Point 2: The Person or Being of the Father
The previous exchange reached an agreement that:
* The Bible does not describe God as three persons in any passage of Scripture
* The Trinity is derived by systematically associating texts which speak separately of the Father, son, and Holy Spirit
* The Trinity as defined in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan and Athanasian Creeds was developed over time from the 2nd century onwards, and was not declared in any creed to be an essential Christian belief until at least the 4th century
Readers, ask yourself if this is truly a doctrine taught by the apostles.
We move now to the Father. I believe in one God, the Father. My opponent believes in one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I quoted directly from the earliest creedal confessions, demonstrating that they expressed the belief that there is one God, who is one person, the Father.
However, my opponent claims ’The earliest creedal statements make no comments about God being only one Person’. I invite the readers to consider whether the following statements (taken from the earliest creedal statements), refer to one person or more than one:
* I believe in God the Father, Almighty
* We thank thee, holy Father… Thou, Almighty Master
* I believe in one God, the Father Almighty
* Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?
* I believe in God the Father Almighty
These statements refer to God as the Father, one person, and speak of Him using the singular pronoun (which is used for one person). Readers, ask yourself if the Father is one person or more than one. Even Trinitarians acknowledge the Father is one person.
My opponent wishes to claim that the following statements are equivalent:
* I believe in God the Father, Almighty; Maker of Heaven and Earth
* We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance, for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit
I ask the readers to consider if these statements are really equivalent. It is inaccurate to claim that the second statement is merely a ‘clarification’ of the first, because it contradicts it. The fact that the first statement was eventually abandoned when the Trinity was finally developed, and replaced in the creeds with the second, proves that the first statement was certainly not considered to be equivalent to the second, nor merely a ‘clarification’ of it. The original teaching was discarded, and replaced by another teaching entirely, which required a totally different description.
Readers, ask your Trinitarian friends which of these statements they confess. Ask them if they would accept the first statement as a true definition of God.
My opponent claimed ‘The scriptures cited in support of this all showed that Yahweh God created alone’, and yet explicit statements to this effect have been provided from both Scripture and the earliest creedal confessions (here). These statements do not simply say ‘God created alone’, but refer explicitly to a person, one person, the Father.
Likewise my opponent wishes to claim that the following statements are equivalent:
* I believe in God the Father, Almighty; Maker of Heaven and Earth
* I believe God the Father Almighty, and in God the Son Almighty, and in God the Holy Spirit Almighty, and that all three Persons were active in creation
My opponent wishes to claim that the first confession is equivalent to the second, on the basis that Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all involved in creation. But that is not what the first statement says. It says explicitly and exclusively that God, the Father (one person), is the maker of heaven and earth. The earliest confessions say nothing about Jesus or the Holy Spirit being 'active in creation', and only attribute creation to the Father.
Readers, ask your Trinitarian friends which statement they confess. The first statement was the earliest Christian creedal confession, but the Trinitarians who came later abandoned this statement for a completely different statement with which it is incompatible (here), since they did not believe this first statement to be a true expression of their belief.
My opponent wishes to claim that the first person pronoun does not necessarily refer to one person, saying ‘Trinitarians affirm One Being who is God, and claiming ‘If the One Being speaks as a whole then we’d expect to see singular pronouns’.
This isn’t an inadequate description of the Trinity, since Trinitarians do not simply ‘affirm One Being who is God’, but affirm one being who is three persons. Since their ‘One Being’ is three persons, then if the ‘One Being’ speaks as a whole the correct pronoun is the first person plural pronoun ‘we’, as Trinitarians acknowledge when they make their argument for Genesis 1:26.
In grammar, personal pronouns do not count beings, they count persons, and therefore when the singular pronoun is used, only one person can be speaking. When more than one person is speaking, the plural pronoun must be used.
My opponent accepts that the plural pronoun refers to more than one person, but wants to claim that singular pronoun can refer to more than one person also. This is bad grammar, since the singular pronoun actually refers to one person not more than one (check any English or Hebrew grammar reference), and it is bad theology from the Trinitarian perspective because it fails to distinguish the three persons, representing God as one person instead of three. In the Athanasian Creed this is condemned as 'confounding the persons'.
It is worth nothing that Trinitarians censure so called ‘Oneness Pentecostals’ (who believe that there is one God, who is one person, and that person is Jesus), for representing the plural pronouns as referring to only one person, so it is ironic that so many Trinitarians make an equally false argument by likewise abandoning the true meaning of the grammar when it comes to the singular pronoun.
The fact is that the Bible states explicitly concerning God that 'The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deuteronomy 6:6, Mark 12:29), and that 'he [one person] is one, and there is no one else besides him [one person]' (Mark 12:32), never describing God as 'three in one'. This is not a description of ‘One Being’ who is ‘three persons’, for pronouns actually count persons not ‘beings’, and since the singular pronoun is used then we are being told repeatedly that God is one person.
Far from being ‘glossed over’ as my opponent claims, Genesis 1:26 was expounded by me in some detail, but since my argument was never addressed and the passage has been raised again, I shall repeat it.
In Genesis 1:26 the plural pronouns 'us' and 'our' are used, but in verse 27 the noun and verb are in the singular, indicating that only one person is involved in the act of creation of man and woman, thus the translation 'God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them'.
This is repeated later in Genesis 2:8, 'he placed the man he had formed', Genesis 2:22, 'the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken... he brought her', Genesis 5:1-2, 'he made them... He created them male and female... he blessed them', and Christ described the creation of man and woman as the act of one person who was not himself (Matthew 19:4, 'he made them male and female').
The following is quote is from the footnote on Genesis 1:26 in the New English Translation, a standard Evangelical translation produced by a committee which is uncompromisingly Trinitarian. All emphasis is mine, and the ellipsis omits only a discussion of the ‘plural of majesty’ explanation, which it explains is wrong (and I agree):
‘Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text.
[...]
In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court.
In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.)
If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27).’
Objection to moderators: The argument that ‘We cannot conclude the Father to ever have not been the Father’ is an argument for the external existence of the son prior to his birth, and should be held over to the next point in the debate.
The previous exchange reached an agreement that:
* The Bible does not describe God as three persons in any passage of Scripture
* The Trinity is derived by systematically associating texts which speak separately of the Father, son, and Holy Spirit
* The Trinity as defined in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan and Athanasian Creeds was developed over time from the 2nd century onwards, and was not declared in any creed to be an essential Christian belief until at least the 4th century
Readers, ask yourself if this is truly a doctrine taught by the apostles.
We move now to the Father. I believe in one God, the Father. My opponent believes in one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I quoted directly from the earliest creedal confessions, demonstrating that they expressed the belief that there is one God, who is one person, the Father.
However, my opponent claims ’The earliest creedal statements make no comments about God being only one Person’. I invite the readers to consider whether the following statements (taken from the earliest creedal statements), refer to one person or more than one:
* I believe in God the Father, Almighty
* We thank thee, holy Father… Thou, Almighty Master
* I believe in one God, the Father Almighty
* Do you believe in God the Father Almighty?
* I believe in God the Father Almighty
These statements refer to God as the Father, one person, and speak of Him using the singular pronoun (which is used for one person). Readers, ask yourself if the Father is one person or more than one. Even Trinitarians acknowledge the Father is one person.
My opponent wishes to claim that the following statements are equivalent:
* I believe in God the Father, Almighty; Maker of Heaven and Earth
* We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance, for there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit
I ask the readers to consider if these statements are really equivalent. It is inaccurate to claim that the second statement is merely a ‘clarification’ of the first, because it contradicts it. The fact that the first statement was eventually abandoned when the Trinity was finally developed, and replaced in the creeds with the second, proves that the first statement was certainly not considered to be equivalent to the second, nor merely a ‘clarification’ of it. The original teaching was discarded, and replaced by another teaching entirely, which required a totally different description.
Readers, ask your Trinitarian friends which of these statements they confess. Ask them if they would accept the first statement as a true definition of God.
My opponent claimed ‘The scriptures cited in support of this all showed that Yahweh God created alone’, and yet explicit statements to this effect have been provided from both Scripture and the earliest creedal confessions (here). These statements do not simply say ‘God created alone’, but refer explicitly to a person, one person, the Father.
Likewise my opponent wishes to claim that the following statements are equivalent:
* I believe in God the Father, Almighty; Maker of Heaven and Earth
* I believe God the Father Almighty, and in God the Son Almighty, and in God the Holy Spirit Almighty, and that all three Persons were active in creation
My opponent wishes to claim that the first confession is equivalent to the second, on the basis that Trinitarians believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were all involved in creation. But that is not what the first statement says. It says explicitly and exclusively that God, the Father (one person), is the maker of heaven and earth. The earliest confessions say nothing about Jesus or the Holy Spirit being 'active in creation', and only attribute creation to the Father.
Readers, ask your Trinitarian friends which statement they confess. The first statement was the earliest Christian creedal confession, but the Trinitarians who came later abandoned this statement for a completely different statement with which it is incompatible (here), since they did not believe this first statement to be a true expression of their belief.
My opponent wishes to claim that the first person pronoun does not necessarily refer to one person, saying ‘Trinitarians affirm One Being who is God, and claiming ‘If the One Being speaks as a whole then we’d expect to see singular pronouns’.
This isn’t an inadequate description of the Trinity, since Trinitarians do not simply ‘affirm One Being who is God’, but affirm one being who is three persons. Since their ‘One Being’ is three persons, then if the ‘One Being’ speaks as a whole the correct pronoun is the first person plural pronoun ‘we’, as Trinitarians acknowledge when they make their argument for Genesis 1:26.
In grammar, personal pronouns do not count beings, they count persons, and therefore when the singular pronoun is used, only one person can be speaking. When more than one person is speaking, the plural pronoun must be used.
My opponent accepts that the plural pronoun refers to more than one person, but wants to claim that singular pronoun can refer to more than one person also. This is bad grammar, since the singular pronoun actually refers to one person not more than one (check any English or Hebrew grammar reference), and it is bad theology from the Trinitarian perspective because it fails to distinguish the three persons, representing God as one person instead of three. In the Athanasian Creed this is condemned as 'confounding the persons'.
It is worth nothing that Trinitarians censure so called ‘Oneness Pentecostals’ (who believe that there is one God, who is one person, and that person is Jesus), for representing the plural pronouns as referring to only one person, so it is ironic that so many Trinitarians make an equally false argument by likewise abandoning the true meaning of the grammar when it comes to the singular pronoun.
The fact is that the Bible states explicitly concerning God that 'The Lord our God is one Lord' (Deuteronomy 6:6, Mark 12:29), and that 'he [one person] is one, and there is no one else besides him [one person]' (Mark 12:32), never describing God as 'three in one'. This is not a description of ‘One Being’ who is ‘three persons’, for pronouns actually count persons not ‘beings’, and since the singular pronoun is used then we are being told repeatedly that God is one person.
Far from being ‘glossed over’ as my opponent claims, Genesis 1:26 was expounded by me in some detail, but since my argument was never addressed and the passage has been raised again, I shall repeat it.
In Genesis 1:26 the plural pronouns 'us' and 'our' are used, but in verse 27 the noun and verb are in the singular, indicating that only one person is involved in the act of creation of man and woman, thus the translation 'God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them, male and female he created them'.
This is repeated later in Genesis 2:8, 'he placed the man he had formed', Genesis 2:22, 'the Lord God made a woman from the part he had taken... he brought her', Genesis 5:1-2, 'he made them... He created them male and female... he blessed them', and Christ described the creation of man and woman as the act of one person who was not himself (Matthew 19:4, 'he made them male and female').
The following is quote is from the footnote on Genesis 1:26 in the New English Translation, a standard Evangelical translation produced by a committee which is uncompromisingly Trinitarian. All emphasis is mine, and the ellipsis omits only a discussion of the ‘plural of majesty’ explanation, which it explains is wrong (and I agree):
‘Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text.
[...]
In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court.
In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.)
If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of mankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27).’
Objection to moderators: The argument that ‘We cannot conclude the Father to ever have not been the Father’ is an argument for the external existence of the son prior to his birth, and should be held over to the next point in the debate.
