The Evangelical Universalist Forum

In defense of Trinitarianism!

Theology Biblical Theology
#21

I’m sorry for butting in your conversation - but what ‘Gospel records’ are you referring to? Have you read the archival material here that, in the opinion of many, deals more fruitfully and imo more accurately with what the man Jesus Christ , the Son of God (not God the Son) thought of himself and of his Father, whom he called ‘the only true God’?

Just sayin’ - there are substantial and weighty arguments, on both sides, in these pages and I hope, if you haven’t, that you find time to explore them.

NTW is a big target. I’ve read the great majority of his written works, and I trust his scholarship. Infallible, nope. Hugely learned and dedicated, yep.

#22

Scott was replying in agreement to the point I was criticising NTW on, Dave: that the Gospel records don’t show Jesus vaguely trusting that He is God.

Those “archival materials” here (which are not part of our archival materials here, btw, as this is a trinitarian Christian universalist forum in its leadership and founding) would agree one thousand percent with that criticism. I have never yet met or ready anyone who denied Jesus was God the Son, but instead only a man who was son of God, who thought the Gospel record showing Jesus vaguely trusting that He was God. They don’t think Jesus was vaguely trusting he was only a human son of God either! Trinitarian and non-trinitarians are both typically pretty sure the Gospel records show Jesus being quite sure about who (or Who) he (or He) really is, even if on some theories he (or more usually for such theories He) is being cagey about it for various reasons.

That attitude and belief from Jesus, which either side (or sides) typically sees, is wholly foreign to the attitude of Jesus NTW thinks he’s reading out of the texts. Or thought he was reading 20ish years ago; like I said, I want to be fair, I haven’t kept up with him much since then, maybe he’s being less gamey with his readers and/or his peers on this topic nowadays.

#23

By employing the word “but”, you seem to be saying that however much you disagree with Wright, you do agree with these three propositions.
I don’t see how that is possible. The three propositions are inconsistent: the third with the other two, and the second as it stands alone.

#24

I have to agree.

#25

Hi Guys,
Sorry I have missed out for a few weeks.

Dave, please excuse my ignorance, I am not sure what you mean by “archival material”.
“Gospel records” simply means what is recorded in the Gospels - like Jesus knowing that He was doing His Father’s business at an early age.

If I understand Wright correctly, in contrast to all other prophets, Jesus was not called to His prophetic role and told what to say, He just presumed to take it upon Himself to announce and pre-enact, like an OT prophet, God’s coming to the Temple that He, based on His human reasoning, deduced was probably going to happen some time soon.
According to Wright, Jesus was well aware that He was possibly making a terrible, lunatic mistake.

To Wright, that presumption is perfectly reasonable for a good, Torah-abiding man of the time.
However, Scripture says that “a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded … is to be put to death.” (Deut 18:20).

I cant see from the Gospel records (and the OT) how one can argue that Jesus did know who He was and was simply acting on an impulse to help God out in some way.

However, I note that you (too) refer to Jesus simply as a man. “Knowing that He was God” is therefore totally irrelevant in that case. He was just a man who later mistakenly came to be worshipped as God by ignorant Christians. The Gospel records were later falsified to reflect such later beliefs. Wright’s job is to filter out all that Deity nonsense.

That is what, in my opinion, Wright believes. However he appears to want to have his cake and eat it. He wants to reject the Deity of the purely human Jesus, yet appear to his large evangelical following that he is still orthodox. I would respect him more if he stated his beliefs much more clearly. He IS an expert communicator. I therefore feel very strongly about his vagueness and ambiguity in these matters.

Throwing in words such as “incarnates” when he simply means “symbolises” is misleading, he knows better.

#26

I deleted the accidental double-post, Eric.

That’s mostly the impression I got from JVG, too, by the way. But I haven’t kept up with him more recently yet, so I can’t clearly opine on what he’s doing now – and he has done a lot of work since then.

#27

We’ve talked about the philosophical rationales before. You don’t think my rationales are coherent, either, and that’s where we’re disagreeing on these points.

My third proposition, however, could only be inconsistent with the other two if I had qualified 1 (and so implicitly 2 if not explicitly) to read something like “the monopersonal self-existent YHWH”. But I didn’t, and I’m not tacitly requiring this either.

By comparison, strictly speaking none of the three propositions identified the Father as being the self-existent YHWH, so strictly speaking the third isn’t inconsistent with the other three either. But tacitly I do agree the Father is (a person of) the one and only self-existent YHWH. I didn’t spell that out because I wasn’t making a syllogistic claim to begin with, but only reporting (somewhat incompletely) claims made by NT Wright in that paper (and in JVG). Somewhat incompletely, because NTW does (seem to?) regard the Father as being the one and only self-existent YHWH, a point I neglected to mention in my three propositions because I supposed everyone was familiar enough with NTW to know he was (apparently?) claiming this.

The second element is only inconsistent with itself if there is a tacit requirement that God cannot act at all; or that God cannot act to create natural effects at all; or that God must cease to be God if He acts to create any natural effects; or that it is impossible for any natural effects created by God to continue being also natural effects but only illusions (dust clouds ceasing to be dust for example but only afterward an illusion of dust, the dust itself having been annihilated and maybe recreated after God ceases operating to create an illusion of dust); or that it is impossible for God’s omnipresence to be presently existent and operative immanently in a natural effect (dust clouds, glowy light, fire, a human baby from conception).

But I don’t tacitly require any of those points, and I would hotly deny that any of those restrictions is true. I haven’t been able to figure out which of those restrictions you’re affirming so that it’s impossible for God to incarnate as both fully God and fully man (or to manifest otherwise as both fully God and fully a smoke cloud or a burning bush or the Shekinah or whatever). Of course, the possibility of a two-natures Incarnation doesn’t mean that God has ever done or ever will do that. But you’re treating the notion as being intrinsically impossible somehow.

(We also disagree, to a lesser degree, about the scriptures testifying to those three points, but that isn’t a philosophical disagreement about inconsistent propositions.)

#28

@ Paidion
Wright and Modalism?

Does Wright’s Trinity not appear to involve a trio of three very different beings, one of whom is the totally human Jesus, all united in a mission - much like Manfred, Sid and Diego in the Ice Age film adventures.
Is this not an extreme form of a “social trinity”?

Regards, Eric

#29

On the related note of “Trinitarian theology,” here is a great article:

[size=130]“How the Church Supports Christian Universalism Within Itself!” [/size]

which shows (in item 2 on a list of 19 examples) that the revival of Trinitarian theology by the new “Trinitarian teachers” is moving people toward Evangelical Universalism. (Certainly that was my personal experience.) And these Trinitarian teachers are overlapping with the “radical grace teachers,” e.g., Steve McVey.

*From Wikipedia: *

Modern adherents of Trinitarian Theology include

  • Karl Barth
  • Thomas F. Torrance
  • James B. Torrance
  • C. Baxter Kruger
  • Steve McVey
  • William Paul Young

(I might term these guys “hopeful universalists,” versus “convinced universalists.”)

Blessings.

#30

It is probably not harmful to have a ‘Trinitarian Theology’, nor is it harmful to have a Christian Monotheistic theology. They are both opinions, and depend on one’s attitude to scripture and tradition.
Just don’t try to make either position ‘normative’ - it is not that big a deal one way or the other. :unamused: