesthood developed. Institutionalized anti-semitism developed. Even more mundane things like tithing under the New Covenant developed. The church has always been wrong on many fronts and will probably continue to be till Christ returns.

Correction:

Oops. Sorry Michael.

That was not Michael speaking. That was one of Michael’s commentators.

Does this mean you tend more toward the Calvin-ish treatment of non-trinitarians, rather than sled-dogs kindler, gentler approach? :-)

Michael,

I hope you know that last sentence was a lighthearted joke. You are neither sled dog nor Calvin on this issue. Here is something Michael wrote to a unitarian who commented on his blog who complimented Michael and was forthright about his unitarianism…

“I appreciate the sincerity and reality your faith in Jesus s you understand him. But the rejection of the trinity and the creeds that confess the trinity is going to be a fellowship breaker within historic Christianity. We aren’t remaking the faith; it’s making us and we all stand in a trinitarian river.

I can accept you as a fellow believer in Jesus on your terms, but I couldn’t accept you as a member of any church I would identify with.

As I said, I respect your conviction and your conclusion. I assume you would do the same for those of us who confess that Jesus can only be understood as the Second person of the tri-personal God. It’s my place to love you and rejoice that you desire to know Jesus. It’s your job to appreciate that your Jesus and mine have fundamental, not superficial, differences. “

You won’t burn the non-trinitarian, but you will break fellowship with him.

Why, then, did you get so BENT, I mean absolutely charged up at the fact that inerrantists would probably break fellowship with you?

BTW, are you able and willing to give a Scriptural account of the trinity rather than simply identifying with a creed?

Michael Spencer writes to the Jesus loving unitarian…

“but I couldn’t accept you as a member of any church I would identify with.”

But I thought you used to get all bent over the fact that the Catholics refuse fellowship in the sacraments with you?

The Catholics refuse you the sacraments. You get bent. You refuse fellowship with a unitarian. Why? On Scriptural grounds. You don’t have an inerrant Bible!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh the folly! My side is about to explode in laughter. Lord help us dear ones all.

*********** Final Comment ***************

I feel like now is a good time for me to exit this thread, esp. in view of the fact that I got careless and quoted Michael in error. In my last comment I sarcastically made mention of side-splitting laughter. But, in reality, it isn’t funny at all, but rather tragic. There is an underlying tragedy in “the church” today, under the emotional and intuitive radar of most who have found a home in their particular creedal home.

Michael, I’m sorry again for carrying on this agitation. Sometimes it gets the better of me and I carry things further than I should. As much as I think you to be an heretic, I am certainly a bigger one in your eyes.

I never asked to be where I am at in the body of Christ. I never asked to lose the ability to find the trinity in the Scriptures. It’s an extremely difficult pill to swallow - you’re rejection of fellowship toward the unitarian is just a hint of what I have to look forward to for the rest of my christian life. Good news! My best life now.

Art - didn’t here from you so I guess our little trinity discussion is over. Thanks for interacting with me.

Blessings in Messiah to all,
Joe