Wednesday, July 20, 2011

"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.

18 comments:

  1. Tuggy says,

    Steve... this is about the wildest non sequitur you've put out there. Yes, if unitarianism is true, then the Father is a god, the only god. 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. The author does not thereby contradict monotheism. But my point is independent of any text; monotheism is one thesis, and mono-theos-ism (only one being can be called "God") is another, which is not implied by the first (and which goes against both OT and NT).

    You conveniently forgot to mention that the verses that come immediately right after 1:8-9 identify Jesus as YHWH. So the NT does more than identify or describe Jesus as a theos. More on this later.

    You then say:

    Yes - he does things uniquely (in the OT) associated with YHWH. But he doesn't do what only YHWH can do. That's to assert a contradiction - that only YHWH can do X, and yet here is someone else, numerically distinct from YHWH, who can also do X.

    Tuggy, Steve's point was clear, so there was no need for you to distort it and attack strawman. Steve is referring to things that Jesus does which the OT says ONLY YHWH does. Take, for instance, Hebrews 1:10-12, which ascribes the work of creation and providence to the Son:

    “But of the Son he says, ‘Your throne, O God (ho theos), is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom… You, Lord (Kyrie), laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.’” Hebrews 1:8, 10-12 English Standard Version (ESV)

    What makes this citation rather amazing is that not only has the inspired author taken the following Psalm, which exalts Yahweh as the Maker and Sustainer of creation, and the One who always remains the same,

    “In the beginning thou, O Lord (Kyrie), didst lay the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands. They shall perish, but thou remainest: and [they all] shall wax old as a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them, and they shall be change. 27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.” Psalm 101[Eng. 102]:25-27 LXX

    And applied it to Christ, he even goes so far as to claim that it is the Father himself who is speaking the words of this particular Psalm in reference to his beloved Son!

    In other words, the writer is claiming that these are the words of the Father to the Son, an instance where the Father glorifies his Son for being the immutable Lord who created and sustains the heavens and the earth, and all that is within them!

    But this leaves you in a bit of dilemma, one which I noted in previous posts which you never addressed.

    A. According to the OT, Yahweh alone created and sustains all things (cf. Neh. 9:6; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:28; 42:5; 44:24; 45:18-23; Jer. 10:10-13; Zech. 12:1).

    B. Yahweh created the heavens and the earth by his own hands (cf. Isaiah 45:12; 48:13; 51:16).

    C. Yahweh formed things for himself, for his own glory (cf. Isaiah 43:6-7, 20-21).

    D. Yet according to the NT, all things were created in/through/for Jesus (cf. Jn. 1:3, 10; 1 Cor. 8:6b; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:2-3).

    D. The NT even quotes an OT passage which describes Yahweh as the unchanging Creator and Sustainer of all things and applies that to Christ! (cf. Heb. 1:10-12 - cf. Psalm 102:25-27).

    Therefore, if Jesus does what the OT says ONLY YHWH does then Jesus must therefore be YHWH according to the NT witness.

    Continued in next post.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Continued from the previous post.

    Tuggy also mentioned Heb. 1:9 to prove that the Father is YHWH God. He reasons from this that since Jesus is not the Father then this means he cannot be YHWH either.

    Thus, in light of Tuggy's idolatrous pursuit of philosophy and logic this means he (not just us) is forced to affirm that Jesus is YHWH and is not YHWH at the same time.

    As Tuggy put it to me in one of the previous threads,

    According to your reading, we are forced to conclude that the NT asserts

    -(j=y)

    and
    j=y


    I say, double OUCH!!!! Or should I say, YIKES!!!!

    Tuggy, instead of ducking these objections maybe you will muster up some of your hermeneutical courage and actually address these points. I understand why wouldn't want to since exegeting the Holy Bible carefully and correctly is clearly not your forte.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve, maybe I am too dumb, but I am not understanding what Tuggy is trying to prove by bringing up 1 Cor. 15:24-28. Is he trying to prove that the Son ceases to reign because he hands everything over to the Father at the end?

    If so, then perhaps he can explain to us how he reconciles his view with all of the following passages that affirm that the Son reigns forever, and that his kingdom never ends:

    "For to us a child is born,to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon[a] his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and with righteousness from this time forth and forevermore. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this." Isaiah 9:6-7

    "I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that SHALL NOT BE DESTROYED." Daniel 7:13-14

    "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob FOREVER, and of his kingdom THERE WILL BE NO END." Luke 1:32-33

    "that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age BUT ALSO IN THE ONE TO COME. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all." Ephesians 1:20-23

    "For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." 2 Peter 1:11

    "Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, AND HE SHALL REIGN FOREVER AND EVER.'" Revelation 11:15

    "Then the angel[a] showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the THRONE of God AND OF THE LAMB through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life[b] with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be anything accursed, but THE THRONE of God AND OF THE LAMB will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. And night will be no more. They will need no light of lamp or sun, for the Lord God will be their light, and they will reign forever and ever." Revelation 22:1-5

    ReplyDelete
  4. Now in light of all these explicit passages which emphatically affirm that the Son rules forever, even over the age to come, wouldn't this prove that the Son is also included within the identity of the one God whom Paul said would be all and in all? Note, carefully, what the Apostle wrote:

    When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all.

    Paul says that the purpose in subjecting all things to God is so that God ends up becoming "all in all."

    However, if Jesus' rule continues even after he has destroyed all opposing authorities and subjected all rule to the Father, wouldn't this actually establish that Paul is including Jesus within the identity of that one God who shall become all in all?

    After all, if Jesus is already the "all and in all" in this present age:

    "Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave,[a] free; but Christ is all, and in all." Colossians 3:11

    Then it seems reasonably certain that Paul intended to include Christ within the identity of the one God whom he says shall be all in all at the end of this age.

    In other words, the God who shall be all and in all is not simply the Father, but is actually the Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

    Now, in light of all the passages which I presented to prove that Jesus reigns forever and that he is currently the "all and in all", can Tuggy show me where my exegesis of the phrase "all in all" in 1 Cor. 15:28 is mistaken, without having to beg the question? I really would like to see that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm going to beg off discussing the Christ-creator texts, simply for lack of time. (Feel free to assert this is cowardice or ineptitude - that seems the way of proceeding at this blog.) Each deserves to be considered carefully in its own context. When I do, I may address your points re: the Col. passage. This would be a whole long series at trinities, or several such. Sam, I don't feel much obligation to do all this in a comment box. It's not easy to take seriously someone pushing a patently contradictory theology - that Jesus and YHWH are numerically identical, and yet differ.

    Like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, you think I'm committed to j=y and -(j=y). These don't follow from your points A-E; the "in/through/for" part shows why.

    About "idolatrous" logic... this is interesting, coming from a guy employing logic. You're like someone loudly insisting "Stop speaking English right now, I mean it! No one should be speaking English."

    About "qua", here's a basic question. Consider "Jesus qua divine is omniscient." and "Jesus qua human doesn't know some things." One may think this is better off than "Jesus does and doesn't know all." But no one has ever shown how.

    The "qua" or "as" would normally be read as citing a cause or reason, i.e. because he's human he doesn't know some things, and because he's divine he knows all. D'oh! The contradiction comes right back.

    So the "qua" is supposed to qualify some term. Which? Subject? (Jesus-qua-human vs. Jesus-qua-divine) Copula? (is-qua-man vs. is-qua-human) or Predicate? (all-knowing-qua-divine vs. limited-in-knowledge-qua human). These seem the only options, and each has severe problems. Reformed philosopher Tom Senor shows some of them. You claim to discern some metaphysical distinction underlying somesuch move; I wonder what that is.

    "obtuse" Nice. Better to actually read Rauser's carefully reasoned piece.

    "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."

    There's no hint of any "economic" vs. "immanent" Trinity idea in that passage, of course. More importantly, your conclusion here, the first sentence, doesn't follow from your premise (the rest). God either changes or does not. Like many Christian philosophers, I hold that he does undergo change, given the existence of time. It's no good saying that "in himself" he doesn't change, but "in relation to others" he does. Given that change means intrinsic change, this is inconsistent, and it is not clear what the "in relation to others" qualifier would mean. Or it could just be an unclear way of saying that God doesn't undergo intrinsic change, though it appears to creatures that he does.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Tuggy says:

    I'm going to beg off discussing the Christ-creator texts, simply for lack of time. (Feel free to assert this is cowardice or ineptitude - that seems the way of proceeding at this blog.)

    Well, if it sounds like a duck, looks like a duck then...

    Each deserves to be considered carefully in its own context. When I do, I may address your points re: the Col. passage. This would be a whole long series at trinities, or several such. Sam, I don't feel much obligation to do all this in a comment box. It's not easy to take seriously someone pushing a patently contradictory theology - that Jesus and YHWH are numerically identical, and yet differ.

    I would pay to see you try to do some serious exegesis of Biblical texts.

    You keep digging the hole deeper for yourself since if I am pushing a patently contradictory theology then I am in rather good company since the theology I am espousing is the one proclaimed by the NT writers and apostles. OUCH!!! So much for you being a Christian who is committed to the authority of the Holy Bible.

    Like the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, you think I'm committed to j=y and -(j=y). These don't follow from your points A-E; the "in/through/for" part shows why.

    I am simply showing you what happens when we turn your own "logic" against you. I can't help it if it bothers you when we do. And contrary to your assertions, points A-E DO FOLLOW NOT JUST LOGICALLY, BUT BIBLICALLY (which is what really matters); and the in/through/for do show why as I will prove when you try to "exegete" the texts I raised to prove that Yahweh ALONE created all things BY HIS OWN HANDS, and not the hands of someone else.

    About "idolatrous" logic... this is interesting, coming from a guy employing logic. You're like someone loudly insisting "Stop speaking English right now, I mean it! No one should be speaking English."

    Tuggy, it really gets tiring dealing with your distortions and gross misrepresentations of not just the Holy Bible, but also of the statements of your opponents. I never condemned the PROPER use of logic. I condemned your IDOLATROUS use of logic to try and attack (more like assault) the explicit Biblical witness to Jesus being YHWH, and to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all being absolute and eternal Deity.

    Now instead of using smoke and mirrors tactics which seeks to divert attention away from the exegesis of the Biblical texts, can you please get around to dealing with Hebrews 1:10-12 for a change?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dale,

    From your perspective what implications does the unitarianism vs. trinitarianism divide represent, if anything, with respect to soteriology?

    In other words you and Steve, for example, hold fundamentally different views of the God of the Bible and of Christ; thus it would seem reasonable to conclude that the two of you believe in different "Gods", in contradistinction to simply believing differently about the same God.

    In your opinion does this mean that one of you will be condemned to hell by the One true God for the sin of idolatry (i.e. worshipping a false god)?

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  8. DALE SAID:

    "Given that change means intrinsic change..."

    Are Cambridge changes intrinsic changes?

    ReplyDelete
  9. From your perspective what implications does the unitarianism vs. trinitarianism divide represent, if anything, with respect to soteriology?

    No obvious implications. But if your atonement theory says only a fully divine being can atone, then if you're a humanitarian unitarian, you'll have to hold a different atonement theory.

    it would seem reasonable to conclude that the two of you believe in different "Gods", in contradistinction to simply believing differently about the same God.

    I don't think one can conclude that. it is a very hard question in philosophy of language when you're so mistaken that you're no longer referring to something.

    But suppose one of us literally fails to refer to the one God when, e.g. we pray. I'm not sure how much it matters.

    In your opinion does this mean that one of you will be condemned to hell by the One true God for the sin of idolatry (i.e. worshipping a false god)?

    No.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So, by your own belated admission, it's erroneous for you to say "change means intrinsic change."

    Therefore, the economic Trinity and/or the Son qua Incarnate can undergo real changes which, however, involve extrinsic (rather than intrinsic) properties vis-a-vis the immanent Trinity or the Son qua Son.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Dale,

    Since from your perspective men can hold to mutually exclusive and contradictory conceptions of the One true God of the Bible without being guilty of soul-damning idolatry (worshipping a false god), would it then be fair to conclude that the cults of Christianity such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. ought to be considered as brethren within the fold of God's flock who will join together in heavenly worship of Him Who sits upon the throne and the Lamb?

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete
  12. Steve, I said:

    " he does undergo change, given the existence of time. It's no good saying that "in himself" he doesn't change, but "in relation to others" he does. Given that change means intrinsic change, this is inconsistent"

    "Given that" means IF by "change we mean intrinsic change..." God created, and exercising a power is intrinsic change.

    Can there be extrinsic changes? I suppose so. But our issue was whether the ec. vs. imm. distinction was needed to understand how God changes. My point is, if it works for extr. change, it does not for intr. change.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mr. Tuggy -- your attempts to not deal with the Scripture and build your position on vain human philosophy is simply amazing to behold.

    I do not belittle the study of things, even God, by the above comment. I simply say you start from and thus attempt to defend a position that is not Christian. Whatever your claims might be.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sam, Coram and Steve your points are to be commended.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mr. Tuggy -- please understand that you are free to hold and defend what you are defending. But I deny your claim to it being Christian. If you are claiming orthodoxy for this position.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "would it then be fair to conclude that the cults of Christianity such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. ought to be considered as brethren"

    No!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Based on Dale's response that men can hold to mutually exclusive and contradictory conceptions of the One true God of the Bible without being guilty of soul-damning idolatry (worshipping a false god), CD asked: "would it then be fair to conclude that the cults of Christianity such as Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. ought to be considered as brethren"

    To which Dale emphatically replied, "No!"

    But by your own lights, Dale, on what basis do you reach this conclusion?

    And, with your indulgence, I have a few follow up questions, do you love God the Father?

    Do you love Jesus Christ?

    Which is your Master?

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete