Point 2: The Person or Being of the Father
Have you ever seen a comedian bomb on stage? Or perhaps watched your infant fall off of the bed after being left unattended for a second or two? If you have then you know how painful it is and how these things appear to happen in slow motion. That’s how I felt while reading Searachingone1033’s rebuttal to my opening argument. It was akin to watching a train wreck—I was horrified by what I was witnessing.
I must immediately begin by pointing out the less than honest conclusions of my opponent.
1. It was NEVER agreed upon that scripture does not describe the one Being of God as Three Persons. In fact that statement was supported.
2. Yes, the Trinity is arrived at by systematically studying the whole of scripture in context. The underlying presupposition is that God as an eternally perfect Being cannot contradict Himself. I’d ask for the ‘lone verse’ that says doctrine must be spelled out clearly in a ‘lone verse.’
3. No doubt that the definition was given more precision in later creeds. Such is the destiny of all theology. But let’s not confuse this with the doctrine not being taught in scripture or being believed by the earliest Christians—such is not the case at all as has been sufficiently proven.
I must point out that the same fallacy which has run throughout all of my opponent’s posts rears its ugly little head again in this one and that’s the constant attempt to make this about creeds and not scripture. If he wants to argue creeds then so be it, that’s his right—but I’ll be arguing based on scripture. Any mention of creeds will be supplemental.
We now move into the repeated circular reasoning which is that there is One God who is One Person, the Father. He takes this for granted and then reads into every passage of scripture that speaks of God. I’d like to see a positive proof of this—so far none has been provided or from what I can see even attempted.
Another red herring swims into the debate in the question posed to the readers of whether or not the Father is “one person or more than one person” which is immediately followed by an acknowledgement that Trinitarians don’t believe he is more than one person! Why even ask the question then?
More illogic surfaces, this time in the form of straw man arguments claiming that I’m contending that “One God the Father Almighty” is synonymous with “God in Trinity, Trinity in Unity.” When have I ever made such a claim? It’s then argued that my claim would be that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan and Athanasian Creeds are further clarifications of this phrase—but this isn’t an argument that I have made or will make. I would however say that the later creeds are a further and more precise treatment of the rudimentary language of the ENTIRE Apostle’s Creed. Irenaeus himself endeavored to expound upon the creed which can be seen in Searchingone1033’s links. There is no doubt that the Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned alongside the Father in the Apostle’s Creed, thus it isn’t surprising that they would be given more attention in the years to come.
Next we have the claim of the Father creating alone. With the exception of Isaiah 64:8, none of the verses cited even say that the Father created. They all say that Yahweh/God created. Now it can be reasonably deduced that the Father created from these verses because the Father is One of Three Persons who equally share the Nature of Deity, and it was this One Divine Being who created. And once again it must be noted that each of these verses speaks of One God (Yahweh) creating, NOT One Person.
Another straw man argument is given attributing statements to me that I have never made. I won’t dignify them with an explanation. Attention is then shifted back to the creeds as never saying the Son and Holy Spirit were active in creation. My response is “so what?” The Bible makes these declarations as was shown in my first post of point 1. I’d also point out that to argue from silence is no argument at all. I can equally claim that the creeds don’t say anything about the Son and Holy Spirit not being active in creation.
And something I find to be extremely strange is that Irenaeus was quoted in one of the links as saying, “One God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” as if he believed that the Father ALONE created.
Irenaeus said elsewhere:
“For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, ‘Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;’” (ANF 1:487-88)
If his first statement can be taken as reflective of early Christian belief (which of course it can be) then his second statement can as well. There is no reason to assume that the early church would have deviated from the testimony of scripture that the Father was not alone in the act of creation.
I find it strange that a non-Trinitarian would tell a Trinitarian that his description of the Trinity was inadequate. For the record, all Trinitarians agree that there is One Being that is God. We understand that God is a noun and not a personal name hence the word “God” in reference to Deity always speaks of the One Being of Deity. Now we also acknowledge that this One Being (i.e. Nature/Essence/Substance) is shared equally by Three Persons. To level the charge of inadequacy in description only shows the lack of substantial argument against the points I have raised.
To continue, I was very careful to differentiate between the Three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of the One Being (God) speaking collectively, which would employ use of singular pronouns since it is the One Being speaking, and the Three Persons of the One Being conversing amongst themselves which would employ the use of plural pronouns. And what is the response to this?—an alleged rule of grammar that beings don’t speak but persons do.
I’d ask exactly which English or Hebrew grammar references state the rule that personal pronouns are never used of Beings but always Persons. I happen to have in my possession my 2nd grade English textbook. We shall now look to the section on Personal Pronouns and see if it is in agreement with Searchingone1033’s claim.
“When a pronoun is used in place of a person’s name, it is called a personal pronoun. Personal pronouns may also refer to things.” - Building English Skills, (Evanston, IL: McDougal, Littell & Company, 1988) p. 427
Well there you have it—even at an elementary level we are taught that personal pronouns can identify things. If a Being is not a Person (as Searcingone1033 must claim in this case) then it is a Thing. Personal pronouns are still appropriate.
As for confounding the persons, I have done no such thing. This again is a caricature of the view that I took the time to explain in detail. My reason for doing so was so that no possible misrepresentation could occur, and although it has here, I believe the reader will be able to reference my original statements to see the falsity of the claim.
Concerning the Shema as was wrongly cited twice now as Deuteronomy 6:6 (6:4 is the proper citation), there is no interaction with the verse itself. In Hebrew it reads, “Shema Yisrael Yahweh eloheynu Yahweh echad.” Immediately I must point out that “eloheynu” (‘our God’) is in the plural form. Secondly, the word “echad” translated as “one” in many versions is a word that allows for diversity in unity (cf. Genesis 2:24, 11:6; Ezek. 37:17).
It’s the word that “echad” modifies which determines whether or not a plurality in unity is in view. In this case, “echad” modifies “Yahweh” and as such there is no a priori reason to assume that Yahweh is not a plurality of persons, especially in light of verses such as Genesis 19:24.
The argument was simply repeated for Genesis 1:26 but there was once again no attempt to harmonize vs. 26 with vs. 27. We’re then directed to a footnote from the NET Bible which makes inaccurate assertions. It’s a double-edged sword in that Irenaeus interpreted the “us” and “our” as a plurality of persons.
So Searchingone1033 is forced to admit that the Trinitarian concepts were held prior to Nicaea-Constantinople or that the NET Bible commentary is incorrect. I’d also point out that in 1Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6, God does not speak using plural pronouns so any reference to them is irrelevant. Isaiah 6 shows Yahweh conversing within Himself.
As far as the objection goes, my treatment was dealing specifically with the Father. I see this as nothing more than an admission that the argument I posed is too strong to be dealt with accordingly.
I must immediately begin by pointing out the less than honest conclusions of my opponent.
1. It was NEVER agreed upon that scripture does not describe the one Being of God as Three Persons. In fact that statement was supported.
2. Yes, the Trinity is arrived at by systematically studying the whole of scripture in context. The underlying presupposition is that God as an eternally perfect Being cannot contradict Himself. I’d ask for the ‘lone verse’ that says doctrine must be spelled out clearly in a ‘lone verse.’
3. No doubt that the definition was given more precision in later creeds. Such is the destiny of all theology. But let’s not confuse this with the doctrine not being taught in scripture or being believed by the earliest Christians—such is not the case at all as has been sufficiently proven.
I must point out that the same fallacy which has run throughout all of my opponent’s posts rears its ugly little head again in this one and that’s the constant attempt to make this about creeds and not scripture. If he wants to argue creeds then so be it, that’s his right—but I’ll be arguing based on scripture. Any mention of creeds will be supplemental.
We now move into the repeated circular reasoning which is that there is One God who is One Person, the Father. He takes this for granted and then reads into every passage of scripture that speaks of God. I’d like to see a positive proof of this—so far none has been provided or from what I can see even attempted.
Another red herring swims into the debate in the question posed to the readers of whether or not the Father is “one person or more than one person” which is immediately followed by an acknowledgement that Trinitarians don’t believe he is more than one person! Why even ask the question then?
More illogic surfaces, this time in the form of straw man arguments claiming that I’m contending that “One God the Father Almighty” is synonymous with “God in Trinity, Trinity in Unity.” When have I ever made such a claim? It’s then argued that my claim would be that the Nicene-Constantinopolitan and Athanasian Creeds are further clarifications of this phrase—but this isn’t an argument that I have made or will make. I would however say that the later creeds are a further and more precise treatment of the rudimentary language of the ENTIRE Apostle’s Creed. Irenaeus himself endeavored to expound upon the creed which can be seen in Searchingone1033’s links. There is no doubt that the Son and Holy Spirit are mentioned alongside the Father in the Apostle’s Creed, thus it isn’t surprising that they would be given more attention in the years to come.
Next we have the claim of the Father creating alone. With the exception of Isaiah 64:8, none of the verses cited even say that the Father created. They all say that Yahweh/God created. Now it can be reasonably deduced that the Father created from these verses because the Father is One of Three Persons who equally share the Nature of Deity, and it was this One Divine Being who created. And once again it must be noted that each of these verses speaks of One God (Yahweh) creating, NOT One Person.
Another straw man argument is given attributing statements to me that I have never made. I won’t dignify them with an explanation. Attention is then shifted back to the creeds as never saying the Son and Holy Spirit were active in creation. My response is “so what?” The Bible makes these declarations as was shown in my first post of point 1. I’d also point out that to argue from silence is no argument at all. I can equally claim that the creeds don’t say anything about the Son and Holy Spirit not being active in creation.
And something I find to be extremely strange is that Irenaeus was quoted in one of the links as saying, “One God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” as if he believed that the Father ALONE created.
Irenaeus said elsewhere:
“For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, ‘Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;’” (ANF 1:487-88)
If his first statement can be taken as reflective of early Christian belief (which of course it can be) then his second statement can as well. There is no reason to assume that the early church would have deviated from the testimony of scripture that the Father was not alone in the act of creation.
I find it strange that a non-Trinitarian would tell a Trinitarian that his description of the Trinity was inadequate. For the record, all Trinitarians agree that there is One Being that is God. We understand that God is a noun and not a personal name hence the word “God” in reference to Deity always speaks of the One Being of Deity. Now we also acknowledge that this One Being (i.e. Nature/Essence/Substance) is shared equally by Three Persons. To level the charge of inadequacy in description only shows the lack of substantial argument against the points I have raised.
To continue, I was very careful to differentiate between the Three Persons (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of the One Being (God) speaking collectively, which would employ use of singular pronouns since it is the One Being speaking, and the Three Persons of the One Being conversing amongst themselves which would employ the use of plural pronouns. And what is the response to this?—an alleged rule of grammar that beings don’t speak but persons do.
I’d ask exactly which English or Hebrew grammar references state the rule that personal pronouns are never used of Beings but always Persons. I happen to have in my possession my 2nd grade English textbook. We shall now look to the section on Personal Pronouns and see if it is in agreement with Searchingone1033’s claim.
“When a pronoun is used in place of a person’s name, it is called a personal pronoun. Personal pronouns may also refer to things.” - Building English Skills, (Evanston, IL: McDougal, Littell & Company, 1988) p. 427
Well there you have it—even at an elementary level we are taught that personal pronouns can identify things. If a Being is not a Person (as Searcingone1033 must claim in this case) then it is a Thing. Personal pronouns are still appropriate.
As for confounding the persons, I have done no such thing. This again is a caricature of the view that I took the time to explain in detail. My reason for doing so was so that no possible misrepresentation could occur, and although it has here, I believe the reader will be able to reference my original statements to see the falsity of the claim.
Concerning the Shema as was wrongly cited twice now as Deuteronomy 6:6 (6:4 is the proper citation), there is no interaction with the verse itself. In Hebrew it reads, “Shema Yisrael Yahweh eloheynu Yahweh echad.” Immediately I must point out that “eloheynu” (‘our God’) is in the plural form. Secondly, the word “echad” translated as “one” in many versions is a word that allows for diversity in unity (cf. Genesis 2:24, 11:6; Ezek. 37:17).
It’s the word that “echad” modifies which determines whether or not a plurality in unity is in view. In this case, “echad” modifies “Yahweh” and as such there is no a priori reason to assume that Yahweh is not a plurality of persons, especially in light of verses such as Genesis 19:24.
The argument was simply repeated for Genesis 1:26 but there was once again no attempt to harmonize vs. 26 with vs. 27. We’re then directed to a footnote from the NET Bible which makes inaccurate assertions. It’s a double-edged sword in that Irenaeus interpreted the “us” and “our” as a plurality of persons.
So Searchingone1033 is forced to admit that the Trinitarian concepts were held prior to Nicaea-Constantinople or that the NET Bible commentary is incorrect. I’d also point out that in 1Kings 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6, God does not speak using plural pronouns so any reference to them is irrelevant. Isaiah 6 shows Yahweh conversing within Himself.
As far as the objection goes, my treatment was dealing specifically with the Father. I see this as nothing more than an admission that the argument I posed is too strong to be dealt with accordingly.
