John 20:28; Hilary of Poitiers Puts all Doubts of the Father’s Monarchy to RestMy Nicene Monarchist party has been accused of innovation respecting the interpretation of John 20:28 which states,Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”My group has stated that this verse does not mean that Jesus is the one God, but that Jesus is the eternally begotten son of the one God who is “the radiance of His (the one God the Father) glory and the exact representation of His nature”. (Heb 1:3-Which reeks of the idea of emanation.)
i) One wonders how many other Clarkian Scripturalists belong
to Drake’s “Monarchist party.”
ii) How would Hilary’s opinion lay to rest all doubts about
the Father’s monarchy? The mere fact that Hilary believes something to be the
case hardly makes it to be the case. His interpretation of Jn 28:28 isn’t
self-validating.
iii) Jn 20:28 says nothing about the Father’s monarchy one
way of the other. It’s entirely silent on that issue.
Notice that Drake is making a classic unitarian move in
relation to Jn 20:28. He draws a distinction between the articular use of theos
and the anarthrous use of theos, then acts as though that syntactical
distinction is theologically significant. Indeed, all-important.
For him, this means that while Jesus may be “God” is some
muted sense, he falls short of being the God.
Anyone who’s debated Jehovah’s Witnesses will recognize this
tactic.
An obvious problem with that argument is that John uses the
anarthrous construction for theos in passages like Jn 1:6,13 & 9:16,33
where Drake’s “Monarchist party” presumably thinks the Father is the
grammatical referent.
I also notice that Drake and Ryan both fail to draw a
rudimentary distinction between theos as a proper noun and theos as a common
noun. I went over that ground with unitarian Dale Tuggy.
iv) Does Heb 1:3 “reek of emanation”? Let’s consider the
second clause: “the exact representation of his nature.”
Drake is assuming that the metaphor emphasizes the process rather
than the result. As if the point of the metaphor is to explain the process by
which the Son originates: “emanation.”
However, the verse itself accentuates the resultant aspect
of the metaphor: By nature, Father and Son exactly resemble each other. Exact,
essential correspondence.
This trades on the metaphorical relationship between a die
and what is stamped, like stamping an image and superscription on a coin.
There’s a mirror image between the die and the impression made by the die.
v) In addition, if Drake is going to press the metaphor,
then that backfires. A die is made of harder metal than the metal it stamps.
Precious metals like gold and silver are softer than iron. If you press the
metaphor, this doesn’t mean the Father is greater than the Son. To the
contrary, a gold or silver coin is more valuable than the metal composing the
die.
That’s true of the casting process generally. Take a ceramic
mold for a golden bowl, where molten gold is poured into the mold. After it
cools, the outer mold is broken, leaving a solid gold bowl. The shape of the
bowl exactly matches the mould, but the bowl is clearly more valuable than the
mold.
vi) Incidentally, the same problem afflicts to press the
father/son metaphor. For sons can outstrip their fathers. For instance, Isaac
Newton’s father was a farmer, whereas his son was the founder of modern
physics, and cofounder of calculus. Clearly the son was greater than the
father.
vii) This is not the only unitarian move made by Drake’s
party. For instance, Ryan draws a distinction between the Mighty God and God
Almighty. Once again, that’s a classic unitarian tactic. Anyone who’s debated
Jehovah’s Witnesses will recognize that move.
They act as if that’s a theologically significant
distinction. They also disregard equally exalted titles applied to Jesus, viz.
“I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the
end” (Rev 22:13).
As a rule, Ryan is more careful and cautious than Drake, so
I’m hoping that he will outgrow his youthful infatuation with Drake’s
“semi-Arianism.” Only time will tell.
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:"Ryan draws a distinction between the Mighty God and God Almighty. Once again, that’s a classic unitarian tactic."
Mighty God = el qibbor
God Almighty = El Shaddai
Guity of association does not proof Ryan's distinction to be wrong.
Mark Xu:
Delete"Guity of association does not proof Ryan's distinction to be wrong."
Thanks for illustrating your dissimulation. You quote part of what I said, but omit my conclusion. I went on to say: "They act as if that’s a theologically significant distinction."
The question is not whether Mighty God and God Almighty are different names, but whether that's a theologically significant distinction. Unitarians draw that distinction to claim that being the "Mighty God" falls short of being "God Almighty," as if the "Mighty God" is a lesser title.
BTW Steve, Isaiah 10:20-21 uses the exact phrase El Gibbor ("Mighty God") for Jehovah himself. Since this phrase is used of the Son in the previous chapter, I don't see how anyone could argue that such a title means something less than El Shaddai, unless they want to argue that Jehovah is not God Almighty, but only mighty. When we add the fact that Isaiah affirms that there is no other God or el/elohim besides Jehovah (Isa. 37:16-20; 43:10-11; 44:6-8; 45:5-6, 21-22; 46:9), then it becomes pretty obvious that the Son must be Jehovah in order for him to be the might God, and must therefore be God Almighty if he is Jehovah also.
DeleteAlso in Isa. 44:24 Jehovah claims that He created the world all alone and by Himself. If Jesus is less deity than the Father, and if the NT clearly teaches that the Father created through the Son, then there would seem to be a contradiction between the testaments.
DeleteThus says the LORD, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb: “I am the LORD, who made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself,- Isa. 44:24 (ESV)
For by him [i.e. Christ] 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.- Col. 1:16 (ESV)
All things were made through him [i.e. Christ], and without him was not any thing made that was made.-John 1:3 (ESV)
but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.- Heb. 1:2 (ESV)
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:"Notice that Drake is making a classic unitarian move in relation to Jn 20:28. He draws a distinction between the articular use of theos and the anarthrous use of theos, then acts as though that syntactical distinction is theologically significant. Indeed, all-important.
For him, this means that while Jesus may be “God” is some muted sense, he falls short of being the God.
Anyone who’s debated Jehovah’s Witnesses will recognize this tactic."
Whether Drake is making a classical unitarian move or not is not relevant to refuting him, the Bible used "o theos" to Jesus only twice, once in Hebrew 1, once by Thomas. In Hebrew 1, the Son is called the God, but the next verse said the God of this the God annoited him. In this case in John 20,the purpose of Drake's quotation of Hilary is to show Jesus is truly by nature by essence God, being the Son of that God. Note, by showing Jesus is by nature truly God, is different than saying,Jesus is that God, no, that God is the Father whose Son Jesus is.
Hilary said:"We confess One God, alone unmade, alone eternal, alone unoriginate, alone true, alone possessing immortality, alone good, alone mighty, Creator, Ordainer and Disposer of all things, unchangeable and unalterable, righteous and good, of the Law and the Prophets and the New Testament. We believe that THIS GOD gave birth to the Only-begotten Son before all worlds, through Whom He made the world and all things; that He gave birth to Him not in semblance, but in truth, following His own Will, so that He is unchangeable and unalterable, God's perfect creature but not as one of His other creatures" And again:"But, as we have affirmed, we believe that He was created by the will of God before times and worlds, and has His life and existence from the Father, Who gave Him to share His own glorious perfections. For, when the Father gave to Him the inheritance of all things, He did not thereby deprive Himself of attributes which are His without origination, He being the source of all things" De Trinitate, Lib 4, xii
Mark Xu:
Delete“Whether Drake is making a classical unitarian move or not is not relevant to refuting him…”
To the contrary, it’s very telling when he must resort to stock unitarian arguments to defend his position.
“The Bible used ‘o theos’ to Jesus only twice, once in Hebrew 1, once by Thomas.”
You’re just parroting the unitarian argument all over again as if the distinction between the anarthrous construction and the articular construction is theologically significant, even though, in this very post, I explained why that’s not the case.
You need to stop regurgitating what Drake, Ryan, Samuel Clarke et al are spoon-feeding you, and learn how to think for yourself. You should pay attention to counterarguments.
“In Hebrew 1, the Son is called the God, but the next verse said the God of this the God annoited him.”
Two divine subjects: the Father and the Son.
“In this case in John 20,the purpose of Drake's quotation of Hilary is to show Jesus is truly by nature by essence God, being the Son of that God.”
Quoting Hilary is an illicit argument from authority. Hilary’s interpretation isn’t true by definition. Hilary wasn’t an apostle or prophet. And it’s not exegesis.
“Note, by showing Jesus is by nature truly God, is different than saying,Jesus is that God, no, that God is the Father whose Son Jesus is.”
Where are you getting that dichotomy? Are we still taking about Jn 20:28?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:"They act as if that’s a theologically significant distinction. They also disregard equally exalted titles applied to Jesus, viz. “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end” (Rev 22:13).
This argument is addressed by Athanasius in Contra Ariano Lib 1 IX, "Different senses of the word. If it means 'without Father,' there is but One Unoriginate; if 'without beginning or creation,' there are two." There are two Alpha and Omega, but only one Agenetos.
Clarke's argument is also classic, if you argue supreme titles are attributed to Father and Son without any distinction, the only conclusion is that the Father and Son are one and the same person, for an intelligent being is a person.
Mark Xu:
ReplyDelete“This argument is addressed by Athanasius…”
Quoting a church father doesn’t make it true, or even probably true. That doesn’t create any presumption in its favor.
“Different senses of the word. If it means 'without Father,' there is but One Unoriginate; if 'without beginning or creation,' there are two." There are two Alpha and Omega, but only one Agenetos.”
That’s a distraction. You’re interpolating distinctions that can’t be found in Revelation.
“Clarke's argument is also classic, if you argue supreme titles are attributed to Father and Son without any distinction, the only conclusion is that the Father and Son are one and the same person, for an intelligent being is a person.”
Clarke’s argument is fallacious. The same title can be attributed to more than one person. The title can have the same meaning, but different referents. Clarke is confusing sense and reference, intension and extension. That’s a semantic fallacy.
The distinction lies, not in the title, but the referents.
Drake Shelton:
ReplyDelete“The blog was concerned with the idea that my view of John 20:28 and the Father’s Monarchy in general, was not an innovation but was very strictly operating off of ‘established exegesis of key passages of Scripture.’”
Except for the awkward little fact that Drake can’t exegete the Father’s monarchy from Jn 20:28. He can’t get here from there. If that’s a key text for his position, then he’s dead in the water.
“Steve has no exegetical or historical leg to stand on for his own position or to criticize my position.”
Exegesis doesn’t need a leg to stand on beyond the quality of the supporting arguments. Drake’s complaint is an admission of failure. He can’t justify his position exegetically.
I don’t need a historical leg to stand on. Truth doesn’t need to lean on patristic crutches.
“(He has yet to show a passage that says the One God is three persons or that the One God is an essence).”
That’s a stupid objection. There doesn’t need to be a singular prooftext for the Trinity. It’s a theological construct, based on many passages.
“He disallows my position to associate itself with historical association...”
It’s not just a historical association. He isn’t merely using arguments that coincidentally happen to be similar to unitarians. Rather, he’s recycling unitarian arguments.
“…but criticizes it by simply stating that it sounds Unitarian, it sounds JW-thus appealing to history.”
No, I don’t “simply” do that. I also show why it’s wrong.
“What is also troubling is that Steve thinks that all appeals to authority are fallacious.”
Did I suggest that “all” appeals to authority are fallacious? No.
For instance, appealing to the Bible is a valid argument from authority.
Likewise, appealing to an expert witness can be legit, although that’s a qualified appeal.
The problem is when men who claim to be Protestants pretend that the church fathers were in a privileged position of superior understanding when, as a matter of fact, we know that was not the case. They don’t have any special insight into the divine nature. They aren’t seraphim who stand in God’s presence. The church fathers are limited to the Bible, just like the rest of us, for what they know about the Trinity, the person of Christ, &c.
“I have already shown Steve and Steve knows that the Romanist Church, the Eastern Church, the Lutheran, the Anglican, the Presbyterian, all recognize Church authority.”
That’s a gut-buster coming from a law unto himself like Drake.
Church authority doesn’t include the authority to dictate what Scripture means. We’ve been down that road with Rome. It leads to a washed-out bridge.
“Steve is a Restorationist Anabaptist…”
Even if that were true, I’d far rather be an Anabaptist than be a Christ-denier like Drake.
Historically, Unitarians would appeal to verse 17 rather than verse 28 if they were going to appeal to a passage or verse from chapter 20 of John.
DeleteJesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”-John 20:17 (ESV)
When I was struggling to decide between Arianism, Semi-Arianism, Modalism, and Trinitarianism 15 years ago, there were certain passages and arguments that lead me to side with Trinitarianism. Some of the *passages* include the following.
ReplyDeleteClassic passages that either imply or seem to directly identify Jesus with Jehovah/YHWH:
John 12:41 cf. Isa. 6:1;
Rev. 2:23 cf. Jer. 17:10;
Rom. 10:13 cf. Joel 2:32;
Phil. 2:10-11 cf. Isa. 45:23;
Acts 1:8 cf. Isa. 43:10,12; 44:8;
Mark 1:3 cf. Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1;
John 8:58 cf. Exo. 3:14;
1 Cor. 2:8; Jam. 2:1 cf. Ps. 24:10;
Heb. 1:10-12 cf. Ps. 102:25-27;
Zech 14:5 cf.1 Thess. 3:13;
1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Thess. 5:2; cf. and the many OT passages that refer to the "Day of YHWH";
Eph. 4:8 cf. Ps. 68:18;
Heb. 13:8 cf. Mal. 3:6;
1 Pet. 3:14-15 cf. Isa. 8:12-14;
Rev. 1:8; 17; 2:8; 22:13 cf. Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12;
One way Unitarians try to get around these type of passages is by saying Christ is referred to as Jehovah in an agentival representation of Jehovah.But the problem is that some of these passages refer to attributes that one would think apply only to God unoriginate (e.g. Ps. 102:25ff.). Isn't that what's implied when God refers to Himself as "first and last" in the OT? Isn't this also what Christ claiming in Rev. 1:17, 2:8; and 22:13? [note:I don't include 1:8 as I did above because it's not as clear that Christ is the subject]
Annoyed Pinoy,
DeleteThanks for posting these scriputral support for your view, that is the kind of answer I like so that iron may sharpen iron, and we may correct ourselves by scripture.
I will study these carefully and share with you my thoughts.
Mark
You're welcome Mark. This is just the tip of the iceberg of verses that teach, in some way or other, the full deity of Christ. I haven't read the book yet, but I hear that the following is a great place to start for a Biblical case for the full deity of Christ. Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ by Robert Bowman, J. Ed Komoszewski and Darrell L. Bock. However, I doubt it'll address the specific issues surrounding the monarchy of the Father and the kinds of subordination the Son and Spirit have under the Father. Nevertheless, books like the above will show just how high and exalted the place Scripture has given to the Lord Jesus Christ.
DeleteCorrection: It was over 20-24 years ago that I was struggling to determine which Christological view was Biblical. I came to Trinitarianism about 20 years ago. Then I re-examined the issues 14/15 years ago, while reading some of the early Church fathers. I remained a Trinitarian and added a belief in the eternal generation and eternal sonship of Christ along with the Filioque theology. However, today, I'm no longer as certain about those added beliefs (especially the Filioque theology).