Bowman, the Bible and Trinitarian Apologetics
Part 3
by Greg Stafford
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOWMAN:
Posted by R. Bowman (via lsi) on June 02, 1998 at 20:08:01:
Like Father, Like Son:
Stafford, the Bible, and Trinitarianism, Part II
By Rob Bowman
In this post I will respond to Greg Stafford's arguments concerning the
significance of the terms "Father" and "Son," especially in reference to whether
they imply a temporal origin of the Son.
As an illustration of the point that the Bible uses anthropomorphic language for
God, I had written that since other biblical texts state explicitly that God
knows everything, we should "understand the language of God finding out or
asking as anthropomorphic." Greg replied:
>Anthropomorphic for what? The Bible frequently uses all-inclusive language
when, in fact, such statements are meant to be taken in relation to something
more specific, and not universally applied. So, if you would care to reference
those verses which, to you, support your statements above concerning God's
knowledge, then we can evaluate them. I am not saying they are untenable
biblically, but I would prefer to examine the particular scriptures you have in
mind.
I'm not sure I follow you here, Greg. You seem to be saying that God is not
all-knowing. Is that right?
STAFFORD:
Let us consider the context of my reply. The following is from Bowman, the
Bible, and Trinitarianism:
<<<QUOTE>>>
Rob Bowman:
Here I'll try to use a less controversial example. Statements in the Bible about
God going down to earth to find out what is happening there, or asking people
questions, do seem to many readers to imply that God does not know everything.
However, since the Bible explicitly and flatly says God does know everything, I
take that as a doctrinal premise and on that basis understand the language of
God finding out or asking as anthropomorphic.
Greg Stafford:
Anthropomorphic for what? The Bible frequently uses all-inclusive language when,
in fact, such statements are meant to be taken in relation to something more
specific, and not universally applied. So, if you would care to reference those
verses which, to you, support your statements above concerning God's knowledge,
then we can evaluate them. I am not saying they are biblically untenable, but I
would prefer to examine the particular scriptures you have in mind.
But on this matter of "knowing all things," your view has an inherent problem in
terms of harmonizing statements in the Bible that reveal Jesus' dependency upon
God for knowledge of divine things. (Rev. 1:1) Thus, while you accept the view
that God knows absolutely every single thing that can be known, you do not hold
this to be true in reference to Jesus, or, I should say (right?), in reference
to his human nature. But this is where we get into real problems in terms of how
many centers of consciousness Jesus has, and whether or not the Bible teaches
what you claim.
<<<END OF QUOTE>>>
STAFFORD:
Now, notice: I asked you a specific question: What is anthropomorphic about "God
going down to earth to find out what is happening there"? You responded: "By
`anthropomorphic' I mean that the biblical statements about God coming down to
find something out picture him rather like a father coming into his son's room
to `find out what's going on' when he really already knows. The visit is really
for the purpose of confrontation, not fact-finding." That may be true in some
cases, Rob, but it is hardly the case that every time a parent checks on his or
her child "they already know what they are going to find."
Now, again, notice that I said, "Such statements [those that are
`all-inclusive'] are meant to be taken in relation to something more specific,
and not universally applied." Now, let us see what your examples reveal:
BOWMAN:
Do I really need to provide you with biblical references to God knowing all
things?
STAFFORD:
Why, yes, Rob, you do. For, as you can see, I made a specific claim as to the
meaning of such all-inclusive statements.
BOWMAN:
Okay, but I would think you already know them (see, e.g., 1 Sam. 16:7; 1 Chron.
28:9, 17; Job 37:16; Ps. 139:1-4; Isa. 41:22-23; 42:9; 44:7; Jer. 17:10; Rom.
11:33; Heb. 4:12-13).
STAFFORD:
Let's consider them one at a time. The English is that of the NRSV:
1 Samuel 16:7 - "But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look on his appearance or
on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him; for the LORD does not
see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on
the heart."
Nothing about knowing all things here.
1 Chronicles 28:9 - ""And you, my son Solomon, know the God of your father, and
serve him with single mind and willing heart; for the LORD searches every mind,
and understands every plan and thought. If you seek him, he will be found by
you; but if you forsake him, he will abandon you forever."
Here we are told that Jehovah "searches" every mind. Interestingly, the text
itself tells us that Jehovah knows the thoughts of man because He examines
(Hebrew: darash; LXX: ETAZO) "every heart" (kal levahvot). This does not say
anything about "all things," and seems to reveal that Jehovah knows what He
chooses to know. That is my position (see below).
I am not sure why you referenced 1 Chronicles 28:17. Did you have another verse
in mind?
Job 37:16 - "Do you know the balancings of the clouds, the wondrous works of the
one whose knowledge is perfect [tamym]."
Yes, the knowledge God has is perfect; it is not defective or erroneous. What He
knows is trustworthy and complete.
Psalm 139:1-4 - "O LORD, you have searched [khaqar] me and known me. You know
when I sit down and when I rise up; you discern my thoughts from far away. You
search out my path and my lying down, and are acquainted with all my ways. Even
before a word is on my tongue, O LORD, you know it completely."
Again we see that Jehovah searches out a person, and in so doing He comes to
know "all their ways." This only further supports the view that God knows
everything He chooses to know.
Isaiah 41:22-23 - "Let them bring them, and tell us what is to happen. Tell us
the former things, what they are, so that we may consider them, and that we may
know their outcome; Tell us what is to come hereafter, that we may know that you
are gods; do good, or do harm, that we may be afraid and terrified."
How does this contradict the view that God knows whatever He chooses to know,
which is expressed in Genesis 11:5?
Isaiah 42:9 - "See, the former things have come to pass, and new things I now
declare; before they spring forth, I tell you of them."
Of course Jehovah knows the things He declares! Whatever Jehovah foretells, He
knows, and will bring about. This does not disprove the view that He chooses to
know certain things, such as what is in a person's heart. In fact, the texts
cited by you above have shown this to be true.
Isaiah 44:7 - "Who is like me? Let them proclaim it, let them declare and set it
forth before me. Who has announced from of old the things to come? Let them tell
us what is yet to be."
Again, this in no way contradicts the scriptural teaching that God chooses to
know certain things. Whatever He wants to know, He knows, including "what is yet
to be."
Jeremiah 17:10 - "I the LORD test the mind and search [khaqar] the heart, to
give to all according to their ways, according to the fruit of their doings."
This is further support for my position that God knows what He chooses to know.
Romans 11:33 - "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How
unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!"
Again, how does this contradict the view that God knows whatever He chooses to
know?
Hebrews 4:12-13 - "Indeed, the word of God is living and active, sharper than
any two-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints from
marrow; it is able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And before
him no creature is hidden, but all are naked and laid bare to the eyes of the
one to whom we must render an account."
Yes, as we learned from your earlier examples, God searches the heart and mind,
and thus we are all "laid bare to [His} eyes."
Not one of your references supports your view, and most of them support the view
that God knows whatever He chooses to know. What were you trying to prove, Rob?
Also, Rob failed to address this portion of my reply: "But on this matter of
`knowing all things,' your view has an inherent problem in terms of harmonizing
statements in the Bible that reveal Jesus' dependency upon God for knowledge of
divine things. (Rev. 1:1) Thus, while you accept the view that God knows
absolutely every single thing that can be known, you do not hold this to be true
in reference to Jesus, or, I should say (right?), in reference to his human
nature. But this is where we get into real problems in terms of how many centers
of consciousness Jesus has, and whether or not the Bible teaches what you
claim."
Please explain, Rob.
BOWMAN:
I had written:
>Or, to take a more relevant example, when I read about God the Father in the
Bible, a natural inference to make might be that there is a God the Mother. Nor
is this hypothetical, as many Mormons popularly believe in just such a being.
However, not only is no Heavenly Mother mentioned in the Bible, but the explicit
statements about the nature of God as infinite Spirit and various other biblical
teachings firmly rule out the possibility of a Heavenly Couple. This is more
relevant to our discussion, since it shows that the term "Father" is itself an
anthropomorphism, not to be taken at all literally.
Greg wrote:
>Well, actually it is not true that "there is no Heavenly Mother mentioned in
the Bible." (Gal. 4:26) So, Mormons could argue, as you are attempting to do,
that the concept of "God the Mother" is in fact rooted in the biblical text.
BOWMAN:
I am attempting to argue no such thing! I think you have worded yourself wrongly
here. By the way, I have never met or read a Mormon who thought Galatians 4:26
was talking about "Mrs. God" (as I like to call her). Obviously, when I said
that "there is no Heavenly Mother mentioned in the Bible," I meant that there is
no person who might be described as such.
STAFFORD:
I am referring to the "natural inference" you made. Also, I am simply pointing
out that we must consider the articulation that accompanies the reference in
order properly understand the sense.
BOWMAN:
You continue:
Greg:
>You might counter by suggesting that the context refers to this as "Jerusalem,"
an impersonal entity, and they might argue that you are begging the question,
for the text itself uses the feminine pronoun "she." But you and I both know
that such terms are anthropomorphic, not because we
ignore the text, but because we recognize (at least JWs do) the spiritualization
of Jerusalem as the "city having real foundation." Also, there is no unambiguous
articulation of an ontological being known as God the Mother. Thus, without
clear articulation, Rob, we are not at liberty to
insert concepts into the text that clash with ideas expressed elsewhere, just
because we can bend the language in some way to conform to an otherwise
biblically unsubstantiated teaching. That is why trinitarianism is untenable
biblically, for there is no articulation of the concepts that are fundamental to
the belief. So, really, trinitarians are no better off than the Mormons, when it
comes to establishing their dogma by referencing biblical articulation for their
position. >
Please notice that Greg has completely sidestepped the point I was making, which
is that we cannot assume that what a word normally implies carries over to
language about the Father and the Son.>
STAFFORD:
Rob, your point is an assumption. Where does the Bible articulate the view that
every reference to a "father" must imply the existence of a "mother"? Who was
the "mother" of the lie, Rob? (John 8:44; see below for more on this text) The
term "father" is anthropomorphic in terms of helping us understand God's
relationship with Jesus. This word brings to mind all the connotations that the
readers of the text understood for "father." The term "mother" is in no way
involved (see below).
BOWMAN:
Specifically, the lack of a Heavenly Mother illustrates my point that one cannot
simply assume that ideas we associate with terms like "father" and "son" apply
when we are talking about God the Father and his only Son.
STAFFORD:
Rob, you assume that which you have yet to prove, that is, how is it that the
term "father" necessarily implies the existence of a "mother"? The term "father"
has established connotations that are easily transferred to the spirit realm, in
so far as it helps us to appreciate the relationship that exists between God and
Christ. I have already given you one example where the term "father" is used of
a spirit being, with the established connotations of "life-giver," "parent,"
etc. You have done nothing but assert that your view is true; you have offered
no proof.
BOWMAN:
Since, despite the above paragraph, Greg agrees with me on the lack of a
Heavenly Mother in the Bible, he really should have granted my premise. But
then, he would have been hard-pressed to deny my conclusion.
STAFFORD:
You appear to be confused, Rob. My point about the Mormon's view of a Heavenly
Mother should have been quite clear. Recall that I said: "There is no
unambiguous articulation of an ontological being known as God the Mother. Thus,
without clear articulation, Rob, we are not at liberty to insert concepts into
the text that clash with ideas expressed elsewhere, just because we can bend the
language in some way to conform to an otherwise biblically unsubstantiated
teaching. That is why trinitarianism is untenable biblically, for there is no
articulation of the concepts that are fundamental to the belief. So, really,
trinitarians are no better off than the Mormons, when it comes to establishing
their dogma by referencing biblical articulation for their position."
Now do you understand my point? There is no more articulation for your view than
for the Mormons. In fact, they may even have more support than you do. But,
still, the key issue is you are assuming a connection between "father" and
"mother" that does not exist. The Bible uses the term "father" with certain,
established connotations, apart from having a mother involved.
BOWMAN:
Greg continued:
>Of course, we are talking about "obvious" and "natural" meanings in the Bible,
and the terms "son" and "father" are used throughout, both with reference to
humans and spirit beings, without any difficulties, except for the Jews who
rejected Jesus' identity as one of those sons.
Whoa, there. Please cite a reference in the Gospels where (a) Jesus claimed to
be "one of those sons" or (b) the Jews understood Jesus to be claiming to be
"one of those sons." I categorically deny that Jesus ever claimed to be one of a
class of beings known as God's "sons."
STAFFORD:
There are several senses for the term "son," some of which are reserved for
Jesus. In a broader sense the Bible speaks of a group of "sons," of which Jesus
is the Firstborn. (Job 1:6; Col. 1:15) When the Bible says that the "sons of God
entered in before Jehovah," should we not include God's only-begotten Son among
them? The text does not exclude any of His sons from the group. Now, since the
reference to "sons of God" was understood in the ancient world to denote a class
of "gods" (see my book for details) then it is no surprise to find the Jews
rejecting Jesus' claim to be "a god." (John 10:33) Of course, he had claimed to
be "God's Son," which could also be translated "a son of God." -- John 10:36.
BOWMAN:
Now, back to your argument:
>Now, regarding your reference to "literal" meaning, you seem to imply that a
literal meaning for the word "father" must necessarily involve physical
procreation. How so? When used of humans we would naturally ASSOCIATE physical
procreation with the word, but that is not a necessary part of the concept
created by the semantic signals "father" and "son." For example, when Satan is
referred to as "the father of the lie" (John 8:44), this clearly does not
involve physical procreation, but the meaning that is at the forefront of the
semantic signals conveyed by the term is similar to physical procreation, in
terms of bringing something into existence. So, the terms need not imply the
same process, but they do convey same basic idea.
Stop the presses again. First you assert that physical procreation is not a
necessary part of the concept of "father" "when used of humans," but then give
as your one example Satan's being called "the father of the lie." How is this
supposed to illustrate, much less prove, your point? The use of the word
"father" for Satan is not an instance of its being "used of humans"! (Forgive me
for spelling out the obvious.)
STAFFORD:
Rob, will you please stop misquoting me? Thanks. NOWHERE do I say, "physical
procreation is not a necessary part of the concept of `father' `when used of
humans.' Please read my words CAREFULLY. I am saying just the opposite of what
you have me saying: "When used of humans we would naturally ASSOCIATE physical
procreation with the word, but that is not a necessary part of the concept
created by the semantic signals `father' and `son.'" You see, first I made it
clear that, when used of humans, we "would naturally ASSOCIATE physical
procreation with the word." But I then make an observation relating to the
concept of the word itself. I then give an example that supports my observation
about the word "father."
Again, my words are not complicated: I make an observation about the term's use
in reference to humans, and THEN I make an observation about what is not a
necessary part of the "semantic signals [= words]" "father" and "son." I then
give an example showing that the word "father" does not necessarily create the
image of procreation, but that "the meaning that is at the forefront of the
semantic signals conveyed by the term is similar to physical procreation, in
terms of bringing something into existence. So, the terms need not imply the
same process, but they do convey same basic idea."
It is no wonder trinitarians have such a distorted view of our teachings, for
you and others are either intentionally misrepresenting our views, or just do
not understand what we are talking about. I know, you and some others on this
board are tired of hearing me say that, so I'll make you a deal: Stop
misrepresenting what I say and I'll stop complaining about it.
BOWMAN:
Besides, in John 8:44 Satan is described as the "father," not of another person
or being, but of
an abstraction, specifically "the lie," which immediately will be recognized by
the typical reader as signaling that here we are not talking about a physical
reproduction or procreation.
STAFFORD:
Another reason that would be clear, Rob, is the fact that Satan is not a
physical being. Of course, we ARE discussing the concepts associated with the
term "father" when used of a PERSON. Satan is a PERSON, so your point misplaced.
The use of the term "father" in relation to the PERSON of Satan creates a mental
image of one who brought something into existence, without a "mother."
BOWMAN:
Where there is a "father" in relation to an abstract idea, or an event, or an
inanimate thing, no one would reasonably suppose a mother was implied.
STAFFORD:
When the word "father" is used in relation to a spirit being, no one would
reasonably suppose that a mother was implied, either! But, again, you fail to
realize that we are talking about the use of a term in reference to a PERSON.
Also, the Bible does not articulate the view that spirit beings are male and
female, and nowhere does the Bible speak of them as procreating like humans.
Thus, you are again confusing sense and reference. No ancient reader of the
Bible would have thought to view the situation involving God's fathering His
sons as something analogous to human procreation. They knew God was "not a man."
(Numbers 23:19) They would simply have transferred the meaning of the term as
far as they could, knowing what they did about how God creates.
BOWMAN:
However, where there is a "father" in relation to a "son," normally there is
somewhere a mother! The two terms must be considered together to understand the
force of my argument. John 8:44 is totally irrelevant to the case at hand.
STAFFORD:
I am sure you would like others to think so, Rob. But you have failed to
recognize that the term "father" is used of a PERSON in John 8:44, and we are
interested in the concepts created by the word in reference to a particular type
of being, a spirit being. Your comments are only true about HUMANS, and God is
not a HUMAN! Even with respect to humans, you have not established that the
words "father" or "mother" necessarily imply the existence of the other in
producing a child. In fact, the Bible writers regularly refer to Mary as Jesus'
mother, but this surely did not imply that Jesus had a human father, in terms of
procreation. The word "mother" had/has established connotations that allow it to
be used apart from "father," and "father" has connotations that allow it to be
used apart from "mother," particularly when the one called "father" is not a
"male," that is, when used in reference to God. You are making a statement that
does not even apply in every case to humans, and acting as if we must take the
same view, and all its associated details (which are not a part of the word's
sense) when the terms are used of beings that are not human, beings that are not
distinguished by their "sex." Sorry, Rob, you have not established that "mother"
is a necessary part of the sense of the term "father."
BOWMAN:
I did not claim that a literal use of "father" necessarily involves physical
procreation, although that would be arguably the most directly literal meaning
of the term.
STAFFORD:
Only in reference to humans! The sense of the term depends on the reference.
"Mother" is not a necessary implication of the word "father." When "father" is
used of humans "mother" is not part of its sense; it is merely something we
associate with the reference.
BOWMAN:
What I said was that Muslims "object on principle to calling Jesus God's "Son"
because they cannot dissociate that term from the ordinary cause of sons,
namely, sexual procreation." In
other words, the ideas that we "would naturally associate . . . with the word"
(as you put it) may or may not apply to God or his Son. Rather than assume that
any such idea applies, whether it be physical procreation (as the Mormons
assert), temporal origin (as you assume), or identity of nature (as I argue), we
must examine the Scriptures to see what they actually say about the Father and
the Son.
STAFFORD:
That's right. And since humans and spirits do not reproduce in the same way, and
since spirits are neither male nor female and do not procreate as we humans do,
it is nonsense to assume that this would be part of the sense of the word
"father" regardless of the reference. One thing is for sure, we have no
scriptural basis for removing connotations such as the giving of life or the
bringing about of some condition or state from the word "father." You are not
examining the scriptures, Rob. You are reading later theology back into the
text. I hate to say that, but it's true. The Bible is far from cryptic in
telling us that Jesus "lives because of the Father." (John 6:57) See how simple
that is, Rob? God is Father in relation to the Son, and Jesus is the Son in
relation to the Father. The Bible gives us clear references showing that Jesus
received life from the Father, and NOWHERE are we told that the terms "give,"
"father," or "son" should be viewed differently from how they were commonly
understood and used, given the appropriate reference. These terms are given in
Scripture so that we might understand the relationship between Jesus and his
God. The Bible is trying to communicate with us; it is not trying to confuse us.
Otherwise, if terms were used in a sense far removed from their normal meaning,
there would be clear articulation about how they are being used.
BOWMAN:
While you assume that "father" and "son" imply temporal origin or the bringing
of the "son" into existence by the "father," in everyday language the terms may
or may not convey that idea. For example, I am a "father" to my seven-month-old
daughter Maria, but my being her father has nothing to do with bringing her into
existence, since I adopted her. Of course, Maria did come into existence - but
that is not something denoted or connoted by calling me her "father." (I
sincerely hope that you will recognize the validity of this illustration despite
the fact that Maria happens to be an adopted daughter and not a son!)
STAFFORD:
The problem with your illustration, Rob, is Jesus is not an adopted Son! In your
case, as in all others, the sense of the term is bound up in its reference.
Those who do not know that you are Maria's adopted father would naturally
consider you as her biological father. But, to those who know that you are her
father by adoption, a different sense will be attached to the term, for they
know that you are not her father in a biological sense. But the Bible does not
articulate a different sense for the word when used of God's relationship to the
Son, in his preexistent state. Instead, it uses terms and descriptions that we
would naturally associate with the term "father," but that are understood in
reference to the nature of spirit beings, not humans. These terms include
"only-begotten," "son," "firstborn," "child," "image" and "copy." We are also
explicitly told that Jesus "lives because of the Father." THAT is communication!
BOWMAN:
I would respectfully submit that you are doing precisely what I said you were
doing: assuming that what strikes you as the normal, everyday, obvious, natural,
or literal meaning of the words "father" and "son" applies to the biblical
application of those terms to the Father and the Son. This must be proved, not
assumed, with respect to the claim that the terms imply a temporal origin of the
Son.
STAFFORD:
Again, when terms are used so frequently without any specific qualification
(normally made in the context) that they are being used in a different sense
(don't confuse this with reference), then on what basis do we read meanings into
the words that are completely foreign to the meaning they have elsewhere? Also,
other terms and descriptions, some of which I have given above, are completely
consistent with the everyday understanding of the aforementioned terms, and the
impact they have on the relationship of God and Christ. You not only have to
change the meaning of the words "father" and "son" but you have to change the
meaning of MANY other terms, without any biblical articulation supporting your
definition.
BOWMAN:
Greg continued:
>The concepts created by the semantic signal "father," whether spoken or
written, create certain images that the reader/hearer can appreciate in relation
to the everyday meaning of the word "father." And unless those readers/hearers
are specifically cautioned against such everyday
associations, then the chances are 1) the sender/giver of the semantic signal
intended a correlation with the hearer's/reader's everyday understanding of the
term, and 2) the hearer/reader would likely associate his/her everyday
understanding of the term with the author's usage.
I reply:
You seem to be arguing here that unless the Bible specifically warns us against
reading a particular nuance or associated idea of the "everyday understanding"
into a biblical term, then those nuances of associated ideas were probably
intended by the biblical writers. But I
have already provided counterevidence: the Bible never warns us not to infer
from the language of Father and Son that Jesus had a divine Mother, yet we are
warranted, indeed, required to dismiss such an idea as patently NOT what the
biblical writers intended.
STAFFORD:
Rob, all you have done is ASSUME that the use of the term "father" always
implies the existence of a "mother." I have shown that that is not true, and so
my point, as given in the paragraph above yours, is still valid. You assume that
the term "father" implies the existence of a mother, regardless of the
reference! The sense of the term "father" is the same, but whether or not a
"mother" is involved is a matter of reference. When the term is applied to
spirit beings, "mother" is not implied, and even when used of humans, it may or
may not be implied, depending on whether or not the reference is to a person who
fathered a child through sexual union with his wife (= the "mother"), or if the
reference of the term "father" is to a single man who adopted a son or daughter.
BOWMAN:
Greg continued:
>What is CERTAIN is that no reader or writer of the Bible would confuse the
semantic signals of the words "father" and "son."
I reply: I'm sorry, but while you say this is certain, I'm not even sure what
you mean. Do you mean that no reader or writer would misidentify the father as
the son or vice versa? That is, no one would think "father" meant "son" or "son"
meant "father"? If so, I'd tend to agree, but the
point seems trivial.
STAFFORD:
That is precisely my point! If the semantic signals are not the same, then what
are they? In the absence of any biblical articulation to the contrary, why
should we take them as anything other than God's attempt to communicate His
relationship with His Son, to us, in language to which we can relate?
BOWMAN:
On the other hand, perhaps you meant that no one would be confused as to what
the two words meant. If that is your meaning, I'd strongly disagree, for reasons
already given.
STAFFORD:
If they recognized a difference between the meaning of the two terms, then they
would have to have known what the two terms meant! The writers of Scripture
would not have used such terms in a manner inconsistent with how they knew their
readers would have understood them. If they were using the terms with
connotations different from the everyday understanding of the words, in terms of
what kind of relationship they denoted between the one called "father" and the
one called "son," then they would have articulated this new sense so their
readers/hearers could know what they were talking about. Of course, they knew
their readers would understand the sense conveyed by the term, in relation to
the particular referent(s) in question, and that is why they do not articulate
anything like "eternal generation." They did not teach it, and therefore we
should not read it into their use of these terms.
BOWMAN (quoting Stafford)
>Additionally, if the semantic signals create different concepts, then what are
they? How should we define them in relation to each other?
BOWMAN:
I reply: Again, I'm not sure what you are asking here.
STAFFORD:
It's simple, Rob. If the two semantic signs (= words) "father" and "son" have
different senses, and if those reading/hearing the text knew this (as even you
admit), then what are the different senses?
BOWMAN:
Greg had written:
>Start with the words and build your concept(s) from them. If the Bible does not
define the terms the way you do, then right away you should recognize the
possibility that you are reading into the text a view that is not there.
Greg, the Bible does not define "Father" or "Son" or "given" at all; that is, it
does not contain stipulated definitions of these terms (indeed, definitions per
se are rare in the Bible). The meaning of these terms must be learned from an
inductive study of the Bible. I certainly don't think I'm reading anything into
the text that isn't there, or I'd stop it!
STAFFORD:
They are defined by their use, Rob. And the Bible does not use them the way you
do. Yes, you are reading a meaning into the terms, and, hence, the text, that is
not there. If you were not, then I would not be talking to you about this
subject. To you, "give" does not mean give, and "father" and "son" do not carry
their usual sense in terms of conveying any meaningful distinction between God
and Christ, to which we can relate. You do not accept the sense conveyed by the
use of these (and other) terms in the ancient, pre-Nicene world. So please, stop
it.
BOWMAN:
Greg continued:
>Now, the texts to which you refer do not say anything about the Son "existing
antecedent to all temporal things." This is a view that is read into the text in
order to support a concept created apart from the text.
Stop it, Greg. Accuse me of misunderstanding the text if you wish, but stop
misrepresenting me as getting my views from somewhere other than the text. I
learned of the eternality of the Son from my reading of the Bible, not from
Athanasius or some other extrabiblical source.
STAFFORD:
Sure you do, Rob. The Bible does not uphold such a view, and frequently speaks
against it. You have to change to meaning of words and use them in a sense that
is "orthodox" or you run the risk of being considered a heretic. Go with the
Bible, Rob!
BOWMAN:
It was not my religion whose founder was a skeptic until he found a way to
profess Christian faith while continuing to reject the hard doctrines of the
Bible (a way he learned, not from the Bible directly, but from an Adventist
splinter group).
STAFFORD:
What "hard doctrines" might you be referring to, Rob? When I read Russell's
writings I find quite a few scripture references. It sure seems like he learned
them from the Bible to me!
BOWMAN:
It is not my religion whose official publications have warned its adherents
throughout its history not to read the Bible apart from its "helps" lest they be
ensnared in apostate doctrine.
STAFFORD:
Here you have misstated our position, and neglected to give all the facts.
Fortunately, Chapter 9 of my book puts your false characterization to rest.
Still, I find it amusing that a trinitarian should make this accusation, when
they cannot read the Bible apart from post-biblical creeds.
BOWMAN:
I gave the Watchtower theological system a fair shake BEFORE I became convinced
of the
doctrine of the Trinity. It was through meeting with a Jehovah's Witness couple
for three months and studying the Bible intensively that I came to a strong
conviction on this and related doctrinal questions.
STAFFORD:
Well, I'd like to suggest that you keep on studying, Rob, and perhaps you will
see that the Trinity is based, not on the Bible, but on post-biblical theology
that is far removed from the Bible's teaching about God and Christ.
BOWMAN:
Greg asks an interesting question:
>But I ask you, where in the Bible is the term "father" used apart from a
temporal distinction between the one called "father" and that which is said to
have been fathered?
It does so where it speaks of Jesus' Father in relation to Jesus as the prehuman
Son. And no, I am not begging the question, for as I have said I find biblical
statements about the Son that affirm his preexistence antecedent to all created,
temporal things. Of course, you will complain that I have failed to provide any
OTHER examples of a nontemporal connotation in the use of the term "father," but
none is to be expected SINCE GOD IS THE ONLY ETERNAL BEING.
STAFFORD:
Does everyone see what is happening here? First, Rob is special pleading, and,
second, he DOES beg the question. He posits a view that is against the clear
teaching of Scripture. (John 6:57) Of course, Rob gives a new meaning to this
text and the word "give" in John 5:26 in order to sustain his view. So, Rob
admits that his use of the terms "father" and "son," in reference to God and
Christ, is against every other use of the term. Of course, the term "father" has
no temporal connotations, but "son" does, and so Rob here begs the question by
stating that the term does not have temporal connotations when used of Jesus,
because Jesus is eternal! Wonderful, Rob. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Of
course, the very issue we are concerned with is why Scripture uses terms that
involve a temporal distinction, when describing the relationship between God and
Jesus, in Jesus' preexistent state? Nowhere are we told that the terms should be
understood apart from their usual temporal distinction. And, what is more, if no
such temporal distinction exists, then why are they distinguished with these
terms?
BOWMAN:
Greg wrote:
>"Father" is generally, in fact, always, understood as the GIVER of life, and I
know of no instance in Scripture where the use of the word "father" is intended
to create a mental image of one who himself has a father. Can you provide an
example? I also challenge you to find one instance in Scripture where the word
"son" does not convey the idea of having a father, when used of persons.
I don't claim that the word "father" is ever intended to create a mental image
of someone who has a father. I simply claimed that in ordinary usage a father is
someone who happens himself to have a father.
STAFFORD:
Fine. Then your point has no place in this discussion, as we are concerned with
what images a person would be confronted with when they heard or read the terms
"father" and "son," as they are used to describe the relationship between God
and Christ.
BOWMAN:
As for your challenge to find an instance in Scripture where the word "son" does
not convey the idea of having a father, that's easy. Ephesians 2:2b speaks of
"the sons of disobedience" - which, lest I be accused of an
"English-concordance" approach, uses the same Greek word, huios (in the plural),
customarily used of Jesus as God's Son. But, of course, I don't claim that Jesus
is called God's Son apart from his relation to one called his Father.
STAFFORD:
Of course, the use of the term in Eph 2:2 is a Hebraism, and the genitive
indicates that the qualities possessed by the group of "sons" are exemplified by
them to such a degree that there is a sort of "family likeness" to them. I will
assume you are familiar with this idiom, but I can't help but wonder why you
would use this as an example? Do you have an example of a non-idiomatic use of
"son" that answers my question?
BOWMAN:
Greg had written:
>Pop quiz: If God gives life to another, His true Son, why is he the Son if no
difference in age separates them? How is it a giving of life if the Son has
always had life?
To which I responded:
>The answer to Greg's question is that a "difference in age" is meaningless when
the Father in question has NO AGE. The Father is not merely older; he is
ageless, transcending all time.
Greg then replied:
>That is ridiculous, Rob. You're just making things up in order to support your
view. The fact that the Father is eternal has nothing to do with whether or not
the Son is eternal. The Bible nowhere makes such a qualification of these terms.
In fact, in view of the biblical usage of
these and other terms, the distinction between the two as Father and Son
necessarily involves a temporal distinction. Your refusal to acknowledge this
because of your doctrinal presuppositions is pregnantly obvious to us all.
BOWMAN:
Greg, it is your answer that is ridiculous. I'm not making anything up at all.
How can you say that the Father's being eternal is irrelevant to whether the Son
is eternal? It is absolutely relevant. The argument is simple and sound:
STAFFORD:
No, it is ridiculous because it assumes that age is transferable! Remember this
portion of my reply, which you do NOT quote or consider:
<<QUOTE FROM Bowman, the Bible, and Trinitarianism>>>
Rob Bowman:
That is, Scripture never says that the Father is older than the Son. This is an
inference Greg has drawn from the language, an understandable inference to be
sure, but one that BEGS THE QUESTION when he uses this inference to refute the
trinitarian view of Jesus as God's eternal Son.
Greg Stafford:
The Bible does not speak of an "eternal generation." Therefore, it provides us
with no other way to view these two terms, other than in the sense in which they
were commonly understood. You can't accept that, not because the thought is
unbiblical, but because it does agree with your extra-biblical theology. Thus,
you must question the use of these terms, and insert a concept that is foreign
to Scripture in order to make it fit with your preconceived view. I, on the
other hand, need only look at the way the Bible uses these terms and, in the
absence of clear articulation to the contrary, use them as consistent with the
regular and repeated sense the Bible gives them.
Rob Bowman:
Indeed, if the titles "Son" and "Son of God" are understood to connote the idea
that the Son has the same nature as God, we would actually expect that the Son,
like his Father, would be eternal.
Greg Stafford:
Why would we expect that? Again, age is never spoken of in Scripture as
something that is passed along with the giving (!) of life. The angels are sons
of God (Job 1:6). But they are never spoken of as eternal. In fact, the Bible
more frequently uses temporal designations of the Son (Jesus) than all the other
sons of God combined!
<<<<END OF QUOTE>>>>
STAFFORD:
Now, let's see what justification you provide for your claim about "age":
BOWMAN:
(1) The Son possesses the full divine nature of the Father (e.g., Col. 2:9).
STAFFORD:
Yes, the Father GAVE the Son this divine nature (Col. 1:19), and He also gives
it to Christians. (Col. 2:10) Nowhere does this tell us that age is
transferable. If it was given to the Son, and it was, then the age of the Son is
temporal, for it began at the time he received the divine nature. That's what
giving means, Rob: Giving something to someone that was not previously a owned
by that someone.
BOWMAN:
(2) The divine nature of the Father includes eternal existence (this is never
stated explicitly, but on the agreed assumption that the Father is Jehovah God,
cf. Ps. 90:2).
STAFFORD:
Again, you are assuming that age is something, when it is really just an
abstraction. It cannot be "given." This is where you deny the meaning of "give"
in order to read another unbiblical view into the text. The Bible nowhere states
or implies that God's age is transferable!
BOWMAN:
(3) Therefore, the Son possesses eternal existence (follows from [1] and [2],
and I would argue is taught in John 1:1-3; 8:58; Col. 1:17; Heb. 1:2, 10-12).
STAFFORD:
My human, fleshly nature is passed on to my offspring, but that does not mean
they are the same age as I am! The very fact that it is passed on (=given) to
them reveals that it is not the same as mine, in terms of age. God gave His Son
that quality of being that makes one a god, and He has given this same nature to
those who will rule with His Son in heaven. But this gift does not make them
sharers of the same substance of being with the Father. Of course, you create a
distinction between "being" and "person" that is also not spoken of in
Scripture, which we will discuss in Part 4 of my reply. Basically, you are
forced to invent all kinds of distinctions, qualifications, and meanings that
are nowhere articulated in Scripture. This is the essence of Trinitarian
apologetics.
BOWMAN:
So, not only is the Father's eternal nature relevant to the nature of the Son,
but the conclusion has biblical warrant of a more direct kind. The key premise
here is (1), which you have to deny in order to deny the conclusion (since you
agree that the Father is eternal).
STAFFORD:
Of course, this is where you assume that the Father and Son are owners of the
self-same substance of being, a view that is nowhere articulated in Scripture,
and which Al Kidd has sufficiently refuted. The Father gives the Son existence
as a divine being, not one that owns certain divine qualities or attributes (as
the gnostics believed were distributed among the aeons), but all of them. The
anointed followers of Christ are likewise sharers of this divine nature, but
they do not possess these attributes to the same degree as Jehovah, and neither
does the Son. That is why the Father remains his "head" and "God." The very fact
that the Father's nature is not contingent upon the will or decree of another,
shows that His nature is different from that of the Son, whose divine nature is
the result of the Father's "good pleasure."-- Col. 1:19.
BOWMAN:
It won't work to claim that angels have the nature of the Father. They don't. I
covered this in some measure in my post "What God Does, the Son Does," but allow
me to say something further on it. In an earlier post responding to me Greg had
written, "Angels have characteristics that only God has. For example, they are
spirit beings, but that does not make them 'God.' It does make them gods, to
some degree. The same is true of Jesus." This makes no sense. If God and even
one angel have a particular characteristic in common, that is not a
characteristic "that only God has."
STAFFORD:
That was my point, Rob, and you missed it badly. God is a spirit. The angels are
spirits. This is their nature. But they do not share the same essence of being,
and thus there is a degree of difference between God and His angels. My
statement was meant to illustrate the assumption you made in your syllogism
about John 5:19-20.
BOWMAN:
For example, being a spirit is something that is true of God and of angels;
therefore, being spirit is not a characteristic that only God has. Spirit is
only one aspect of the nature of the Father. Dogs and humans are both flesh, but
dogs don't have the same nature as humans.
STAFFORD:
Yes, they do! Humans and animals are distinctions within the fleshly sphere of
existence. God and angels are similarly distinguished, though this analogy is
quite bad, for angels are made in God's image, and are gods to some degree, but
animals are not made in man's image, so there is a much greater difference in
terms of the kind of beings we are talking about, though the nature of animals
and humans is the same.
BOWMAN:
Likewise, angels and God are both spirit, but angels don't have the same nature
as God. Demons are spirits, but the Bible explicitly says they are NOT "gods" by
nature (Gal. 4:8).
STAFFORD:
Where does Galatians 4:8 refer to demons? Certainly there is nothing precluding
a reference to humans political leaders, who claimed to be gods in that day and
age. These ones were not gods by nature.
BOWMAN:
Thus, it is false to say, as Greg does, that because their nature as spirit
beings "does make them gods"; according to Galatians 4:8, it does not. Nor does
the Bible ever say that the angels possess God's nature. It does say that about
Jesus Christ the Son.
STAFFORD:
First, Galatians 4:8 does not support your view, and, second, the Bible most
certainly does state that the angels possess diving nature. It does so by using
the same idiom we discussed in relation to Eph. 2:2. The Hebrew use of beney
elohim ("sons of God"), as in the case of the "sons of disobedience," reveals
that the group denoted by "sons," possesses the qualities or nature of the term
in the (English) genitive. See Chapter 7 of my book for details. In the NT the
focus is on Jesus Christ and there are times when the author of a particular
book is arguing against an erroneous view. It is only appropriate, therefore,
that we encounter statements that reveal Christ's divinity. But NOWHERE in the
Bible are we told that Jesus has the self-same nature as God, in terms of being.
Being "a god," he naturally has a divine nature, as does God, and so do the
angels. But they are all different in their degree of divine attributes. For
example, even though Jesus has superhuman, divine knowledge, he is still
dependent upon God for knowledge of divine things, such as the
revelation.---Rev. 1:1.
BOWMAN:
I had made this point about the Son having the nature of God previously.
Greg replied:
>Where do these texts say that the Son has the self-same nature as God? That is
what you mean, is it not? SELF-SAME nature?
I reply: Greg, maybe you mean something very specific or distinctive with this
word "selfsame," but I really don't know what you mean. What I mean by "having
the nature of God" or "having the same nature as God" (or, as the Father) is
that every descriptive attribute applicable to God is equally applicable to the
Son. That is, since God is eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent,
infinite, incorporeal, etc., so is his Son. Of course, I DON'T mean that the Son
is the Father. (The terms Father and Son are not descriptive attributes but
relational designations.)
STAFFORD:
What I mean is this: they share the same essence of being, without division (=
your view). I am not sure how else my words could be construed. Now, you make a
key point: "every descriptive attribute applicable to God is equally applicable
to the Son." That's just it, Rob, they are not equally applicable to the Son.
That is why the Son is dependent upon his God for knowledge of certain things,
like the revelation. (Rev. 1:1) This is where trinitarians usually try and read
later theology into the text, but that is not legitimate. Also, the above-stated
distinction between the "Father" and "Son," which Bowman views as merely
`relational distinction [!],' is not supported by Scripture. The Bible
distinguishes the two in terms of being, which is what a distinction in person
really amounts to. There is no `relational distinction' that does not also
involve a distinction of being. See Part 4 of my reply for further details. You
may also wish to reconsider Al Kidd's recent replies, in the meantime.
END OF PART THREE
|
