Point 3: The Person of the Son
Let me begin by stating that I unapologetically stand by my use of extra words in my last post, but because my opponent has cried foul I’ll limit this post to 1200 words.
OK… So we are back to claiming that I have to prove creeds. This has been maintained throughout and as I said in my very first post:
“Before beginning this debate Searchingone1033 asked me what kind of Trinitarianism I hold to and I told him that I hold to orthodox Trinitarianism as affirmed in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and the Athanasian Creed. The question was then asked if I would be arguing based on these creeds and my response was “no.” I explained that I would be arguing my point based on the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scriptures.”
I’ve held true to my word. My task was to debate my position on the 4 agreed upon points. So far I’ve done this. If the Trinity can be proven (which it has been) to be Who and What God is then it follows that it’s essential to salvation. But once again, I don’t need to defend the creeds.
I will now define my use of the word Biblical. “Biblical” refers to that teaching which is inherent in scripture and brings harmony to the text and our theology. The Trinity by this standard is clearly Biblical since nothing has ever been set forth to contradict or refute it. Searchingone1033’s problem seems to be the extra-Biblical language employed by the creeds, but as Robert Letham said, “This was necessary because heretics misused the Bible to support their erroneous ideas.”[1] In other words, both the orthodox and heterodox were using the same words to describe different things, therefore the orthodox needed to provide more precise definitions of what the Bible taught so the heretics couldn’t twist it.
It was said that I had no answer for the “wealth of information” provided in Searchingone1033’s arguments, but is this the case? As I stated, there was nothing of substance in disproving the Trinity therefore I presented an affirmative position that nullified all arguments against the Trinity. Once again, Jesus is a man, yes—a God-Man. To say that the apostles taught that Jesus was merely a man is ridiculous in light of their praying to Jesus (Acts 7:59; 1Corinthians 1:2) and their worship of Jesus (see last post), and their calling Jesus God (John 20:28). Even secular reference is made to this fact (see Pliny the Younger, Epistles X.96)
I’d like to correct the claim that I said Yahweh applying the title “Savior” to Himself meant that no one other than God could be called “Savior.” The claim was that only Yahweh is able to save, He alone is the Savior. He did after all say that there is NO SAVIOR BESIDE HIM. Of course we are referring to the salvation of our souls and the conferment of eternal life. Something the men in Judges could not do.
Jesus never corrected the men in John 5 in fact to say that He could do nothing of Himself only showed the essential unity of the Father and the Son. Jesus’ statement that the Father is greater was a reference to function, not ontology. Regardless of what my opponent would have you believe, functional subordination is conducive to Trinitarianism. And Jesus’ being a servant in no way detracts from His being God. Philippians 2:5-8 so eloquently explains the humiliation of the Son (cf. Heb. 2:7, 9).
The Granville Sharp rule is anything but ambiguous. It’s an irrefutable rule of grammar with absolutely no exception. And if my only proof of Jesus’ deity was based upon this rule then maybe I’d have reason to worry, but it has been clearly shown that the title “God” in one of a multitude of proofs.
Searchingone1033 is guilty of equivocation concerning the word “one” in John 10:30 and John 17:20-23. Clearly the contexts are completely different and the word “one” is used differently. But let’s imagine that Jesus did mean a unity of purpose and will in John 10… How would that hurt the Trinitarian position?
I’d note that HO ŌN is the present participle of EGŌ EIMI thus Jesus’ saying “I AM” is in keeping with the text. But that ignores the Isaiah parallels.
Concerning the Glory issue I’ll offer A.T. Robertson’s note:
Let me begin by stating that I unapologetically stand by my use of extra words in my last post, but because my opponent has cried foul I’ll limit this post to 1200 words.
OK… So we are back to claiming that I have to prove creeds. This has been maintained throughout and as I said in my very first post:
“Before beginning this debate Searchingone1033 asked me what kind of Trinitarianism I hold to and I told him that I hold to orthodox Trinitarianism as affirmed in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed and the Athanasian Creed. The question was then asked if I would be arguing based on these creeds and my response was “no.” I explained that I would be arguing my point based on the inspired Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Scriptures.”
I’ve held true to my word. My task was to debate my position on the 4 agreed upon points. So far I’ve done this. If the Trinity can be proven (which it has been) to be Who and What God is then it follows that it’s essential to salvation. But once again, I don’t need to defend the creeds.
I will now define my use of the word Biblical. “Biblical” refers to that teaching which is inherent in scripture and brings harmony to the text and our theology. The Trinity by this standard is clearly Biblical since nothing has ever been set forth to contradict or refute it. Searchingone1033’s problem seems to be the extra-Biblical language employed by the creeds, but as Robert Letham said, “This was necessary because heretics misused the Bible to support their erroneous ideas.”[1] In other words, both the orthodox and heterodox were using the same words to describe different things, therefore the orthodox needed to provide more precise definitions of what the Bible taught so the heretics couldn’t twist it.
It was said that I had no answer for the “wealth of information” provided in Searchingone1033’s arguments, but is this the case? As I stated, there was nothing of substance in disproving the Trinity therefore I presented an affirmative position that nullified all arguments against the Trinity. Once again, Jesus is a man, yes—a God-Man. To say that the apostles taught that Jesus was merely a man is ridiculous in light of their praying to Jesus (Acts 7:59; 1Corinthians 1:2) and their worship of Jesus (see last post), and their calling Jesus God (John 20:28). Even secular reference is made to this fact (see Pliny the Younger, Epistles X.96)
I’d like to correct the claim that I said Yahweh applying the title “Savior” to Himself meant that no one other than God could be called “Savior.” The claim was that only Yahweh is able to save, He alone is the Savior. He did after all say that there is NO SAVIOR BESIDE HIM. Of course we are referring to the salvation of our souls and the conferment of eternal life. Something the men in Judges could not do.
Jesus never corrected the men in John 5 in fact to say that He could do nothing of Himself only showed the essential unity of the Father and the Son. Jesus’ statement that the Father is greater was a reference to function, not ontology. Regardless of what my opponent would have you believe, functional subordination is conducive to Trinitarianism. And Jesus’ being a servant in no way detracts from His being God. Philippians 2:5-8 so eloquently explains the humiliation of the Son (cf. Heb. 2:7, 9).
The Granville Sharp rule is anything but ambiguous. It’s an irrefutable rule of grammar with absolutely no exception. And if my only proof of Jesus’ deity was based upon this rule then maybe I’d have reason to worry, but it has been clearly shown that the title “God” in one of a multitude of proofs.
Searchingone1033 is guilty of equivocation concerning the word “one” in John 10:30 and John 17:20-23. Clearly the contexts are completely different and the word “one” is used differently. But let’s imagine that Jesus did mean a unity of purpose and will in John 10… How would that hurt the Trinitarian position?
I’d note that HO ŌN is the present participle of EGŌ EIMI thus Jesus’ saying “I AM” is in keeping with the text. But that ignores the Isaiah parallels.
Concerning the Glory issue I’ll offer A.T. Robertson’s note:
“And the glory (kagō tēn doxan). Literally, “And I the glory,” with emphasis on “I.” It is the glory of the Incarnate Word (Bernard), cf. Joh. 1:14; Joh. 2:11, not the glory of the Eternal Word mentioned in Joh. 17:24.”[2]
Searchingone1033 actually helped the Trinitarian position by mentioning the Angel of Yahweh. Clearly when read in context there is no mistaking that the Angel of Yahweh is indeed Yahweh Himself. Many have concluded this to be the pre-incarnate Christ and with good reason. I can’t possibly cover all the passages so I’ll point readers to some references: Genesis 16:7-13; 21:12-18; 22:11-18; 31:11-13; Exodus 3:1-22; 13:21-22 cf. 14:19-20; Numbers 22:34-35 cf. 22:38 & 23:12; Judges 2:1-4; 6:12-23; 13:3-23.
If Searchingone1033 wants to argue that Jesus wasn’t worshipped then on what grounds would he conclude that God the Father was? There are simply too many examples of Jesus being worshipped to write them off as people merely “bowing down” to Him. I’d also note that the “Lord” in Matthew 18:26 was clearly referring to the Father (vs. 35). Revelation 3:9 is the exception, not the rule.
Answers to Questions
Searchingone1033 actually helped the Trinitarian position by mentioning the Angel of Yahweh. Clearly when read in context there is no mistaking that the Angel of Yahweh is indeed Yahweh Himself. Many have concluded this to be the pre-incarnate Christ and with good reason. I can’t possibly cover all the passages so I’ll point readers to some references: Genesis 16:7-13; 21:12-18; 22:11-18; 31:11-13; Exodus 3:1-22; 13:21-22 cf. 14:19-20; Numbers 22:34-35 cf. 22:38 & 23:12; Judges 2:1-4; 6:12-23; 13:3-23.
If Searchingone1033 wants to argue that Jesus wasn’t worshipped then on what grounds would he conclude that God the Father was? There are simply too many examples of Jesus being worshipped to write them off as people merely “bowing down” to Him. I’d also note that the “Lord” in Matthew 18:26 was clearly referring to the Father (vs. 35). Revelation 3:9 is the exception, not the rule.
Answers to Questions
1. Irrelevant (Creeds ain’t the issue)
2. John 17:3 places Jesus on the same level of “essentiality” as the Father.
3. Single passages do—Matthew 28:19.
4. It was taught by the apostles as seen in their benedictions and doxologies (1Corinthians 13:14; 2Thessalonians 3:5; 1Peter 1:2; Jude 20-21).
5. The necessity of the Trinity for salvation is the logical conclusion drawn from identifying God as Triune.
6. John refuted a Gnostic heresy (Docetism) that denied Jesus came in the flesh—they had no problem with His Deity.
7. The apostles did teach that Jesus was God (Acts 20:28) and they baptized in Jesus’ name [authority] (Acts 2:38, 8:12, 16, 10:48, 19:5) using the Trinitarian formula He prescribed (Matthew 28:19).
8. The apostles say no such thing, but Jesus would have needed to be a man to atone for sin since blood was necessary (Leviticus 17:11).
9. I’ll answer the question with a question – What evidence is there that the Greek and Hebrew words for “he” cannot refer to One Being?
10. Jesus is greater (Colossians 1:15-18).
11. Bodies are the only thing that die, but the debate isn’t ‘soul sleep’ it is the Trinity.
12. God incarnate can and did.
13. Yes, God can be seen by men (Genesis 32: 30; Exodus 24:11; Judges 13:22)—No, the Father cannot be seen by men (John 1:18; 6:46; 1John 4:12, 20.)
14. Irrelevant (Perhaps there was no argument against it)
15. Irrelevant (Who says the people needed convincing?)
16. I used 2 verses (Titus 2:13 & 2Peter 1:1) that are irrefutable grammatically via the Granville Sharp rule. I can list plenty stating that Jesus is God (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:6; 1Timothy 3:16 (TR); Hebrews 1:8; 1John 5:20)
2. John 17:3 places Jesus on the same level of “essentiality” as the Father.
3. Single passages do—Matthew 28:19.
4. It was taught by the apostles as seen in their benedictions and doxologies (1Corinthians 13:14; 2Thessalonians 3:5; 1Peter 1:2; Jude 20-21).
5. The necessity of the Trinity for salvation is the logical conclusion drawn from identifying God as Triune.
6. John refuted a Gnostic heresy (Docetism) that denied Jesus came in the flesh—they had no problem with His Deity.
7. The apostles did teach that Jesus was God (Acts 20:28) and they baptized in Jesus’ name [authority] (Acts 2:38, 8:12, 16, 10:48, 19:5) using the Trinitarian formula He prescribed (Matthew 28:19).
8. The apostles say no such thing, but Jesus would have needed to be a man to atone for sin since blood was necessary (Leviticus 17:11).
9. I’ll answer the question with a question – What evidence is there that the Greek and Hebrew words for “he” cannot refer to One Being?
10. Jesus is greater (Colossians 1:15-18).
11. Bodies are the only thing that die, but the debate isn’t ‘soul sleep’ it is the Trinity.
12. God incarnate can and did.
13. Yes, God can be seen by men (Genesis 32: 30; Exodus 24:11; Judges 13:22)—No, the Father cannot be seen by men (John 1:18; 6:46; 1John 4:12, 20.)
14. Irrelevant (Perhaps there was no argument against it)
15. Irrelevant (Who says the people needed convincing?)
16. I used 2 verses (Titus 2:13 & 2Peter 1:1) that are irrefutable grammatically via the Granville Sharp rule. I can list plenty stating that Jesus is God (Isaiah 9:6; John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Romans 9:5; Philippians 2:6; 1Timothy 3:16 (TR); Hebrews 1:8; 1John 5:20)
Notes
[1] Letham, Robert, The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship, (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2004) p. 2.
[2] Robertson, A.T., Word Pictures in the New Testament, John 17:22 (E-Sword Bible Software).
