"He is before all things"

DALE SAID:

“Steve, if you're going to throw an accusation of inconsistency, you need to show that your opponent clearly asserts or implies both P and not-P. That something strikes you as new may just show that you're still coming to understand the position.”

Actually, it shows you backpedaling from your initial claims because you failed to anticipate the objections. You’re having to improvise as you go along.

“Steve, what is the inconsistency exactly? I agree that Is. shows YHWH (the Father) to be the only creator and all-provident governor. This is wholly consistent with his authorizing Jesus to do things on his behalf, even massively important things like judging humanity.”

So the Father is the “only” Creator. Yet John 1:3, Col 1:16, and Heb 1:10 attribute creation to Christ.

“Eh... I don't think I have a problem of inconsistent texts here. Do you?”

That’s not a counterargument, Dale.

“You should lay off the accusations of weaseling, and pay more attention to the arguments.”

You’re not presenting arguments. You’re presenting assertoric denials. You should lay off the bare assertions.

“Ah, the joys of question begging. Pound that table. :-)”

This is what it says:

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17And he is before all things… (Col 1:16-17a).

Feel free to explain how that doesn’t attribute universal Creatorship to Christ.

i) The merismic wording of the text denotes totality.

ii) The text also contains an expansive allusion to Gen 1:1. So Paul thereby identifies Christ with the Creator God of Gen 1.

iii) 17a minimally ascribes preexistence to Christ, where Christ is prior to the creation of the world (par. Eph 1:4). In light of 1:15, it likely includes priority in rank as well as priority in time.

“This is probably true for any analogy, and any theologian. I'm afraid that you have not shown any ad hoc elements of my view. This is a hard charge to make stick, of course.”

Notice Tuggy’s evasive modus operandi, which is to issue assertoric denials rather than present responsive counterarguments.

“No, it doesn't. The Incarnated Son is still wholly divine, and still, in your view, was Creator. It seems these will logically imply that he has the same rights as before.”

As usual, you’re equivocating. The Son qua Son has a timeless status. The Son qua Incarnate has a variable status.

“But this does not imply that no other being can be described or addressed as ‘God’ or ‘a god.’ e.g. Heb 1:8-9 features a being addressed as ‘God,’ and this being has a god, who is YHWH/the Father.”

That presumes your unitarian interpretation of Heb 1:8-9, for which you’ve offered no exegetical argument.

“Steve, you're pretty deep into the poisoning the well fallacy here…”

Sometimes well water is contaminated. That’s why we need water inspectors.

 “If I'm such a weasel, why should any reasonable person argue with me at all?”

Why argue against any cultist? Because specious falsehoods can be influential and harmful.

“Yes - he does things uniquely (in the OT) associated with YHWH. But he doesn't do what only YHWH can do.”

In which case you instantly forfeit your OT unitarian prooftexts. For the Isaian passages don’t drive a wedge between things “uniquely” associated with Yahweh and things which only Yahweh can do. To the contrary, Isaiah is discussing things that are uniquely true of Yahweh, in contrast to the idol-gods of heathenism.

Tuggy keeps attempting to play both sides off against the middle. 

“Oh, I understand this all too well. This is to sweep an inconsistency under the linguistic carpet.”

That’s a metaphysical distinction, not a linguistic distinction.

“I think Randal Rauser has shown this distinction to be either trivial or mistaken. So, no, I don't think there's any such important distinction, despite the theological tradition of this sort of discourse. Steve, as you spell it out, one of them's timeless, the other in time. Therefore, the one Trinity isn't the other (since they differ). Therefore, there are (at least) two Trinities. Yikes!”

Maybe you think acting obtuse is an intellectual virtue. That’s fine with me. Just another strike against anti-Trinitarianism.

You yourself quoted 1 Cor 15:24-28. Let’s assume a unitarian interpretation for the sake of argument.

i) In that event there’s a metaphysical distinction between God in himself, and God in his economic identity. For what is true of God at one time isn’t true of God at another time. During the church age, God transfers dominion to the Messiah. At the consummation, God resumes dominion. 

ii) By the same token, this passage is consistent with the Trinity. The consummation fulfills, and thereby terminates, the redemptive dominion of the Son. He’s completed his Messianic mission. That economic role is thereby retired–when the time comes.