Trinities

In this final part of our conversation former trinitarian apologist Aaron Shelenberger first explains why trinitarian apologists do not think that John 17:1-3 poses a problem for their theology.

Of course biblical unitarianism hardly hinges on that one passage. He notes that in the New Testament only the Father is called "the only true God," "the one God," "the only God", and "the Almighty."

Next, he discusses Jesus's claims in the fourth gospel that "I am," and that he and the Father "are one." Then: doesn't Thomas call Jesus "my God" in John 20? Mustn't then a reader of this gospel agree that Jesus is as much God as is the Father?

A general theme emerges that context is all-important when interpreting John. And there we must pay particular attention to who is talking - the spiritually, or those who "get it" about Jesus? Different characters are playing different roles in the narrative!

Then: who can forgive sins but God alone, and how could Jesus atone for the sins of humanity unless he's divine? Should these assertions in question form make us agree that the New Testament Jesus "is God"? Finally, he urges apologists to boldly re-examine into these issues with an open mind, knowing that souls are at stake.

Links for this episode:

This episode is part 2 of my wide-ranging conversation with Aaron Shelenberger. Our topics include:

We also discuss how his family reacted to his change of mind, where he fellowships now, and how he would advise evangelicals who are starting such investigations.

I also announce my upcoming debate with Chris Date

Links for this episode:

In this first part of our wide-ranging conversation we discuss his journey from being a trinitarian evangelical in the Philippines to being a biblical unitarian in the U.S.

We discuss his former fear that only "cults" don't believe in the deity of Jesus and the Trinity, and his interactions with members of the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Iglesia Ni Cristo.

We talk about the recent concept of a cult, and I share my former and current theories as to why so many "cults" are non-trinitarian.

Finally, he describes his transition from trinitarian to biblical unitarian.

Links for this episode:

The Reverend Caleb Stetson (1793-1870) was a Harvard graduate and Congregationalist minister, serving a succession of three Unitarian churches in Massachusetts. This episode is my presentation of most of his tract "The Apostle Paul a Unitarian" (1828). He starts with the portrait of Paul and his preaching given in Acts, and then surveys all of Paul's letters. He argues that Paul is a unitarian - someone who thinks that the one God is just the Father, and who does not say that "Jesus is God" or that he is "divine" in the way that the one God is divine.

I present all but his last five pages, which deal with the New Testament letter to the Hebrews, which most scholars now think is not by Paul.

Does he present a strong case? Why or why not?

Links for this episode:

In October of 2018 Dr. Fred Sanders of Biola University gave a talk for Lanier Library Lecture Series in Houston, Texas. His aim is to show ordinary believers how they can perceive the triune God in the Bible. He starts with an wide-angle view of scripture, and then zooms in to discuss three New Testament passages in which he claims we can observe the idea of a triune God, the Trinity.

In this episode I have edited the lecture for length, trying to leave just the meat of his case, and I critically interact with Dr. Sanders's claims. At the end I discuss what I call his "Secret" - an important fact that he chooses not to share with popular audiences.

What did you think of Dr. Sander's case? Does he show us how to perceive (rather than project) the assumption of New Testament authors that God is triune? Let us know what you think in the Facebook group or in the comments below

Links for this episode:

This episode is my edit of a 2018 online debate between trinitarian Andrew Schumacher and biblical unitarian Andrew Griffin. Agreeing on the authority of the Bible, here each tries to show that his theology best fits biblical teaching.

Both debaters have undergone significant theological shifts as a result of thinking about biblical theology; Mr. Schumacher went from biblical unitarian to trinitarian, while Mr. Griffin went from Oneness Pentecostal theology to biblical unitarianism.

Who made the stronger argument? Did either debater change your mind? Why or why not?

Links for this episode:

Our January 2019 debate featured a long question and answer time. It was agreed beforehand that audience questions would be alternated between us, and that the person asked would have two minutes to reply and then the other would have one minute to add their two cents. After the half hour was up, we agreed to go a bit longer, to take questions from the remaining few people who were in line. On the whole, the questions were excellent, and so this part really adds to the substance of the debate.

How did we do? Did any of our answers miss the mark, even miss the point? And who in your eyes won the debate? Did I successfully show that in the Bible the one God just is the Father alone? Or did Dr. Brown prove that to the contrary, the one God is the Trinity?

Links for this episode:

On January 11, 2019 at FIRE church in Concord, NC, I debated Dr. Michael L. Brown on the proposition "The God of the Bible is the Father alone."

I think you'll agree that it was an interesting debate; we gave each other a lot to think about. In this long episode, my edited version of the whole debate minus the Question and Answer time, which will be the next episode. I've only edited out stumbles, noise, false starts, etc. - nothing of substance.

Did I adequately show that the Bible teaches the one God to be the Father alone? Why or why not?

Links for this episode:

In trinitarian tradition, the one God is the Trinity. In the New Testament, the one God is the Father. One can't consistently affirm both claims, which is why there is a clash between trinitarian traditions (since about the late 300s) and the New Testament. Protestants, I suggest, should stick with the latter.

But the social pressures, at least for the theologically educated, are so strong that we should not deviate from longstanding Catholic and Protestant tradition. For many, it is just unthinkable that the mainstream could have made a mistake here. The NT just must be consistent with catholic traditions here - it must.

One answer to that is: wait - you're a Protestant, right? You can't say that! (Supply your own counterexamples from church history.)

At any rate, it is demonstrably a mistake to think you can coherently affirm both that God is the Father and that God is the Trinity. The demonstration is below. I use that word "demonstration" very deliberately. I mean that there is a proof of inconsistency that any trinitarian can see is valid (i.e. there is no mistake in reasoning) and it employs only premises to which the trinitarian is committed simply by being a trinitarian. This proof puts the trinitarian in a very hard spot. She can either embrace the apparent contradiction, which looks very foolish when you actually say what that apparent contradiction is (instead of obliquely gesturing at it), or she can deny obvious biblical teachings, or she can deny obvious, self-evident truths. Any way she turns, her Trinity theory comes at a high price!

First, I need to explicate a foundational, unanalyzable concept that you already have and regularly use: the concept of numerical identity or sameness. Let me try to explain it by means of scenarios in which you habitually employ that concept.

Out hiking, you point and say: "There is a big rock!" You're asserting that (1) there is big thing over there - call it b, (2) there is a rock over there, call it r, and (3) that the one just is the other, that b = r (and vice versa). So in some existence claims, you're employing the concept of numerical identity (=).

Again, in a theological conversation, you say "Only God is uncreated." What you're saying is that God is uncreated, and also, for any x whatever, if x is uncreated then x just is God. In other words, God is uncreated and nothing else is. So in "all" or "only" statements, cases of what logicians call universal quantification, you're employing the concept of numerical identity.

Again, suppose you're reading Genesis for the first time, and not paying attention very well, you're thinking this "Abram" is one character and "Abraham" is another. But the, you suddenly realize your mistake, and you as it were collapse the "two" of them into one. You now see that Abram just is Abraham, and vice-versa. (Abram = Abraham) Now imagine that you're reading some funky OT translation, and the translator sometimes uses "Abe" once in a while. But you realize that this is supposed to be the same character as Abraham; the translation assumes that Abe = Abraham. You realize that also in this translation, it must be that Abe = Abram - because things identical to the same thing must also be identical to each other - that is obvious. (Abe just is Abraham. And Abram just is Abraham. Thus, Abe just is Abram - this is all one being we're talking about here, via three different names.)

Of course, as a Christian you don't think this variously named fellow is only a fictional character; you think this is a true narrative. So in your view, Abraham and Abram are the same man. This is to make three claims: (1) Abraham is a man, (2) Abram is a man, and (3) Abraham just is Abram (they are numerically identical).

In sum, don't confuse numerical identity (aka numerical sameness) with qualitative identity/sameness. Human "identical twins" are by definition (normally) qualitatively the same (to a high degree) but if they are twins they can't be numerically the same. (As twins, they are two similar things, not one thing.) Notice that similarity comes in degrees and kinds, but it seems that numerical sameness does not; it is all-or-nothing, and doesn't come in various kinds. Also, while both relations can be reflexive - just as one thing can be similar to another, so everything surely is similar to itself, and maximally so, only numerical sameness is necessarily reflexive. In other words, what are really two things can be similar, but they can't be numerically the same. Only a single thing/entity/being can be numerically the same as itself. In any true statement of numerical sameness, we're just referring to one and the same thing twice, using two different but co-referring terms or names or expressions. e.g. Slick Willy = Bill Clinton, The Donald = Donald Trump.

Having said all that, our proof employs only the concept of numerical identity. Call it the argument for the Incoherence of Biblical Trinitarianism. Take note: the argument doesn't try to show, nor does it presuppose, that the idea of the Trinity (supposing that is one idea!) is incoherent. (So you're missing the point if you chime in here with the standard opening move.) Rather, the argument shows that some clear claims of biblical theology together with claims needed by any Trinity theory - those two together are incoherent, as they imply a contradiction. How so? Like this:

For the logically educated, I provide the sentences using the standard symbol "=" for numerical identity, and g for the one God, y for Yahweh, f for the Father, t for the Trinity, and "-" for the negation operator. (Skip this bit if you're not familiar with modern symbolic logic. You can understand the argument without this notation.)

Note that 5 and 6 together are a formal contradiction, a denial and affirmation of the same claim. Whatever the letters refer to, we all know that no pair of sentences with those structures (-P, P) could simultaneously be true.

Let's walk through the argument now and see the alleged justification for each step.

In sum, we start with uncontroversial contents of scriptural teaching. (1-3) We add in two unavoidable commitments of any trinitarian theology, any Trinity theory (4-5). But these things imply a formal contradiction (5 & 6). So we know that at least one of 1-5 is false.

The truly committed trinitarian will try to protect 4 at all costs. Perhaps the first thought for many will be to deny 5, the one non-scriptural or "philosophical" premise. Let's make clear the reasoning in favor of 5; call it a subsidiary argument.

Nothing to find fault with here. My trinitarian friend, you do agree with 1, yes? And can see that the reasoning is valid - that 3 follows from 1 & 2. And 2 (the distinctness of discernibles) is self-evident. Going back to the main argument, you're committed to 5, just by being a trinitarian.

So for a trinitarian, 4 and 5 must be protected. And 1 is off the table too, right? No trinitarian should want to mess with 1; that is simple reading comprehension, when it comes to the OT.

It looks like the only way to save trinitarian hypotheses (which are committed to 1, 4, and 5) is to deny 2 and/or 3. But notice that 3 follows from 1 & 2. And you don't want to deny 1. So really, you have to attack 2: you have to deny or at least cast doubt on the premise that the Yahweh of the OT just is the one called "Father" is the NT.

Now this claim (premise 2) that Yahweh just is the Father is not something that really comes to the surface in the NT. It is a shared assumption, something they thought didn't need arguing for! Still, it comes pretty close to the surface at times.

Exhibit A: Luke in Acts

In chapter 2 Luke has Peter say,

This Jesus God raised up, and of that all of us are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you both see and hear.

(Acts 2:32-33, NRSV)

Do you see what Luke has done here? He's just used "God" twice. So just for variety, the third time around he substitutes "the Father." He can do that, because for him, "God" and "the Father" are normally co-referring terms - because he assumes the identity of God with the Father (and vice-versa). And he knows his readers assume this too; so he knows that the switcheroo will not be confusing to his readers.

Next chapter, another sermon by Peter - Luke writes:

“You Israelites, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we had made him walk? The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our ancestors has glorified his servant Jesus, whom you handed over and rejected in the presence of Pilate, though he had decided to release him.

Acts 3:12-13, NRSV. Compare: Acts 5:29-31, 7:32, 26:6.

Now, Peter can't say "Yahweh"; that was forbidden at this time. But this one he calls "the God of our ancestors" etc. - this is supposed to be Yahweh, right? So there you go: Luke and Peter assume that Yahweh just is the Father,that those are numerically the same.

Exhibit B: Paul in Ephesians 1

Paul repeatedly calls someone the God of Jesus. Surely, this is the god of the Jews, Yahweh, right? And, this god is none other than the Father. So in Ephesians 1,

2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, 4 just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love. ... 15 I have heard of your faith in the Lord Jesus and your love[e toward all the saints, and for this reason 16 I do not cease to give thanks for you as I remember you in my prayers. 17 I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know him...

Ephesians 1:2-4, 15-17 (NRSV)

It's just basic reading comprehension that he's using "God" and "Father" of the same one here. And in its first century, Jewish context, it is clear than this is none other than Yahweh, the one true God of the Jewish scriptures.

So, given your commitment to 1, in order to deny 3 you must also deny 2. But in denying 2, you are in the teeth of clear NT theology. God (aka the Father) in the NT is supposed to be Yahweh, the unique God in the OT. That is foundational to understanding the NT.

My trinitarian friend, it looks like you must commit to all of 1-5. But then, you have a clear contradiction on your hands.

Don't cry "mystery" here and expect us to think that is a reasonable escape. How is this a mystery? The meaning of all the claims here (1-6) is clear; there is no mysterious claim here, a claim that is barely intelligible! Your point, if you're going to play the mystery card, must be that there is an apparent contradiction here (5-6). Indeed, there is! Now if you reply with the obvious truism that not every apparent contradiction is a real one, we will nod in agreement, but point out that this sure looks like a real one!

If you're really going to die on the mystery hill, do it like a man, and say out loud what the mystery is. Own it. Say, "In my view, it is and isn't the case that the Trinity just is the Father." Or if you like: "The Trinity and the Father are and are not the same - and yes, I mean 'same' in the same sense both times."

Don't want to do that? Good. I don't want you to either, because it is ridiculous.

Here's another way to look at it, a way that seems more reasonable than mystery-mongering. If you can't hold on to all of a group of statements, it looks like the one you should let go of should be the one with the least evidence. So let's consider the various steps in our argument in light of differing degrees of evidence. I'll call them level 1 and level 2. To have level 1 evidence is to be somewhat plausible in light of all relevant considerations. Level 2, a higher level, is something you're more sure of because it is plainly biblical teaching and you know the Bible to be inspired. So, plausible but speculative theories are level 1, while biblical truths I'm calling level 2. Here again is the argument:

We can't reasonably keep both 5 & 6, since they can't be true. But if you're a trinitarian, as we've seen, you're committed to 5. So you need to deny 6. But as we've seen, 6 logically follows what came before. But where is the weak link in 1-4?

Clearly, the weak link is 4. That God is the Trinity - this is neither an explicit nor a clear teaching of the Bible. It has at most level 1 justification. But 1-3 have level 2 justification. Theory must bow to fact. Deny 4, and there is no longer any basis on which to conclude 6. Problem solved.

The price? You can no longer in good conscience remain in what I call the Trinity club. But what you've bought is a biblical theology, a theology that makes sense, and which avoids the many agonies of trinitarian theorizing.

I offer this argument in the hope that it will help you to make the right choice. Do you agree that 4 is the weak link? Why or why not?

Links for this episode:

The famous church historian Eusebius tells us that at the famous 325 council at Nicea, it was the emperor Constantine who suggested using the word homoousios (variously translated as "consubstantial," "same esssence," "same substance").

Is this plausible? And if so, why would Constantine have done such a thing? What, if anything, in his own religious background would point him towards that term? What was Constantine's theology, and how might he have understood it?

In this episode Kegan Chandler answers these questions using the latest historical research. He argues that we can go beyond the now widely agreed point that homoousios was employed by this council because it was not then a popular or widely used term, and so it did not have any widely accepted meaning. This enabled the majority of bishops to use the term as a stick with which to drive out Arius and his party, who did not like the term, while various bishops chose to interpret it in various ways, depending on their theological proclivities (e.g. Marcellan neo-monarchianism or Eusebian subordinationism). Whatever the various anti-Arian bishops were thinking, here Chandler ventures an educated guess as to what Constantine was thinking... and it has something to do with Egypt!

The video version of this episode is strongly recommended: