Apostate unitarians and apostate atheists share something fundamental in common. As I've often noted, there's frequently a difference between atheists in general and apostates in particular. Typically, someone who deconverts from Christianity still uses Christianity as a frame of reference. There's lots of carryover. Apostate atheists typically retain a residual idealism and moralism that's at odds with naturalism. They act as though belief in God is a discrete, self-contained belief. They can put Christianity behind them but still retain everything of value. This is unlike atheists (e.g. David Benatar, Alex Rosenberg, Daniel Dennett, W. V. Quine) who don't use Christianity as a frame of reference, who labor to construct a secular worldview from the bottom up.
By the same token, apostate unitarians like Dale Tuggy still use traditional Christianity as a frame of reference. They act as though belief in the Trinity and Incarnation are expendable, self-contained beliefs that you can discard while leaving the overall structure intact. They're not constructing unitarianism from scratch.
For instance, why is the unitarian Jesus sinless? He's just another guy like you and me. What makes him the lone exception to the universality of sin?
What's so special about his death? What makes his death vicarious compared to the death of any other martyr? Isn't he essentially interchangeable with other human beings? The difference is just the arbitrary assignment of a unique role. But in principle, God could just as well pick another man to play the same role.
How can the unitarian Jesus process millions of prayers a day in hundreds of different languages? Here the cult of the unitarian Jesus suffers from the same incoherence as the cult of Mary.
If the Incarnation is true, then God is accessible to humans in a way that's not the case if unitarianism is true. God comes down to our own level, as one of us. Likewise, if the Trinity is true, then God is essentially interpersonal.
This is why the Deity of unitarian traditions like Islam and rabbinical Judaism is so unapproachable. There's a fundamental lack of commonality to bridge the metaphysical distance. In Islam and rabbinical Judaism, you have divine transcendence without divine immanence.
Yeah, I've always wondered how unitarians could properly make sense of the biblical gospel.
ReplyDeleteSteve, you know someday you're going to have to apologize to me for publicly slandering me by calling me an "apostate" X number of times. I will forgive, as this is what the Lord teaches, but don't say I didn't warn you!
ReplyDeleteBelief in catholic Incarnation and Trinity theories is indeed dispensable. Christianity did just great in the first couple hundred years without them. It still does, to a large extent, as most Christians ignore these in preaching and in their spiritual lives. If you actually interacted with some Christians from non-trinitarian churches, you would probably think this is obviously true - that one can be born again, and a true disciple of the Lord Jesus, without thinking highly of these 4th and 5th century speculations.
To briefly answer your scattershot objections, according to the gospels God gave Jesus his Spirit without measure. Yet, seemingly Jesus could have disobeyed, but did not, and was greatly rewarded for his obedience. As to how he hears prayers, evidently, when God raised and exalted him, he must have upgraded Jesus's powers to be able to accomplish his new job description. Not hard for an omnipotent and omniscient being to do! Nor, as Thomas Morris has pointed out, is there any obvious upper limit on the knowledge and power that is compatible with being a human. Your idea that Jesus must have all these powers essentially is just an unexamined assumption that you have inherited from catholic tradition.
That God is "essentially interpersonal" - that this is somehow really important - it's just not in the New Testament, nor does reason support the claim. It's just a recent pet idea. Literally no one was making that claim 200 years ago.
Do you love God and his Son enough to *think* about them? I pray that you will do this, and not just aggressively polemicize on behalf of current catholic traditions. Reformation is still going on, and will continue, as long as necessary, God willing. http://21stcr.org
Dale,
DeleteI don't seek your forgiveness. It's amusing that you complain about the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian creed, but then make not so veiled threats of eschatological judgment awaiting Christians like me who reject unitarianism.
Projecting, eh? No, Steve, I don't claim that you'll be damned. I assume that you accept the basics of the gospel, despite your sins. I've done many things as idiotic. It's just, I would like to save you the embarrassment! For anyone who knows me, it is a laughable error to assert that I have left the faith. If you think that serving God and his people requires calling me "an apostate" - you go ahead and do it. But it would be better for you to revisit what exactly according to the NT is required for being a Christian.
DeleteIf Jesus isn't God, then how could He possibly atone for all our sins?
DeleteDale Tuggy
Delete"Projecting, eh? No, Steve, I don't claim that you'll be damned. I assume that you accept the basics of the gospel, despite your sins."
The "basics" of the gospel would be quite different for a Unitarian than for a Trinitarian. Unitarianism changes the fundamental nature of the Godhead, which has significant repercussions on the gospel. Otherwise...
"But it would be better for you to revisit what exactly according to the NT is required for being a Christian."
...I'd be interested in hearing you spell out what you think that is.
I certainly pray for you to escape idolatry, Dale. You’re in deep. But our Lord and God Jesus is merciful.
Delete“Christianity did just great in the first couple hundred years without them.”
What would Muslims do without unitarians developing all their talking points?
“It still does, to a large extent, as most Christians ignore these in preaching and in their spiritual lives.”
If by “most Christians” you mean anyone who adopts the label “Christian” then there are a lot of Christians who ignore the resurrection, Christian exclusivism, the Lordship of Christ, etc.
“If you actually interacted with some Christians from non-trinitarian churches,”
If you interacted with some Christians from universalist churches you’d find out someone can be born again and a disciple of Jesus without worrying about all that Bible stuff.
“God gave Jesus his Spirit without measure.”
How’s that impressive? God stacked the deck for Jesus. Why’s he so special? How does this make God just?
“Yet, seemingly Jesus could have disobeyed, but did not, and was greatly rewarded for his obedience.”
Once you break off from the Bible the sky’s the limit on what heresy you can embrace. If God gave Jesus the Spirit without measure and Jesus could have still disobeyed, then God is pathetic. Yet when you deny the Trinity this is what you get.
“As to how he hears prayers, evidently, when God raised and exalted him, he must have upgraded Jesus's powers to be able to accomplish his new job description.”
“Must have”? Who’s speculating now?
There’s an upgrade from receiving “God’s spirit without measure”?!
“Not hard for an omnipotent and omniscient being to do!”
Only problem with this observation is it has nothing to do with the Jesus of the Bible.
“That God is "essentially interpersonal" - that this is somehow really important - it's just not in the New Testament,”
Patently false. The complete and total knowledge of each person as He relates to the other two is taught in Scripture. You don’t like it, but that’s just the way it is.
“nor does reason support the claim.”
Whose reason? Unitarian reason? Big deal.
“Literally no one was making that claim 200 years ago.”
Except the NT authors, 2000 years ago. They talk at length about how the Father, Son and Spirit know and reveal one another as no one else can.
What you want is a first century treatise from God on all the possible conceptions of “personhood,” just like atheists want one on theoretical physics.
“Do you love God and his Son enough to *think* about them?”
Indeed. That’s why I don’t make the glorious, eternal Son into a Hebrew Hercules.
“I don't claim that you'll be damned.”
That’s just evidence of your confusion. You’ve got an OT God who couldn’t be more clear about who you can and can’t worship and why, who then pulls a 180, makes a first century Jew a second god, and then blames Jews for not worshipping him!
It’s just like when you meet those “Muslims” who tell you it’s ok if you worship Jesus, only problem is they’re not really Muslims! You’ve set up a false Jesus, no different than the Marcionites, Muslims or Oprah Winfrey. You’re an idolater.
I think you’re well intentioned, and good natured, and genuinely believe what you say, but that doesn’t change the fact that on your own presuppositions we are setting Jesus and the Spirit up as YHWH. Anyone can step into your worldview and see what you should believe about us.
“I assume that you accept the basics of the gospel, despite your sins.”
We worship Jesus as YHWH! There’s no Gospel without it.
“For anyone who knows me, it is a laughable error to assert that I have left the faith.”
Marcion would have said the same.
“But it would be better for you to revisit what exactly according to the NT is required for being a Christian.”
Saying Jesus is Lord and he died and rose again. You can’t do that.
“The difference is only a matter of degree.”
DeleteGeez. C’mon man. At least put up a fight. Even if Christians agreed to this “degree” definition, anyone, Universalists, Bahá'ís, liberal Muslims etc, could throw themselves under this umbrella. I can count how many times I’ve heard someone say “Jesus’ message was about unity, not division.”
Personally I’ve never known anyone who identified as Unitarian who believed any other orthodox doctrines, usually just some vague theism. No one can deny that they skew to the theological left, especially once they’ve jettisoned the Trinity.
“Funny, how the NT authors fail to explicitly mention "the Trinity"”
Come now. Seriously?
“that Jesus somehow consists of a "divine nature" mysteriously combined with "a human nature."”
So much for all that charity you’re always going on about.
“Pro-tip: when you don't mingle much with other sorts of Christians, you can get to thinking that doctrines of inference are just the obvious meanings of the texts. E.g. a Roman Catholic who thinks that the fourth gospel obviously teaches transubstantiation.”
We can go to the ground with RC exegetes and show that’s not taught in the NT. Just like we can go to the ground with unitarians and show the deity of Christ is.
“humbly mingle, and think.”
Don’t keep such an open head your brains fall out. Sinner or later you’ve got to take a stand for Biblical truth.
“You may start to see how others makes sense of scripture.”
Unitarians don’t make sense of Scripture, only Christians.
"God gave Jesus his Spirit without measure"
DeleteIf that's your explanation for why Jesus is sinless, then why doesn't God give everybody the Spirit without measure to make them sinless, too?
"As to how he hears prayers, evidently, when God raised and exalted him, he must have upgraded Jesus's powers to be able to accomplish his new job description. Not hard for an omnipotent and omniscient being to do! Nor, as Thomas Morris has pointed out, is there any obvious upper limit on the knowledge and power that is compatible with being a human. Your idea that Jesus must have all these powers essentially is just an unexamined assumption that you have inherited from catholic tradition."
That's way too facile:
i) There are things even an omnipotent God can't do. God can't deify a creature. God can often produce an effect directly by circumventing nature, but if God is working with and through a natural medium, then that's a self-imposed limitation on what God is able to do, via the medium.
ii) No upper limit on the power that's compatible with being human? Surely you jest? I'll have to keep that in mind when I wish a Ferrari into existence.
iii) As for knowledge, even if that has no upper limit, it's still cumulative. That doesn't mean a human mind can simultaneously process millions of prayers in hundreds of languages. To postulate that human memory is potentially infinite doesn't imply that a human attention span is potentially infinite. We're only conscious of a tiny fraction of what we remember. Human multitasking has severe limitations. What we can be aware of/concentrate on at any given moment, is severely restricted.
Ironically, you have to divinize your merely human Jesus to account for his superhuman abilities.
i) Not relevant.
Deleteii) In principle, yes. As best we can tell, the omnipotent God could give you such a power.
iii) Sorry, but your untutored intuitions about what might be an upper limits to human cognition are not terribly relevant here. The New Testament plainly says that Jesus is a man, and also that he has been given all authority post-resurrection. It also is explicit that a resurrected person has thereby been made immortal. That is a pretty major upgrade! It's not hard to imagine that Jesus may have been given large upgrades in terms of power and knowledge, and not only in position. You could call this a kind of divinization if you want, but it wouldn't make him divine in the way that the one God is divine, for he has these qualities to their maximum extent essentially, and could not possibly get them from someone else.
Jesus was worshiped. He was prayed to. He had to power to forgive sins. He was sinless. He obviously is divine. He is both fully human and fully divine; co-eternal with the Father. Dale obviously does not grasp the obvious truth of the divine Scripture. God can do whatever He wants, insofar that His actions are consistent with His nature. Never heard of an "upgraded" Jesus 2.0 version before.
Delete"Never heard of an "upgraded" Jesus 2.0 version before."
DeleteYeah, I believe you. The explicit New Testament doctrine of God's exaltation of Jesus tends to disappear given catholic ideas about Incarnation. They just think that either he's getting his rightful glory back that he temporarily set aside, or that now the curtain has been lifted, and now one can see how divine he was all along. But the actual New Testament idea is far more radical. It is based on Psalm 110:1 and on Daniel 7. Yes, a *man* has been raised to God's right hand! Amazing!
Dale, you're not actually refuting my arguments. That's a pattern of yours.
DeleteDale can mock me all he wants, but his version of a somehow imperfect Jesus is simply blasphemy.
DeleteHis "proof-texts" don't support his twisted doctrine.
DeleteSteve, I enjoy your Trumpian declarations of victory. It's a good rhetorical strategy.
DeleteJesse, I don't believe that I've mocked you anywhere. In reference to your question, we biblical unitarians do not accept what for many is an unexamined assumption, that Jesus could atone for our sins only if he's God, or if he's fully divine, etc. The NT doesn't assert or assume that anywhere, but only that he's a worthy "lamb," a faithful human Messiah, rewarded for his obedience. (Phil 2) If you think my views are based on "proof texts"... in general, biblical unitarians like me have spent a long time studying the whole NT. This guy would be an example: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-biblical-unitarian-podcast/id1347983887?mt=2 We think that examining verses *in context* very often favors our sort of readings, as opposed to competing catholic ones.
DeleteNo really--how could a mere man make atonement for a debt that requires INFINITE payment? How could a mere man obey the law PERFECTLY in our place so that we could be forgiven?
DeleteSome of this stuff should go without explicit commentary.
Delete"Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of the Messiah, WHO IS GOD OVER ALL, forever praised! Amen." (Romans 9:5)
DeleteNone of your proof-texts say that Jesus is not God or is a created being. You're a liar.
DeleteHow could a mere man be sinless? How could Jesus resurrect from the grave, conquer sin, and overcome Satan, if He were not God? Please tell us--or is it true that you simply have your head buried in the sand?
Delete[Dale Tuggy] "In reference to your question, we biblical unitarians do not accept what for many is an unexamined assumption, that Jesus could atone for our sins only if he's God, or if he's fully divine, etc."
DeleteNaturally they don't accept that since they're...unitarians! But that completely ducks the issue I raise in my post: from a unitarian perspective, what's so special about his death? What makes his death vicarious compared to the death of any other martyr? Isn't he essentially interchangeable with other human beings? The difference is just the arbitrary assignment of a unique role. But in principle, God could just as well pick another man to play the same role.
Dale ducks more often than a greenhead Mallard.
At this point in history, there are no non-trinitarian Christians. Non-trinitarians are not Christians. I find it rather amazing you seem to think the three major branches of the church and Christianity in general have gotten the nature of God wrong.
ReplyDeleteNo Christian worthy of the name finds the Trinity or the Incarnation dispensible, much less ignores these glorious truths in preaching or their spiritual lives. How does a Christian ignore the Incarnation in their spiritual life? Indeed, it's God's great gift and expression of His love.
"there are no non-trinitarian Christians"
ReplyDeleteFriend, you need to get out more. This is as patently misinformed as "There are no Arminian Christians."
The difference is only a matter of degree.
Funny, how the NT authors fail to explicitly mention "the Trinity" - some doctrine of God as tripersonal - and "the Incarnation" - that Jesus somehow consists of a "divine nature" mysteriously combined with "a human nature." If you're not sure how Christianity works without these old standbys, let me suggest that you read Acts. It's a good read!
God's great gift - of course, we biblical unitarians accept this. It is the teaching, life, death, atonement, resurrection, and current Lordship of God's Messiah - as the NT explicitly proclaims.
Pro-tip: when you don't mingle much with other sorts of Christians, you can get to thinking that doctrines of inference are just the obvious meanings of the texts. E.g. a Roman Catholic who thinks that the fourth gospel obviously teaches transubstantiation.
God bless, C.M.
Solution: humbly mingle, and think. You may start to see how others makes sense of scripture.
Arminians are Trinitarian and incarnational. Unitarians are no more Christians than JWs or Mormons. Since what I said is agreeable to all Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox branches of the Christian church, perhaps you're the one who should get out more.
DeleteDale Tuggy
Delete"Friend, you need to get out more. This is as patently misinformed as 'There are no Arminian Christians.' The difference is only a matter of degree."
Hm, how is the difference between Arminianism and Calvinism or Trinitarianism and Unitarianism "only a matter of degree"? I would think the "difference" is a matter of kind, not degree. In Arminianism and Calvinism, debates over predestination, free will, monergistic regeneration, the scope of the atonement, perseverance, and so on hardly seem to be debates over mere "degree". In Trinitarianism and Unitarianism, Steve Hays et al have covered this ground with you many times over, and again I don't see how the differences are differences of "degree" rather than kind.
Dale Tuggy
Delete"Pro-tip: when you don't mingle much with other sorts of Christians, you can get to thinking that doctrines of inference are just the obvious meanings of the texts."
According to a Unitarian website (based on the Pew Forum): "Overall, 0.3 percent of the survey's respondents identified themselves as 'Unitarians' of one sort or another, matching the percentage of self-described Sunni Muslims or members of the Church of the Nazarene."
Not exactly many Unitarians around to "mingle" with! Unitarians are like a minority of a minority.
"E.g. a Roman Catholic who thinks that the fourth gospel obviously teaches transubstantiation."
For starters, a good exegesis of John 6 would go a long way toward helping settle the debate. Indeed, don't modern Catholic exegetes and commentators tend to agree with Protestant interpretations of John 6?
Oh come on Dale. Get over it.
ReplyDeleteIf a necessary condition for being a Christian is confessing the Trinity, then falling away from that confession of faith would entail apostasy. Now of course you reject the Trinity is an essential doctrine of Christianity. But that’s because you reject mainstream Christianity. But why shouldn’t you receive the appellation “apostate” just the same, without complaint, when you reject God as defined by Roman Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox? You’d be excommunicated by any obedient mainline Christian denomination for Trinitarian apostasy, wouldn’t you? Should the term “apostate” be redefined by the Reformed church to accommodate Oneness Pentecostals, Mormons and JW’s too? If I fell away from Judaism or Islam to accept the Trinity I’d gladly except their pronouncement of apostate upon me. I find it interesting that the ones who resist such terms are those who’ve fallen away into cults. They want to be accepted as mainstream, but why given they’re not?
It’s remarkable that Dale would consider a Trinitarian as holding to a same-enough “Christian” faith as a Unitarian. The former should be considered guilty of idolatry by the latter. Yet that wouldn’t comport with the agenda of a cultist. Note well that cultists will always play down their own doctrine of God in order to get under a broader tent with those they should consider idolatrous infidels. Interestingly enough, Satan operates according to similar principles.
ReplyDeleteMr "reformed apologist," I think we should take care with throwing around charges of "idolatry." That term has been much abused. As to the idea that biblical unitarians are idolaters because we worship the exalted Jesus, I deal with that objection in some depth here: http://trinities.org/blog/who-should-christians-worship/
DeleteIf you think that you can make such a serious accusation stick, then I invite you to interact with my arguments there.
You might want to read my post again. I’m afraid you completely missed the point:
DeleteUnitarians should consider Trinitarians idolaters for worshipping Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Yet Unitarians won’t call out Trinitarians for what Unitarians should consider an idolatrous practice. They’d rather be accepted by Trinitarians than be true to their doctrine of God. They seek acceptance from Trinitarians more than allegiance to their God.
“If you think that you can make such a serious accusation stick, then I invite you to interact with my arguments there.”
DeleteNo, I think you should square idolatry with SHEMA and do it here.
"Unitarians should consider Trinitarians idolaters for worshipping Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Yet Unitarians won’t call out Trinitarians for what Unitarians should consider an idolatrous practice."
DeleteNo, I understood you to be saying that. I just deny it.
You deny it. You just won’t defend your thesis here. God forbids the worship of false gods. Jesus is worshipped. Not just his works but he himself. How is that not forbidden and subject to punishment? How can you fellowship with idolaters?
DeleteKeep in mind, Christians aren’t merely worshiping Jesus because God commands it or because God has exaulted him. They worship him on the basis of his intrinsic deity - his essence! It’s for that latter reason you should consider it idolatrous. By pointing to commands and exaltation doesn’t address the full Christian mindset. Your fallacy is in arguing for a basis of Son worship that is not in accord with the Christian’s basis for it! You commit a similar fallacy in requiring Christians to use your criteria for evaluating rebirth instead of their own. You must swim in a pretty small academic pond to get away with such sophistry.
Delete“If you actually interacted with some Christians from non-trinitarian churches, you would probably think this is obviously true - that one can be born again, and a true disciple of the Lord Jesus, without thinking highly of these 4th and 5th century speculations.”
ReplyDeleteWhy would it be obvious that such are born again anymore than it would be obvious that Gandhi was born again?
About what is essential to believe: here is an area where in my view catholic traditions have departed too much from the New Testament. For my views on heresy, see this: https://youtu.be/wpBepYnW63s
ReplyDeleteFor my views about what is essential to the gospel, I base these mainly on Acts, e.g. http://trinities.org/blog/?s=Essential+acts
A lot of you guys are complacently resting on the idea that Reformed traditions are mainstream, and so surely must be correct about what is essential. But I would encourage you to look at what the scriptures actually insist is essential. John Locke did this towards the end of his life, and the results surprised him, as recorded in his book The Reasonableness of Christianity. http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-52-john-lockes-the-reasonableness-of-christianity-part-1/
Some of you guys seem to assume that I am some sort of religious pluralist. Actually, I am a determined opponent of any pluralist theory of religions, and if you read between the lines here, you will see this. https://www.iep.utm.edu/reli-div/
Who cares about YOUR subjective views on heresy and the gospel? Follow the New Testament. You cannot make sense without a divine Savior and Lord.
DeleteDale Tuggy
Delete"A lot of you guys are complacently resting on the idea that Reformed traditions are mainstream..."
1. I highly doubt being "mainstream" is the assumption. Rather, if there's an assumption, I would think the assumption is one of truth, not one of being "mainstream".
Likewise, I would assume you think your position is true too. Isn't that typically the case in debates?
2. Of course, this cuts both ways: I would add you almost certainly haven't spent enough time among the Reformed nor reading about various "Reformed traditions" if you think "mainstream" is ever something the Reformed would expect when it comes to their beliefs!
3. Also, no idea why you think people are "complacent" about it. In fact, I don't see how that's something one can infer from online posts anyway. But be that as it may.
4. Thanks, I'll read your stuff.
By the way, as long as we're making assumptions about one another, one could assume a unitarian would have a vested interest in arguing he isn't a heretic.
DeleteYou made the claim that it would be obvious that so many are born again. What would make it obvious? A vibe, a doctrine or a combination thereof? For the thinking Trinitarian, an essential doctrine you deny is a necessary condition for being born again. It’s absurd to expect a Trinitarian to adopt your criteria for the assessment of saving faith.
DeleteDale Tuggy
Delete"But I would encourage you to look at what the scriptures actually insist is essential. John Locke did this towards the end of his life, and the results surprised him, as recorded in his book The Reasonableness of Christianity."
1. Wasn't John Locke a non-trinitarian?
2. From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on John Locke:
One striking feature of The Reasonableness of Christianity is the requirement for salvation that Locke endorses. Disputes about which precise beliefs were necessary for salvation and eternal life in Heaven were at the core of much religious disagreement in Locke’s time. Different denominations and sects claimed that they, and often only they, had the correct beliefs. Locke, by contrast, argued that to be a true Christian and worthy of salvation an individual only need to believe one simple truth: that Jesus is the Messiah. Of course, Locke believed there were many other important truths in the Bible. But he thought these other truths, especially those contained in the Epistles rather than the Gospels, could be difficult to interpret and could lead to disputes and disagreement. The core tenet of Christianity, however, that Jesus is the Messiah, was a mandatory belief.
In making the requirements for Christian faith and salvation so minimal Locke was part of a growing faction in the Church of England. These individuals, often known as latitudinarians, were deliberately attempting to construct a more irenic Christianity with the goal of avoiding the conflict and controversy that previous internecine fights had produced. So Locke was hardly alone in attempting to find a set of core Christian commitments which were free of sectarian theological baggage. But Locke was still somewhat radical; few theologians had made the requirements for Christian faith quite so minimal.
“A lot of you guys are complacently resting on the idea that Reformed traditions are mainstream, and so surely must be correct about what is essential”
DeleteNope. I was simply going by objective statistics that even Wiki affirms. You’re apostate according to what is mainstream, just like I’d be a Unitarian apostate if I fell away from your religion and into mainstream. I would gladly accept the charge of apostasy from a Unitarian Council. For some reason those who fall away from mainstream and into a cult feel the need to be accepted by the mainstream, whereas those who apostatize from a cult typically say good riddens and don’t seek middle ground or acceptance from what they’ve left. Fidelity comes with finding the truth.
Yes, he was a non-trinitarian. If you do what he did, and pay close attention to what the NT writers say you must accept to be born again, yeah, it's pretty much that Jesus is God's Messiah - that's a good summary. I argue in my "H-Bomb" presentation that actually this assumes belief in God, and that God was the force behind Jesus's ministry, miracles, and teachings, and that God vindicated him by raising him - which is what you see in the preaching in Acts. In Locke's exchanges with the bombastic, Steve Hays like Reformed polemicist Edwards, he trenchantly argues that it is not up to us, having received apostolic tradition, to add conditions to the new covenant. Roman Catholic tradition merrily does this, but so have the "Magisterial" Reformed traditions. But we have no warrant to do this; it is our part to pay close attention to what *they* urged was necessary. Back the the sources!
DeleteChristians do sort of instinctively get this. In evangelistic presentations, one basically never runs into supposedly "essential" doctrines like the Trinity or the Incarnation. If an eight year old accepts the gospel and then gets hit by a car, generally people refrain from pronouncing him damned on the grounds that he did not believe in the "Athanasian" creed, etc. They will sometimes shift, then, to the less ridiculous claim that salvation requires not believing "the Trinity" (etc.) but rather not knowingly denying such doctrines. But here Locke, and others in the "free church" traditions would point out, that this is simply not in the NT, and what the NT makes necessary are not such arcane mysteries, but rather simple claims about Jesus and his ministry as God's Messiah. It's not our deal; we don't get to change the terms of it. Thank God, it demands far less than most heresy-hunters assume!
Dale,
DeleteIt’s not merely a question of whether one, especially a child, has all his theology worked out. Sure, what one affirms is important, but it’s not the only consideration. It’s also a matter of what one positively denies in his profession. To compare your conscious denial with a child’s minimal affirmation is either a display of ignorance or else intentional deception.
Yes, I know that this fallback position may make more sense to you. "OK, obviously one doesn't *have* to believe the Trinity etc., as shown by the case of the saved kid. BUT, *surely* you can't deny such things."
DeleteShow me in scripture, "Reformed Apologist." I have already in comments above indicated where you can find my much easier standards in scripture. This will be more profitable than silly, Hays-style accusations.
Show you in Scripture what, that a rejection of the deity of Christ is damnable? You’ll just reject it as you already have. You’ve called for his crucifixion in your rejection of the plain revelation of his deity.
DeleteDale Tuggy
Delete"Yes, he was a non-trinitarian."
That's...interesting, to say the least! Particularly since you're likewise a non-trinitarian who happens to argue along the same lines as Locke when it comes to what constitutes heresy. Of course, I'll chalk it up to coincidence.
"he trenchantly argues that it is not up to us, having received apostolic tradition, to add conditions to the new covenant."
1. Well, apostolic tradition isn't necessarily gospel truth. The apostles themselves may have held to traditions at one point or another which weren't biblical or at least were neutral.
2. Also, when it comes to heresy, I don't necessarily think one-size fits all (e.g. Jesus is the Messiah is the minimum all should believe to be considered Christian). Sure, there are standards, but I would argue these can be person-dependent, time-dependent, and/or situation-dependent to a degree. I don't think we ought to judge the credibility of my little 5 year old nephew's profession of faith in the exact same way we judge Pope Francis' profession of faith.
Speaking vaguely, I don't necessarily think we ought to have the same standard for a child as we do for a scholar who holds a doctoral degree in theology, a tribal Papua New Guinean vs. a modern American, the average person in 5th century Britain vs. the average American, and so on. I'm speaking vaguely and generally, because I don't have a particular case at hand, but it'd be far better to speak to a specific case(s).
And I base these thoughts in part on passages like James 3:1 and Luke 12:48. Teachers are more strictly judged, and to whom much is given, much is asked.
3. Don't forget to note the last sentence in the section I cited: "Locke was still somewhat radical; few theologians had made the requirements for Christian faith quite so minimal."
"so have the "Magisterial" Reformed traditions. But we have no warrant to do this; it is our part to pay close attention to what *they* urged was necessary. Back the the sources!"
That partly depends on the particular Reformed tradition you're referring to. And there's something to be said for creativity within the bounds of orthodoxy.
"Christians do sort of instinctively get this."
Hm, I see you appeal to instinct quite a bit. But I don't think instinct is necessarily a reliable guide when it comes to what constitutes heresy.
"If an eight year old accepts the gospel and then gets hit by a car, generally people refrain from pronouncing him damned on the grounds that he did not believe in the "Athanasian" creed, etc. They will sometimes shift, then, to the less ridiculous claim that salvation requires not believing "the Trinity" (etc.) but rather not knowingly denying such doctrines."
As I said above, I think it depends. Actually, I think some 8 year olds should have a better idea about the Trinity than they do, but again it depends on the particular 8 year old. It's difficult to speak abstractly about 8 year olds in general. Some 8 year olds arguably could and should be held to a higher standard than other 8 year olds.
"But here Locke, and others in the "free church" traditions would point out, that this is simply not in the NT, and what the NT makes necessary are not such arcane mysteries, but rather simple claims about Jesus and his ministry as God's Messiah. It's not our deal; we don't get to change the terms of it. Thank God, it demands far less than most heresy-hunters assume!"
This assumes Locke's arguments are correct. I haven't read his book so I can't say. But I know at least some if not many or most Christians in his own day opposed him. So it's not as if his arguments are necessarily a foregone conclusion.
“Yes, I know that this fallback position may make more sense to you. "OK, obviously one doesn't *have* to believe the Trinity etc., as shown by the case of the saved kid. BUT, *surely* you can't deny such things."
DeleteYou obviously have no spiritual understanding, which is the vibe unbelievers emanate. Saving faith is believing all that Scripture teaches, but in particular that which pertains to Christ. True faith in a child will grow. I’ll pass on connecting the dots for you for two reasons. One is strict obedience to God’s word as it applies to teaching teachers of evil. Second is, I will not give the secrets of the kingdom to one who can only use them to try to refine his heresy.
"You made the claim that it would be obvious that so many are born again. What would make it obvious? A vibe, a doctrine or a combination thereof?"
ReplyDeleteYes, honestly, there is a detectible "vibe" in the work of God's spirit in people. Not that such intuitions are infallible; they are not! Nor is it always equally obvious. But yes, in many cases it is also obvious because they confess to follow the Lord Jesus, and to believe all the explicit teachings of the NT. Where they aver, is in cases of doctrines of inference, which they are convinced do not actually best fit the texts. And they adhere to Christian standards of morality, and not only outwardly, but they also show transformed hearts and minds.
Just as a Catholic ought to fear wrongly judging a Protestant, so a mainstream Protestant ought to fear wrongly judging a believer who is simply less catholic in belief than he is. Luther and Calvin failed terribly in this. This sort of wicked sectarian meanness runs deep in many traditions, and in fallen human nature. Honestly, it is found in some unitarian Christians too. And I think no better of it in such cases.
Obviously there’s a rubicon. Just accept that you’re a Trintarian apostate and accept any eternal consequences that might come with both the territory and any attempts to make converts. Ideas have consequences.
Delete“so a mainstream Protestant ought to fear wrongly judging a believer who is simply less catholic in belief than he is.”
DeleteI do. But I also realize that churches that cannot pronounce anathemas cannot pronounce assurance nor blessing. I’m just being true to doctrine I’ve taken ordination vows to uphold.
This Dale is obviously ensnared in emotional hype and has no discernment in regards to what constitutes the fundamental articles of biblical Christianity. Whoever preaches a different gospel and a different Jesus is accursed (1 Corinthians 16:22; Galatians 1:8-9). I could cite a myriad of biblical arguments in favor of trinitarianism, believe me. Unitarianism fails to understand the biblical gospel, period.
DeleteJesse, you’re correct. He has no spiritual discernment.
Delete"one could assume a unitarian would have a vested interest in arguing he isn't a heretic"
ReplyDeleteDude, feel free to assume that. That is reasonable. Who wants to be a heretic? Judge my case on heresy on the basis of scripture and common sense.
Dale Tuggy
Delete"Dude, feel free to assume that. That is reasonable. Who wants to be a heretic? Judge my case on heresy on the basis of scripture and common sense."
1. Of course, this is what everyone says. Every side in a debate like this will appeal to Scripture and common sense. That's to be expected.
2. The real question is whether their position is actually based on Scripture. Obviously we each believe our position is based on Scripture. We each believe we are correct.
3. Given this, we're probably not the ideal choices to adjudicate our own positions. Rather let others decide. Let the reasonable decide.
4. For example, you obviously see God in unitarian fashion, whereas I see God in trinitarian fashion.
This isn't a trivial stance. This isn't a short debate either. This is a debate which ranges from exegetical theology and beyond. So it's unlikely to be easily settled in a single combox.
In fact, I presume that's in part why say Steve Hays has done over 100 if not 200 posts interacting with you. It takes a considerable amount of time and effort to debate these positions.
5. And you've obviously devoted much of your entire career in arguing against the Trinity and for your brand of unitarianism (among other things of course). You're operating at a level that most wouldn't have the time to devote.
"Surely, SURELY no denier of the authority of bishops and councils can be saved."
ReplyDelete"Actually, surely some are." (Points to Protestant, Anabaptist.)
"Surely, SURELY no informed denier of the Nicene Creed can be saved."
"Actually, surely some are." (Points to Dan Gill, Sean Finnegan, various 4th c. non-Nicene catholics, various non-trinitarian 18th-19th c. Congretationalists, etc.)
http://www.21stcr.org/about/editor.html
http://restitutio.org/my-story/
The more you know their lives in detail, the more convincing this sort of argument is. Of course, it also helps if you realize what the NT standards are re: what must be believed.
Yes, a teaching may be very important and true, and not be required for salvation. But I think in practice, most Christians deny the severe damnatory clauses of the "Athanasian" creed, and rightly so.
Yeah, the gospel "must be believed", and is "required for salvation". The good news of salvation cannot stand on the basis of a unitarian god, any more than a house can stand without a solid foundation.
Delete