Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Biblical - A Blog About the Bible · PDF fileNick Norelli:...

2007

Nick Norelli amp ldquoHiddenNChrist2rdquo

February 2007

Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Biblical A UnitarianTrinitarian Debate

Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Biblical

A UnitarianTrinitarian Debate

Contents

HiddenNChrist2 Opening Statement (21507) 3

Nick Norelli Opening Statement (21507) 4

HiddenNChrist2 First Rebuttal (21607) 9

Nick Norelli First Rebuttal (21607) 11

HiddenNChrist2 Second Rebuttal (21907) 16

Nick Norelli Second Rebuttal (21907) 37

HiddenNChrist2 Closing Statement (22307) 42

Nick Norelli Closing Statement (22407) 43

HiddenNChrist2 Opening Statement (21507)

The orthodox definition of the Trinity is said to be A three-fold personality existing in one divine being or substance the union in one God of Father Son and Holy Spirit as three infinite co-equal co-eternal persons one God in three persons I do not believe that this is a biblical definition of God and His Son Jesus Christ It is in fact foreign to what the Bible teaches and I will show that

I have no axe to grind nor am I interested in trying to control your life or make you live up to any standard I impose upon you I love God our heavenly Father I love the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior I love the truth and I love Gods people My responsibility is to set forth the Word of God as I see it and Gods responsibility is to give the increase in the hearts of those who hunger and thirst after righteousness

I certainly recognize how important how volatile and how potentially polarizing is the subject of the Trinity In fact though it is sad to say throughout Church history from about 400 AD to about 1800 AD countless people were put to death for refusing to believe in the idea of one God in three persons One wonders why the proponents of this doctrine did not simply use reason and Scripture to convince those wayward people deserving of death

I want to believe whatever the Word of God says Anyone can simply believe what they are taught by men and most are doing just that

Nick Norelli Opening Statement (21507)

The Question

The question at hand is Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Biblical I affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is indeed Biblical But before setting forth the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to establish some definitions so as to avoid confusion or misrepresentation

ldquoBiblicalrdquo Defined

I will begin by defining exactly what Biblical means since this is adjective that we are using to either affirm the doctrine of the Trinity (my position) or deny it (my opponentrsquos position) Websterrsquos New Collegiate Dictionary defines the word Biblical as ldquo1 of relating to or being in accord with the Bible 2 suggestive of the Bible or Bible timeshelliprdquo1 By this definition I will prove that the doctrine of the Trinity is in fact Biblical Notice that this definition does not exclude the use of extra-biblical language in asserting whether or not something is Biblical so any attempt of my opponent to argue against the Trinity based on the use of extra-biblical terms will be futile As Robert Letham said in regard to extra-biblical language ldquoThis was necessary because heretics misused the Bible to support their erroneous ideasrdquo2

The Doctrine of the Trinity Defined

Now I will define the doctrine of the Trinity and subsequently define the terms used in this definition Very simply stated the doctrine of the Trinity is the teaching that there is one and only one indivisible Being of God namely Yahweh This Being is shared equally by three eternally distinct Persons namely the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit

Any claim of contradiction in the doctrine of the Trinity is rendered null and void by this definition because I am asserting two distinct categories Being amp Person An attempt to argue against tri-theism or modalism will be of no effect as I would join in on refuting such heresies My position is NOT tri-theism which asserts that there are three gods nor is my position that of modalism which asserts that God is one person who assumes three roles modes or manifestations

ldquoBeingrdquo Defined

The term Being is used in reference to WHAT Yahweh is It is an ontological description speaking of the naturesubstance of Yahweh To put it in the simplest terms it is the stuff that Yahweh consists of and this stuff is deity3

ldquoPersonrdquo Defined

1 ldquoBiblicalrdquo in Websterrsquos New Collegiate Dictionary (ed Henry Bosley Woolf Springfield MA G amp C Merriam 1977) 107 2 Robert Letham The Holy Trinity In Scripture History Theology and Worship (Phillipsburg NJ PampR 2004) 2 3 Please note that I do not intend to suggest that God qua God is a material being who consists of material ldquostuffrdquo Irsquom simply using ldquostuffrdquo as shorthand for whatever ldquodeityrdquo (ie whatever it is that makes God God) actually is

The term Person is not used in the sense of human so any attempt to argue as though it is will be useless It will be used in the sense that a Person is one who has intelligence self-awareness and the ability to reason The Persons are WHO Yahweh is

Hypostatic Union Defined

Now the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union will necessarily ensue in this debate when discussing the Person of the Son so I feel it necessary to define it now The Hypostatic Union is the teaching that within the one Person of Jesus there is united two natures ie Deity amp Humanity It is for this reason that any attempt to disprove Jesusrsquo Deity on the basis of scriptures that assert his Humanity will be useless As a Trinitarian I rightly accept the Humanity of Christ in addition to his Deity

Assertions Must be Supported

No doubt my opponent will attempt to state that the doctrine of the Trinity is illogical or unreasonable but the burden of proof will be on her to prove how this is so It must be shown exactly

which law of logic has been violated and in what way it has been violated It is not enough to simply make assertions these assertions must be proven with cogent arguments Likewise it is not enough to assert that the doctrine of the Trinity is not Biblical it must be shown how it is not Biblical

If the claim is made that the Trinity is not Biblical because the Bible teaches monotheism then that is a straw man argument because as per the above definition the Trinity is a monotheistic doctrine If my opponent asserts that God is one and only one person then they must support this statement from scripture Begging the question will not suffice as proof

Hermeneutics

When claiming a specific text means something or other it must be demonstrated how this is so

and that can only be done via careful exegesis of the text itself Failing to apply a historical-grammatical hermeneutic will be detrimental to either mine or my opponentrsquos position because any other hermeneutic can be shown to be flawed and therefore invalid For example the allegorical hermeneutic fails in that it is not objective and therefore scripture ceases to mean anything absolutely or universally The literalistic (ie woodenly literal) hermeneutic fails because it does not take into account the various literary genres employed in scripture and reduces many portions of the Bible to the absurd

Having just defined the doctrine of the Trinity as well as identifying the acceptable methodology of proving said doctrine we can move into the Biblical data for the Trinity

Logical Foundation of the Trinity

The doctrine of the Trinity is derived logically from observing no less than three self-evident truths of scripture

1 Monotheism There is only one eternal and immutable God that actually exists 2 There are three distinct Persons all shown to be eternal namely the Father the Son and

the Holy Spirit 3 Each of the three Persons is identified as God (ie Deity)

Monotheism

My opponent and I both share a belief in the doctrine of monotheism albeit a different understanding of the doctrine I affirm a Trinitarian monotheism while she affirms a Unitarian monotheism Even though there is agreement on the doctrine of one and only one God I will set forth the scriptural proof of this for the benefit of the readers

The Hebrew Scriptures plainly declare that ldquoYahweh is God there is no other besides himrdquo (Deut 435)

Israelrsquos declaration of faith the Shema says ldquoHear O Israel Yahweh our God Yahweh alonerdquo (Deut 64) in order to assert that Yahweh alone is the God of Israel and subsequently the rest of the universe The book of Isaiah is replete with such comments as ldquoI am the first and I am the last beside me there is no God Is there a God beside me Yea no Rock I know not anyrdquo (Isa 446 8) and ldquoI am Yahweh there is no other besides me there is no God I am Yahweh there is no otherrdquo (Isa 455-6)

Three Eternal Persons

There is no question that the Bible describes many many persons perhaps too many to accurately count but of this multitude of persons we find only three that are eternal ie the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit At this point we must assemble the data which proves the personality of all three persons as per the above definition

The Father has intelligence (Ps 405 13917 Isa 558) self-awareness (Gen 3511 Ps 4610) and rationality (Isa 118) Likewise the Son has intelligence (Luke 179) self-awareness (Matt 245) and rationality (Matt 1626) And finally the Holy Spirit has intelligence (Rom 827 1Cor 211) self-awareness (Acts 132) and rationality (Acts 1528)

Having established the personality of the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit letrsquos move on to the eternality of the three persons In a prayer for help Isaiah speaks on behalf of Israel saying ldquoYahweh our father our redeemer from everlasting is thy namerdquo (Isa 6316) Likewise the psalmist speaks of God saying

ldquofrom everlasting to everlasting you are Godrdquo (Ps 902) From this we conclude that the Father is indeed eternal

Now this brings us logically to the eternality of the Son Allow me to present a logical argument

1 One cannot be a Father without a child

2 God is a Father (Mal 210 Matt 721)

3 Therefore God has a child (Prov 304 John 316)

4 But God is eternal and immutable (Ps 902 Mal 36)

5 Therefore God must have always been a Father (John 175)

6 If God has always been a Father then God must have always had a Son

7 Therefore the Son of God is eternal (John 11 Mic 52)

At this point I must mention that I am not arguing for the eternality of the Son Incarnate but rather for the eternality of the Son There was a time before the Son was incarnate (John 11) The Son at a point in time added the nature of humanity to the eternal nature of deity that he has always possessed (John 114 Phil 26-8 1Tim 316)

Hebrews 914 clearly calls the Holy Spirit the ldquoEternal Spiritrdquo (πνεύματος αἰωνίου) but this can further be substantiated in that the Holy Spirit was present in the beginning (Gen 12) For the Spirit to be present in the beginning he must have existed prior to the beginning

Each Identified as God

As stated earlier there is no disagreement over the fact that the Father is God between the Unitarian and the Trinitarian The disagreement lies in the fact that the Unitarian must deny that the Father has been the Father from all eternity because they must adhere to the Son being a creation of God the Father thus the Unitarian conception of God as eternal immutable and Father is untenable from a scriptural standpoint

Now there are many ways in which to show the deity of each person of the Trinity Therersquos the standard listing of divine attributes and their application to each person but Irsquom going to approach this from the standpoint of God alone being the CreatorSavior of mankind

Creator

The Bible begins with the words ldquoin the beginning God created the heavens and the earthrdquo (Gen 11) clearly God is the Creator Yahweh stated that he makes all things stretched out the heavens alone and spread forth the earth by himself (Isa 4424 cf Job 98) yet we read God saying ldquoLet us make man in our image after our likenessrdquo (Gen 126) The use of plural pronouns is undeniable in this passage Yes the Father is said

to be ldquothe potterrdquo and mankind is the ldquowork of his handsrdquo (Isa 648) but the Father was not the only person

involved in creation as we are told that ldquoby the Word of Yahweh were the heavens made and all their host by the

Breath ( רוח = spirit) of his mouthrdquo (Ps 336)

We see this personal partnership confirmed in the New Testament which says that it is ldquothrough him (the WordSon) that all things came into existence and apart from him nothing that exists came into existencerdquo (John 13) Any attempt to depersonalize the divine Logos of Johnrsquos prologue or assert that the Logos is not one and the same person as the Son will be an exercise in futility as serious exegesis of John 11-18 supports both the personality and the eternal Sonship of the Logos We are also told that ldquoby him all things were created in heaven and on earth visible or invisible all things were created through him and for himrdquo (Col 116)

The Holy Spirit is also an active agent in creation as Genesis 12 shows clearly in addition to Jobrsquos statements that ldquoby his Spirit he adorned the heavensrdquo (Job 2613) The psalmist said to Yahweh ldquoyou send forth your Spirit and they are createdrdquo (Ps 10430) Elihu declared that ldquothe Spirit of God hath made merdquo (Job 334) Thus we are left with a contradiction unless we adopt the Trinitarian view of God A Unitarian God cannot account for a multi-personal creation in light of the scriptures that God alone creates

Savior

Isaiah 4311 informs us that besides Yahweh there is no savior Salvation in scripture is presented as a threefold process involving Justification Sanctification and Glorification which is accomplished via resurrection (1Cor 1542-44 53-54) The Bible affirms that we are justified by the Father (Rom 830) the Son (Acts 1339) and the Holy Spirit (1Cor 611) Likewise we are Sanctified by the Father (1Thes 523) the Son (Heb 211) and the Holy Spirit (1Pet 12) The believerrsquos glorification is procured by the resurrection of our bodies which is an act that the Father (1Cor 614) the Son (John 639-40 44) and the Holy Spirit (Rom 811)

Salvation is presented as the solitary act of the Trinitarian God The Father draws (John 644) the Son redeems (Tit 214) and the Spirit seals (Eph 113) Eternal life is to know the Father and the Son which is impossible without sanctification of the Spirit and belief in the truth (2Thes 213)

HiddenNChrist2 First Rebuttal (21607)

I agree that what is Biblical can include extra biblical words and phrases by definition this is very true This of course is essential for you because you are forced to depart from words and phrases that the Bible uses and I am fine with that when you do it I on the other hand will only use words and phrases that are actually in the Bible because my Theology is not forced to depart from them If you dont feel that you are forced to then dont but I am convinced that you will be forced to The best way for you to reply to this statement is not with rhetoric but with your actual text either you will use only words and phrases that are in the Bible or you will feel compelled to use others - simple And you will have to forgive me when I say something is or is not Biblical because I use a much more strict definition of the term When I say fully God and fully man isnt Biblical I mean that no one in the Bible ever states that phrase or that concept anywhere in the Bible Obviously you think the concept is Biblical because you believe it but simply stating it doesnt make it Biblical so you are quite frankly still required to use actual words and phrases that are in the Bible in order to prove that Jesus is fully God and fully man or I will simply dismiss your reasoning Like I have said you cannot prove the Trinity with the Trinity So you have a circular dilemma when you find yourself compelled to use extra-biblical words and phrases But use them all you like I expect it

I agree with you definition of the Trinity and your other definitions of terms as well Keep in mind for example though that we cannot just use the term Hermeneutics we have to actually use Hermeneutics And the Hypostatic Union cannot simply be stated it has to actually be shown in Scripture (which I do not believe you can accomplish) Like you said assertions must be supported not just stated

You then make multiple points all of which I disagree with and will pick one point to begin the debate You said




In fact the Father is God yes but the Father is the only true God according to both Jesus and Paul (John 173 Eph 46) You are correct that the Unitarian denies that God is a Father from all eternity because the Bible never teaches that anywhere God is a Father from the point in which he is a Father He creates the Angels who are the sons of God and He creates Adam and Eve who are His children and he begets the Messiah who is His only begotten son and he adopts us who are then His children Thats when He is a Father All you are doing is stating that God is a Father for all eternity because God is a Father for all

eternity That will not fly you didnt show Scripture teaching that anywhere All you did what show examples of when Hes a Father

God alone is actually not the Savior now He was back in the Old Testament before Jesus was born but now His son is also Savior So again you havent proven anything with Scripture And God is not the only Creator either Adam created this fallen world We create many things Jesus is the creator of the resurrected world If you said that God is the only creator in Gen 11 that would be a true statement that creation was just God not Adam not us not Jesus just God But you didnt say that You are combining different creations and trying to make them the same creation Col 116 is not the same creation as Gen 11 Paul isnt talking about the creation from back in Genesis Moses already covered it Paul is talking about what Jesus is creating now Two different creations cannot be said to be the same creation You have to actually use hermeneutics

-And you arent

Please offer your take on John 173 and Eph 46 if the Son is also God

Nick Norelli First Rebuttal (21607)

To be honest I was looking for a lot more in your rebuttal than what I got I raised multiple points and only one was addressed briefly Before we began this debate we agreed on a word limit of 2500 words per post I hoped that you would take advantage of this in trying to refute a position that you believe is in error Itrsquos nearly impossible to respond to your argument against the Trinity because as of now itrsquos nonexistent I mean itrsquos hard to even see if you presented an actual argument against the Trinity in your rebuttal other than that you donrsquot believe in it but I already knew that But you took the time to write so I will take the time to respond to what you have written

Letrsquos begin with your comment that Irsquom ldquoforcedrdquo to use words and phrases not found in the Bible because my theology forces me to do so In point of fact I can support absolutely everything I believe with the words inherent in scripture but then we would simply disagree on the meaning of those words So inevitably we would both be ldquoforcedrdquo to explain them with other words

The history of every doctrinal controversy shows this to be the case and this was obviously a problem in the first century as we have Peter commenting that the ignorant and unstable twist the scriptures to their own destruction (2Pet 316) Irsquom sure that you would agree that there are many false doctrines advanced using nothing but Biblical phraseology (eg Mormon polytheism) Itrsquos for this reason that Irsquove carefully defined my terms as to avoid the possibility of equivocation and to defuse any confusion that could ensue from a lack of precision in wording

You said

ldquoWhen I say fully God and fully man isnt Biblical I mean that no one in the Bible ever states that phrase or that concept anywhere in the Bible Obviously you think the concept is Biblical because you believe it but simply stating it doesnt make it Biblical so you are quite frankly still required to use actual words and phrases that are in the Bible in order to prove that Jesus is fully God and fully man or I will simply dismiss your reasoningrdquo

Letrsquos be clear in saying that a ldquophraserdquo and a ldquoconceptrdquo are two completely different things You have already admitted that extra-biblical phraseology is allowed when you said ldquoI agree that ldquowhat is Biblicalrdquo can include extra biblical words and phrases by definition this is very truerdquo Irsquom not contending that anyone has said the term ldquofully God and fully manrdquo in scripture (nor did I use the phrase in my opening statement) but I absolutely affirm that the concept is there To say that I have a circular dilemma is a meaningless statement in light of what you have already agreed to And as stated above and in my opening the use of extra-biblical terms is necessary when opposing parties are using the SAME terms to assert DIFFERENT things

Irsquod also like to point out that it is you who have been trapped in the circular prison of begging the question Your presupposition is that Jesus is not fully God and fully man and from this you simply conclude that it is so dismissing every argument to the contrary in the process I was very careful to reference the scriptures that do in fact prove the Hypostatic Union when I said ldquoThe Son at a point in time

added the nature of humanity to the eternal nature of deity that he has always possessed (John 114 Phil 26-8 1Tim 316)rdquo Not one of these passages was addressed

Your line of argumentation is very similar to the naturalist who assumes that nothing supernatural can occur then when presented with evidence of miracles concludes that they could not have been miracles because the supernatural cannot occur Itrsquos question begging at its best You begin by assuming the deity of the Father alone and then when presented with scriptures affirming the deity of the Son you dismiss them saying they cannot be teaching the deity of the Son because the Father alone has deity

And let me address the charge of ldquoproving the Trinity with the Trinityrdquo Yoursquoll have to excuse me for finding this statement less than meaningful as I have not attempted to do any such thing I clearly and carefully listed the logical foundation for Trinitarianism and then proceeded to demonstrate all three points from scripture Once again this is something that you have not addressed As I stated in my opening it is not enough to accuse me of illogic you will have to show what law of logic was violated and how it was violated You have failed to provide any evidence of circular reasoning on my part

And while the Hypostatic Union is not the question we are directly addressing I will answer the challenge to show that Jesus is ldquofully God and fully manrdquo from phrases found in the Bible Necessarily I will have to appeal to the Greek text of the New Testament since of course this is the language it was written in We shall begin with Johnrsquos Prologue

John begins saying ldquoIn the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was Godrdquo John here uses the verb ἦν (third person of εἰμί) in the imperfect tense and indicative mood in order to assert that the Word pre-existed the beginning whenever the beginning was The imperfect tense denotes a continuous action in the past therefore we can only conclude that the Word had always existed and the indicative mood is a simple statement of fact so it is a fact that the Word has always existed The same verb appears with the same construction two other times in this sentence in order to prove that the Word has always been with God and that the Word always was God Once again these are simple statements of fact (via the indicative mood) and continuous actions in the past (via the imperfect tense) which prove beyond refutation a personal distinction in ldquoGodrdquo

The personality of the Word is proven in the term πρὸς τὸν θεόν (ldquowith Godrdquo) as the preposition

pros with the accusative (here τὸν θεόν is in the accusative case) denotes intimacy fellowship a living union a motion towards or a facing (cf Matt 1356 2655 Mark 63 916 1Cor 166 2Cor 58) Meaning that the Word was ldquowithrdquo God in an intimate and personal sense he was not merely ldquonearrdquo God or ldquobesiderdquo God as the preposition παρὰ would be used to show such a concept So as I stated in my opening any attempt to depersonalize the Logos here is futile as the grammar and syntax of the text show the Logos to be personal

John continues saying ldquothe same was in the beginning with Godrdquo just to reemphasize what he had already stated Once again the verb ἦν appears with the same construction and the preposition πρὸς is used with the accusative denoting the Wordrsquos relationship to God

In the third verse we read that ldquoall things were made through him and without him was not anything made that was maderdquo Here πάντα is universal in regard to the created order and has reference to every single

created thing in particular The phrase rendered ldquowere maderdquo in the KJV is ἐγένετο and has the middle voice which denotes the subject (in this case the Word) either performing an action upon himself or performing an action for his own benefit The latter is true here which is in perfect agreement with the statement that ldquoall things were created through him and for himrdquo (Col 116)

But John continues to emphasize the Wordrsquos creative role in saying that ldquowithout him was not anything made that was maderdquo Quite literally the rendering of οὐδὲ ἕν is ldquonot even one thingrdquo showing that nothing that came into existence came into existence apart from the Word The verb γέγονεν (ldquowas maderdquo) is in the perfect tense which denotes an action completed in the past having lasting effects to the present needing never to be done again This alone refutes your idea that Jesus is the ldquocreator of the resurrected worldrdquo (whatever that may mean)

You charged me with mixing and matching creations while all you have done is assert these various creations without substantiating a single one of them There is no exegetical reason to view the fallen world as a ldquocreationrdquo of Adam In point of fact Adam created nothing but was given the task of naming Godrsquos creation the same creation referred to in John 13 Yes Adam sinned and brought sin into the world but that does not constitute ldquocreationrdquo in any sense of the word

Now you claimed that

ldquoCol 116 is not the same creation as Gen 11 Paul isnt talking about the creation from back in Genesis Moses already covered it Paul is talking about what Jesus is creating now Two different creations cannot be said to be the same creationrdquo

But once again merely asserting something is not proof of the assertion Paul is as clear if not clearer than John in saying that ldquofor in him [Christ] were created all thingsrdquo using the phrase τὰ πάντα (ldquoall thingsrdquo literally ldquothe allrdquo) in reference to the universe in general (as opposed to Johnrsquos use of πάντα in regard to each thing in particular) You also show a severe lack of interaction with the Greek text of this passage in stating that ldquoPaul is talking about what Jesus is creating nowrdquo as the present tense is not used at all in this verse The verb ἐκτίσθη (ldquocreatedrdquo) is in the aorist tense and indicative mood simply stating the fact of creation The same verb appears once more but this time in the perfect tense ἔκτισται once again as a reflection on that which has already been created and still exists to the present So yes two different creations cannot be the same creation but you have only begged the question in assuming two creations Clearly there is one creation in view

Paul then goes on to plainly list what things were created saying that all that are in heaven all that are in earth all that are visible all that are invisible whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers In Colossians Paul is refuting the Gnostic heresy that plagued the Church in his day Gnostic belief was dualistic they maintained that everything spiritual was good and everything physical was evil They taught that a demiurge (Yahweh) created the physical world and was therefore evil while the Christ created the spiritual world and was the true God Paul was showing that Christ is the creator of all things physical and spiritual while refuting their notion of dualism

Johnrsquos purpose was the same although John combated a very particular strain of Gnosticism called Docetism which denied the incarnation of Christ The Docetists believed that Christ only ldquoseemedrdquo (Gk δοκέω) to have come in the flesh Because of this belief that physical matter was evil they could not

accept that Christ had a human nature and therefore relegated his physical existence to an illusion They denied the crucifixion and bodily resurrection because of this This is why John was so careful to document the incarnation in John 114 saying that the ldquoWord became fleshrdquo (cf 1John 11) This irrefutably proves the Hypostatic Union but Irsquoll continue with Philippians 26-7

Because of the extreme clarity of Philippians 26-7 I wonrsquot spend nearly as much time as I did on John and Colossians This is also in part because I want to address your comments on the Father It is plainly states that Jesus ldquopresently exists in the form of Godrdquo The verb ὑπάρχων is a present active participle which denotes an ongoing action ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ means no less than ldquoin the nature of Godrdquo Kenneth

Wuest said ldquoThus the Greek word for ldquoformrdquo refers to that outward expression which a person gives of his inmost nature This expression is not assumed from the outside but proceeds directly from withinrdquo4

WE Vine comments ldquoAn excellent definition of the word is that of Gifford morphe is therefore properly the nature or essence not in the abstract but as actually subsisting in the individual and retained as long as the individual itself existsrdquo5 The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament says ldquothe phrase μορφῇ θεοῦ which Paul coins in obvious antithesis to μορφὴν δούλου can be understood only in the light of the context The appearance assumed by the incarnate Lord the image of humiliation and obedient submission stands in the sharpest conceivable contrast to His former appearance the image of sovereign divine majestyrdquo6

It is for this very simple reason that Jesus did not consider equality with God something to be grasped (as in a prize) it was already his And to argue that μορφῇ θεοῦ means anything less than the nature of God reduces the passage to absurdity because it must then be argued that μορφὴν δούλου means less than the nature of a servant (ie human) The end result is a Christ who is neither God nor man

You accused me of begging the question by just saying that the Father has always been the Father without showing it In point of fact I did show scriptures that show the Father to be the Father from all eternity I presented a logical argument with scripture references So far this argument has not been addressed other than to allege that I am begging the question So I will once again remind you that it is not enough to accuse me of illogic you must demonstrate what is illogical and how it is illogical

The argument is as follows

1 God is eternal meaning that he has always existed (Ps 902) 2 God is also immutable meaning that he cannot change (Mal 36 Jam 117) 3 But God is also a Father (Mal 210) 4 So because God has always existed and because God cannot change (either in his being or in

his person) then God must have always been a Father

4 Kenneth S Wuest Wuestrsquos Word Studies from the Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 1973 repr 2004) ldquoPhilippiansrdquo 362 5 WE Vine Vinersquos Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words with Topical Index (eds Merrill F Unger and William White Jr Nashville TN Thomas Nelson 1996) 251 6 Johannes Behm ldquoμορφῇrdquo in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ed Gerhard Kittel trans Geoffrey W Bromiley Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 1967 repr 2006) 4751

5 But a Father cannot be a Father without a Child 6 Therefore the Father has always had a child 7 If the Father has always had a child then his child cannot be a creature 8 So then the Fatherrsquos child must be co-eternal with him (John 11 175)

The logic is simple By denying that the Father has been the Father from all eternity you reject the immutability of the Father So as I said in my opening your position is untenable from a scriptural standpoint

Irsquod also ask that you refrain from the childish remarks about me not using hermeneutics Clearly I am doing exactly that I am employing a consistent historical-grammatical hermeneutic to interpret the texts before us

HiddenNChrist2 Second Rebuttal (21907)

Why were you looking for more You were unable to answer my simple question Again what is your take on John 173 and Eph 46 if Jesus is also God

As for you pretending that it is childish for me to point out that I dont see you using hermeneutics that is not only untrue it is in itself childish on your part You arent using hermeneutics You just arent And I have said why I dont believe you are There is nothing childish about that statement you simply disagree with it because you think that you are using hermeneutics

Your point about God being a Father for all eternity was not proven with Scripture You said God is also immutable meaning that he cannot change (Mal 36 Jam 117) but that does not mean that there was never a point when He was not a Father God becoming a Father doesnt change God it is a new relationship that God now has You are using a unique definition of the Father and Son relationship that only exists in the Trinity but you havent proven it with Scripture I am fine with believing this unique Father and Son relationship having always existed if Scripture supports it But Scripture doesnt support it So I will stick to what the words Father and Son actually mean A Father is a Father because he begets or creates or gives birth to a Son and he is not a Father prior to that Thats what the word means You are inventing a new definition with no support

I will now offer others scholarship that I agree with on verses that you have misrepresented and you can let me know if you think they are being childish too I dont plan on you replying to these points because they are extensive and I dont think you are really interested but if you do then great Below you will find actual hermeneutics and biblical scholarship that does not make up new concepts like father for eternity and also doesnt convolute Scripture to try to make it fit a dogma

John 11 In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God (NIV)

1 It is imperative that the serious student of the Bible come to a basic understanding of logos which is

translated as ldquoWordrdquo in John 11 Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus

Christ so in most versions of John logos is capitalized and translated ldquoWordrdquo (some versions even write

ldquoJesus Christrdquo in John 11) However a study of the Greek word logos shows that it occurs more than 300

times in the New Testament and in both the NIV and the KJV it is capitalized only 7 times (and even

those versions disagree on exactly when to capitalize it) When a word that occurs more than 300 times is capitalized fewer than 10 times it is obvious that when to capitalize and when not to capitalize is a translatorsrdquo decision based on their particular understanding of Scripture

As it is used throughout Scripture logos has a very wide range of meanings along two basic lines of

thought One is the mind and products of the mind like ldquoreasonrdquo (thus ldquologicrdquo is related to logos) and the

other is the expression of that reason as a ldquowordrdquo ldquosayingrdquo ldquocommandrdquo etc The Bible itself demonstrates

the wide range of meaning logos has and some of the ways it is translated in Scripture are account appearance book command conversation eloquence flattery grievance heard instruction matter

message ministry news proposal question reason reasonable reply report rule rumor said say saying sentence speaker speaking speech stories story talk talking teaching testimony thing things this truths what why word and words

Any good Greek lexicon will also show this wide range of meaning (the words in italics are translated from logos)

bull speaking words you say (Rom 1518 ldquowhat I have said and donerdquo)

bull a statement you make (Luke 2020 - (NASB) ldquothey might catch him in some statement)

bull a question (Matt 2124 ldquoI will also ask you one questionrdquo)

bull preaching (1 Tim 517 ldquoespecially those whose work is preaching and teaching)

bull command (Gal 514 ldquothe entire law is summed up in a single commandrdquo)

bull proverb saying (John 437 ldquothus the saying ldquoOne sows and another reapsrdquoldquo)

bull message instruction proclamation (Luke 432 ldquohis message had authorityrdquo)

bull assertion declaration teaching (John 660 ldquothis is a hard teachingrdquo)

bull the subject under discussion matter (Acts 821 ldquoyou have no part or share in this ministryrdquo Acts

156 (NASB) ldquoAnd the apostles came together to look into this matterrdquo)

bull revelation from God (Matt 156 ldquoyou nullify the Word of God ldquo)

bull Godrsquos revelation spoken by His servants (Heb 137 ldquoleaders who spoke the Word of Godrdquo)

bull a reckoning an account (Matt 1236 ldquomen will have to give accountrdquo on the day of judgment)

bull an account or ldquomatterrdquo in a financial sense (Matt 1823 A king who wanted to settle ldquoaccountsrdquo

with his servants Phil 415 ldquothe matter of giving and receivingrdquo)

bull a reason motive (Acts 1029 - NASB) ldquoI ask for what reason you have sent for merdquo) [16]

The above list is not exhaustive but it does show that logos has a very wide range of meaning With all

the definitions and ways logos can be translated how can we decide which meaning of logos to choose for

any one verse How can it be determined what the logos in John 11 is Any occurrence of logos has to be

carefully studied in its context in order to get the proper meaning We assert that the logos in John 11

cannot be Jesus Please notice that ldquoJesus Christrdquo is not a lexical definition of logos This verse does not say ldquoIn the beginning was Jesusrdquo ldquoThe Wordrdquo is not synonymous with Jesus or even ldquothe Messiahrdquo The word logos in John 11 refers to Godrsquos creative self-expression His reason purposes and plans especially as they are brought into action It refers to Godrsquos self-expression or communication of Himself This has come to pass through His creation (Rom 119 and 20) and especially the heavens (Ps 19) It has come through the spoken word of the prophets and through Scripture the written Word Most notably and

finally it has come into being through His Son (Heb 11 and 2)

The renowned Trinitarian scholar John Lightfoot writes

The word logos then denoting both ldquoreasonrdquo and ldquospeechrdquo was a philosophical term adopted by

Alexandrian Judaism before St Paul wrote to express the manifestation of the Unseen God in the creation and government of the World It included all modes by which God makes Himself known to man As His reason it denoted His purpose or design as His speech it implied His revelation Christian teachers when they adopted this term exalted and fixed its meaning by attaching to it two precise and definite ideas (1) ldquoThe Word is a Divine Personrdquo (2) ldquoThe Word became incarnate in Jesus Christrdquo It is obvious that these two propositions must have altered materially the significance of all the subordinate terms connected with the idea of the logos [17]

It is important to note that it was ldquoChristian teachersrdquo who attached the idea of a ldquodivine personrdquo to the word logos It is certainly true that when the word logos came to be understood as being Jesus Christ the understanding of John 11 was altered substantially Lightfoot correctly understands that the early meaning of logos concerned reason and speech not ldquoJesus Christrdquo Norton develops the concept of logos as ldquoreasonrdquo and writes

There is no word in English answering to the Greek word logos as used here [in John 11] It was employed to denote a mode of conception concerning the Deity familiar at the time when St John wrote and intimately blended with the philosophy of his age but long since obsolete and so foreign from our habits of thinking that it is not easy for us to conform our minds to its apprehension The Greek word logos in one of its primary senses answered nearly to our word Reason The logos of God was regarded not in its strictest sense as merely the Reason of God but under certain aspects as the Wisdom the Mind the Intellect of God (p 307)

Norton postulates that perhaps ldquothe power of Godrdquo would be a good translation for logos (p 323) Buzzard sets forth ldquoplanrdquo ldquopurposerdquo or ldquopromiserdquo as three acceptable translations Broughton and Southgate say ldquothoughts plan or purpose of God particularly in actionrdquo Many scholars identify logos with Godrsquos wisdom and reason

The logos is the expression of God and is His communication of Himself just as a ldquowordrdquo is an outward expression of a personrsquos thoughts This outward expression of God has now occurred through His Son and thus it is perfectly understandable why Jesus is called the ldquoWordrdquo Jesus is an outward expression of Godrsquos reason wisdom purpose and plan For the same reason we call revelation ldquoa word from Godrdquo and the Bible ldquothe Word of Godrdquo

If we understand that the logos is Godrsquos expression His plan purposes reason and wisdom it is clear that they were indeed with Him ldquoin the beginningrdquo Scripture says that Godrsquos wisdom was ldquofrom the beginningrdquo (Prov 823) It was very common in Hebrew writing to personify a concept such as wisdom No ancient Jew reading Proverbs would think that Godrsquos wisdom was a separate person even though it is portrayed as one in verses like Proverbs 829 and 30 ldquowhen He marked out the foundations of the earth I [wisdom] was the craftsman at His siderdquo

2 Most Jewish readers of the Gospel of John would have been familiar with the concept of Godrsquos ldquowordrdquo

being with God as He worked to bring His creation into existence There is an obvious working of Godrsquos power in Genesis 1 as He brings His plan into concretion by speaking things into being The Targums are well known for describing the wisdom and action of God as His ldquowordrdquo This is especially important to note because the Targums are the Aramaic translations and paraphrases of the Old Testament and Aramaic was the spoken language of many Jews at the time of Christ Remembering that a Targum is usually a paraphrase of what the Hebrew text says note how the following examples attribute action to the word

bull And the word of the Lord was Josephrsquos helper (Gen 392)

bull And Moses brought the people to meet the word of the Lord (Exod 1917)

bull And the word of the Lord accepted the face of Job (Job 429)

bull And the word of the Lord shall laugh them to scorn (Ps 24)

bull They believed in the name of His word (Ps 10612) [18]

The above examples demonstrate that the Jews were familiar with the idea of Godrsquos Word referring to His wisdom and action This is especially important to note because these Jews were fiercely monotheistic and did not in any way believe in a ldquoTriune Godrdquo They were familiar with the idioms of their own language and understood that the wisdom and power of God were being personified as ldquowordrdquo

The Greek-speaking Jews were also familiar with Godrsquos creative force being called ldquothe wordrdquo J H Bernard writes ldquoWhen we turn from Palestine to Alexandria [Egypt] from Hebrew sapiential [wisdom] literature to that which was written in Greek we find this creative wisdom identified with the Divine logos Hebraism and Hellenism thus coming into contactrdquo [19] One example of this is in the Apocryphal book known as the Wisdom of Solomon which says ldquoO God of my fathers and Lord of mercy who hast made all things by thy word (logos) and by thy wisdom hast formed maniexclldquo (91) In this verse the ldquowordrdquo and ldquowisdomrdquo are seen as the creative force of God but without being a ldquopersonrdquo

3 The logos that is the plan purpose and wisdom of God ldquobecame fleshrdquo (came into concretion or physical existence) in Jesus Christ Jesus is the ldquoimage of the invisible Godrdquo (Col 115) and His chief emissary representative and agent Because Jesus perfectly obeyed the Father he represents everything that God could communicate about Himself in a human person As such Jesus could say ldquoIf you have seen me you have seen the Fatherrdquo (John 149) The fact that the logos ldquobecamerdquo flesh shows that it did not exist that way before There is no pre-existence for Jesus in this verse other than his figurative ldquoexistencerdquo as the plan purpose or wisdom of God for the salvation of man The same is true with the ldquowordrdquo in writing It had no literal pre-existence as a ldquospirit-bookrdquo somewhere in eternity past but it came into being as God gave the revelation to people and they wrote it down

4 The last phrase in the verse which most versions translate as ldquoand the Word was Godrdquo should not be translated that way The Greek language uses the word ldquoGodrdquo (Greek = theos) to refer to the Father as well as to other authorities These include the Devil (2 Cor 44) lesser gods (1 Cor 85) and men with great authority (John 1034 and 35 Acts 1222) At the time the New Testament was written Greek manuscripts were written in all capital letters The upper and lower case letters were not blended as we

do today Thus the distinction that we today make between ldquoGodrdquo and ldquogodrdquo could not be made and the context became the judge in determining to whom ldquoTHEOSrdquo referred

Although context is the final arbiter it is almost always the case in the New Testament that when ldquoGodrdquo refers to the Father the definite article appears in the Greek text (this article can be seen only in the Greek text it is never translated into English) Translators are normally very sensitive to this (see John 1033) The difference between theos with and without the article occurs in John 11 ldquoIn the beginning was

the Word and the Word was with ldquothe theosrdquo and the Word was ldquotheosrdquo Since the definite article is

missing from the second occurrence of ldquotheosrdquo (ldquoGodrdquo) the usual meaning would be ldquogodrdquo or ldquodivinerdquo The New English Bible gets the sense of this phrase by translating it ldquoWhat God was the Word wasrdquo James Moffatt who was a professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Mansfield College in Oxford England and author of the well-known Moffatt Bible translated the phrase ldquothe logos was divinerdquo

A very clear explanation of how to translate theos without the definite article can be found in Jesus As They Knew Him by William Barclay a professor at Trinity College in Glasgow

In a case like this we cannot do other than go to the Greek which is theos en ho logos Ho is the definite

article the and it can be seen that there is a definite article with logos but not with theos When in Greek two nouns are joined by the verb ldquoto berdquo and when both have the definite article then the one is fully intended to be identified with the other but when one of them is without the article it becomes more an adjective than a noun and describes rather the class or sphere to which the other belongs

An illustration from English will make this clear If I say ldquoThe preacher is the manrdquo I use the definite article before both preacher and man and I thereby identify the preacher with some quite definite individual man whom I have in mind But if I say ldquoThe preacher is manrdquo I have omitted the definite article before man and what I mean is that the preacher must be classified as a man he is in the sphere of manhood he is a human being

[In the last clause of John 11] John has no article before theos God The logos therefore is not identified as

God or with God the word theos has become adjectival and describes the sphere to which the logos

belongs We would therefore have to say that this means that the logos belongs to the same sphere as

God without being identified with God the logos has the same kind of life and being as God Here the

NEB [New English Bible] finds the perfect translation ldquoWhat God was the Word wasrdquo [20]

5 It is important to understand that the Bible was not written in a vacuum but was recorded in the context of a culture and was understood by those who lived in that culture Sometimes verses that seem superfluous or confusing to us were meaningful to the readers of the time because they were well aware of the culture and beliefs being propounded by those around them In the first century there were many competing beliefs in the world (and unfortunately erroneous beliefs in Christendom) that were confusing believers about the identities of God and Christ For centuries before Christ and at the time the New Testament was written the irrational beliefs about the gods of Greece had been handed down This body of religious information was known by the word ldquomuthosrdquo which we today call ldquomythsrdquo or

ldquomythologyrdquo This muthos these myths were often irrational mystical and beyond understanding or explanation The more familiar one is with the Greek myths the better he will understand our emphasis on their irrationality If one is unfamiliar with them it would be valuable to read a little on the subject

Greek mythology is an important part of the cultural background of the New Testament

The myths were often incomprehensible but nevertheless they had been widely accepted as the ldquorevelation of the godsrdquo The pervasiveness of the muthos in the Greco-Roman world of the New Testament can be seen sticking up out of the New Testament like the tip of an iceberg above the water When Paul and Barnabas healed a cripple in Lystra the people assumed that the gods had come down in human form and the priest of Zeus came to offer sacrifices to them While Paul was in Athens he became disturbed because of the large number of idols there that were statues to the various gods In Ephesus Paulrsquos teaching actually started a riot When some of the locals realized that if his doctrine spread ldquothe temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited and the goddess herself who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world will be robbed of her divine majestyrdquo (Acts 1927) There are many other examples that show that there was a muthos ie a body of religious knowledge that was in large part incomprehensible to the human mind firmly established in the minds of some of the common people in New Testament times

Starting several centuries before Christ certain Greek philosophers worked to replace the muthos with

what they called the logos a reasonable and rational explanation of reality It is appropriate that in the

writing of the New Testament God used the word logos not muthos to describe His wisdom reason and plan God has not come to us in mystical experiences and irrational beliefs that cannot be understood rather He reveals Himself in ways that can be rationally understood and persuasively argued [For further study read Can we really know God]

6 In addition to the cultural context that accepted the myths at the time John was written a belief system called Gnosticism was taking root in Christianity Gnosticism had many ideas and words that are strange and confusing to us today so at the risk of oversimplifying we will describe a few basic tenets of Gnosticism as simply as we can

Gnosticism took many forms but generally Gnostics taught that there was a supreme and unknowable Being which they designated as the ldquoMonadrdquo The Monad produced various gods who in turn produced other gods (these gods were called by different names in part because of their power or position) One of these gods called the ldquoDemiurgerdquo created the earth and then ruled over it as an angry evil and jealous god This evil god Gnostics believed was the god of the Old Testament called Elohim The Monad sent

another god ldquoChristrdquo to bring special gnosis (knowledge) to mankind and free them from the influence of

the evil Elohim Thus a Gnostic Christian would agree that Elohim created the heavens and earth but he

would not agree that He was the supreme God Most Gnostics would also state that Elohim and Christ

were at cross-purposes with each other This is why it was so important for John 11 to say that the logos

was with God which at first glance seems to be a totally unnecessary statement

The opening of the Gospel of John is a wonderful expression of Godrsquos love God ldquowants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truthrdquo (1 Tim 24) He authored the opening of John in such a way that it reveals the truth about Him and His plan for all of mankind and at the same time refutes Gnostic teaching It says that from the beginning there was the logos (the reason plan power) which was with God There was not another ldquogodrdquo existing with God especially not a god opposed to God Furthermore Godrsquos plan was like God it was divine Godrsquos plan became flesh when God impregnated

Mary

7 There are elements of John 11 and other phrases in the introduction of John that not only refer back in time to Godrsquos work in the original creation but also foreshadow the work of Christ in the new administration and the new creation Noted Bible commentator FF Bruce argues for this interpretation

It is not by accident that the Gospel begins with the same phrase as the book of Genesis In Genesis 11 ldquoIn the beginningrdquo introduces the story of the old creation here it introduces the story of the new creation In both works of creation the agent is the Word of God [21]

The Racovian Catechism one of the great doctrinal works of the Unitarian movement of the 14th and 15th centuries states that the word ldquobeginningrdquo in John 11 refers to the beginning of the new dispensation and thus is similar to Mark 11 which starts ldquoThe beginning of the Gospel about Jesus Christrdquo

In the cited passage (John 11) wherein the Word is said to have been in the beginning there is no reference to an antecedent eternity without commencement because mention is made here of a beginning

which is opposed to that eternity But the word beginning used absolutely is to be understood of the subject matter under consideration Thus Daniel 81 ldquoIn the third year of the reign of king Belshazzar a vision appeared to me even unto me Daniel after that which appeared unto me AT THE FIRSTrdquo John 1527 ldquoAnd ye also shall bear witness because ye have been with me FROM the beginningrdquo John 164

ldquoThese things I said not unto you AT the beginning because I was with you And Acts 1115 ldquoAnd as I began

to speak the Holy Spirit fell on them as on us AT the beginningrdquo As then the matter of which John is treating is the Gospel or the things transacted under the Gospel nothing else ought to be understood here beside the beginning of the Gospel a matter clearly known to the Christians whom he addressed namely the advent and preaching of John the Baptist according to the testimony of all the evangelists [ie Matthew Mark Luke and John] each of whom begins his history with the coming and preaching of the Baptist Mark indeed (Chapter 11) expressly states that this was the beginning of the Gospel In like manner John himself employs the word beginning placed thus absolutely in the introduction to his First Epistle at which beginning he uses the same term (logos) Word as if he meant to be his own

interpreter [ldquoThat which is from the beginning concerning the Word (logos) of liferdquo 1 John 11] [22]

While we do not agree with the Catechism that the only meaning of beginning in John 11 is the beginning of the new creation we certainly see how the word beginning is a double entendre In the context of the new creation then ldquothe Wordrdquo is the plan or purpose according to which God is restoring His creation

8 To fully understand any passage of Scripture it is imperative to study the context To fully understand John 11 the rest of the chapter needs to be understood as well and the rest of the chapter adds more understanding to John 11 We believe that these notes on John 11 read together with the rest of John 1 and our notes on John 13 John 110 John 114 John 115 and John 118 will help make the entire first chapter of John more understandable

For the most exhaustive work we have on John 11 click here

Broughton and Southgate pp 238-248

Buzzard pp 111-119

Morgridge pp 107-109

Norton pp 307-374

Robinson Honest to God p 71

John 13 All things were made by him and without him was not anything made that was made (KJV)

1 Trinitarians use this verse to show that Christ made the world and its contents However that is not the case What we have learned from the study of John 11 above will be helpful in properly interpreting this verse

John 11-3 (1) In the beginning was the Word [the wisdom plan or purpose of God] and the Word was with God and the Word was divine (2) The same was in the beginning with God (3) All things were made by it [the Word] and without it was not anything made that was made

2 The pronoun in verse 3 can legitimately be translated as ldquoitrdquo It does not have to be translated as ldquohimrdquo and it does not have to refer to a ldquopersonrdquo in any way A primary reason why people get the idea that ldquothe Wordrdquo is a person is that the pronoun ldquoherdquo is used with it The Greek text does of course have the masculine pronoun because like many languages including Spanish French German Latin Hebrew etc the Greek language assigns a gender to all nouns and the gender of the pronoun must agree with the

gender of the noun In French for example a table is feminine la table while a desk is masculine le bureau and feminine and masculine pronouns are required to agree with the gender of the noun In translating from French to English however we would never translate ldquothe table sherdquo or ldquothe desk herdquo And we would never insist that a table or desk was somehow a person just because it had a masculine or feminine pronoun We would use the English designation ldquoitrdquo for the table and the desk in spite of the fact that in the original language the table and desk have a masculine or feminine gender

This is true in the translation of any language that assigns a gender to nouns In Spanish a car is masculine el carro while a bicycle is feminine la bicicleta Again no English translator would translate ldquothe car herdquo or ldquothe bicycle sherdquo People translating Spanish into English use the word ldquoitrdquo when referring to a car or bicycle For another example a Greek feminine noun is ldquoanchorrdquo (agkura) and literally it would demand a feminine pronoun Yet no English translator would write ldquoI accidentally dropped the anchor and she fell through the bottom of the boatrdquo We would write ldquoitrdquo fell through the

bottom of the boat In Greek ldquowindrdquo (anemos) is masculine but we would not translate it into English

that way We would say ldquoThe wind was blowing so hard it blew the trash cans overrdquo not ldquothe wind he

blew the trash cans overrdquo When translating from another language into English we have to use the English language properly Students who are studying Greek Hebrew Spanish French German etc quickly discover that one of the difficult things about learning the language is memorizing the gender of each noun something we do not have in the English language

Greek is a language that assigns gender to nouns For example in Greek ldquowordrdquo is masculine while ldquospiritrdquo is neuter All languages that assign gender to nouns demand that pronouns referring to the noun have the same gender as the noun Once we clearly understand that the gender of a pronoun is determined by the gender of the noun we can see why one cannot build a doctrine on the gender of a noun and its agreeing pronoun No student of the Bible should take the position that ldquothe Wordrdquo is somehow a masculine person based on its pronoun any more than he would take the position that a book

was a feminine person or a desk was a masculine person because that is the gender assigned to those nouns in French Indeed if one tried to build a theology based on the gender of the noun in the language great confusion would result

In doctrinal discussions about the holy spirit some people assert that it is a person because the Bible has ldquoherdquo and ldquohimrdquo in verses that refer to it So for example John 141617 reads

John 1416 and 17 (16) And I will ask the Father and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever (17) the Spirit of truth The world cannot accept him because it neither sees him nor knows him But you know him for he lives with you and will be in you

In the Greek language ldquospiritrdquo is neuter and thus is associated with the neuter pronoun ldquoitrdquo So for example verse 17 above should be literally translated as ldquoThe world cannot accept it (the spirit) because it neither sees it nor knows it But you know it for it lives with you and will be in yourdquo Any Analytical Lexicon will confirm that the pronouns in this verse that refer to spirit are neuter not masculine

If the pronouns in the Greek text are neuter why do the translators translate them as ldquoherdquo and ldquohimrdquo The answer to that question is that translators realize that when you are dealing with a language that assigns genders to nouns it is the context and general understanding of the subject at hand that determines how the pronouns are to be translated into English as we have seen in the above examples (desk bicycle car wind etc) It is amazing to us that Trinitarian translators know that the same neuter

pronoun can be converted to an English masculine pronoun (eg ldquoitrdquo becomes ldquoherdquo) but are evidently not

as willing to see that a Greek masculine pronoun could be translated as an English neuter pronoun (eg ldquohe becomes ldquoitrdquo) if the subject matter and context warrant it Linguistically both conversions could be completely legitimate But any change depends not on the gender assigned by the Greek language but rather on the subject matter being discussed For example the logos is Godrsquos plan and should be an itrdquo and ldquoholy spiritrdquo when used as Godrsquos gift should also be translated into English as an ldquoitrdquo To the un-indoctrinated mind plans and gifts are obviously not ldquopersonsrdquo

Trinitarian Christians believe ldquothe Holy Spiritrdquo is a masculine being and translate the pronouns that refer to it as ldquoherdquo in spite of the fact that the noun is neuter and call for an ldquoitrdquo not a ldquoherdquo in Greek Similarly even though the masculine noun calls for the masculine pronoun in the Greek language it would still not be translated into English as the masculine pronoun ldquoherdquo unless it could be shown from the context that

the subject was actually a male ie a man a male animal or God (who represents Himself as masculine in the Bible) So the question to answer when dealing with ldquothe Wordrdquo ldquothe Comforterrdquo and ldquothe holy spiritrdquo is not ldquoWhat gender are the noun and associated pronoun in the Greek languagerdquo Rather we need to ask ldquoDo those words refer to a masculine person that would require a ldquoherdquo in English or do they refer to a ldquothingrdquo that would require the pronoun ldquoitrdquordquo When ldquoholy spiritrdquo is referring to the power of God in action or Godrsquos gift it is properly an ldquoitrdquo The same is true for the ldquocomforterrdquo (For a much more exhaustive treatment of the subject of holy spirit see The Gift of Holy Spirit available from Christian Educational Services

In Hebrew ldquospiritrdquo is feminine and must have feminine pronouns while in Greek ldquospiritrdquo is neuter and takes neuter pronouns Thus a person trying to build a theology on the basis of the gender of the noun and pronoun would find himself in an interesting situation trying to explain how it could be that ldquothe spiritrdquo of God somehow changed genders as the New Testament was written

Because the translators of the Bible have almost always been Trinitarians and since ldquothe Wordrdquo has almost always been erroneously identified with the person of Christ the pronouns referring to the logos

in verse 3 have almost always been translated as ldquohimrdquo However if in fact the logos is the plan purpose wisdom and reason of God then the Greek pronoun should be translated into the English as ldquoitrdquo To demand that ldquothe Wordrdquo is a masculine person and therefore a third part of a three-part Godhead because the pronouns used when referring to it are masculine is poor scholarship

3 Viewed in light of the above translation the opening of the Gospel of John reveals wonderful truth and is also a powerful polemic against primary heresies of the day We have already seen (under John 11) that Gnostics were teaching that in the hierarchy of gods the god Elohim and the god Christ were actually opposed to each other Also active at the time John was written were the Docetists who were teaching that Christ was a spirit being and only appeared to be flesh The opening of Johnrsquos Gospel shows that in the beginning there was only one God not many gods It also shows that this God had reason wisdom a plan or purpose within Himself which became flesh in Jesus Christ Thus God and Christ are not at cross purposes as some were saying and Christ was not a spirit being as others were saying

The opening of John reveals this simple truth in a beautiful way ldquoIn the beginning there was one God who had reason purpose and a plan which was by its very nature and origin divine It was through and on account of this reason plan and purpose that everything was made Nothing was made outside its scope Then this plan became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ and tabernacled among usrdquo Understanding the opening of John this way fits with the whole of Scripture and is entirely acceptable from a translation standpoint

Racovian Catechism pp 86-88

Snedeker pp 411 and 412

John 114a The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us (NIV)

1 The ldquoWordrdquo is the wisdom plan or purpose of God (see John 11) and the Word ldquobecame fleshrdquo as Jesus Christ Thus Jesus Christ was ldquothe Word in the fleshrdquo which is shortened to ldquothe Wordrdquo for ease of speaking Scripture is also the Word but it is the Word in writing Everyone agrees that the ldquoWordrdquo in writing had a beginning So did the ldquoWordrdquo in the flesh In fact the Greek text of Matthew 118 says that very clearly ldquoNow the beginning of Jesus Christ was in this mannerrdquo Some ancient scribes were so uncomfortable with the idea of Jesus having a ldquobeginningrdquo that they tried to alter the Greek text to read ldquobirthrdquo and not ldquobeginningrdquo but they were unsuccessful The modern Greek texts all read ldquobeginningrdquo (genesis) in Matthew 118 ldquoBirthrdquo is considered an acceptable translation of ldquogenesisrdquo since the beginning of some things is birth and so most translations read ldquobirthrdquo in Matthew 118 Nevertheless the proper understanding of Matthew 118 is the ldquobeginningrdquo (genesis) of Jesus Christ

In the beginning God had a plan a purpose which ldquobecame fleshrdquo when Jesus was conceived To make John 114 support the Trinity there must first be proof that Jesus existed before he was born and was called ldquothe Wordrdquo We do not believe that such proof exists There is a large body of evidence however that Jesus was foreknown by God and that the ldquothe Wordrdquo refers to Godrsquos plan or purpose We contend that the meaning of the verse is straightforward God had a plan (the Word) and that plan became flesh when Jesus was conceived Thus Jesus became ldquothe Word in the fleshrdquo

2 It is quite fair to ask why John would say ldquothe Word became fleshrdquo a statement that seems so obvious to us Of course Jesus Christ was flesh He was born grew ate and slept and Scripture calls him a man However what is clear to us now was not at all clear in the early centuries of the Christian era In our notes on John 11 we explain that the Bible must be understood in the context of the culture in which it was written At the time of Johnrsquos writing the ldquoDoceticrdquo movement was gaining disciples inside Christianity (ldquoDoceticrdquo comes from the Greek word for ldquoto seemrdquo or ldquoto appearrdquo) Docetic Christians believed Jesus was actually a spirit being or god who only ldquoappearedrdquo to be human Some Docetists did not believe Jesus even actually ate or drank but only pretended to do so Furthermore some Jews thought that Jesus was an angel In theological literature theologians today call this ldquoangel-Christologyrdquo John 114 was not written to show that Jesus was somehow pre-existent and then became flesh It was to show that Godrsquos plan for salvation ldquobecame fleshrdquo ie Jesus was not a spirit god or angelic being but rather a flesh-and-blood man A very similar thing is said in 1 John 42 that if you do not believe Jesus has come in the flesh you are not of God

Hyndman p 113


John 175 And now Father glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began (NIV)

1 There is no question that Jesus ldquoexistedrdquo before the world began But did he exist literally as a person or in Godrsquos foreknowledge ldquoin the mind of Godrdquo Both Christ and the corporate be in the Body of Christ the Church existed in Godrsquos foreknowledge before being alive Christ was the ldquologosrdquo the ldquoplanrdquo of God from the beginning and he became flesh only when he was conceived It is Trinitarian bias that causes people to read an actual physical existence into this verse rather than a figurative existence in the mind of God When 2 Timothy 19 says that each Christian was given grace ldquobefore the beginning of timerdquo no one tries to prove that we were actually alive with God back then Everyone acknowledges that we were ldquoin the mind of Godrdquo ie in Godrsquos foreknowledge The same is true of Jesus Christ His glory was ldquowith the Fatherrdquo before the world began and in John 175 he prayed that it would come into manifestation

2 Jesus was praying that he would have the glory the Old Testament foretold which had been in the mind of God the Father since before the world began and would come into concretion Trinitarians however teach that Jesus was praying about glory he had with God many years before his birth and they assert that this proves he had access to the mind and memory of his ldquoGod naturerdquo However if as a man Jesus ldquorememberedrdquo being in glory with the Father before the world began then he would have known he was God in every sense He would not have thought of himself as a ldquomanrdquo at all If he knew he was God he would not and could not have been ldquotempted in every way just as we arerdquo because nothing he encountered would have been a ldquorealrdquo temptation to him He would have had no fear and no thought of failure There is no real sense in which Scripture could actually say he was ldquomade like his brothers in every wayrdquo (Heb 217) because he would not have been like us at all Furthermore Scripture says that Jesus ldquogrewrdquo in knowledge and wisdom That would not really be true if Christ had access to some type of God-nature with infinite knowledge and wisdom

We believe that John 175 is a great example of a verse that demonstrates the need for clear thinking concerning the doctrine of the Trinity The verse can clearly be interpreted in a way that is honest and biblically sound and shows that Christ was a man but was in the foreknowledge of God as Godrsquos plan for the salvation of mankind It can also be used the way Trinitarians use it to prove the Trinity However when it is used that way it reveals a Christ that we as Christians cannot truly identify with We do not have a God-nature to help us when we are tempted or are in trouble or lack knowledge or wisdom The Bible says that Christ can ldquosympathize with our weaknessrdquo because he was ldquotempted in every way just as we arerdquo (Heb 415) The thrust of that verse is very straightforward Because Christ was

just like we are and was tempted in every way that we are he can sympathize with us However if he was not ldquojust as we arerdquo then he would not be able to sympathize with us We assert that making Christ a God-man makes it impossible to really identify with him

3 Jesusrdquo prayer in John 17 sets a wonderful example for us as Christians He poured out his heart to his Father ldquothe only true Godrdquo (John 173) and prayed that the prophecies of the Old Testament about him would be fulfilled

4 For Christrsquos relation to the Plan of God see notes on John 11 For more on Christ in Godrsquos foreknowledge see the note on John 858



Philippians 26-8 (6) Who although He existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped (7) but emptied Himself taking the form of a bond-servant and being made in the likeness of men (8) Being found in appearance as a man He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death even death on a cross (NASB)

1 These verses in Philippians are very important to Trinitarian doctrine (although they have also caused division among Trinitarians) and they must be dealt with thoroughly There are several arguments wrapped into these two verses and we will deal with them point by point First many Trinitarians assert that the word ldquoformrdquo which is the Greek word morphe refers to Christrsquos inner nature as God This

is so strongly asserted that in verse 6 the NIV has ldquobeing in very nature Godrdquo We do not believe that

morphe refers to an ldquoinner essential naturerdquo and we will give evidence that it refers to an outer form

Different lexicons have opposing viewpoints about the definition of morphe to such a degree that we can think of no other word defined by the lexicons in such contradictory ways We will give definitions from lexicons that take both positions to show the differences between them

Vinerdquos Lexicon has under ldquoformrdquo ldquoproperly the nature or essence not in the abstract but as actually subsisting in the individualiexclit does not include in itself anything ldquoaccidentalrdquo or separable such as particular modes of manifestationrdquo Using lexicons like Vinerdquos Trinitarians boldly make the case that the

ldquonaturerdquo underlying Jesusrdquo human body was God Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphe which

they assert refers to an ldquoinner essential naturerdquo with schema (in verse 8 and translated ldquoappearancerdquo above) which they assert refers to the outward appearance We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphe and concluded that Christ must be God A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them However we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous In addition we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars while many Trinitarian sources agree

that morphe refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature

A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vinersquos Lexicon In Bullingerrsquos Critical Lexicon morphe is given a one-word definition ldquoformrdquo The scholarly lexicon

by Walter Bauer translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich has under morphe ldquoform outward

appearance shaperdquo The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament edited by Gerhard Kittel has ldquoform

external appearancerdquo Kittel also notes that morphe and schema are often interchangeable Robert Thayer

in his well-respected lexicon has under morphe ldquothe form by which a person or thing strikes the vision

the external appearancerdquo Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphe) of their parents something easily noticed in every culture Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphe refer to that which is intrinsic and essential in contrast to that which is outward and accidental but says ldquothe distinction is rejected by manyrdquo

The above evidence shows that scholars disagree about the use of the word morphe in Philippians When

scholars disagree and especially when it is believed that the reason for the disagreement is due to bias over a doctrinal issue it is absolutely essential to do as much original research as possible The real definition of morphe should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament After all the word was a common one in the Greek world We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphe does not refer to Christrsquos inner essential being but rather to an outward appearance

From secular writings we learn that the Greeks used morphe to describe when the gods changed their

appearance Kittel points out that in pagan mythology the gods change their forms (morphe) and especially notes Aphrodite Demeter and Dionysus as three who did This is clearly a change of appearance not nature Josephus a contemporary of the Apostles used morphe to describe the shape of

statues (Bauerrdquos Lexicon)

Other uses of morphe in the Bible support the position that morphe refers to outward appearance The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 2413-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus Mark tells us that Jesus appeared ldquoin a different form (morphe)rdquo to these two men so that they did not recognize him (1612) This is very clear Jesus did not have a different ldquoessential naturerdquo when he appeared to the two disciples He simply had a different outward appearance

More evidence for the word morphe referring to the outward appearance can be gleaned from the

Septuagint a Greek translation of the Old Testament from about 250 BC It was written because of the large number of Greek-speaking Jews in Israel and the surrounding countries (a result of Alexander the Greatrdquos conquest of Egypt in 332 BC and his gaining control over the territory of Israel) By around 250 BC so many Jews spoke Greek that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was made which today is called the Septuagint The Septuagint greatly influenced the Jews during the New Testament times Some of the quotations from the Old Testament that appear in the New Testament are actually from the Septuagint not the Hebrew text Furthermore there were many Greek-speaking Jews in the first-century Church In fact the first recorded congregational conflict occurred when Hebrew-speaking Jews showed prejudice against the Greek-speaking Jews (Acts 61)

The Jews translating the Septuagint used morphe several times and it always referred to the outward appearance Job says ldquoA spirit glided past my face and the hair on my body stood on end It stopped but I could not tell what it was A form (morphe) stood before my eyes and I heard a hushed voice (Job 415

and 16) There is no question here that morphe refers to the outward appearance Isaiah has the word

morphe in reference to man-made idols ldquoThe carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a

marker he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses He shapes it in the form (morphe) of man of man in all his glory that it may dwell in a shrinerdquo (Isa 4413) It would be absurd to assert that morphe referred to ldquothe essential naturerdquo in this verse as if a wooden carving could have the ldquoessential naturerdquo of man The verse is clear the idol has the ldquooutward appearancerdquo of a man According to Daniel 319 after Shadrach Meshach and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzarrdquos image he became enraged and ldquothe form (morphe) of his countenancerdquo changed The NASB says ldquohis facial expressionrdquo changed Nothing in his nature changed but the people watching could see that his outward appearance changed

For still more documentation that the Jews used morphe to refer to the outward appearance we turn to

what is known as the ldquoApocryphardquo books written between the time of Malachi and Matthew ldquoApocryphardquo literally means ldquoobscurerdquo or ldquohidden awayrdquo and these books are rightly not accepted by most Protestants as being part of the true canon but are accepted by Roman Catholics and printed in Catholic Bibles Our interest in them is due to the fact that they were written near the time of the writing of the New Testament were known to the Jews at that time and contain the word morphe In the

Apocrypha morphe is used in the same way that the Septuagint translators use it ie as outward appearance For example in ldquoThe Wisdom of Solomonrdquo is the following ldquoTheir enemies heard their voices but did not see their formsrdquo (181) A study of morphe in the Apocrypha will show that it always referred to the outer form

There is still more evidence Morphe is the root word of some other New Testament words and is also used

in compound words These add further support to the idea that morphe refers to an appearance or

outward manifestation The Bible speaks of evil men who have a ldquoformrdquo (morphosis) of godliness (2 Tim 35) Their inner nature was evil but they had an outward appearance of being godly On the Mount of Transfiguration Christ was ldquotransformedrdquo (metamorphoomai) before the apostles (Matt 172 Mark 92) They did not see Christ get a new nature rather they saw his outward form profoundly change Similarly we Christians are to be ldquotransformedrdquo (metamorphoomai) by renewing our minds to Scripture We do not get a new nature as we renew our minds because we are already ldquopartakers of the divine nature (2 Pet 14) but there will be a change in us that we and others can tangibly experience Christians who transform from carnal Christians with all the visible activities of the flesh that lifestyle entails to being Christ-like Christians change in such a way that other people can ldquoseerdquo the difference 2 Corinthians 318 says the same thing when it says that Christians will be ldquochangedrdquo (metamorphoomai) into the image of Christ That we will be changed into an ldquoimagerdquo shows us that the change is something visible on the outside

We would like to make one more point before we draw a conclusion about ldquomorpherdquo If the point of the

verse is to say that Jesus is God then why not just say it Of course God has the ldquoessential naturerdquo of God

so why would anyone make that point This verse does not say ldquoJesus being Godrdquo but rather ldquobeing in the form of Godrdquo Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way

So what can we conclude about morphe The Philippian church consisted of Jews and converted Greeks

From the Septuagint and their other writings the Jews were familiar with morphe referring to the outward appearance including the form of men and idols To the Greeks it also referred to the outward appearance including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues The only other New Testament use of morphe outside Philippians is in Mark and there it refers to the outward

appearance Also the words related to morphe clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance

We assert the actual evidence is clear the word morphe refers to an outward appearance or manifestation Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God so much so that he said ldquoHe who has seen me has seen the Fatherrdquo Christ always did the Fatherrsquos will and perfectly represented his Father in every way

Schema as Kittel points out can be synonymous with morphe but it has more of an emphasis on outward trappings rather than outward appearance and often points to that which is more transitory in nature

like the clothing we wear or an appearance we have for just a short time As human beings we always have the outward form (morphe) of human beings Yet there is a sense in which our schema our appearance is always changing We start as babies and grow and develop then we mature and age This is so much the case that a perSonrsquos outward appearance is one of the most common topics of conversation between people when they meet

Like the rest of us Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphe) of a human However because he always did the Fatherrsquos will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience he therefore had the outward ldquoappearancerdquo (morphe) of God also Also like the rest of us his appearance (schema) regularly

changed Thus in Philippians 28 schema can be synonymous with morphe or it can place an emphasis on the fact that the appearance Christ had as a human being was transitory in nature The wording of Philippians 26-8 does not present us with a God-man with whom none of us can identify Rather it presents us with a man just like we are who grew and aged yet who was so focused on God in every thought and deed that he perfectly represented the Father

2 After saying that Christ was in the form of God Philippians 26 goes on to say that Christ ldquodid not consider equality with God something to be graspedrdquo (NIV) This phrase is a powerful argument against the Trinity If Jesus were God then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not ldquograsprdquo at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself It only makes sense to compliment someone for not seeking equality when he is not equal Some Trinitarians say ldquoWell he was not grasping for equality with the Fatherrdquo That is not what the verse says It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God which makes the verse nonsense if he were God

3 The opening of verse 7 contains a phrase that has caused serious division among Trinitarians It says ldquoBut made himself of no reputationrdquo (KJV) ldquobut made himself nothingrdquo (NIV) ldquobut emptied himselfrdquo

(NASB RSV NRSV New American Bible) The Greek word that is in question is kenos which literally means ldquoto emptyrdquo For more than a thousand years from the church councils in the fourth century until the nineteenth century the orthodox position of the Church was that Christ was fully God and fully man at the same time in one body This doctrine is known as the ldquodual nature of Christrdquo and has to be supported with non-biblical words like communicatio idiomatum literally ldquothe communication of the idiomrdquo This refers to the way that the ldquoGodrdquo nature of Christ is united to the ldquomanrdquo nature of Christ in such a way that the actions and conditions of the man can be God and the actions and conditions of God can be man Dr Justo Gonzalez an authority on the history of the Christian Church notes ldquoThe divine and human natures exist in a single being although how that can be is the greatest mystery of the faithrdquo [31] Biblical truth is not an ldquoincomprehensible mysteryrdquo In fact God longs for us to know Him and His truth (see the notes on Luke 135)

The doctrine of the dual nature of Christ has been the standard explanation for the miracles of Christ such as multiplying food knowing the thoughts of others raising the dead etc This explanation is maintained in spite of the fact that the prophets in the Old Testament were also able to do these things The doctrine of Christrsquos dual nature has caused a serious problem that is stated well by John Wren-Lewis

Certainly up to the Second World War the commonest vision of Jesus was not as a man at all He was a God in human form full of supernatural knowledge and miraculous power very much like the Olympian

gods were supposed to be when they visited the earth in disguiserdquo [32]

Our experience in speaking to Christians all over the world confirms what Wren-Lewis stated the average Christian does not feel that Christ ldquowas made like his brothers in every wayrdquo (Heb 217) but instead feels that Christ was able to do what he did because he was fundamentally different We believe that the teaching of the dual nature is non-biblical and robs power from people who might otherwise seek to think and act like Christ This artificially separates people from the Lord Jesus

In Germany in the mid-1800rdquos a Lutheran theologian named Gottfried Thomasius began what has now developed into ldquoKenotic Theologyrdquo This thinking arose out of some very real concerns that some Trinitarians had about dual nature theology First dual nature theology did not allow Christrsquos full humanity to be expressed Second it seemed to turn Christ into an aberration very God and very man at the same time Third ldquoif Jesus were both omniscient God and limited man then he had two centers and thus was fundamentally not one of usrdquo Kenotic Theology (which has since splintered into a number of variants) provided a ldquosolutionrdquo to these problems Since Philippians 27 says Christ ldquoemptied himselfrdquo what he must have ldquoemptiedrdquo was his God-nature ie sometime before his incarnation Christ agreed to ldquoself-limitationrdquo and came down to earth as a man only

Trinitarian theologians have vehemently disagreed among themselves about Kenotic Theology and some orthodox theologians have even called its adherents ldquohereticsrdquo The central criticisms of Kenotic Theology are First being only a little more than a hundred years old it is simply not the historic position of the Church Second orthodox theologians say that it is not biblical and that Philippians 27 does not mean what Kenotic theologians say it means And third Kenotic Theology forces God to change God becomes a man which causes two problems for orthodox Trinitarians God cannot change and God is not a man

We agree with the Kenotic theologians who say that dual nature theology does not allow Christrsquos humanity to be expressed and that it creates a ldquobeingrdquo who is really an aberration and ldquofundamentally not one of usrdquo [33] However we also agree with the orthodox Trinitarians who take the biblical stance that God is not a man and that God cannot change We assert that it is Trinitarian doctrine that has caused these problems and that there simply is no solution to them as long as one holds a Trinitarian position We assert that the real solution is to realize that there is only one True God the Father and that Jesus Christ is the ldquoman accredited by Godrdquo who has now been made ldquoboth Lord and Christrdquo (Acts 222 and 36) Then Christ is fully man and is ldquoone of usrdquo and God is God and has never changed or been a man

4 While Trinitarians have argued among themselves about the meaning of Philippians 26-8 an unfortunate thing has occurred the loss of the actual meaning of the verse The verse is not speaking either of Christrsquos giving up his ldquoGodhoodrdquo at his incarnation or of his God-nature being willing to ldquohiderdquo so that his man-nature can show itself clearly Rather it is saying something else Scripture says Christ was the ldquoimage of Godrdquo (2 Cor 44) and Jesus himself testified that if one had seen him he had seen the Father Saying that Christ was in the ldquoformrdquo (outward appearance) of God is simply stating that truth in another way Unlike Adam who grasped at being like God (Gen 35) Christ the Last Adam ldquoemptied himselfrdquo of all his reputation and the things due him as the true child of the King He lived in the same fashion as other men He humbled himself to the Word and will of God He lived by ldquoIt is writtenrdquo and the commands of his Father He did not ldquotoot his own hornrdquo but instead called himself ldquothe son of manrdquo

which in the Aramaic language he spoke meant ldquoa manrdquo He trusted God and became obedient even to a horrible and shameful death on a cross

The Philippian Church was doing well and was supportive of Paul but they had problems as well There was ldquoselfish ambitionrdquo (115 23) and ldquovain conceitrdquo (23) arguing and lack of consideration for others (24 and 14) and a need for humility purity and blamelessness (23 and 15) So Paul wrote an exhortation to the believers that ldquoYour attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesusrdquo (25) He then went on to show how Christ did not grasp at equality with God but was completely humble and as a result God ldquohighly exalted himrdquo The example of Jesus Christ is a powerful one We do not need to make sure people notice us or know who we are We should simply serve in obedience and humility assured that God will one day reward us for our deeds [For further study read Textual Corruptions Favoring the Trinitarian Position]

Buzzard pp 48-50

Dana Letter 2 pp 16 and 17

Farley pp 76-78

New American Bible footnote on Philippians 27

Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446

Colossians 115-20 (15) He is the image of the invisible God the firstborn over all creation (16) For by him all things were created things in heaven and on earth visible and invisible whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities all things were created by him and for him (17) He is before all things and in him all things hold together (18) And he is the head of the body the church he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead so that in everything he might have the supremacy (19) For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him (20) and through him to reconcile to himself all things whether things on earth or things in heaven by making peace through his blood shed on the Cross (NIV)

1 As with all good biblical exegesis it is important to note the context of the verses and why they would be written and placed where they are Reading the book of Colossians reveals that the Colossian Church had lost its focus on Christ Some of the believers at Colosse had in practice forsaken their connection with the Head Jesus Christ and some were even being led to worship angels (218 and 19) The situation in Colosse called for a strong reminder of Christrsquos headship over his Church and the epistle to the Colossians provided just that

2 These verses cannot be affirming the Trinity because they open with Christ being ldquothe image [eikon] of the invisible Godrdquo If Christ were ldquoGodrdquo then the verse would simply say so rather than that he was the ldquoimagerdquo of God The Father is plainly called ldquoGodrdquo in dozens of places and this would have been a good place to say that Jesus was God Instead we are told that Christ is the image of God If one thing is the ldquoimagerdquo of another thing then the ldquoimagerdquo and the ldquooriginalrdquo are not the same thing The Father is God and that is why there is no verse that calls the Father the image of God Calling Jesus the image of God squares beautifully with his statement that ldquoAnyone who has seen me has seen the Fatherrdquo (John 149 and 10)

There are Trinitarian theologians who assert that the word eikon (from which we get the English word ldquoiconrdquo meaning ldquoimagerdquo or ldquorepresentationrdquo) means ldquomanifestationrdquo here in Colossians and that Christ is the manifestation of God We believe that conclusion is unwarranted The word eikon occurs 23 times in the New Testament and it is clearly used as ldquoimagerdquo in the common sense of the word It is used of the image of Caesar on a coin of idols that are manmade images of gods of Old Testament things that were only an image of the reality we have today and of the ldquoimagerdquo of the beast that occurs in Revelation 2 Corinthians 318 says that Christians are changed into the ldquoimagerdquo of the Lord as we reflect his glory All these verses use ldquoimagerdquo in the common sense of the word ie a representation separate from the original 1 Corinthians 117 says ldquoA man ought not to cover his head since he is the image and glory of Godrdquo Just as Christ is called the image of God so men are called the image of God We are not as exact an image as Christ is because we are marred by sin but nevertheless the Bible does call us the ldquoimagerdquo of God Thus the wording about being the image of God is the same for us as it is for Christ We maintain that the words in the Word must be read and understood in their common or ordinary meaning unless good reason can be given to alter that meaning In this case the common meaning of ldquoimagerdquo is ldquolikenessrdquo or ldquoresemblancerdquo and it is used that way every time in the New Testament Surely if the word ldquoimagerdquo took on a new meaning for those times it referred to Christ the Bible would let us know that Since it does not we assert that the use of ldquoimagerdquo is the same whether it refers to an image on a coin an image of a god or for both Christ and Christians as the image of God

3 God delegated to Christ His authority to create Ephesians 215 refers to Christ creating ldquoone new manrdquo (his Church) out of Jew and Gentile In pouring out the gift of holy spirit to each believer (Acts 233 and 38) the Lord Jesus has created something new in each of them that is the ldquonew manrdquo their new nature (2 Cor 517 Gal 615 Eph 424)

4 The Church of the Body of Christ was a brand new entity created by Christ out of Jew and Gentile He had to also create the structure and positions that would allow it to function both in the spiritual world (positions for the angels that would minister to the Church see Rev 11 ldquohis angelrdquo) and in the physical world (positions and ministries here on earth see Rom 124-8 Eph 47-11) The Bible describes these

physical and spiritual realities by the phrase ldquothings in heaven and on earth visible and invisiblerdquo (116)

5 Many people think that because Colossians 116 says ldquoFor by him all things were createdrdquo that Christ must be God but the entire verse must be read carefully with an understanding of the usage of words and figures of speech The study of legitimate figures of speech is an involved one and the best work we know of was done in 1898 by E W Bullinger It is titled Figures of Speech Used in the Bible and is readily available having been reprinted many times

First the student of the Bible (indeed of language and life) must be aware that when the word ldquoallrdquo (or ldquoeveryrdquo or ldquoeverythingrdquo) is used it is often used in a limited sense People use it this way in normal speech in countries and languages all over the world I (John S) had an experience of this just the other day It was late at night and I wanted a cookie before bed When I told my wife that I wanted a cookie she said ldquoThe kids ate all the cookiesrdquo Now of course our kids did not eat all the cookies in the world The implied context was the cookies in the house and our kids had eaten all of them This is a good example of ldquoallrdquo being used in a limited sense and the Bible uses it that way too

For example when Absalom was holding a council against his father David 2 Samuel 1714 says that ldquoall the men of Israelrdquo agreed on advice ldquoAllrdquo the men of Israel were not there but the verse means ldquoallrdquo who were there Another example is Jeremiah 268 which says that ldquoall the peoplerdquo seized Jeremiah to put him to death but the context makes it very clear that ldquoall the peoplerdquo were not even present and people who came to the scene later wanted to release Jeremiah 1 John 220 (KJV) says of Christians ldquoye know all thingsrdquo Surely there is no Christian who actually believes that he knows everything The phrase is using a limited sense of ldquoallrdquo which is determined by the context

The point is that whenever one reads the word ldquoallrdquo a determination must be made as to whether it is being used in the wide sense of ldquoall in the universerdquo or in the narrow sense of ldquoall in a certain contextrdquo We believe the narrow sense is called for in Colossians 116 and we give more evidence for that in point 6 below (For more on the limited sense of ldquoallrdquo see the note on John 224)

6 An important figure of speech in Colossians 116 is called ldquoencirclingrdquo Bullinger notes that the Greeks called this figure of speech epanadiplosis while the Romans labeled it inclusio (p 245) and he gives several pages of examples from the Bible to document the figure He writes ldquoWhen this figure is used it marks what is said as being completed in one complete circleiexclgiving completeness of the statement that is maderdquo With that in mind note that the phrase ldquoall things were createdrdquo occurs at the beginning and end of the verse encircling the list of created things ldquoFor by him all things were created things in heaven and on earth visible and invisible whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities all things were created by him and for himrdquo The things that are ldquocreatedrdquo are not rocks trees birds and animals because those things were created by God These things ldquothrones powers rulers and authoritiesrdquo are the powers and positions that were needed by Christ to run his Church and were created by him for that purpose The figure of speech known as ldquoencirclingrdquo helps us to identify the proper context of ldquoall thingsrdquo that it is the narrower sense of the word ldquoallrdquo and refers to the things needed to administer the Church

7 The phrase in verse 17 that ldquohe is before all thingsrdquo has been used to try to prove that Jesus existed before everything else However the word ldquobeforerdquo (here pro) can refer to time place or position (ie superiority) This leads us to conclude that the whole point of the section is to show that Christ is ldquobeforerdquo ie ldquosuperior tordquo all things just as the verse says If someone were to insist that time is involved

we would point out that in the very next verse Christ is the ldquofirstbornrdquo from the dead and thus ldquobeforerdquo his Church in time as well as in position

Buzzard pp 51 and 52

Dana Letter 25 pp 221-227


Snedeker pp 446-450

Nick Norelli Second Rebuttal (21907)

Allow me to once again point out that before we began this debate we agreed upon a 2500 word limit for each post You have exceeded this number by 9686 words in this last post Your choice to cut and paste articles from BiblicalUnitariancom is very disappointing as it shows that you are either unwilling to or incapable of personally and directly addressing my arguments with valid refutations Therersquos nothing wrong with citing scholars when appropriate but simply cutting and pasting entire articles off of web sites is pointless You could have just declined to debate and directed me to BiblicalUnitariancom

In reference to your question of why I expected more from you I expected more because I raised multiple points which would prove the doctrine of the Trinity to be indeed Biblical You attempted to address only one and even that was barely touched I was also at a loss for words at the utter lack of scripture in your first rebuttal You cited exactly four verses and two of those four were only to tell me that there were different creations in Genesis 11 and Colossians 116 in view The other two were to ask me for my take on John 173 and Ephesians 46 (Ill address these in my closing) Irsquom sorry but this isnrsquot the way to debate and expect to prove your point Yoursquore free to use whatever tactics yoursquod like but Irsquod think that in a debate setting you would at least try to convince the reading audience that your position is at least tenable if not correct

In regard to your clearly childish remarks about my lack of using hermeneutics I can only at this point doubt if you know exactly what hermeneutics are Hermeneutics very simply stated is a system of interpretation I have plainly employed a historical-grammatical hermeneutic in my presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity so to say ldquoYou arent using hermeneutics You just arentrdquo is not only without foundation but is quite childish I interpreted the text of John 11-3 14 and Colossians 116 with exegesis of the Greek text I set them in their historical background by referring to the Gnostic heresies that John and Paul were dealing with at the time hence I did exactly what you claim that I havenrsquot

Yoursquore attempted refutation about my presentation of the Eternal Fatherhood of God is severely lacking You have simply stated that it is not so and accused me of not proving my point with scripture (which I have done clearly) It follows logically that if God is eternal and immutable and God is the Father then God has always been the Father because God cannot change God is not Father merely in relation to his creation for he is the Father of the Eternal Son as well I proved that the Son was with the Father from all eternity based on the imperfect tense of the verb ἦν in John 11 (cf John 175) If you want to claim that the Word and the Son are not one and the same person yoursquore free to do so but would be refuted sharply by John 114 which clearly says that ldquoAnd the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory the glory as of the only begotten of the Fatheriexclldquo The masculine pronoun αὐτοῦ refers back to the Word of the previous clause thus proving his personality as well as clearly identifying him as the ldquoonly begotten of the Fatherrdquo

John 11

The article on John 11 that you cut and pasted argues a point that I havenrsquot even made It is arguing that the Word is not Jesus

Most Trinitarians believe that the word logos refers directly to Jesus Christ so in most

versions of John logos is capitalized and translated ldquoWordrdquo (some versions even write ldquoJesus Christrdquo in John 11)

We assert that the logos in John 11 cannot be Jesus Please notice that ldquoJesus Christrdquo is not

a lexical definition of logos This verse does not say ldquoIn the beginning was Jesusrdquo ldquoThe Wordrdquo is not synonymous with Jesus or even ldquothe Messiahrdquo

I was very clear when I said ldquoAt this point I must mention that I am not arguing for the eternality of the Son Incarnate but rather for the eternality of the Son There was a time before the Son was incarnate (John 11) The Son at a point in time added the nature of humanity to the eternal nature of deity that he has always possessed (John 114 Phil 26-8 1Tim 316)rdquo Thus far you have copied this article in vain Itrsquos a straw man argument in that Irsquom not claiming that the Word is Jesus Christ because I understand that Jesus was not Jesus until the addition of humanity in the incarnation My argument is that the Word is the Son who has eternally existed with the Father

I would also note that FF Bruce is cited selectively in support of one proposition (Jesus being the creator of the new nature) yet completely ignored in his refutation of something else asserted (namely that θεός in the third clause of John 11 should be taken as an adjective and translated divine) Bruce said in refutation of this point

The structure of the third clause in verse I theos ēn ho logos demands the translation ldquoThe

Word was Godrdquo Since logos has the article preceding it it is marked out as the subject

The fact that theos is the first word after the conjunction kai (ldquoandrdquo) shows that the main

emphasis of the clause lies on it Had theos as well as logos been preceded by the article the meaning would have been that the Word was completely identical with God which is impossible if the Word is also ldquowith Godrdquo What is meant is that the Word shared the nature and being of God7

John 13

The article on John 13 is even more irrelevant than the previous article Itrsquos arguing against another position that I have not taken which is that the Word is personal because of masculine pronouns Yet another straw man I presented the personality of the word from the Greek phrase πρὸς τὸν θεόν which denotes a personal relationship and intimacy That article didnrsquot address this point in any way shape or form

John 114

The article on John 114 is equally as fallacious another straw man As I stated in my opening statement and above Irsquom not contending that Son in his incarnation is eternal but rather that the Son is You would do well to actually read my arguments and then respond to THEM not the ones you have created and then attributed to me And this article continues begging the question in assuming that the

7 F F Bruce The Gospel of John (Grand Rapids MI Eerdmans 1983) 31

Word was not a person When and where was this proven Where was the interaction with πρὸς τὸν θεόν and the wealth of scholarly writing on the term I would also note that this article goes on to affirm things about Docetism that I said in my last post it actually helps to support my position

John 175

The article on John 175 begins with a huge straw man in asserting that ldquoIt is Trinitarian bias that causes people to read an actual physical existence into this verse rather than a figurative existence in the mind of Godrdquo What orthodox Trinitarian believes that God has a ldquophysical existencerdquo God is a non-corporeal Being who has no physical existence Now God the Son added a human nature to the nature of deity but the nature of deity did not somehow become physical How is this pertinent to anything that I have argued in favor of

Another glaring problem with this article aside from the circular argumentation of their unproven assertion that the Word was not personal is their speculation on what Jesus would or would not do or think if he was truly God This completely ignores the entire basis of the Hypostatic Union which is that within the one Person of Christ there exist two natures in union The Carmen Christi of Philippians 25-11 is about this very thing which involves the willful humiliation on the part of the Son and his ultimate exaltation But I will address this further below

Next they completely failed to interact with the Greek at all No mention was made of the imperfect tense of ᾗ εἶχον in this passage with the active voice showing that the Son actively possessed this glory alongside the Father from all eternity Remember the imperfect tense is a continuous action in the past It doesnrsquot matter how far back your mind wishes to conceive of the Son was present with the Father possessing the same glory before this They didnrsquot address the fact that Jesus here speaks in the imperative mood which is the mood of command thus the Son commanded the Father to glorify him with the glory they once shared It is impossible from an exegetical standpoint to draw from this passage that Jesus ldquoprayed that the prophecies of the Old Testament about him would be fulfilledrdquo simply impossible

Philippians 26-8

The article on this passage being the longest is perhaps the most fallacious of them all They begin by asserting that there is not a universal agreement on the meaning of the word this is not shocking since there is rarely a universal consensus if ever on anything So what does that leave us with Conflicting testimony about the word μορφῇ which in reality is not as conflicting as the authors would like us to believe They then chopped up Vinersquos entry on the word and represented it as if Vine made no mention of ldquoformrdquo when in actuality that is the very beginning of his definition Vine said of μορφῇ ldquodenotes ldquothe special or characteristic form or featurerdquo of a person or thing8

The continued by representing the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament as claiming that the word is synonymous with σχήματι but fail to mention that they are not citing from section D The μορφῇ of Christ in the New Testament (pp 750-52) which does not make the same connection that they do If you will recall I quoted the TDNT in my last rebuttal and their understanding of the text is not at all what this article has concluded To offer more of the entry the TDNT says 8 Vinersquos 251

The lofty terminology of the hymn can venture to speak of the form or visible appearance of God in this antithesis50 on the theological basis of the δόξα concept of the Greek Bible which is also that of Paul and according to which the majesty of God is visibly expressed in the radiance of heavenly light (rarr II 237 ff)51 The μορφὴ θεοῦ in which the pre-existent Christ was52 is simply the divine δόξα53 Paulrsquos ἐν μορφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων corresponds exactly to Jn 175 τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι παρὰ σοί54

The wealth of the christological content of Phil 26 f rests on the fact that Paul does not regard the incomparable measure of the self-denial displayed by the pre-existent Christ in His incarnation merely as the opposite of the egotistic exploitation of what He possessed (rarr I 474) or as the surrender of His own will55 nor is he concerned merely to emphasise the contrast between His eternal and temporal existence His deity and humanity but he brings out in clear-cut contrast the absolute distinction between the modes of being Christ came down from the height of power and splendour to the abyss of weakness and lowliness proper to a slave and herein is revealed for the apostle the inner nature of the Redeemer who is both above history and yet also in history He did not consider Himself He set before the eyes of those who believe in Him the example of forgetfulness of His own ego9

And once again it is a straw man to assert that Trinitarians try to represent μορφῇ as the ldquoinner essential naturerdquo Wersquove already seen that both Vine and Behm (the author of the entry in the TDNT) define the word as the special characteristic form or feature or the inner nature visibly revealed I quoted Wuest in my last rebuttal as defining the word as the outward expression given of the inmost nature Spiros Zodhiates makes a good point saying ldquoMorphē in Phil 26ndash8 presumes an obj reality No one could

be in the form (morphē) of God who was not Godrdquo10

And lastly Irsquod point out the utter ridiculousness of their attempted explanation of what it means for Christ to be in the ldquoform of Godrdquo They say that ldquoLike the rest of us Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphe) of a human However because he always did the Fatherrsquos will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience he therefore had the outward ldquoappearancerdquo (morphe) of God alsordquo Out of one side of their mouth they are defining μορφῇ as Jesus actually being human and having a physical form but out of the other side it has no reference to Jesus actually being God and having the real form of God Itrsquos hard to take such contradiction seriously

Colossians 115-20

The authorrsquos here tell us that this would have been a great place to tell us that Christ was God as if the passage says anything less than this Also why would we expect the authorrsquos to know when and where would have been the most opportune times to place statements of Jesusrdquo deity They speak of the common sense use of the word εἰκὼν as ldquoa representation separate from the originalrdquo but on what grounds

9 TDNT 4751-52 10 Spiros Zodhiates The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament (electronic ed Chattanooga TN AMG Publishers 2000)

should we accept that a separation is necessary In point of fact the very reference they made to the coin with Caesarrsquos image (Matt 2220 Mark 1216 Luke 2024) on it is proof positive that separation doesnrsquot need to exist between the εἰκὼν and the one the εἰκὼν represents The inscription is a distinct feature of the coin itself and is not separated from it in any sense of the word They also fail to recognize that the Father isnrsquot called the image of the invisible God because the Father has no physical form in order to be an image remember Hersquos invisible

The assertion that the ldquoall thingsrdquo (τὰ πάντα) is used in a limited sense is unsubstantiated It quite literally means ldquothe allrdquo and is elaborated on in the plainest terms I addressed this in my exegesis of this text in my last rebuttal so therersquos no need to do it again Irsquod also note that the authorrsquos are completely disregarding the parallels from John 13 and Hebrews 12 And I have no problem with the position that ldquobefore all thingsrdquo is a reference to Jesusrdquo preeminence thatrsquos the main thrust of the entire passage But letrsquos be clear that Jesus is before all things because Hersquos God

I pray that in your closing statement you can interact with at least some of my arguments

HiddenNChrist2 Closing Statement (22307)

On 22107 I spoke with HiddenNChrist2 repeatedly asking her when she would have her closing statement ready as I was anxious to finish this debate up seeing as how she hasnt really decided to engage in any actual debating and I would rather focus my attention on those with actual objections to the doctrine based on more than the simple fact that they dont want to believe it She refused to answer any of my questions concerning her closing statement and when it would be ready In fact she ignored every question in regard to that but didnt seem to have a problem talking about anything else I saw her again in the chat room on 22207 and once again questioned her on her closing statement and she again evaded the question Later that evening a friend of mine relayed this message to me in an email

HiddenNChrist2 Nar Im not Debating Nick Im just having fun with him he takes his Roman Dogma very seriously

Nick Norelli Closing Statement (22407)

I must express my extreme disappointment with the fact that my opponent had chosen to accept an invitation to debate but then refused to debate the topic at hand It is blatantly obvious that HiddenNChrist2 was either not equipped or not interested in debating the doctrine of the Trinity I personally believe that she was not equipped as I have conversed with her countless times in the past But for the sake of the readers of this debate I did want to briefly address the two passages that I was asked about

Let me begin by stating that HiddenNChrist2 never made a point with reference to these passages she simply asked me for my take on them Now of course I know what her thought process is concerning John 173 and Ephesians 46 but at the same time itrsquos not my job to articulate my opponentrsquos arguments for them Irsquod also like to mention that ldquomy takerdquo is irrelevant to what the passages actually teach Scripture is not to be approached with a subjectivism that tells us a passage can mean something to us and something else to someone else no This is not the way to interpret the Word of God

John 173

In this passage Jesus prays to the Father calling him τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν θεὸν ldquothe only true Godrdquo Now from this the Unitarian falsely draws the conclusion that because the Son calls the Father ldquothe only true Godrdquo that the Son is somehow making a statement excluding him from sharing in the same nature of deity No such statement is being made this phrase tells us something about the Father not about the Son But something that I have commented on before and the readers of my other site Trinity Truth have probably come across is the fact that here Jesus unites himself with the Father in the most important powerful and intimate sense He says that eternal life is predicated on knowing both the Father AND the Son Here Jesus places himself alongside the Father equally

It is also important to point out that in 1John 520 the Son is referred to as ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεὸς ldquothe true Godrdquo thus nullifying the argument that John 173 excludes him The Unitarian commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent in their argument here Denying the antecedent is ldquoA formal fallacy so named

because the categorical premise in the argument ~p denies the antecedent rather than the consequent of the conditional premiserdquo11 Letrsquos begin with a textbook example and then replace the terms with the ones used in John 173

If Carl embezzled the college funds then Carl is guilty of a felony

Carl did not embezzle the college funds

Therefore Carl is not guilty of a felony12

Here we can see that embezzling college funds is the antecedent and being guilty of a felony is the consequent Notice how the conclusion does not follow from the premises Carl may not have

11 Irving M Copi and Carl Cohen Introduction to Logic 11th ed (Upper Saddle River NJ Prentice Hall 2002) 629 12 Introduction to Logic 281

embezzled the college funds but he could have committed murder and murder is a felony To state this properly it must be said


Carl is not guilty of a felony

Therefore Carl did not embezzle the college funds

Notice how Carl not committing a felony at all excludes him from having committed a specific felony (embezzlement) Now letrsquos switch the terms to fit John 173

If one is the Father then one is the only true God

The Son is not the Father

Therefore the Son is not the only true God

To the Unitarian this looks perfectly logical but as we have seen it is not It is entirely possible that if one is the Son then one is the only true God as well so while the Son may not be the Father he may still be the only true God To make this syllogism work it must be stated

If one is the Father then one is the only True God

The Son is not the only True God

Therefore the Son is not the Father

So if one is not the only true God then they cannot be the Father but it can likewise be argued that if one is not the only true God then they cannot be the Son (or the Holy Spirit) Once again we know from 1John 520 that Jesus is ldquothe true Godrdquo

Ephesians 46

Once again the Unitarian reads this passage and concludes that because it says εἷς θεὸς καὶ πατὴρ ldquoone God and Fatherrdquo that the Son is excluded from being God This is based on the underlying presupposition that God is uni-personal and no matter how much the Unitarian denies it they do equate Trinitarianism with tri-theism because if God is one person and Trinitarians believe in three persons then Trinitarians believe in three Gods But this passage in the broader context of vs 4-6 is actually one that Trinitarians employ regularly as it shows the Economic Trinity at work

Ephesians 44-6 speaks of the unity in God In vs 3 we read that Paul was ldquoEndeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peacerdquo He continues by saying that there is One body which we as believers are the members (1Cor 1227) and One Holy Spirit that calls us in the one hope of our calling One Lord Jesus that saves us and heads the One body (Eph 523) One faith common to all believers which is in the Lord Jesus (Gal 216) One Baptism in which all believers have been baptized into this One body (1Cor 1213) and one God and Father of us all (1Cor 86) who is above all through all and in us all (2Cor 616)

Now before the Unitarian reading this begins to say ah ha The Father is above all You must take into account that as a Trinitarian I readily acknowledge that there exists a functional subordination within the being of God We observe the order from scripture that the Father begets but is not begotten that the Son is begotten but not created that the Spirit proceeds but doesnrsquot send But submission and subordination in function do not equate to ontological inferiority All Christians are told to be subject one to another (1Pet 55) yet it could never be argued that one Christian was ontologically superior to another Likewise we wouldnrsquot argue it with God

Conclusion

Now these are passages that I would have been more than happy to go over in much more detail had any actual arguments been presented from them but my opponent saw fit to tuck tail and run from the debate that she agreed to I believe that the readers have seen the extreme weakness of the Unitarian position from my rebuttals to the BiblicalUnitariancom articles but I still would have liked so much more to interact with an actual opponent I believe HiddenNchrist2rsquos actions here only mirror her character and Irsquoll let you draw from that what you will I apologize for any and all who were disappointed at the one-sided presentation exhibited in this ldquodebaterdquo if it is even lawful to call it that

Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Biblical

A UnitarianTrinitarian Debate

Contents

HiddenNChrist2 Opening Statement (21507) 3

Nick Norelli Opening Statement (21507) 4

HiddenNChrist2 First Rebuttal (21607) 9

Nick Norelli First Rebuttal (21607) 11

HiddenNChrist2 Second Rebuttal (21907) 16

Nick Norelli Second Rebuttal (21907) 37

HiddenNChrist2 Closing Statement (22307) 42

Nick Norelli Closing Statement (22407) 43







The Question


















Hermeneutics








Monotheism






















Creator







Savior













-And you arent






You said

























































































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion








The Question


















Hermeneutics








Monotheism






















Creator







Savior













-And you arent






You said

























































































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion



The Question


















Hermeneutics








Monotheism






















Creator







Savior













-And you arent






You said

























































































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion









Hermeneutics








Monotheism






















Creator







Savior













-And you arent






You said

























































































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion


Monotheism






















Creator







Savior













-And you arent






You said

























































































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion







Creator







Savior













-And you arent






You said

























































































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion














-And you arent






You said

























































































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion












-And you arent






You said

























































































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion




-And you arent






You said

























































































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion






You said

























































































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion























































































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion














































































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion






































































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion




























































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion

























































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion









































































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion


















































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion








































Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion






























Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion















Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion


Mary













Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion


Buzzard pp 111-119


Norton pp 307-374
































Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion
























Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion














Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion





Hyndman p 113




































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion



































































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion



























































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion











































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion
































Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion


















Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion










Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion




Buzzard pp 48-50


Farley pp 76-78


Norton pp 191-193


Snedeker pp 443-446


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion


















Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion













Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion






Snedeker pp 446-450






John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion







John 11












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion












John 13


John 114




John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion



John 175




Philippians 26-8








Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion







Colossians 115-20












John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion











John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion








John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion





John 173






















Ephesians 46




Conclusion















Ephesians 46




Conclusion



Conclusion


Date post:	12-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	phungmien
View:	215 times
Download:	1 times

Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Biblical - A Blog About the Bible · PDF fileNick Norelli:...

Documents