Unitarian Dave Barron joins me to share his thoughts in response to Trinitarian Dr. Chris Tilling’s thesis, which Chris and I discussed back in episode 111. Then, Chris comes on again to respond to Dave. A thought provoking, super-sized episode!
Music
- Phillips, Craig, and Dean, You Are God Alone (Not A God) from the album, Let the Worshippers Arise, 2004
Promoted Resources
- The Dividing Line, with Dr. James White, Director of Alpha & Omega Ministries
- Listen online most Tuesday mornings at 11:00am PDT, and most Thursday afternoons at 4:00pm PDT.
- Subscribe to the podcast via direct RSS feed.
- Dr. Chris Tilling’s blog
- Dr. Tilling’s book, Paul’s Divine Christology, available at Amazon
- Dave Barron’s website
- Download or purchase Dave’s book, God and Christ: Examining the Evidence for a Biblical Doctrine
As much as I enjoyed episode 111, this episode (113) was even better! There were times during Dr. Tilling’s response when I wanted to shout “Preach it brother!!!”
I hope maybe one day Drake Shelton’s views might be interacted with. Steve Hays at Triablogue.blogspot.com has addressed his views many times in the past. Among Shelton’s non-Trinitarian views is his claimed documentation (along with David Waltz) that Constantinopolitan orthodoxy actually contradicts Nicene orthodoxy. This discrepancy lead to Waltz leaving the Roman Catholic Church. While I’m still an Evangelical Trinitarian, I’m thinking through the case for Semi-Arianism and/or Shelton’s Nicene Monarchism. Steve Hays, in defense of Trinitarianism, has also extensively interacted with Dale Tuggy’s Unitarianism.
For anyone interested, the discussion continues with my response to Dr. Chris Tilling at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BInBkQ6-AfU&app=desktop
David Barron
Bravo on an excellent episode.
I challenge Dr Tilling or anyone with a trinitarian leaning to (a) define what they mean by “ontology”, and (b) make the ontological argument for the deity of Christ. I submit that when a trinitarian or even some unitarians make the “ontological” case for the trinity they don’t know what they are talking about.
From an ontological standpoint
(a) kinds or categories or classes (“person”, “man”, “God”, etc.) are defined by their properties and relations
(b) two kinds (categories, classes) are identical if they share all the “essential” properties and relations; if they do not share all the “essential” properties and relations, they are not identical
(a) and (b) above are not controversial at all.
It is a simple proof to show that Jesus is not identical with God (even with trinitarian presuppositions), given the uncontroversial points above: God is tri-personal (an essential property); Jesus is not tri-personal (an essential property; therefore Jesus is not identical with / fully God.
Does Jesus share many of the properties of God? Of course! But there is at least one property not in common (even from a trinitarian assumption) between Jesus and God.
Great job on a very interesting podcast!
Pingback: Thoughts on Dave Barron/Chris Tilling Discussion, Part 1 | Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
Pingback: Chris Tilling, Dave Barron, and Jewish Monotheism | Theological NoteBook
Pingback: How Jesus Became God: Initial Ripples
Great episode Chris!
A part of the episode reminded me of the occurrences when I interacted with the Christians and their view of humility. Too often they seemed to view humility as openly revealing their total lack of knowledge, greatness, or virtue. It seems if one truly has none of these things, there is nothing to actually be humble about, even if they are only attained through God.
I don’t know if my view is Trinitarian. I haven’t adopted the word. I would consider it an act of love to be set straight.
It seems like affirming Jesus’ pre-existence is necessary to affirming the Trinity. In that sense I’m not Trinitarian. Jesus began in time when the Logos became Flesh. Logos is an attribute, not a being or person. But it was still God who became flesh. It is important to remember that what is infinite is inclusive of what is finite. Consider how panentheism sees creation as a transformation of God’s being in which each being is part of God. This conflicts with the theistic view in that theism affirms creation ex-nihilo. Creation is other than God, brought about by God’s work, a reflection of God’s being, but not God’s being metaphysically. Jesus is not like that; not created ex-nihilo, but coming about at a point in time from God. How Jesus can be God parallels how creation can be God in the Panentheistic view. Jesus is God in an actual metaphysical way, not an agent of God. In that sense, I stand by Trinitarianism.
This is the view that I think best explains Jesus’ divinity alongside his obvious lack of infinitude in attributes (he demonstrated a lack of omniscience for example).
Tim,
Ontology refers to that which makes up a things essence. Does God have an essence? Yes. What makes God god? What is man? Man is body/soul/spirit/mind, etc. Whatever man is, that is his essence. If man does not have this, he is not man. So, if God is not that, he is not God.
Is Jesus God? I conclude yes, he is. Jesus is Yahweh/Adam: the god-man. Yahweh is God (thus having attributes thereof) and he is man (thus having attribute thereof). Yahweh becomes man and Jesus comes into existence when he is conceived of the Spirit and born of Mary. Man does not attain deity but God clothes himself in flesh.
Ontology is not easily philosophised, so it can’t be parsed out exhaustively. It would be like trying to parse out what it means to be woman (try and ontologise that!!!!!! :^)
You said:
From an ontological standpoint
(a) kinds or categories or classes (“person”, “man”, “God”, etc.) are defined by their properties and relations
*I do not see this as ontology but as economy, per se.
(b) two kinds (categories, classes) are identical if they share all the “essential” properties and relations; if they do not share all the “essential” properties and relations, they are not identical
* A thing cannot be both “A” and “non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. God is god. Man is man. They are not identical. God becomes man and there is a new identity: the god-man. There is one God in three persons. The Father is God, but is not the god-man; the Spirit is God, but is not the god-man; the Word is the god-man alone and is not the Father nor the Spirit.
It is a simple proof to show that Jesus is not identical with God (even with trinitarian presuppositions), given the uncontroversial points above: God is tri-personal (an essential property); Jesus is not tri-personal (an essential property; therefore Jesus is not identical with / fully God.
* This does not follow. God is triune: Father, Son, SS. But it does not follow that the Father is triune, nor the Son, etc. That seems to be an equivocation that doesn’t work. Can man not be body and soul b/c the body is not soul and vv? That seems to be your point as I understand it. God is triune in his essence, but each of the persons is not therefore also triune in their persons.
Does Jesus share many of the properties of God? Of course! But there is at least one property not in common (even from a trinitarian assumption) between Jesus and God.
*Do you mean his humanity? In his divinity Jesus humbles himself and clothes himself with humanity (which hypothetically the Father and S “could have done”); thereby glorifying humanity in union with him.
Travis
Dave Barron (istm) misses the clarity of NT revelation. Begin with the Acts and note what Luke does not say. Luke does not say that Jesus is God. He does however, say that God is “kurios” and Jesus is “kurios.” Divine agency aside, this is immensely important to Jesus’ ontology. Note, too, the way the Spirit is a divine agent speaking as God in the Psalms and so, therefore, the Spirit is God (as individual).
Dave’s words @ Phil 2 miss the teleology of humanity. Who is Paul’s foil in Phil 2 but Adam who being the the very [morphe] God, but considered equality with God something to be seized and did not take the [morphe] of a servant, but became obedient [un]to death and did not receive the name that is above every name….
Jesus therefore undoes what Adam did and redeux it. Adam was to attain to divinity (Peter tells us so) in his obedience (thus attaining knowledge of good and evil as judge). Really, Phil 2 is not so much a theological ontological argument (although it is that) as it is an anthropological one. In reality, Adam still would have needed the Word to become incarnate for his glorification. Man could not have attained divinity without the Word becoming flesh even sans the fall.
Travis,
You state “Ontology refers to that which makes up a things essence.” Can you cite any literature in the wider philosophic field to support this?
Your definition is the definition of ontology that is used to support the trinity. There is quite a bit of literature in the past several years addressing ontological inquiry. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article is a good place to start: plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ontology/.
-Regards-
I always find it a bit deceptive when Arians claim to be unitarians. Perhaps in a strict sense they may be – but their Christology is so distinct from Biblical Unitarians, that without that clarification, they seem deceptive.