Pages

Thursday, July 07, 2011

Many antichrists have come


 Wow, I mean WOW; IMO, Steve needs to read the Bible a bit more. Note the following:
 
Ye do the works of your father. They said unto him, We were not born of fornication; we have one Father, even God. Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I came forth and am come from God; for neither have I come of myself, but he sent me. (John 8:41, 42 - ASV)
 
For those Jews contesting with Jesus in the above passage, who were they referring to as "one Father, even God"? Clearly, they were referring to Yahweh/Jehovah.
 
The concept of Yahweh/Jehovah as Father (i.e. the Fatherhood of God) to His chosen people was clearly taught in the OT (e.g. Is. 63:16; 64:8; Hos. 1:10)—equating God the Father with Yahweh is certainly not "anachronistic".

I see that David Waltz suffers from the same linguistic naïveté as Dale Tuggy:

i) The question at issue is not whether God the Father is Yahweh. The question, rather, is whether that identification is exclusive to God the Father.

ii) If Waltz is going to treat that as a divine title, then he can’t very well limit that to God the Father, since that title is also applied to the Messiah in Isa 9:6. Isaian usage cuts both ways. By his own logic, not only is God the Father Yahweh, but so is Jesus.

iii) The fact that “father” is occasionally used in reference to Yahweh hardly makes “father” a technical term or rigid designator for God the Father.

After all, in his very prooftext, Isaiah plays on the flexible denotation of “father” to compare and contrast Yahweh as the “father” of the Israelites with Abraham and Israel as their fathers. 

Likewise, Isa 64:8 employs a mixed metaphor: father/potter. That illustrates the loose, fluid character of these figurative designations.

For that matter, Isaiah uses both paternal and maternal analogies for Yahweh (45:10). So by Waltzian logic, there’s a Mother Goddess as well as a Father God.

In the Johannine passage Waltz quoted, “father” is applied both to God and the devil. Hopefully Waltz doesn’t think that makes Yahweh the devil.

iv) Fatherhood is one of many different theological metaphors for God. Waltz also mentions Hosea. But, of course, the main theological metaphor in Hosea is not God as father but God as cuckold husband.

Does that mean “husband” is a divine title? One which singles out Yahweh (or God the Father)?

v) While God “the Father” isn’t yet a technical term in NT usage, it’s approaching that status. That’s because there’s a greater need in the NT to develop stock designations which identify and distinguish the three persons of the Trinity. You can’t simply retroject that usage back into OT usage.

vi) Apropos (v), to take an obvious comparison, “spirit” is frequently used as a proper name for the Holy Spirit in the NT. But it would wreak havoc with the OT to equate “spirit” with the Spirit of God wherever ruach occurs.

Reformed epologists like Mr. Hays are in the unenvious position of having to defend a ‘half-way house’ theology—and this is especially so, concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. John Henry Newman dealt a mortal blow to the consensus theory among Trinitarians that the doctrine was not only a clear, explicit teaching of the Bible, but was also clear, explicit teaching of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers—both are inaccurate. Honest scholars now admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is a development, with many also acknowledging that it is but one of the possible developments from the material presented in the Bible, and early Church history.
 
So, Hays is stuck between the Catholic/EO position which insists that the Bible, and the doctrine of God, needs an infallible teaching magisterium, and that of the ‘true’ sola scripturians who draw their conclusions about the Christian doctrine of God from the ‘Bible alone’.

That’s just a hollow boast which doesn’t begin to engage my detailed arguments to the contrary.

Keep in mind, too, that I wasn’t attempting to present a systematic case for the Trinity. Rather, I was responding to Tuggy’s specific contentions, in the course of which I also give a sampling of counterexamples.

It seems that Steve has developed an obsession…

i) That’s funny coming from a guy who’s an internet stalker of John Bugay.

ii) It’s also a typically one-sided characterization by Waltz. I’ve been responding to Tuggy, he’s been responding to me. Sometimes he does that in his own posts, but he also does that by leaving comments on my posts. Waltz needs to learn how to count. If I’m “obsessed” with Tuggy, then Tuggy’s “obsessed” with me.

iii) Until recently, unitarianism was a theological backwater, populated by hacks and cults. The fact that it finally recruited a prominent philosopher of religion merits sustained pushback.

Of course, Islam is the biggest unitarian cult of them all, but that doesn’t even pretend to be Christian, and the threat it poses is primarily coercive rather than intellectual.

I think one can see that Steve's charge is false—one can be a non-Trinitarian, without being an anti-Trinitarian—but no apology and/or acknowledgment is offered by Steve.

Uh, no. Religion isn’t a menu you can peruse with detached neutrality. God obligates total devotion. Either you’re for Christ or against Christ. Unitarians are animated by the spirit of the Antichrist.

10 comments:

  1. I agree with Steve. The OT understanding of God's "fatherhood" was with respect to God as maker of the nation of Israel and/or as Creator of the universe. When Christ came on the scene He used the term "Father" in a new and unheard of sense. The sense in which He is the "Son of the Father" in a different and unique way than that shared by creation or the constitution of the universe. This is the case regardless of whether one is a Trinitarian, Arian, etc. It's that new sense in which Christ was using the term "Father" that lead to some of the Jewish folk to pick up stones to stone Him for blasphemy.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good morning Steve,

    Earlier today you wrote:

    >>I see that David Waltz suffers from the same linguistic naïveté as Dale Tuggy:

    i) The question at issue is not whether God the Father is Yahweh. The question, rather, is whether that identification is exclusive to God the Father.>>

    But back on 06/10/11 you wrote:

    >>ii) There's no reason to equate Yahweh with God the Father. That's highly anachronistic.>>

    To state that there is "no reason to equate Yahweh with God the Father", and then later say that "the issue is not whether God the Father is Yahweh", doesn't seem to make much sense.

    The quote you provided from my http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/07/dr-dale-tuggy-vs-steve-hays.html thread is specifically addressing your first statement (and whether or not it is "highly anachronistic" to do so); I delve into the separate issue of "whether that identification is exclusive to God the Father", in the following thread:

    http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/10/back-to-bible.html

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello AP,

    You posted:

    >>The OT understanding of God's "fatherhood" was with respect to God as maker of the nation of Israel and/or as Creator of the universe. When Christ came on the scene He used the term "Father" in a new and unheard of sense. The sense in which He is the "Son of the Father" in a different and unique way than that shared by creation or the constitution of the universe. This is the case regardless of whether one is a Trinitarian, Arian, etc. It's that new sense in which Christ was using the term "Father" that lead to some of the Jewish folk to pick up stones to stone Him for blasphemy.>>

    Me: It is good to see that you acknowledge the fatherhood of Yahweh/God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God our Lord Jesus Christ (John 20:17) was part of Israel's understanding; though, as you correctly point out, they were not cognizant of the "new and unheard of sense" that Jesus revealed to them.

    For some interesting reflections on the fatherhood of Yahweh/God in the OT and Second Temple Judaism, see chapter 2 in the book: The Promise of the Father: Jesus and God in the New Testament (pp. 35-55):

    http://books.google.com/books?id=kJmQortbOQgC&lpg=PP1&dq=The%20Promise%20of%20the%20Father&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false


    Grace and peace,

    David

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you David (Waltz) for the recommendation. One thing I definitely respect about you is that you're widely read. Unfortunately, I believe your internet hiatus has lead to your jumping to conclusions about the dialogue between Steve and Dale. Dale really was as engaged with Steve's arguments as Steve was his. So there was no obsession on either side. Anyway, my main reason for pointing out that Jesus' use of "Father" had a new meaning was to emphasize Steve's point that it's anachronistic to find passages in the OT that talk about God as Father and then to import into them the idea of "Fatherhood" that Jesus meant. As Steve pointed out, the Messiah is prophesied to be "everlasting Father/Father of eternity/possessor of eternity." Even in the Gospels Jesus called some people "son" (Matt. 9:2) and "daughter" (Matt. 9:22). David, as you know, Trinitarians believe that what can be spoken of concerning the being of God can be spoken of each person. God is "Father" in the sense of:
    1. being the metaphysical cause of all things;
    2. the maker of the nation of Israel (by right of Old Covenant redemption);
    3. the creator of all rational spirits of men and angels (Heb. 12:9; Zech 12:1);
    4. the creator of all human beings both Jew and Gentile by right of creation (Acts 17:28-29)
    5. the creator of the adopted children of God (by right of New Covenant redemption).

    From the Trinitarian position, all 5 senses apply to each person of the Trinity including the Son and Spirit and not just God the Father.

    We can call Jesus unique claim to be the Son of the "Father" to be a 6th sense of "Father".

    Since the dialogue between Steve and Dale had to do with the relationship between the Father and the Son, it wouldn't be helpful to cull OT passages that refer to YHWH as Father (senses 1-5) to support the idea that only the Father (sense 6
    ) is YHWH. It's both anachronistic and equivocal.

    In any case, I wish you all the best in your search for the truth. I pray it leads to what I'm personally convinced of, the Reformed Faith. I'd like to say more but it's Friday.

    ReplyDelete
  5. *****
    typo correction:

    We can call Jesus [Jesus'] unique claim to be the Son of the "Father" to be a 6th sense of "Father".
    *****

    Btw, I can sympathize with the experience and dilemma Unitarians like Dale, Anthony Buzzard, Greg Stafford, et al. have. Even with past Unitarians like Isaac Newton, Joseph Priestley, Samuel Clarke, John Milton etc. That's because I used to be a Unitarian myself.

    Even now, I find that many of the arguments and criticisms that most Trinitarians make against Unitarianism don't fully understand and appreciate the basic Unitarian intuition, rationale and perspective.

    Having said that, I still think they are mistaken because they aren't taking into full account ALL of the Biblical data to form a coherent and consistent harmonization. While I personally wouldn't use the inflammatory language that Steve uses, I nevertheless find his arguments superb. They get to the heart of the issue. So I recommend his blogs on this subject (and all other subjects).

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dale's argumentation was not only anachronistic and equivocal, but as Steve pointed out, it also committed the petitio principii fallacy.

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/07/tuggys-shellgame.html

    Also, his argumentation was (in my subjective opinion) overly aprioristic. Dale didn't do THE basic exegesis to support his assumptions and intuitions. He just referred to his future works (which may or may not provide the necessary sub-arguments). He could have at least given us a taste of his exegesis. He just chided Steve for not accepting his Unitarian intuitions.

    The problem is our intuitions may or may not be right. For example, take these two intuitions.

    #1. God by necessity, if truly supreme must be "one" (in some ultimate sense).

    #2. God, being supremely great, must be beyond our full comprehension and understanding.

    By intuition #1, some people come to Unitarian conclusions. Yet, those same people often also hold to intuition #2. But if intuition #2 were believed, why automatically reject the possibility that this "singular" God could also be, in some sense, "plural"?

    Only Revelation can tell us the answer. As Steve said, Only God can accurately tell us about God. Intuitions should take a backseat to Divine Revelation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ****
    typo correction:

    THE basic exegesis = the BASIC exegesis
    ****

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Many have come"!

    Yes.

    It seems to me, with David W., there is something similar as this with Israel's wise during the prophecy period of Jeremiah:

    Jer 8:4 "You shall say to them, Thus says the LORD: When men fall, do they not rise again? If one turns away, does he not return?
    Jer 8:5 Why then has this people turned away in perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit; they refuse to return.
    Jer 8:6 I have paid attention and listened, but they have not spoken rightly; no man relents of his evil, saying, 'What have I done?' Everyone turns to his own course, like a horse plunging headlong into battle.
    Jer 8:7 Even the stork in the heavens knows her times, and the turtledove, swallow, and crane keep the time of their coming, but my people know not the rules of the LORD.
    Jer 8:8 "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But behold, the lying pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.
    Jer 8:9 The wise men shall be put to shame; they shall be dismayed and taken; behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?


    My mentoring Pastor/Teacher taught his Ministers that when we come across someone and there is a gut sense, a pit in the deep places of our being, we are to take note of it and be mindful and watchful as it seems this is one indicator that there is something wrong with that someone. With David W., I have that sense, that pit in my stomach. It's not clear to me yet what it is so I stay cautious and vigilant when reading what he writes or after making comments directly to him.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I would also add these Words from that period of Jeremiah's prophesying:

    Jer 9:1 Oh that my head were waters, and my eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people!
    Jer 9:2 Oh that I had in the desert a travelers' lodging place, that I might leave my people and go away from them! For they are all adulterers, a company of treacherous men.
    Jer 9:3 They bend their tongue like a bow; falsehood and not truth has grown strong in the land; for they proceed from evil to evil, and they do not know me, declares the LORD.
    Jer 9:4 Let everyone beware of his neighbor, and put no trust in any brother, for every brother is a deceiver, and every neighbor goes about as a slanderer.
    Jer 9:5 Everyone deceives his neighbor, and no one speaks the truth; they have taught their tongue to speak lies; they weary themselves committing iniquity.
    Jer 9:6 Heaping oppression upon oppression, and deceit upon deceit, they refuse to know me, declares the LORD.
    Jer 9:7 Therefore thus says the LORD of hosts: "Behold, I will refine them and test them, for what else can I do, because of my people?
    Jer 9:8 Their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully; with his mouth each speaks peace to his neighbor, but in his heart he plans an ambush for him.


    For me, there is a general sense that something is amiss with him.

    Someone, at some blog, commented they thought David was a closet Baha'i believer? He certainly does not believe in the Trinity.

    Agreed, Annoyed, David W. is widely read, full of knowledge; and can speak to the knowledge of those he has read.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I realize that you've been engaged with Dale Tuggy for the sake of the truth and not for "attaboys", but I've been following this series with great interest because of its implications for, and application to, Oneness Pentecostalism and I feel that I need to say, "attaboy Steve"!

    It's clear that Dr. Tuggy is a bright enough guy, but his penchant for rhetorical flourishes and appeals to authority (mostly his own it seems) are no match for the truth of Scripture ably defended and advanced by a saint of Christ.

    Thanks to you and T-blogue for being valiant for the truth, my hat is off to you!

    In Christ,
    CD

    ReplyDelete