Drake Shelton:
Am I the only one on this planet that sees what has happened to the Church? THIS IS INSANE!
You’re not alone, Drake. Many patients in padded cells are
equally convinced that they’re the only ones left who see what’s really going
on. Why won’t anyone listen to their warnings? Soooo frustrating!
I wish I could offer Drake more support, but the alien
overlords who invaded our planet won’t let me to explain how you can detect
their presence or distinguish them from the humans they impersonate.
Yet Steve Hays has admitted that there are many different kinds of Unitarianism. Thus the accusation remains bogged down in ambiguity.
Likewise, there are many kinds of Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism,
&c. Since the many different kinds of unitarianism are damnable falsehoods,
a more exacting classification is moot.
My Nicene brothers, we can comfortably assume that when a man comes against us with Romans 9:5, he is an excuseless, ignorant apostate.
Copy/pasting quotes from Hippolytus and Tertullian isn’t
exegesis. If you want to parse Rom 9:5, read Bruce Metzger or Murray J. Harris.
BTW, Drake and his cohorts aren’t “Nicene.” Rather, they
retreat into the ante-Nicene Fathers–filtered through Samuel Clarke.
An appeal to Hyppolytus is an odd choice for a unitarian and/or modalist. His writing against Noetus, for example, is anti-modalist.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone is interested, here are two links to an introductory article that argues for why Romans 9:5 affirms the fully Deity of Christ. It's by Gary F. Zeolla the translator of the ALT version of the NT.
ReplyDeleteRomans 9:5 Research
Part ONE
Part TWO
Here's another article on the same verse by (I believe) Robert Hommel. He interacts with Greg Stafford's views.
Romans 9 article
Canon Liddon in his Bampton lectures at Oxford University said that a doxology to Christ as God "is the natural sense of the passage. If the passage occurred in a profane author and its essence and structure alone had to be considered, few critics would think of overlooking the antithesis between [Greek which I, AP, am guessing should be transliterated as 'ho Christos to kata sarka'] and [Greek: 'theos eulogetos']. Still less possible would it be to destroy this antithesis outright, and to impoverish the climax of the whole passage, by cutting off the doxology from the clause which precedes it, and so erecting it into an independent ascription of praise to God the Father."
DeleteHendriksen wrote:
"This item serves as a fitting climax. From them, that is, from the Israelites (see verse 4) Christ derived his human nature. He was and is a Jew. What a source of intense satisfaction and rejoicing this should be for Jews! The apostle hastens to add that although Jesus is indeed a Jew, he is also much more than a Jew. Though he has a human nature, he also has a divine nature. He is God! It should be clear that when Paul says, 'Christ, who is over all God blest forever,' he confesses Christ's deity."
A.T Robertson wrote in his Word Studies
"A clear statement of the deity of christ following the remark about his humanity. This is the natural and the obvious way of punctuating the sentence. To make a full stop after sarka (or colon) and start a new sentence for the doxology is very abrupt and awkward. See Acts 20:28 and Titus 2:13 for Paul's use of theos applied to Jesus Christ."
Charles Hodge wrote:
"The relative who must agree with the nearest antecedent. There is no other subject in the context sufficiently prominent to make a departure from this ordinary rule, in this case, even plausible."
Deal Alford wrote:
"The rendering...is the only one admissible by the rules of grammar and arrangement."
Raymond Brown wrote:
"...This interpretation would mean that Paul calls Jesus God. From a grammatical viewpoint this is clearly the best reading, [sic] Also, the contextual sequence is excellent; for having spoken of Jesus' descent according to the flesh, Paul now emphasizes his position as God."
Lenski wrote:
"Christ is over all, i.e., the supreme Lord. This apposition is complete in itself. If no more were added, this apposition makes Christ God, for we have yet to hear of one who is 'over all' and is not God."
Robert Haldane wrote:
"The awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socinians in their explanations, or rather perversions, of the Word of God, are in nothing more obvious than in their attempts to evade the meaning of this celebrated testimony to the Godhead of our Lord Jesus Christ. They often shelter themselves under various readings; but here they have no tenable ground for an evasion of this kind. Yet, strange to say, some of them have, without the authority of manuscripts, alter the original, in order that it may suit their purpose. there is no difficulty in the words - no intricacy in the construction; yet, by a forced construction and an unnatural punctuation, they have endeavored to turn away this testimony from its obvious import. Contrary to the genius and idiom of the Greek - contrary to all the usual rules of interpreting language, as had often been incontrovertibly shown - they substitute 'God be blessed'...Such tortuous explanations are not only rejected by a sound interpretation of the original, but manifest themselves to be unnatural, even to the most illiterate who exercises an unprejudiced judgment."
Quotes taken from pages 332-335 of Robert Morey's The Trinity: Evidence and Issues. I'm too lazy to type out all the sources. So, if you want the sources, get a copy of Morey's book.
BTW, Drake and his cohorts aren’t “Nicene.” Rather, they retreat into the ante-Nicene Fathers–filtered through Samuel Clarke.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking for my own posts, I do not believe this is true. I've read The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity once, a few pages of The Modest Plea, and the only post in which I mention him is in reference to comments he made with which I disagree.
When I commented on Novatian (ante-Nicene) and Alexander of Alexandria (Nicene), I do not believe I omitted any positions either held to which would indicate intellectual dishonesty on the subject about which I was writing: how each viewed the relationship of the Son to the Father in respect to the immanent Trinity. In any case, both wrote relatively short works, so anyone so inclined can compare my conclusions to their writings to see if I do them justice.
Until you answer the argument that Hyppolytus gave with 1 Cor 15 and admit that you are using the same arguments from the same scriptures as the Sabellians I see no reason to take your blog here very seriously. You are an Anabaptist, Restorationist, Sabellian and you have yet to have the honesty to admit it. You keep demanding exegesis from blogs that were created to show historical association, even though the attention gave to 1 Cor 15 is damning to your view. We have been through this before. You don't want to have to face the arguments. Just stop with the apologetics game Steve. You are harming other people's souls. If you don't want to have to face arguments, just get out of apologetics. I saw this in your debate with Perry Robinson as well. Your "system" is an ad hoc Frankenstein that can't even justify its own attempts to associate someone else with a historical error like Unitarianism. I notice you blew right past the first few sentences that asked you to provide any historical justification for calling me a Unitarian.I provided plenty of justification that you and your co. are Sabellians. Thank you for proving me right.
ReplyDeleteI've already provided my exegesis of 1 Cor 15. You're behind the curve.
Delete"I see no reason to take your blog here very seriously."
That's your problem, Drake. You imagine that everyone takes you as seriously as you take yourself. You're not important to me, Drake. You're just a foil. A curiosity to illustrate Scripturalism gone to seed.
Still no answers to 1 Cor 15 and still no distinction between your view and the Sabellian.
DeleteHere's one of many places where Steve addressed 1 Cor. 15
DeleteThe Last Adam
Drake Shelton
Delete"...and still no distinction between your view and the Sabellian."
Since your accusation is asserted without argument, it can be dismissed without argument.
Annoyed Pinoy,
ReplyDelete"Here's one of many places where Steve addressed 1 Cor. 15
The Last Adam"
>>>Steve fails to address the fact that the glory given to the Father supersedes that of the Son and he also avoided the issue of the fact that the Son is not over all absolutely .
It seems to me that the glory given to the Father superseding that of the Son is consistent with Arianism (most especially), Semi-Arianism, Nicene Trinitarianism, Constantinopolitan Trinitarianism/Eastern Orthodox Trinitarianism, Catholic Trinitarianism, Evangelical versions of Trinitarianism like that found in the WCF and the LBCF, and maybe even conceptions of Trinitarianism that teach Christ and the Spirit are autotheos (though, obviously the least consistent).
DeleteI think that's why Steve was looking for arguments. He said, "Since your accusation is asserted without argument, it can be dismissed without argument. "
Quoting Church Fathers isn't much of an argument since their arguments don't address modern issues and positions nor are their arguments as rigorously formulated as we've come to expect in modern apologetical encounters.
I have no problem quoting the Fathers to demonstrate 1. one's position is not novel and 2. is consistent with the belief and teaching of previous generations of believers. But quoting them for proof of a doctrine works for Catholics and the Orthodox, not Protestants like ourselves.
1 Cor. 15 says there's a temporal limit to Christ's reign. Yet, Dan. 7:14 says Christ's reign is everlasting. Either we have an irreconcilable contradiction or there is one sense in which it terminates and another sense in which it continues. The various Evangelical conceptions of the Trinity can accommodate both data by saying with respect to His human Messiahship Christ's reign will one day end when the Kingdom is given to the Father. But with respect to His Divine authority, His reign will continue forever.
Drake Shelton
Delete"Steve fails to address the fact that the glory given to the Father supersedes that of the Son..."
There's nothing to address since 1 Cor 15 doesn't talk about "glory" given to the Father.
"...and he also avoided the issue of the fact that the Son is not over all absolutely."
Far from avoiding it, I address that issue specifically and extensively. Drake lacks basic reading skills.
"You're just a foil. A curiosity to illustrate Scripturalism gone to seed."
ReplyDeleteI hardly think Scripturalism is responsible for Shelton's rejection of the God of Scripture and his obvious mental disorders than it is for his racism.
A better foil for you might be Hedrich. Not because he's any more of a Scripturalist as he rejects (or at least doesn't understand) even basics of Gordon Clark's epistemology, but because he once won the Trinity Foundation's Worldview Contest. Now that's embarrassing.
Of course, Michael Sudduth was once the winner of the Clark Prize in Apologetics (a prize John Robbins immediately discontinued after his experience with Sudduth). But, as tempting as that might be, I don't think you can really use Sudduth as an example of "Scripturalism gone to seed" either. Last I checked, and prior to his donning orange robes and finger bells while dancing around San Fran airport, Sudduth was widely embraced by you and others as a fellow Vantillian and even a leader in the so-called "RE" movement. Funny how those foils work.
Other than that, I enjoyed your post. Great exegetical point and very funny.
A better foil for you might be Hedrich. Not because he's any more of a Scripturalist as he rejects (or at least doesn't understand) even basics of Gordon Clark's epistemology...
DeleteThat is ridiculous. You haven't even begun to show that.