Continuing on with my exchange with Robert Bowman at Trinities Facebook group, here's part 4.
Shelenberger's Second Rejoinder and Final Remarks (March 6, 2021)
Part 1 of 9
Aaron:
//// Rob, my second and final remarks may seem unnecessarily long. But a large part of which is chunks of quotations from you and me. My intent was to provide readers a better view of the respective contexts. In addition, I wanted to respond to the things I didn't address in your first rebuttal.
To review, as you've pointed out, there are two claims:
P1. Only the Father is the true God.
P2. The Father is the only true God.
In your first rebuttal, you stated: "John 17:3 *expresses* P2, *not* P1, and orthodox Christians accept P2" (asterisks added). Then I asked if you're saying that John 17:3 *strictly* requires the P2 expression. You replied: "No, I'm saying it *need not* mean P1 but *might* mean just P2" (asterisks added). I see that you went from a hard claim to a soft one.
The reason you went that way seems to be because I brought this up: There are Monarchical Trinitarians who take John 17:3 to be expressing *both* P2 *and* the true God being one and only person, the Father, because he is the fountainhead, while they maintain the "full divinity" of the Son.
Then I said: "If you're consistent, you would also have to call this condition basically Monarchical Trinitarianism, which *does* presuppose Monarchical Trinitarianism. But then you really cannot be consistent, because the positions Monarchical Trinitarianism and Unitarianism are contradictory, so that your accusation of 'presupposing Unitarianism' would ultimately lead to self-refutation." In response to this, in your second rebuttal, you presented a dilemma. ////
Rob:
>>>> To make John 17:3 work as an objection to the Trinity, you must EITHER assume P1 *and* interpret it as excluding the Son as eternal deity (thereby presupposing Unitarianism) OR accept P2 but interpret it on the assumption that the true God is one and only one person (again presupposing Unitarianism). <<<<
Aaron:
Let's see how well the dilemma does it job. I submit that it is problematic in a number of areas. Let me for now place the dilemma aside and address your implicit assumption behind your accusation "Unitarians assume P1 without an argument".
Part 2 of 9
ASSUMING UNITARIANISM?
Well, Unitarians do have an argument for taking P1 as an expression of John 17:3, and I have presented the argument in my first rejoinder. Let me repeat it here.
I said that "from the standpoint of the way the language is used in the Bible, it does not matter where 'only' is placed. We know that the statements 'Jesus is the only begotten Son' and 'only Jesus is the begotten Son' have the same meaning in so far as 'only' is placed in the statements. In John 17:3 'only' is used as a quantifier. It is making a quantification that the 'true God' is *none* other than the Father."
You said that my example about Jesus isn't very helpful. But I pointed out that your Israel example proves my point even more: "That 'only' Jesus being God's Son does not in any way pose a problem with Israel's being God's son, precisely because of what you said: They are sons in two different senses." I didn't see a reply to this.
To repeat, I said in my first rejoinder that I'd like to hear you engage my statement: In John 17:3 "only" is used as a quantifier, which is making a quantification that the "true God" is *none* other than the Father.
You then made the following comments: "I think I did engage your statement. I showed examples where interpreting 'only' in the manner you prescribe results in contradiction. I don't think you engaged my argument in which I showed this from Genesis 7:23 and 8:9, even though you quoted it. My point was that we should 'not treat an apparent grammatical disjunction in a woodenly literal way' if doing so contradicts other biblical passages. You did not address my point about grammatical disjunction. But that is your whole case from John 17:3; without interpreting the grammatical disjunction as excluding Jesus as being true God, your use of John 17:3 as a proof text against the deity of Christ goes nowhere."
Here you might have a successful objection: A contradiction would result in my application of Bible talk on only. Let's see how effective it is.
Gen. 7:23 reads "Only Noah was left, and those that were with him in the ark." This text is clearly constructed differently compared to John 17:3: "And this is eternal life, that they know you [Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
In Gen. 7:23, we can see the context; it's right there in front of us, and a little reading comprehension would help. Although in singular form, the word "only" is used in a collective sense. Question: Who is/are left? Answer: Noah *and* those that were with him in the ark. There is nothing else that is predicated to "those that were with him in the ark" but "only".
How about the way "only" is used in John 8:9. ESV renders the text as follows: "But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with [kai] the woman standing before him." ESV and some other English versions do translate kai as "with" (e.g., HCSB, NIV, NRSV, MOUNCE). Others translate it as "and" (e.g., ASV, NASB). As you know, since you're expert in Greek, this means that the Greek allows translating kai as "with" and "and".
It's remarkable that you would translate this text to say that Jesus "was left alone [monos], and [kai] the woman who as in the midst" (John 8:9b)--not that you disagree translating kai as "with"; I would hope not.
So, question: Who is/are left alone? Answer: Jesus *and* the woman; Jesus *with* the woman. Either way the context tells us that there were two left: Jesus and the woman. Similar to the way Gen. 7:23 is constructed, there's nothing else that is predicated to "the woman standing before him" but "only". For this reason, there's no "contradiction" that would result in my application of the Bible talk on only.
Moreover, I wouldn't call this approach "a woodenly simplistic grammatical analysis" (from your first rebuttal) and "an apparent grammatical disjunction in a woodenly literal way" (from your second rebuttal). Instead, I would call this a simple application of reading comprehension which strongly supports my argument: "From the standpoint of the way the language is used in the Bible, it does not matter where 'only' is placed."
But, let's assume arguendo that you're right about characterizing my approach as "a woodenly simplistic grammatical analysis". What happens then? Answer: All the talk about P1 and P2 you've been making should be relegated to the trash bin of "a woodenly simplistic grammatical analysis".
If I'm right about this, you should realize that you've wasted your precious time in trying to (1) argue, initially, that John 17:3 expresses P2, not P1, (2) argue, subsequently, that it *need not* mean P1 but *might* mean just P2 and (3) create a dilemma that leads to assuming Unitarianism.
Does my case go through? You did offer another objection to my argument, which you stated in your first rebuttal. Let's see if goes through successfully.
First, I asked: "Is there an example in the Bible where the placement of 'only' matters? I don't think there is. If there is, then that may be a game changer in the debate."
Your answered: "Perhaps there isn't, but that wouldn't matter, because (again) the logic of predication is stipulated to work somewhat differently in the unique case of God, if God is triune. In other words, the placement *probably* wouldn't matter when making predications of individual *finite beings*, but it *might* matter when making predications about one of the *divine persons* united as/in one *divine being*" (asterisks added).
I then came back with: "You're saying that, if God is triune, the logic of predication is stipulated to work somewhat differently. Is it because God is unique in that God is triune? Explain how this is. You're not saying that logic works differently when comes to God. Are you? I hope not. I would like you to be as clear as you possibly can when you explain yourself here please." But you didn't provide a response to this. I'm hoping to hear you explain your position here in your final remarks.
I also said: "You're using the words 'probably' and 'might', as though you're not sure or tentative. Care to elaborate?" Again, you didn't respond.
I don't know if you were unsure or tentative. Whatever the case maybe, I wonder how far you would go with your "finite beings" versus "divine persons united as/in one divine being" talk. Of the divine persons you referred to, I'm sure, is Jesus Christ. You believe that he is God-man, divine-human, and infinite-finite.
If we follow your line of reasoning, it would seem that the application of the Bible talk on only would apply to the finite part (man/human) of Jesus but not to his infinite part (God/divine). He declares in John 17:3, "And this is eternal life, that they know you [Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
Jesus Christ is God-man. The Bible talk on only would apply to the "man part" of Jesus Christ, but would not apply to the "God part" of him. How would you manage to explain this?
In your third and final rebuttal, I'd really like to hear some adequate answers to these very important key questions. Until then, I think my argument on the Bible talk on only stands, and it is Trinitarian apologists who are ripping John 17:3 out of its context and out from the setting of the Bible talk on only.
Part 3 of 9
ASSUMING UNITARIANISM REPRISE
As the risk of being repetitious, let me say again that in handling John 17:3 Unitarians are not assuming Unitarianism as you and your fellow Trinitarian apologists falsely constantly make. We, Unitarians, *do* have an argument, and in our exchange I framed the argument (and provided details), namely: "From the standpoint of the way the language is used in the Bible, it does not matter where 'only' is placed."
Now, Rob, in your constant auto-accusation of "assuming Unitarianism," you have continually mischaracterized what Unitarians are doing: You are conflating the *method* (basis) with the *content* of the view--the method and basis being the application of the way the Bible uses the word only; the content being Unitarianism.
Let's just say that my argument does not go through, because you've somehow shown it to be unsuccessful. Fine. That does not mean I have no argument; neither does it mean I'm assuming Unitarianism; only that my argument fails.
An illustration might be helpful. Trinity theories can be divided in a number of ways. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Dale Tuggy identifies a number of them. Of which the two main ones are what he calls one-self theory (or anti-social Trinitarianism, e.g., Latin Trinitarianism so-called by Brian Leftow) and three-self theory (or social Trinitarianism).
Of the latter there are number of sub-theories. One sub-theory is Trinity Monotheism authored (?) by William Lane Craig. Another is Relative Identity theory with yet a number of sub-theories under it.
Pertaining to the Relative Identity theory Tuggy explains, "Why can’t multiple divine selves be one and the same god? It would seem that by being the same god, they must be numerically the same entity; 'they' are really one, and so 'they' can’t differ in any way (that is, this one entity can’t differ from itself). But then, they (really: it) can’t be different divine selves. Relative identity theorists think there is some mistake in this reasoning, so that things may be different somethings yet the same something else. They hold that the above reasoning falsely *assumes* something about numerical sameness. They hold that numerical sameness, or identity, either can be or always is relative to a kind or concept" (asterisks added). (Source: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/)
Why am I bringing all this up? To drive a very important point about the auto-accusation of assuming Unitarianism from many Trinitarian apologists.
A Relative Identity Trinitarian may accuse a Latin Trinitarian, as Leftow, of assuming Latin Trinitarianism. He may also accuse a Social Trinitarian, as Craig, of assuming Trinity Monotheism. But such an accusation is clearly a wrong move on the part of the Relative Identity Trinitarian: He is conflating the method with the content. (Now, I highly doubt that a Relative Identity Trinitarian trained in logic and philosophy would do such a thing.)
The method may be a wrong tool or approach to use, and the content might be false; but to accuse the individual of assuming Latin Trinitarianism or Trinity Monotheism would be a wrong way to see the problem. The Relative Identity Trinitarian should, instead, be attacking the assumption on the part of Leftow and Craig as to how these two philosophers are a falsely assuming something about numerical sameness, not that they are *assuming* their own respective Trinity theories.
Similarly, you should be attacking my methodology (namely, drawing from my understanding of the Bible's usage of 'only') in arriving at the content (Unitarianism). You shouldn't be accusing me of assuming Unitarianism, because I'm not. I might very well be using a wrong method or basis (whether or not Unitarianism is false). If I am doing so, then fine. My problem would then primarily be methodological. But you would have to show this, which you believe you have done; but of course I don't think you have, as can be seen in my response above.
Lastly, let me address your mischaracterization from another angle. Your accusation sounds like this: "Aaron, you're assuming Unitarianism, because you're assuming that your argument for Unitarianism is successful." Well, of course! As you know full well, that's just how things work in the discipline of reasoning and argumentation. What is stopping me from saying to you: "Rob, you're assuming Trinitarianism, because you're assuming that your argument for Trinitarianism is successful"?
Part 4 or 9
DOES THE DILEMMA DO ITS JOB?
Let me now, finally, get back to addressing the dilemma you presented. You wrote: "To make John 17:3 work as an objection to the Trinity, you must EITHER assume P1 *and* interpret it as excluding the Son as eternal deity (thereby presupposing Unitarianism) OR accept P2 but interpret it on the assumption that the true God is one and only one person (again presupposing Unitarianism)."
It seems to me that if you're successful here, you are justified in saying that Unitarians are presupposing Unitarianism in either case. Let me address each horn. Then I will present a third horn, which I think has a neutralizing effect on the dilemma you presented.
FIRST HORN OF BOWMAN'S DILEMMA
The first horn says, "assume P1 *and* interpret it as excluding the Son as eternal deity (thereby presupposing Unitarianism)." Well, the same Monarchical Trinitarians (I discussed) do assume P1 *and* interpret it as excluding the Son from being "the only true God" with the understanding that "true" is not to be contrasted with "false" but instead expresses how the Father is personally distinct from the Son and the Spirit.
Does this, thereby, mean that those Monarchical Trinitarians are presupposing Monarchical Trinitarianism? Your answer would have to be yes, if you're consistent. For this reason, the first horn of the dilemma would cut both ways, although it may not necessarily affect your own Trinity theory; I would have to learn more about your theory to make an informed judgment. (Now, I wonder if you'll bring this up if ever you do have a dialogue with Monarchical Trinitarians. I think you should, given your belief that your Trinity theory is closer to the Bible than theirs.)
Let's say you're consistent. Would your accusation of "presupposing Unitarianism" stick? I don't think so. The first part of the first horn says that I must "assume P1". If you mean "assume" without an argument, that again, Rob, is a mischaracterization of what "assume P1" means. So, I reject what you mean here.
I do have an argument (the Bible talk on 'only'), and I went at great length above in laying out that argument and refuting your counters. I believe I've managed to show (1) that what you may call "a woodenly simplistic grammatical analysis" is merely "a simple application of reading comprehension" and (2) that even while assuming you're right about my approach as "a woodenly simplistic grammatical analysis," it would follow that all the talk about P1 and P2 you've been making should be relegated to the trash bin of "a woodenly simplistic grammatical analysis".
It now appears that before your dilemma can even take off the ground, you'd have to fix the first part of the first horn ('assume P1'). The way to fix the broken horn is you'd have to successfully demonstrate that my argument fails. Until then, there is no first horn of the dilemma that could perform the job that you want it to.
At this juncture, here's how the first "horn" has turned into: "Assume--with a successful argument--and hence accept P1 *and* interpret it as excluding the Son as eternal deity (thereby *establishing* that Unitarianism is not presupposed)."
But let's just say that my argument does fail in establishing P1. What happens then? Well, there would be no P1 to be assumed (and accepted), much less interpreted as excluding the Son as eternal deity. The so-called "presupposing Unitarianism" wouldn't even happen. Stop this auto-accusation of "assuming Unitarianism" nonsense already!
Part 5 of 9
SECOND HORN OF BOWMAN'S DILEMMA
Let me now turn to the second horn of the dilemma, which says "accept P2 but interpret it on the assumption that the true God is one and only one person (again presupposing Unitarianism)." P2 states: "The Father is the only true God."
On the one hand, as shown above, the broken part of the first horn is "assume P1". On the other, as will be shown, the broken part of the second is "interpret it on the *assumption* that the true God is one and only one person." Similar to the first horn, there are two problems with the second one.
First, the same Monarchical Trinitarians do accept P2 but interpret it on the *assumption* that the true God is one and only one person, the Father, with the understanding that "true" is not to be contrasted with "false" but instead expresses how the Father is personally distinct from the Son and the Spirit. Does this mean that those Monarchical Trinitarians are presupposing Monarchical Trinitarianism? Your answer would have to be yes, if you're consistent. For this reason, the second horn of the dilemma would cut both ways, although it may not necessarily affect your own Trinity theory.
Again, let's say you're consistent. Would your accusation of "presupposing Unitarianism" stick? I think not. If you mean by "assumption" without an argument, you are sorely mistaken, sir; this is the same mistake you've committed in the first horn.
By now you should realize that I would simply go back and remind you of my argument for interpreting P2 based on the Bible talk on only and what I think this argument did to your counter (your 'a woodenly simplistic grammatical analysis' is merely 'a simple application of reading comprehension', and it would mean that all the talk about P1 and P2 you've been making should be relegated to the trash bin of 'a woodenly simplistic grammatical analysis').
At this juncture, you now have two broken horns in your hands, Rob. And it gets worse, for here's how the second "horn" has turned into: "Accept P2 but interpret it on the assumption that--with a successful argument--the true God is one and only one person (*establishing* Unitarianism is not presupposed).
I don't need to bring up the fact that even if my argument--in interpreting P2 to mean that the true God is one and only one person--does fail, the so-called "presupposing Unitarianism" wouldn't even happen. Again, stop this constant auto-accusation of "assuming Unitarianism" nonsense already! And please tell your fellow Trinitarian apologists to do the same.
Par 6 of 9
A POSSIBLE THIRD HORN
Let's first have a review of the two claims.
P1: Only the Father is the true God.
P2: The Father is the only true God.
Turning now to a third horn I promised early on: "Assume P3 *and* accept it as excluding the Son as eternal deity (again *establishing* that Unitarianism is not presupposed). What is P3?
Recall the third consideration in my OP. Being that it is appositive, the grammar of John 17:3 allows “you [Father]” and “the only true God” as subject and predicate interchangeably, which points to the exclusion of Jesus as the only true God. From the grammar we may construct the appositive as (1) "The Father is the only true God" and (2) "The only true God is the Father." Together, these constructions show that the only true God *just is* the Father: Father=the only true God; the only true God=Father. They have the form a=b and b=a.
I submit that "The only true God is the Father" can logically be converted to "Only the Father is the only true God," so that the two statements have logical equivalence. For the sake of our readers, there are three steps to the process. First, add "all of" at the beginning of the statement; next, switch the place of the subject and predicate; lastly, replace "all of" with "only". The result is "Only the Father is the only true God". We may now have a third claim as to what John 17:3 expresses.
P3: Only the Father is the only true God.
Let's just back up a bit. In your first rebuttal you characterized my treatment of the appositive as "an overly cut-and-dried, wooden understanding of apposition." You continued "I thought I explained this to you not long ago and you conceded the point, backing down to the softer claim that the apposition *could* be interpreted in a completely interchangeable manner, not that it 'logically' must be."
I then replied saying that I didn't see anywhere that I conceded the point and that I was still maintaining that the appositive merely *allows* the interchangeability of "Father" and "the only true God" as subject and predicate, not that it *logically* must be. I continued "I see no restriction to this. You would need to provide an argument why P2 (The Father is the only true God) is *strictly* the required expression of John 17:3, if this is your position." (This is because in your first rebuttal you stated that John 17:3 *expresses* P2, *not* P1, and orthodox Christians accept P2.) Then after I pressed if you're saying that John 17:3 *strictly* requires the P2 expression, you replied in your second rebuttal stating that it *need not* mean P1 but *might* mean just P2. So, you went from a hard claim to a soft one.
Again, I don't claim that the said interchangeability is a necessity. I only claim that the grammar allows it. As shown, P3 is established from the appositive found in John 17:3, the allowable interchangeability, and a logical conversion. To repeat what you claimed: John 17:3 *need not* mean P1 but *might* mean just P2. I would just say that John 17:3 *could* mean P3. It could also mean both P1 and P2. I see no competition amongst these three claims. In fact, they complement one another as part and parcel of the cumulative case presented in my OP.
So, here again is the third horn: "Assume P3 *and* accept it as excluding the Son as eternal deity (again *establishing* that Unitarianism is not presupposed)." P3 is an assumption with an argument. The best you can do is attempt to tear down the argument under girding P3. Your success in tearing it down will surely preclude you from pressing the auto-accusation button of assuming Unitarianism, that is, if you want to be reasonable about it.
Part 7 of 9
SECOND CONSIDERATION
Some remarks are in order pertaining to the second consideration in my OP. I argued that the only person Jesus places in the category “the only true God” is the Father—no one else. Jesus does not include himself in the category (nor does he include anyone else). He does not say “that they know you [Father] *and me* [Jesus Christ], the only true God”. Since he does not include himself, it would follow that he is excluding himself from being in the category "the only true God".
You accused me of committing "a blatant argument from silence" and that it "can be restated as follows:
p1. He did not include himself.
c. Therefore, he excluded himself.
We can restate this even more formally as follows:
p1. 'Christ is included' is not stated in John 17:3.
c. Therefore, 'Christ is included' is not true."
You then explained that an "argument from silence fallaciously draws an inference from the fact that something is not stated in a particular context. The argument takes the following form:
p1. 'X' is not stated at point y.
c. Therefore, 'X' is not true."
Early on, I raised two very important questions on the matter.
1. When Jesus says "you [Father] the only true God," does he exclude *anyone* at all from the category "the only true God"?
2. Who does Jesus include in that category?
To which you answered: "He excluded anyone that would claim or be viewed as a different God than the one true God. His statement only specifically included the Father, but my whole point is that his statement should not be interpreted to exclude other divine persons who share with the Father in the category of being truly God."
Rob, I don't think I'm guilty of an argument from silence. You painted a caricature of my argument. My argument does not fallaciously draw an inference from the fact that something is *not* stated in the context. Rather, it draws an inference from the fact that something is *implied* by what *is* stated in the context. My argument can correctly be restated as follows.
P1. He included only the Father, and not himself and others.
C. Therefore, he excluded himself and others.
Most people do seem to take for granted that that which is not included is excluded, which by itself can be an argument from silence, depending on the context. But my argument doesn't commit this fallacy. As can be seen in the restatement, the words "only" and "did not include" bring out the implication of *exclusivity*. When I asked you the two questions above, you replied stating that Jesus *excluded* "anyone that would claim or be viewed as a different God than the one true God" and that his "statement only specifically included the Father."
Now, how in the world did you manage to draw "excluded" from what Jesus declared in John 17:3 which reads: “And this is eternal life, that they know you [Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent”? You don't see "excluded" there. It is not stated. Does this mean you're guilty of "a blatant argument from silence"? It would appear so.
If indeed you're guilt of it, then your accusation cuts both ways. But then the blade really doesn't cut both ways, because I provided a good reason why my argument isn't that. For this reason, the second consideration in my OP stands.
So, how did you manage to draw "excluded" from the text without committing a blatant argument from silence? I think one way you could avoid committing the fallacy is simply to admit that the words "you [Father] the only true God" imply exclusivity, even though "exclude" is not stated there, unless you have a better idea.
Part 8 of 9
FOURTH CONSIDERATION
Let me discuss the fourth consideration in my OP. I said that I maintain that if Christ being the only true God--too, in addition to the Father--is part and parcel of knowledge of eternal life, then he missed a great opportunity to mention that one very important information. Well, he didn’t mention it. It must not be important and, for that matter, true.
You replied: "Your argument is an argument from silence (This text does not say 'X,' therefore 'X' must not be true). There is no 'discussion' in John 17 about the Father being the only true God. This fact is stated briefly as just part of a single sentence." I think this is a fair point. But hear me out.
I don't think it is an argument from silence. I would call it an argument from extreme importance. For you, the following is an extremely important and non-negotiable aspect of Christianity: Part and parcel of *knowledge* of eternal life is Jesus being God in the same sense as the Father is.
In other words, in order to attain eternal life one must accept and hence have knowledge of Jesus being God. Yet, for you, "knowledge" of that which is *extremely* important and *non-negotiable* was not important *enough* to be mentioned by Jesus in John 17:3 or anywhere within the immediate context of the text.
On the other hand, I think that, if it is *that* important, we would expect Jesus to mention it *and* be direct about it. To me, that Jesus didn't do any of the sort *renders* the prior probability of Jesus being God extremely low. Not that Jesus being God is impossible (or that it is absolutely not true); only that it is extremely unlikely to begin with, given the *supposed* high importance of such an information that Trinitarians have placed upon it *and* Jesus not mentioning it in any manner at all anywhere in the text or the immediate context.
By "prior probability" I mean *before* we look at other relevant biblical passages that might point to Jesus being God. For this reason, in order to overcome this extremely low prior, it would require Trinitarians to provide a good amount of biblical data and support.
I think it gets worse. The prior probability of Jesus being God is further lowered when my fourth consideration is combined with the other considerations in my OP. Above, I went at great length in expounding them and refuting your counters.
Now, in my humble opinion, the data and support that you and J. Ed Komoszewski provided in your book "Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ" do not amount to Jesus being God. But that is another discussion altogether.
Part 9 of 9
CONCLUSION
I wanted say more, but this is getting too long. LOL! Have I been able to make a good case? In my OP, I wrote at the end: "Together these considerations seem to make a cumulative case for thinking that John 17:3 excludes others—such as Jesus—as the 'true God' or 'the only true God'". Notice that I used the word *seem*. I was trying to be modest.
Thus far, I believe that I've been able to make a good case based on four considerations as they stand together and in view of the refutations I provided. To be sure, I have to wait for your final remarks to see if my case stands.
I would rather maintain this: It is not enough for Unitarians, like myself, to use John 17:3 and a handful of other Bible verses to establish Unitarianism. Using a few verses is proof-texting. It is taking those verses in isolation and deciding ahead of time that Unitarianism is biblical based merely on those few verses. Needless to say, this approach is not considering other relevant biblical data that might sound like Jesus is God in the same sense as the Father is.
Let's assume that I did make a good case. At best, this renders the prior probability that Unitarianism is biblical, not that it completely establishes the doctrine as biblical. For, to that end, we would also need to consider the said relevant biblical data that might sound like Jesus is God. If we are able to successfully demonstrate that the data are compatible with Unitarianism--that is, among other considerations, if those data fail to amount to Jesus being God--then the doctrine of Unitarianism is established as biblical.
CLOSING
Rob, I consider this dialogue to be both an honor and a privilege. You are a prominent, well seasoned and well respected Trinitarian apologist. You, sir, have raised a number of things for me to think about.
Thank you for your time, effort and patience. Thank you for allowing me to publish this exchange on my blog, even though it was a last minute request on my part after your second rebuttal. Prior arrangements may have allowed you to better prepare to be able to provide better responses in your first and second rebuttals. But in your final rebuttal, I would ask that you be as brutally critical as you possibly can, yet with gentleness, meekness and charity of course. 🙂 Your input will surely be very useful for further studies by readers from both the Unitarian and non-Unitarian camps.
Perhaps we could do this again some other time with prior arrangements, if time permits. I'm looking forward to the second edition of your and J. Ed's book "Putting Jesus". Maybe, just maybe, you'll find some material discussed in our exchange useful for possible consideration to your book.
As agreed upon, you have the last word, sir. Please take the floor. God bless you and your family!
No comments:
Post a Comment