Last week, the question of the week was regarding the Trinity. I received a comment on that post with a link to a video that essentially denies the divinity of Christ and attempts to repudiate the claims of Trinitarian theology. I tried to simply leave a comment on that comment, but it was too lengthy. So I decided ot make it a post in and of itself. I know it is pretty meaty, but I think it is well worth some consideration and hope it leads to more conversation.
Hi Adam,
I will admit that I have yet to watch the video, but I did find your blog and check out a few of your posts, and this one in particular. I will try to go back and watch the video later. I noticed that I cannot comment on your blog, so this is really my only chance of having any dialogue.
I think your position has some flaws and is not the best explanation of Scripture as a whole.
Your issue seems to be one of Christology, namely that Jesus is not divine but is a created being who is deemed the Son of God. One question I did have reading your post was whether or not you think Jesus was always the Son of God or just became the Son of God at his baptism or what. The way you began to speak of it reminded me more of Greek mythology, but I could have misread it.
Rather than dispute the arguments you make at this point (though some of that is done here), I will simply pose some issues that I think are not dealt with adequately in your position. I think these elements are much more clearly dealt with from a Trinitarian perspective, or at least a perspective which says that Jesus is fully God just as he is fully man.
1. You are quick to point out that Jesus says "And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent" in John 17:3. But if you keep reading you will run into verse five: "And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." This seems to me to be clear evidence for the pre-existent Christ at the very least, if not more. I'm not sure that your position lends itself to a pre-existent Christ.
2. In John 20:28, Thomas sees and is invited to touch the wounds of Jesus and his response is "My Lord and my God!" If Jesus knew that he was not God, would he not rebuke such a declaration? Yet he gives no such rebuke. The only explanations that are apparent are either (a) Jesus is God and therefore does not rebuke Thomas or (b) Jesus is a liar and wants people to think that he is God. Only one of those options looks good to me.
3. 1 John 5:20 says "And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life." The Greek here is pretty tricky, but I agree with most translators and translating committees that this is a reference to Jesus being God.
4. You make an argument that Jesus saying that "I and the Father are One" in John 10:30 is a reference to unity of purpose. Why then in John 10:31 do the Jews pick up stones to kill him? Being of the same purpose with the Father would seem a good thing, yet they respond with deep animosity. This response is based not on unity of purpose, but on a claim of divinity.
5. In discussion with the Jews in John 8:58, Jesus says, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am." After this, they pick up stones in order to stone him. The reason for this is because he claims to be co-eternal with God the Father. He uses the epithet "I am," the same designation that translates YAHWEH in Exodus 3:14. It seems for such a strong response and for Jesus to use these words that it would almost have to be a claim of divinity.
6. You mention Philippians 2:11 in part of this post as well. What then do you do with the first part of this very famous "Christ hymn"? Philippians 2:5-7 says, "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men." If the wording of him being in the form of God is not enough, how can someone who is not God but simply man make himself nothing? It doesn't seem to fit unless it speaks of the incarnation of Jesus.
7. This is more of a philosophical argument, I admit, but I find it hard to believe that the death of a good or even a perfect man could have any effect on other people's standing before God. If he was a perfect man and no more, then I think that his death may have very well paid for his own way to heaven. I don't see how his goodness is imputed to me if he is not God. Like I said, that is merely a philosophical argument, but one that is worth thinking about nonetheless.
I hope that helps to clarify my view. I believe that it is also the view of orthodox Christianity throughout Scripture and throughout church history. The burden of proof lies with your view and I do not think you have provided Scriptural basis for Arianism.
Moreover, your post boasts as if being able to know everything about God is a good thing. I agree that we should press "further up and further in" as C.S. Lewis would put it, but I also believe that there are things I do not, cannot, and will not know about God. That is why he is God! If I perfectly understood him, then I myself would be a god.
Dear readers, please take time to consider. Take time to think. Take time to dig though God's Word. Pray for the Spirit (the third person of the Trinity) to illuminate your eyes, ears, and minds as you read and study. The Truth may seem allusive, and it may take hard work and deep thinking, but it is well worth it. May our love of Christ and the hope that is found in him spur us on to deeper affection, greater knowledge, and unquenchable desire.
Ryan
No comments:
Post a Comment