Online Debate between Greg Stafford and Rob Bowman (Part 1):
The following discussion took place online, through mediums for both Greg
Stafford and Robert Bowman, during the month of April, 1998.
The medium for Greg Stafford, Mark Ross, was not able to cut and paste Greg's
reply, and resorted to typing in the reply directly from a printed hardcopy. As
a result, the actual posted reply contained several spelling errors, and a few
missing words. These have been corrected by uploading Greg's own copy to this
page.
As a result of this debate, several other individuals joined in the discussion,
and various points were clarified and considered in greater detail, and these
have been worked into the discussion so as to give as complete an understanding
of the issues involved as possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Ross [one of Jehovah's Witnesses] wrote:
Matthew, worship (Grk latreuw) includes honor, but honor does not necessarily
include worship. Jesus is given the authority to judge by his Father, and the
Father NEVER gets authority from anyone. I don't understand what the big deal
is. BTW, [John 5] Verse 26 says that while the Father has 'life in himself' he
is pleased to GIVE to Christ to have 'life in himself'. How is it that the
Father has this by nature and the Son does not if the Son is equal and
co-eternal with the Father ? I have NEVER had a trinitarian successfully address
this one. Perhaps you will be the first ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
1. If Jesus has the nature and prerogatives of the only true God, that makes him
God, however he got that nature and those prerogatives.
Greg Stafford:
The errors begin early in Bowman's reply. Above we have a non sequitur. Bowman
also asserts that which he has yet to prove, that is, where does the Bible say
"Jesus has the nature and prerogatives of the only true God"? Also, how Jesus
obtained a divine nature and divine prerogatives has a direct and substantial
impact on our understanding of his position in relation to the Father. Bowman
also uses the word "God" in two different senses: The first use appears to be in
reference to the Godhead Beingness that is allegedly shared by three "persons."
This is not a proper use of the word in this discussion, for nowhere does the
Bible articulate the word "God" as denoting a substance of being shared by three
persons. And when Bowman says that Jesus' having "the nature and prerogatives of
the only true God, that makes him God," he does not state the matter correctly.
A trinitarian would have to say, "makes him God by nature," or makes him a
sharer of the divine essence. As he has it, it is misleading, for many (and
rightly so) take the term "God" as a noun of personal description, for that is
the only sense in which the Bible writers make use of it, unless it is used
figuratively of the "belly" or something similar, of course. Does Bowman mean,
by saying, "makes him God," that this makes Jesus "the Godhead Beingness"? I
doubt that. Thus, he equivocates on the meaning of the word "God."
Rob Bowman:
a. I don't think Stafford gets, or wants to get, the logic of what I asserted
above. Let me put it more formally and completely.
(1) Whoever does what ONLY God can do, is God.
(2) Jesus does what ONLY God can do.
(3) Therefore, Jesus is God.
Greg Stafford:
First, Bowman again assumes that which he has yet to prove, and ignores the
concept of imitation.
I recognize the valid structure of Bowman's argument and the deductive
interpretation if one assumes the premises are true. For, if I said:
1) Whoever does what only dogs can do, is a dog.
2) My cat does only what dogs can do.
3) Therefore, my cat is a dog.
then this, too, would be valid structurally.
Now, this is only a sound argument if the premises (#s 1 and 2) are assumed
true, for then the conclusion (#3) must be true. However, this argument contains
a false premise: I have not given any proof that my cat does what only dogs can
do, and, frankly, that would be tough to do! Thus, the above argument is
unsound, and the conclusion is false.
I call on Bowman to prove his premises, for he assumes in them a truth value
that is unscriptural. He also misquoted John 5:19 in an attempt to support his
argument. That is why I say he has assumed that which he has yet to prove,
namely, premise #2.
Bowman fails to provide precise examples so we can evaluate his conclusion, and
determine if Jesus' imitation of the Father (note his improper use of "God" as a
personal reference, again—see below) is contingent upon anything.
Bowman also uses God in an equative sense which even he does not accept. Again,
when a trinitarian says, "Jesus is God," they mean "Jesus is God the Son, second
person of a consubstantial Triad." But they do not put it that way, because the
Bible never puts it that way! Thus, his conclusion is improper from a
trinitarian point of view, without the proper qualification, and it does not
follow from his premises.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
The parallel syllogism is also logically valid:
(4) Whoever has characteristics that ONLY God has, is God.
(5) Jesus has characteristics that ONLY God has.
(6) Therefore, Jesus is God.
Greg Stafford:
Bowman fails once again to prove his point. What if I said, "Angels have
characteristics that only God has. For example, they are spirit beings, and only
God is a spirit being." Well, then, for me to say, "The angels have something
only God has, namely, spirit nature," would be to assume that a spirit nature is
something only God has (the Bible never says this), and that anyone else who is
said to have a spirit nature must therefore be God. This is similar to what
Bowman is arguing. He assumes that Jesus does what only God can do, when in fact
the Bible never says only God can do the things that He allows His Son to do in
His name.
Rob Bowman:
Now, my point was that these two parallel syllogisms are both valid regardless
of how Jesus came to do what only God can do, or to possess characteristics that
only God has.
Greg Stafford:
And your conclusion is incorrect for it is 1) based on faulty evidence; 2)
couched in ambiguous terms; 3) does not necessarily follow from the premises
laid, unless you further clarify your meaning of "God" as used in your
conclusion.
Rob Bowman:
If Jesus does even ONE THING that Scripture says ONLY God can do, or he has even
ONE characteristic that Scripture says ONLY God has, then Jesus is God,
regardless of how that state of affairs came about.
Greg Stafford:
This is a non sequitur, pure and simple. Bowman also assumes that which he has
yet to prove. The Bible does not say "If Jesus does even ONE THING that
Scripture says ONLY God can do, or he has even ONE characteristic that Scripture
says ONLY God has, then Jesus is God, regardless of how that state of affairs
came about." A little proof from the Bible might be in order. The very fact that
Jesus is given (yes, GIVEN) certain prerogatives that previously were exercised
only by God, simply means that God is now allowing another, His Son, to act in a
certain capacity. And his acting in that capacity is not due to his own
authority, but because it was given to him. He is not equal to the Father in his
divine authority. Thus, it is clear that, if Jesus is doing something that was
previously done only by God, then it is now no longer something only God can do!
Rob Bowman
Thus, to disprove the conclusion of either of these two syllogisms (that Jesus
is God), Stafford will have to dispute one or more of their premises (i.e.,
statements [1], [2], [4], and [5]). Admitting that statements (2) and (5) are
true but objecting that the arguments ignore HOW they came to be true fails to
show the arguments to be unsound.
Greg Stafford
Who admitted to 2 and 5 being true? When you offer proof then we will evaluate
it. Second, your entire argument is faulty on a number of fronts, several of
which I have outlined above.
Rob Bowman:
b. It is true, of course, that how Jesus came to possess divine nature and
prerogatives has a bearing on our understanding of his relation to the Father.
Greg Stafford:
If it has a bearing then why do you say, "If Jesus does even ONE THING that
Scripture says ONLY God can do, or he has even ONE characteristic that Scripture
says ONLY God has, then Jesus is God, REGARDLESS [emphasis added] of how that
state of affairs came about"? Does it matter or not?
Rob Bowman:
But it does NOT have a bearing on the validity of the above arguments.
Greg Stafford:
If your argument is in relation to Jesus' prerogatives and whether having these
prerogatives makes him God, then how he came to possess these prerogatives most
certainly has a bearing on the ACCURACY of your argument. Whether your argument
is "valid" from a logician's point of view is not the key issue; I am evaluating
the accuracy of your conclusion. Your argument may be valid structurally, but
the premises are incorrect, and so is your conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
We trinitarians do not ignore the matter of how Jesus came to be God; but we
insist that the "how" cannot be used to negate the "that."
Greg Stafford:
Of course, you do. You have to, for the "how" does negate the "that." If he came
to have a divine nature, then he was not eternally grounded in the nature of
God, and therefore is not eternal God.
Rob Bowman:
Your difficulty in understanding "how" Jesus could be God and receive hisnature
and/or authority from another is just that - it is your difficulty. It is not a
logical or biblical disproof of his being God.
Greg Stafford:
My difficulty lies in harmonizing unbiblical teachings with clear statements of
faith. It is, in fact, your difficulty, for the Bible's "how" cannot be made to
agree with your "that."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
c. Stafford erroneously attributes to me a belief that I do not hold and a
meaning that I did not intend when he asserts that I use the term "God" to mean
"the Godhead Beingness that is allegedly shared by three 'persons.'" I will come
back to this point further below where Stafford's misconstrual of the
trinitarian position is further elaborated. Here let me try to explain that I am
not at all equivocating. To clarify, any of the following forms of the first
premise in the first syllogism will work for my position to be sustained:
Greg Stafford:
Rob, you have got to be kidding. I know that you may not have intended to use
the term "God" as a reference to the divine essence, but I am pointing out that
you, as a trinitarian, cannot legitimately use the term in any other way than of
one who shares the divine essence. Thus, to say, "makes him God," without
qualifying what you as a trinitarian mean by that, is misleading. Of course, you
missed this point.
[BREAK - For more on Bowman's failure to appreciate the point made by Stafford,
see the response by Al Kidd to Rob Bowman, to which Bowman never replied.]
Rob Bowman:
(1a) Whoever does what only deity can do, is deity.
Greg Stafford:
Premise #1: assumed and unproven. By this I mean you have assumed a relationship
between your premise and the presention of Jesus in the Bible. Now, a deity can
allow another to perform certain functions that he/she previously performed,
without raising that person to the level of deity. We are talking about actions,
and if a deity is truly a deity, then allowing another who is not a deity to
imitate what that deity does, is not hard to imagine. This applies equally for
all the premises listed below.
Rob Bowman:
(1b) Whoever does what only Almighty God can do, is Almighty God.
Greg Stafford:
Premise #2: assumed and unproven. Again, you have not shown a relationship
between your premise and the presentation of Jesus in the Bible.
Rob Bowman:
(1c) Whoever does what only Jehovah can do, is Jehovah.
Greg Stafford:
Premise #3: assumed and unproven. Again, your point in relation to Jesus has not
been established.
Rob Bowman:
(1d) Whoever does what only the Creator can do, is the Creator.
Greg Stafford:
Premise #4: assumed and unproven. Again, you have assumed that this applies to
Jesus, when such language is nowhere used of him in the Bible.
Rob Bowman:
(1e) Whoever does what only a member of the Trinity can do, is a member of the
Trinity.
Greg Stafford:
Premise #5: Here you have assumed a trinitarian relationship between Jesus and
the Father that is nowhere articulated in Scripture.
Rob Bowman:
These are examples, not an exhaustive list; they illustrate the point that no
equivocation is at work in the premise. And the same would apply to premise (4)
in the second syllogism.
Greg Stafford:
Rob, you are equivocating by using the term "God" in two different and
misleading senses. You said, "If Jesus has the nature and prerogatives of the
only true God, that makes him God, however he got that nature and those
prerogatives." Is not the "only true God," according to classical trinitarianism,
a consubstantial Triad? That is, three persons who share the divine essence?
When you say, "makes him God," do you not mean "makes him one who shares the
divine essence"? Yet you use the term "God" in the second instance in an
equative sense as a noun of personal description. You are using the word in a
sentence that is ambiguous and which does not state the full truth of your
position.
Rob Bowman:
Now, Stafford is on to something. It is true that in the expression "what God
can do" the term "God" COULD be understood to be referring to God as the triune
Being per se. On the other hand, in the conclusion "is God," the term "God"
obviously CANNOT refer to God as the triune Being per se (or it would imply that
Jesus is the triune Being rather than the Son alone). On this basis, Stafford
thinks he has caught me in an equivocation. But there are at least two problems
with this argument.
First, it really amounts to begging the question. For at every turn Stafford can
(and probably does!) use the same objection to rule out a priori the trinitarian
belief. In other words, saying that "God" cannot be used with these two
different connotations (God as triune, one of the three persons as God) really
amounts to saying that the Trinity cannot be true.>>
Greg Stafford:
That’s right! I am arguing that the only proper use of the term "God," by a
trinitarian, is in reference to the persons of the Godhead as sharers of the
same Beingness. A trinitarian cannot simply say, "Jesus is God." They mean,
"Jesus shares the nature of God." Of course, you have to use it as a noun of
personal description, for that is the only sense in which the Bible uses it. But
you do not really believe that any of the members of the Trinity are God, you
believe they share the essence of God. So you have to explain what you mean
every time you make such a confession, otherwise you will mislead those who
recognize the proper use of the word "God" in the Bible, namely, as a noun of
personal description. It is a title denoting one's position, not the substance
of being in which He is grounded.
Rob Bowman:
Second, it is not at all necessary for these two different connotations to be
employed in the syllogisms I presented above. In saying, "Whoever does what ONLY
God can do, is God," the term "God" may in both instances be used with the same
connotation. The five expanded forms of premise (1) detailed above illustrate
the point. For example, we might take the term "God" in both instances to
connote "Creator" (1d). Or we might understand the term in both instances to
connote simply "Jehovah" (1c). Or, alternatively, we might understand the term
in both instances to connote "a member of the Trinity" (1e). Thus, Stafford has
fallaciously moved from the correct understanding that the term "God" in
trinitarian usage CAN have two distinct connotations to the erroneous conclusion
that two such distinct connotations MUST be present in the two halves of the
premise to my argument.
Greg Stafford:
It appears quite clear that you did not understand my point. Again, I am arguing
that your use of "God," as referring to anything but the consubstantial Triad,
in your statement, is incorrect, misleading, and a textbook example of
equivocation.
Rob Bowman:
d. I'm not sure what Stafford means when he says that the Bible uses the word
"God" only as a "noun of personal description." Whatever precisely he means,
though, I do not see how it invalidates my argument, as expounded above. But
I'll let Stafford explain himself. (My guess is that this is a statement he will
later want to retract.)
Greg Stafford:
You guess wrong. What is unclear about my statement? I have articulated my point
enough, and I will not go on and on about a matter that has already been
discussed.
Rob Bowman:
In John 5:19, Jesus says that he does *only* what God does, that he does
*everything* that God does, and that he does it just like God does it. I'd say
that makes Jesus God!
Greg Stafford:
Bowman equivocates yet again. If "God," according to trinitarians, means a
substance of being shared by three persons, then "God" cannot do anything!
Bowman here attributes personality to an impersonal substance that he believes
is shared by three persons. Again, the word "God" can only properly be employed
by trinitarians as referring to the Godhead Beingness, which is impersonal.
Otherwise they compromise their view of monotheism. Bowman uses "God" where John
5:19 uses "Father." So Bowman is carelessly using "God" as a synonym here for
the Father. Also, since God sent His Son into the world to give his life in our
behalf, according to Bowman's reasoning, Jesus would have to have likewise sent
his Son (who might that be, Rob?) to earth to similarly give his life in our
behalf. Obviously, when Jesus said he does only what he sees the Father doing,
he did not mean for us to take this as an all-inclusive statement, but a
statement in relation to his soteriological and eschatological functions, like
judging and raising the dead, both of which are mentioned in the context of John
5:19.
Rob Bowman:
e. Stafford again insinuates into my argument an understanding of the Trinity
that I do not hold and for which he has provided no documentation that it is
held by trinitarians. I do NOT believe that there is an "impersonal" substance
"shared" by three persons. The triune God is one infinite-personal Being, not an
impersonal abstract beingness subdivided into three personal entities.
Greg Stafford:
Who said anything about "subdivided"? However, the Trinity most certainly does
teach a consubstantial Triad. Is the "substance" shared by the three persons
"personal"?
Rob Bowman:
To assert that "the word 'God' can only properly be employed by trinitarians as
referring to the Godhead Beingness, which is impersonal" is to attribute to
trinitarians a belief that we do not hold. Nor is it true that we must define
God this way to preserve our view of monotheism. As a matter of fact, the
reverse is true. If we defined God as an impersonal abstract essence or "beingness"
shared by three individual concrete beings, that would implicitly result in a
kind of tritheism.
Greg Stafford:
What, then, exactly, does the word "God" properly denote, in your view. Please
articulate it for us. Also, where did I speak of "three individual concrete
beings"?
Rob Bowman:
Whether any trinitarians have ever defined the doctrine of the Trinity in the
way Stafford does, I do not know. But I do know that in all my years of studying
the doctrine, writing a book on it, and discussing it with trinitarians of all
denominations, I have never encountered any trinitarian who defined the doctrine
in that way. On the other hand, I have encountered antitrinitarians who do
insist on defining it in this way. And I have read trinitarians who have
explicitly pointed out that the doctrine should not be misconstrued in the way
Stafford misconstrues it. I conclude that Stafford has simply bought into a
popular antitrinitarian assumption about the doctrine of the Trinity.
Greg Stafford:
I conclude you are evading the point. You wrote a book defending what you
apparently do not understand. Of course, when one reads the early works on
trinitarianism, it is easy to see why a proponent of the doctrine would try to
avoid association with its clear implications, if one hopes to defend it. After
you answer my question in the paragraph above yours, we can proceed with this
thought.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
f. It is true that I used the term "God," whereas John 5:19 actually speaks of
the Father. But this was not carelessness on my part. First of all, according to
Jehovah's Witnesses, the Father alone is God, and God is no one but the Father.
So, according to Stafford's theology, an argument that assumes an identity
between the Father and God should not be problematic.
Greg Stafford:
It is not problematic for me, but for you, and that is the point I was making.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
Let's cut to the chase, now. I ask Greg Stafford, and any other Jehovah's
Witness, this simple question: Is there anything the Father does or can do(in
relation to creation) that the Son does not or cannot do? That is, is there any
work (ad extra, as we say in trinitarian theology; i.e., anything done outside
of God) that the Father does that the Son does not do? If so, how does that
square with John 5:19? And if not, does that mean there is nothing that Jehovah
can do that his supposedly created and inferior son Jesus (aka the Logos, aka
Michael the Archangel) cannot also do? >>
Greg Stafford:
Of course. The Son does not create in the same sense that the Father does. The
Father is the source and the Son is the agent of the Father's creative acts. (1
Cor. 8:6) John 5:19 simply states that Jesus homoios poiei what the Father shows
(deiknusin) him. For, again, the Son cannot do anything of his own volition.
This shows a dependence on the Father that is irreconcilable with trinitarianism,
for the text does not limit such dependence to the Son's human nature.
Additionally, the Son does not even act in accordance with his own will. (John
5:30) His will is distinct and completely dependent upon the Father. Also, in
context, the statement of John 5:19 seems to be related to the Son's
soteriological and eschatological functions, some of which involve raising the
dead (vs. 21) and judging (vs. 22). Thus, to make it an all-inclusive statement
is not necessary. Jehovah's truly created and quite inferior Son can only do
what the Father shows him and wills him to do. Such could hardly be said of
Jehovah!--Isa 46:10-11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Stafford:
Bowman also fails to note that Jesus, in the very same verse to which he refers,
states that he cannot do anything of his own initiative. Naturally, trinitarians
take this in reference to Jesus' fleshly dependence on the Father, but then
should we not take the very words to which Bowman refers as also referring to
his fleshly state? That is, since Jesus does nothing of his own from his human
standpoint, he must, of necessity, do what the Father does. Are we to
understand, Mr. Bowman, that the words of John 5:19 deify Jesus' fleshly nature?
Of course, Jesus goes on to identify some of the things he does in imitation of
the Father: raising the dead and acting as Judge. But the Father still had to
"give" (vs. 22; dedoken) such authority to the Son. The Son could not do the
judging that the Father did, unless the Father gave him that authority. See
below for more on this matter of "giving."
Rob Bowman:
g. While the words of John 5:19 might apply to Jesus specifically in his human
state, I don't think they need to be limited to that state. In any case, I don't
take John 5:19 to be deifying Jesus' human nature in the abstract, but to be an
affirmation of the deity of the PERSON of the Son who at that time had (and
still does have, in orthodox theology) human nature. The incarnate Son could do
nothing on his own, and the incarnate Son could do and did do everything the
Father did. There is no problem here for the orthodox position.
Greg Stafford:
There is a huge problem here for the "orthodox position," and it is only further
complicated by your reply. There are 102 words in the above paragraph, and yet
you fail to address the point. I will ask again, to what nature does John 5:19
apply? The person of the Son, according to you, possesses two natures, so you
cannot avoid the question. If it applies to "the PERSON of the Son," then it
must apply to one or both of his natures. Well? Was the Son's deity so dependent
on the Father that the Son, as a divine person, had to imitate the Father, only
after the Father revealed his will to the divine person of the Son? Or, did the
Son in his humanity imitate the Father's actions, so that you would then be
forced to either deify his humanity or accept that the imitation is not that
which places the Son on par with the Father in "all he does"?
Rob Bowman:
No orthodox trinitarian has ever dreamed that the Son could do anything on his
own, apart from the Father.
Greg Stafford:
And, of course, you are referring only to his humanity, right? How convenient.
But you still have not addressed the problem I outlined above. Please try to
stay focused on the point at hand, so we do not become overly wordy in our
discussion, as our readers are likely trying to follow along and glean the key
points. We don't need a lesson in obfuscation.
Rob Bowman:
Anyone who suggests otherwise is either ignorant of trinitarian theology, or
dishonest.
Greg Stafford:
How is this relevant here? I am asking you a question about the matter. I
clearly recognize the loophole trinitarians wrongly make in applying the Son's
dependency to his human nature, so can you simply deal with the issue of whether
or not the words under discussion apply to his human or divine nature?
Rob Bowman:
The Son is not an independent deity, off doing his own thing; he is the Son,
working always in union with the Father, always acting to bring glory to the
Father.
Greg Stafford:
Again, let's save space and deal with the issues. The Son is quite dependent
upon the Father, and that is the very point I am raising against your teaching!
I contend that this dependence is nowhere limited to his human nature, and that
you are playing fast and loose with John 5:19 and other texts, choosing which
portions you want to apply to his human nature and which portions you want to
apply to his divine nature, when the Bible makes no such distinction.
Rob Bowman:
That the Father "gave" authority to Jesus to raise and judge the dead is not a
problem for our position - it is a problem for yours.
Greg Stafford:
It is a problem for you when it comes to answering this question: Was the Son's
human nature given this authority, or his divine nature?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
On your view, John 5 apparently means that Jehovah God has delegated all
judgment to a finite creature. Worse, he did so in order that everyone would
honor that finite creature just as they honor Jehovah God himself (vv. 22-23).
Greg Stafford:
And here you assume that being a "finite" creature somehow makes one unworthy to
receive the power to judge. Why don't you show that from the Bible, Rob? As for
the honor given to the Son, since he is now Judge, we must honor him as we would
honor the Father as Judge, for such authority has now been delegated to the Son.
Would an infinite being need to be given authority to judge? Of course, if you
here say it is Christ's humanity that is given the authority, then you
contradict yourself, for then you would be suggesting that a finite creature was
given "all authority to judgment"! Well?
Rob Bowman:
Wrangle all you want about the precise nuance of kathos ("just as"), the point
still comes through clearly if one reads the whole paragraph instead of
dissecting it according to preconceived theological biases.
Greg Stafford:
And just where did I "wrangle" about "the precise nuance of kathos"? Maybe you
should wait until you hear my argument before you offer a reply. We must honor
the Son as Judge just as we honor the Father, and that is the context of the
statement in John 5:23. Of course, I could certainly appeal to the different
nuances of kathos, but it is not necessary. The role of Judge is directly
related to the honor paid to the Son, as is manifest in the hina clause of verse
23.
Rob Bowman:
On the trinitarian view, Jesus had to be "given" that authority because he had
taken the path of self-humiliation and self-denial in order to redeem us (see
further below). Again, the givenness of his divine authority does not detract
from the fact that it is indeed divine authority. The person who will be making
the life and death decisions for every human being for all eternity will be -
Jesus! He will decide if you will live eternally or not. He will decide who will
be saved and who will not. He has the power to give eternal life, or to withhold
it. Biblically, theologically, and personally, that makes him "my Lord and my
God" (John 20:28).
Greg Stafford:
I understand that, Rob, but you are apparently unaware of what I am saying. The
Son in his divinity could not be given this authority, could he? No, for if that
divinity is infinite, and it is, according to you, then it would already have
the authority to judge. But if the Son in his humanity is given what you say is
"divine authority," then how can you then argue that the Son has a dependence
upon the Father as to his humanity, when that humanity now has divine authority?
I have no problem calling Jesus my Lord and my God, in the qualified sense in
which the Bible presents him as a divine being. But Thomas may not have
addressed Jesus as such (see my book for details). You are the one who has the
problem, for neither Thomas nor any other Bible personage uses the term "God" in
a manner consistent with trinitarianism. Yet, you and others appeal to these
verses as if they support your theology!
Rob Bowman:
The person who will be making the life and death decisions for every human being
for all eternity will be - Jesus!
Greg Stafford:
Yes! And that is because the Father gave him that authority; this authority is
not original to him. We are, of course, grateful to have such a merciful and
glorious judge, who will make decisions and act in such a way as to bring glory
to his God and Father.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
In John 16:13 Jesus said something about the Holy Spirit very similar to what he
said about himself in John 5:19. "He will not speak on his own, but whatever he
hears he will speak." Obviously, this has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit
being in a human state, since the Holy Spirit did not become flesh. It has to
do, rather, with the Holy Spirit not acting independently of the Father (or of
the Son, in the immediate context) but speaking on behalf of the Father (and/or
the Son). But now we encounter what appears to me to be some serious
difficulties for the Watchtower view. >>
Greg Stafford:
Not so fast, Rob. The holy spirit does not say, "Most truly I say to you, [I]
cannot do a single thing of [my] own initiative." (John 5:19) Again, is this
related to Jesus' human or divine "state"? The holy spirit is not said to have
been given the authority to judge.
Rob Bowman:
(i) Since in John 5:19 the one who does not act on his own is obviously a
person, one would expect that the same language used in John 16:13 would also
apply to a person. (The impression is reinforced and confirmed by several other
features of the text: the term pneuma in the NT customarily refers to persons,
the Spirit here is said to "hear" and "speak," and so forth.) But the Watchtower
teaches that the Holy Spirit is an impersonal force.
Greg Stafford:
I am more than happy to discuss your misunderstanding of this matter, but I
prefer to finish the discussion at hand. I can understand your desire to do so,
but I do not care much for Bible hopscotch. We are discussing the Son's
relationship with the Father vis-à-vis the Godhead Beingness they allegedly
share, and how this relationship is harmonized with statements such as those
found in John 5:26. Please try to stay focused on the subject under discussion.
Again, we'll get to your view of the holy spirit soon enough.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bowman:
2. The doctrine of the Trinity teaches that the Son was "eternally begotten" by
the Father, that is, that the Son is in some (admittedly unfathomable) way
dynamically related to the Father as his Son. This doctrine is based on the NT
teaching that Jesus Christ has always been the Son (e.g., John 1:1-2, 14, 18;
Col. 1:13-17; Heb. 1:2).
Greg Stafford:
In the above texts, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter, one will
search in vain for the words, "Jesus Christ has always been the Son." Also, you
will never encounter the words or the concept of "eternal generation" in the
Bible. Here we have an example of a later doctrinal development read back into
the text of the Bible, in order to support a doctrinal presupposition. The Bible
frequently uses terms that denote a distinction in terms of age, such as
"Father" and "Son," but never do we find the Bible writers articulating an
understanding of these and other terms that would cause us to think they are
using them in a sense different from that of the everyday meaning associated
with these terms in Bible times, in terms of temporal priority, and certain
filial associations.
Rob Bowman:
There are several reasons why we would, in fact, conclude that Jesus is called
God's "Son" in a way that varies from that term's "everyday meaning," and
specifically that it does not imply that Jesus's sonship was a temporal, created
sonship. I have detailed seven such reasons in my book Why You Should Believe in
the Trinity: An Answer to Jehovah's Witnesses (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989),
85-86.
In John 1:1-3, the apostle tells us that the Word existed in the beginning and
that all temporal things owe their existence to him. See my book Jehovah's
Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989),
20-24, for a defense of the eternity of the Word in John 1:1.
Greg Stafford:
You are wrong, and I provide reasons for viewing your argument as incorrect in
my book, Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics. See
Chapter 7 for details.
Bowman:
In John 1:3, John says explicitly that everything that "came to be" (that is,
all temporal things) did so through the creative agency of the Word.
Greg Stafford:
Once again you assume that which you have yet to prove. Is this going to be a
reoccurring theme in your writings? Please show us, from the Bible, that panta
refers to "all temporal things."
Bowman:
Therefore, once again, the Word is eternal.
Greg Stafford:
From false premises will come false conclusions. John 1:1 says nothing about the
Word being eternal, but that he existed with God (not the Father, mind you) in
the beginning, that is, the beginning of Genesis 1:1, where the creation of all
temporal physical things came into being. I believe the opening words of John
1:1 are purposefully the precise words used in the LXX of Genesis 1:1. Genesis
1, of course, articulates the creation of the physical universe.
Rob Bowman:
Then, verses 14 and 18 make it clear that this Word was the Son before he became
human (a fact with which the Jehovah's Witnesses agree) and that the Word-Son is
the same person who we now know as Jesus (again, the Jehovah's Witnesses agree).
Thus, I assert that John 1:1-3, 14 teaches that Jesus has always been the Son.
Greg Stafford:
Yes, we know that is what you assert, Rob, but the Bible makes no such
assertion.
Rob Bowman:
Colossians 1:13-17 speaks specifically of God's beloved "Son" (v. 13b). It says
of him that all things were created in, through, and for him (v. 16), that he is
before all things (v. 17a), and that all things cohere or consist, are held
together or sustained, in him (v. 17b). Much the same things are said about the
Son in Hebrews 1:2-3. Thus, these texts also support the assertion that Jesus
has always been God's Son.
Greg Stafford:
I believe you left out the very temporal designation "Firstborn" from Col. 1:15,
and the also temporal description of the Son as the charakter tes hupostaseos
autou. (Heb. 1:3) This makes it ever so clear that the Son is not as old as the
One of whom he is a charakter. And, of course, this is referring to his prehuman
state, the one through whom God made the ages. Any particular reason you
neglected to highlight these aspects of the verses to which you referred, Rob?
Rob Bowman:
Far from reading a later doctrinal development back into texts, I am reiterating
the biblical teaching that drove the early church precisely to develop those
doctrinal ideas.
Greg Stafford:
Really? Well, when are you going to reference the "biblical teaching" that you
are "reiterating"? All you have done so far is refer to sections of Scripture
that contain descriptions of the Son that are irreconcilable with trinitarianism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
In this sense it is eternally true that the Son receives his nature and
authority from the Father. One might read John 5:26 in this sense assaying that
Jesus eternally received self-existent life from the Father in his eternal
generation.
Greg Stafford:
One might read it anyway one wishes, but that does not makes one's reading
accurate. There is nothing about eternally receiving anything! Again, Bowman
interprets the text in light of later, post-biblical theology. Also, the idea of
receiving life "eternally" is a contradiction in itself. If he received it, it
is not something he had "eternally," and there is no justification for such a
view in Scripture. The Bible says the Son was "given life." (Joh 5:26) Jesus
acknowledges that he `lives because of the Father.' (Joh 6:57) These two
statements are consistent with some of the ideas commonly associated with the
relationship between "Father" and "Son," in biblical times. If you are looking
for straightforward texts around which to build your doctrine, these two verses
are not a bad place to start. They are certainly much better than reading the
text and trying to make it fit with post-biblical theology.
Rob Bowman:
a. Stafford once again begs the question. By asserting that one cannot receive
something eternally, what he is really saying is that, no matter what the Bible
says, the doctrine of eternal Sonship can't be true because it seems
contradictory.
Greg Stafford:
Now your arguments are displaying considerable weakness. Where do I say, "no
matter what the Bible says"? You are the one who has assumed that which you have
yet to prove, while I am simply pointing out that the Bible does not teach an
inherently contradictory doctrine like "eternal generation." No? You believe it
does? Then point us to those sections of scripture where such a teaching is
clearly articulated. Of course, it is not until hundreds of years later that we
meet with this idea of "eternal generation," and it is surprising that so many
trintitarians cling to it when it is found nowhere in the Bible, and when it
involves concepts that contradict one another.
Rob Bowman:
This is the reasoning of a skeptic, not of a Bible-believing Christian. Sorry to
be so blunt, but it's true - and it's been true of Jehovah's Witnesses all
along, beginning with Charles Taze Russell himself.
Greg Stafford:
You are quite the card, Rob (sorry to be so blunt). A Bible-believing Christian
is not one who is duped into accepting ideas and philosophies that are not in
any way, shape, or form grounded in Scripture. "Eternal generation"? You have go
to be kidding. When you provide evidence for such a view from Scripture, I will
begin to take you more seriously. Until then, you are simply reading later
theology back into the Bible, in order to support your preconceived view of what
the Bible teaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
Russell rejected Christianity until he found out that some people had figured
out a way to accept the Bible without having to believe those incomprehensible
doctrines of the Trinity and hell. Thus, the Watchtower religion is founded
ultimately on an unbelieving spirit - "I won't believe if it I can't make sense
of it." See further my Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses: Why They Read the
Bible the Way They Do (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 75-84.
Greg Stafford:
You are way off the mark, and I have made appeal only to the fact that your
views are not founded upon Scripture, and they are inherently contradictory. You
have no idea why we "read the Bible the way we do." You don't even realize why
you read the Bible the way you do: You are forced to reconcile later theology
with the Bible, regardless of how you bend it, less you bear the brand of
heretic.
Rob Bowman:
b. If we understand Jesus to be speaking of his possessing "life in himself"
even before becoming a human, then in light of John 1:1-4 we will have to
understand it to refer to the Father "giving" the Son self-existent life before
creation. In light of a proper exegesis of John 1, as already discussed briefly,
this "giving" occurs beyond space and time, because Christ already has it when
time begins.
Greg Stafford:
Another unproven assumption (this is getting ridiculous!), which I refute in my
book. John 1:1 says nothing about "beyond space and time," but it is only by
reading these thoughts into the text that one can hope to reconcile the
trinitarian view of Jesus with later theology. The Father gave the Son life, and
that is all we are told in John 5:26. There is no qualification made, and no
mention of "beyond space and time." Historically, trinitarians have been forced
into the role of "eisegete," for the Bible, as it stands, cannot support their
teachings.
Rob Bowman:
This leads directly to the idea of an eternal giving of self-existent life from
the Father to the Son, which is what is meant by eternal generation. Thus, once
again, I am not reading later theology back into John, but reiterating the
teaching of John that led the church later to formulate their theology.
Greg Stafford:
(!) All you have done and continue to do is read later theology into the text
and add words and concepts that are not all at found in the passages you
reference. "Eternal giving"! Where is that in the Bible? We have the giving, and
you keep trying to read the "eternal" into the text, but it just is not there. I
guess the faith teachers' views are not to be condemned, for they hardly attempt
to read more into the Bible than trinitarians!
Rob Bowman:
c. Which texts seem "straightforward" will, notoriously, depend on wha
tdoctrinal assumptions one has already nailed down as fixed points of reference.
John 5:26 and 6:57 are fine texts, and they should be taken seriously (and are)
by trinitarians, but they don't give a straightforward, direct answer to the
question, "Is Jesus God?" or "Has Jesus existed eternally?"
Greg Stafford:
Some texts are clear enough that they require little if any interpretation.
However, ambiguous texts should always be interpreted in light of clearer
passages. Trinitarians do not take John 5:26, 6:57 seriously. Instead, they, as
is evident by your example, read them in light of later theology in order to
bring them into agreement with their beliefs. Rather, they should bring their
beliefs into agreement with the texts. Again you use the term "God"
inappropriately for a trinitarian, for you really mean to ask, "Is Jesus
grounded in the divine essence of God?" John 5:26 and 6:57 are two texts that
stand in direct contradiction to the Trinity. If Jesus was given life, then he
did not always have it, and therefore did not always exist. If he did not have
life, he could not have been eternally grounded in a substance of Being shared
by other "persons."
Rob Bowman:
I find much more direct answers to the first question in such texts as John 1:1;
20:28; Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:8; 1
John 5:20; and to the second question in such texts as John 1:1; 8:58; Col.
1:16-17; Heb. 1:2-3, 10-12.
Greg Stafford:
None of the above texts can be harmonized with the tenets of trinitarianism, and
all of them argue negatively against both the first and second questions. See my
book for more details.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
3. The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that the Son became a man and as such
was God incarnate (based, e.g., on John 1:1, 14; 20:28; Col.2:9).
Greg Stafford:
While the doctrine of the Incarnation may teach that, the Bible does not. The
Bible teaches that Jesus "became" flesh (John 1:14); he did not "clothe"
himself, or "veil" his divinity. He gave it up (Phil. 2:7), showing true
humility (Phil. 2:3-5).
Rob Bowman:
Notice once again that Stafford uses language to describe my position that I
myself have not used.
Greg Stafford:
I use the terms that are commonly given by those who embrace the doctrine of the
Incarnation. If you do not agree, then say so.
Rob Bowman:
In any case, the question is whether, when Jesus became a man, he remained who
and what he was before becoming a man. Surely the answer to that question must
be Yes.
Greg Stafford:
This is getting old, fast! Please prove what you here assert as true.
Rob Bowman:
He was the Son of God before; he was the Son of God on earth, in the flesh
(e.g., John 1:14, 18; 3:16; Rom. 8:32; 1 John 3:8; 4:9).
Greg Stafford:
He will always be the Son of God for nothing can erase this as a historical
fact. But this does not imply that he would have to retain the same nature
throughout his existence.
Rob Bowman:
The man who presented his wounded hands and side to Thomas for inspection was
Thomas's Lord and God (John 20:27-28). Now that's Incarnation!
Greg Stafford:
No, that's an unproven assumption! First, we are dealing with a
post-resurrection appearance and so Jesus is no longer flesh, but has become a
"life-giving spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45) and has manifested himself in human form,
much the same way angels did in the past, when they sat down and ate a meal with
Lot. Second, it is not clear that Thomas intended for Jesus to be called "God"
in this verse, but even if he did it would be in the qualified sense in which
the Bible refers to Jesus as theos: There is one who is God to him.--John 20:17.
Rob Bowman:
Colossians 2:9, about which Stafford said nothing here, explicitly says that
Jesus Christ has the fulness of deity dwelling in him bodily. I think Stafford
is overly dismissive here. On Philippians 2:3-5, see Why You Should Believe in
the Trinity, 101-3.
Greg Stafford:
And if anyone has any questions about pages 101-103 in Why You Should, just ask.
As for Col. 2:9, Bowman fails to recognize that Christ's own fullness is
contingent upon the Father's will! (Col. 1:19) Thus, once again we see that
Christ is not eternal, for he has not always had the very fullness that
constitutes him a god! Of course, anointed Christians will also possess this
fullness, according to Col. 2:10. For more on Col. 2:9, see my book, pages
24-27.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
As such, Jesus in his incarnate state had "life in himself." Since the Son was
sent to be our redeemer by the Father, Jesus in John 5:26 might have been saying
that the Father had willed that Jesus, the *incarnate* Son, should embody
self-existent life in himself.
Greg Stafford:
Upon rereading the text, we find no such teaching in John 5:26. Jesus makes no
such qualification of the life he was given. He simply says that as the Father
has life, so He has given life to the Son.
Rob Bowman:
Not just life, but "life in himself." Again, what is said here needs to be
correlated with John 1:1-4, among other passages in John.
Greg Stafford:
No problem. But the conclusion is the same: Jesus was given life in himself. In
what other way could he be given life than for that life to dwell in him? It is
not some tangible, external product.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
In any case, "life in himself" is a description of the Son's nature. That is
what he is. John tells us that "in him was life" (John 1:4), that is, even
before he became incarnate.
Greg Stafford:
Yes, in him was life. But the point we are making is he was given that life.
John 5:26 does not say when he was given that life. Again, the simple truth is
that the life Jesus has in himself was given to him by the Father. Thus, he did
not always possess that life.
Rob Bowman:
Again, Stafford is assuming what he needs to prove - that the Father's "giving"
life to the Son implies that the Son received it temporally.
Greg Stafford:
There is no other meaning one can derive from a simply reading and appreciation
of the term "give." Unless the Bible articulates the word "give" in such a way
as to restrict its meaning and place in some non-temporal category, we are not
at liberty to dissociate its inherently temporal connotations! Of course, you
have to, for otherwise your theology crumbles. But, it is you who have once
again assumed that which you have yet to prove. I assume that the word is used
with its normal meaning (for I have no reason to believe it is not), while you
assume that it is used in a sense that is nowhere articulated or demonstrated in
Scripture.
Rob Bowman:
Pop quiz: If a temporal father gives temporal life to his son, what kind of life
does an eternal Father give to his one true Son?
Greg Stafford:
He gives the same kind of life that He "gives to all persons" (Acts 17:25),
being as He is the "source of life." (Ps 36:9) Life is never spoken of in the
Bible as something that carries with it the age of the One who gave it.
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?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
4. The doctrine of the Incarnation teaches that the Son humbled himself to
become the Father's servant as a man (Phil. 2:6). As such Christ had placed
himself voluntarily in a position of servitude in which he did not exalt himself
but received exaltation from the Father in his resurrection and ascension (Phil.
2:9-11; cf. Heb. 5:5). This is why Christ could be "given" all authority in the
universe (Matt. 28:18). What he was given already rightly belonged to him, but
in order to redeem us Christ took the path of humility. The glory that he
received in the resurrection and ascension was actually the glory that he
already had before the world was created (John 17:5).
Greg Stafford:
Question: Was Christ's deity or humanity given "all authority"? Also, Bowman
assumes that what Christ was given "already belonged to him." But the Bible does
not say this. Dwelling in glory with the Father does not ipso facto means he had
"all authority." At least the Bible does not speak in such terms.
Rob Bowman:
The answer to Stafford's question is, neither: Christ the PERSON was given
authority; it was not given to his humanity or his deity per se, but to the
person who was now permanently both deity and glorified humanity.
Greg Stafford:
Fine. Then Christ the "PERSON" was given that which he did not already possess.
But if the "PERSON" of Christ was given it, then one or both of his "natures"
had to be given it. Also, if Christ has two natures, and one nature is, say,
omniscient (his divine nature), and his human nature is finite in terms of
knowledge, then you have two centers of consciousness, and thus two persons. You
deny this, but there is no way around it other than to deny reality. When asked
to explain it, well, the mystery is usually invoked and the dialogue ends. It's
no mystery, Rob, it is unbiblical.
Rob Bowman:
There's no "assuming" on my part about Christ already having the authority. Does
Matthew 28:18 mean that Christ did not have all authority before his resurrection?
Well, consider this: In Matthew 11:27 Jesus asserts, "All things HAVE BEEN [not
"will be"] handed over to me by my Father." So, when did this happen, if it did
not happen at his resurrection?
Greg Stafford:
The Bible does not provide an exact "day" when these things were given to
Christ; it simply tells us they were given to him. So your point is meaningless
in a discussion concerning what was in fact given to Christ. Also, the precise
time he was given the authority need not be considered the same time he began to
exercise that authority.
Rob Bowman:
My statement about Christ receiving glory he had previously before creation
(John 17:5) was meant as a further illustration of the fact that Christ
"receiving" something or being "given" something does not necessarily mean he
didn't have it before.
Greg Stafford:
And you are wrong, for "glory" can be that which is grounded in Christ's own
prehumanly existing divine form (Phil. 2:6-7), or "glory" can be the praise and
honor that comes as a result of the Father's exaltation of the Son. (Phil. 2:11)
The glory Christ had before he came to earth is not the same as that which he
will receive when every knee bends and every tongue confesses him as Lord, to
his God and Father's glory, for the glory he receives as an appointed Lord
involves the praise that comes from humankind, and this was not the case with
the glory he owned in his prehuman state, for the world of humankind did not
then exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
5. Several of the exalted titles Jesus has are said in one place or another to
be given to him after he already had them. For example, Peter says after Jesus'
resurrection that God has "made" Jesus both Lord and Christ (Acts 2:36) -- but
he was already both (e.g., Luke 2:11).
Greg Stafford:
Where does Peter say he was made Lord after his resurrection? He simply states
that God made Jesus "Lord" and "Christ" in the course of his conversation with
the Jews. Did God make Jesus "Christ" after his resurrection?
Rob Bowman:
a. That wasn't exactly what I said. I said that after Christ's resurrection
Peter said what he said. In fact I don't think God made Jesus Lord or Christ for
the first time at or after his resurrection. What I think Peter is clearly
saying in the context, though, is that in or by his resurrection and exaltation
to the right hand of God (Acts 2:33), Jesus was shown to be both Lord and Christ
(v. 36).
Greg Stafford:
Then you are wasting our time and failing to make your point, for you were
attempting to demonstrate how something can be given to someone, even though
that person already owns "it." Showing someone to be something has no business
in a discussion concerning the meaning and true import of giving something to
someone for the first time.
Rob Bowman:
His language, though, if pressed the way YOU press other texts that speak of
Jesus being given something or made something, would imply that Jesus did not
become Lord or Christ until he was raised and exalted. And that is explicitly
contrary to Scripture.
Greg Stafford:
(?!?) I don't know when you typed this, but may I suggest that you do not do so
late at night and that you give careful thought to what you say, before you say
it? I mean, there is no rush to put up a reply just so you can think, "Well, I
replied." Substance counts. Now, how in the world does his language, "if
pressed," "imply that Jesus did not become Lord or Christ until he was raised
and exalted"? I just got through telling you that the text says nothing about
when this was done, but merely that it was done at some point. If you continue
to ignore what I say and reiterate the same thing that I just addressed, then
this is simply an exercise in futility. Actually, I think you see the problem
your "logic" presents you with, and now you are backing off. If not, then deal
with the issue; do not simply repeat the point I already considered.
Rob Bowman:
Thus, I am arguing that you should not press such language to prove that
Christ's deity or authority are temporal and inferior when the Bible clearly
says otherwise.
Greg Stafford:
Yes, I know that is what you want, Rob, but your arguments fail to make your
point, and so you are left in with the same problem: The Bible uses temporal
language with regard to the authority, life, and nature (divine fullness) that
the Son possesses.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
Paul says that Jesus was "appointed" as God's Son by his resurrection from the
dead (Rom. 1:4) -- but Jesus was already God's Son when he lived and died in the
flesh (Rom. 8:3). These examples (more could be "given"!) show that Christ's
exaltation was actually the Father showing to the world that Jesus was the
divine Son and Lord and now called on the world to confess Jesus as such.
Greg Stafford:
The word "son" is used in several contexts with slightly different connotations.
Jesus was the Son of God before coming to earth because he was given life by the
Father. Similarly, he is God's son by means of a resurrection, for at that time
God once again gave Jesus life. Also, Romans 1:20 says Jesus was designated (horisthentos)
God's Son by means of the resurrection, so it may simply be that Jesus' sonship
was recognized at the time of his resurrection. However, Paul's use of Psalm 2:7
in Acts 13:33 seems to indicate that it is the life Jesus received at his
resurrection that allowed him to be designated "God's Son." Therefore, the
expression "God's Son" used in different contexts does not support the
assumption Bowman makes that God bestows titles on Jesus that he already had.
Also, if Jesus had a title prior to the world's or our recognition of it, this
would not provide a useful parallel to our discussion of John 5:26, which speaks
of "life" being giving to Jesus, not a title.
Rob Bowman:
b. The fact that the title "Son of God" has "slightly different connotations" in
different contexts does not change the fact that this is an example of a title
that God bestowed on Jesus>>
Greg Stafford:
Did I say it did? I am simply pointing out that this title, with different
connotations, can be given to Jesus on different occasions, in accordance with
the particular connotations intended at a given time/event.
Rob Bowman:
While my point about titles is not directly pertinent to the expression "life in
himself" John 5:26, it is pertinent as a reply to Mark Ross, who had asserted
that Jesus received authority and therefore could not have already had it. Since
Jesus' divine titles are expressive of his divine authority, my point about
Jesus' titles is relevant to answering Mark's argument.
Greg Stafford:
Not really, for your examples do not make your point. But I believe Mark's
question primarily related to John 5:26.
Rob Bowman:
I think Stafford means Romans 1:4, not Romans 1:20.
Greg Stafford:
Yes, I did. Thank you for the correction.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
6. There is one Scripture that, in a sense, speaks of the Father receiving
authority. In 1 Corinthians 15:24, Paul says that at the end, Christ "delivers
up the kingdom to the God and Father." So here we find Christ in a sense giving
the Father the kingdom (a word perhaps better translated "kingship," that is,
royal authority). Of course, that does not mean that the Father was not already
in possession of kingdom authority over all creation. But there will be a sense
in which Christ presents to the Father a reconciled new creation that perfectly
embodies God's rule.
Greg Stafford:
The Bible says Jesus gives the kingdom, or rule, back to the Father, thus, the
Father will not have it while it belongs to His Son. This text simply states
that that which the Father gives to the Son, the Son gives back to the Father.
While the Son exercises authority over the kingdom apart from the Father's
intervention, the Son never exercises authority over the Father, but the Father
does exercise authority over the Son as his God. (1 Cor. 11:3; Rev. 3:12) This
implies that, as the Son's God, the Father could take back the kingdom if He
chooses to, but He will not do so, according to the Bible.
Rob Bowman:
a. So, Jehovah God is currently not ruling mankind?
Greg Stafford:
No. At this time, Satan is the ruler of the world of mankind (1 Joh. 5:19), and
during the Millennial Reign God will not rule mankind directly, for, again, He
has given the authority to rule and judge to His Son. Was I unclear about this?
Rob Bowman:
b. So, Jesus' kingdom will have an end, despite, for example, Luke 1:32-33?
Greg Stafford:
That's a rather slippery slope you're riding, Rob. The kingdom Jesus established
with his God-given authority will never end. Jesus' direct authority over that
kingdom will end, and be given back to God, the One who gave it to Jesus in the
first place. After the Millennial Reign the Bible clearly states that the Son
will once again come under the authority of his God (not simply the "Father"),
and then God will once again resume direct control over earth's affairs. (1 Cor.
15:24-28) I do hope you will be there to see God's promised "new earth" as He
intended it to be.
Rob Bowman:
c. Is it even theoretically possible for Jesus to make a mistake?
Greg Stafford:
No, for he is a perfect spirit being, and, as we have discussed, he only does
what the Father shows him. During his rule, he will likely maintain the same
outlook, and do all that his Father taught him.--John 8:28.
Rob Bowman:
d. If the Father can be God for thousands of years without ruling as such, can't
Jesus have been God for thousands of years before beginning to rule with divine
authority?
Greg Stafford:
Where do you see the Father as "God for thousands of years without ruling as
such"? In answer to your question, Jesus could be, but you can park yourself in
a garage and call yourself a car and that does not mean it's true. The Bible
says Jesus was "a god" and was with "God." They are different in terms of their
being. The Bible says that the God Jesus was "with" gave him the authority to
rule and judge, but no one is said to have given God the authority to rule and
judge, let alone said to have given Him "life." Having the authority for
thousands of years and not using it is entirely different from being given that
authority. In one instance you have it, and in the other you are given it. Thus,
you create a false analogy, at least in relation to the point we are supposed to
be discussing. But since you are jumping all over the place, it is hard to tell
where your mind is, as opposed to where it should be.
Rob Bowman:
e. Yes, the Father is Jesus' God, because Jesus became a human being and as such
looks to the Father as his God; but this does not mean that Jesus is not also
God. See Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, 71-72, for more on this point.
Greg Stafford:
Let's see, does the Bible ever qualify the fact that the Father is God over the
Son as referring solely to the Son's humanity? No! Your book has nothing to use
effectively in your behalf. Here you go again: When it suits your needs, you all
of a sudden classify texts that are devastating to your theology as referring to
Jesus' humanity. But the Bible provides no license for doing so. He also has a
God since his resurrection (Rev. 3:12), and he does not still have his human
nature in heaven. See Chapter 8 of my book for details. The dual-nature concept
has all sorts of problems, not the least of which is the fact that you end up
creating two persons, whether you like it or not. It's nothing but word magic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
My point is that we need to be careful when running across language about
"giving" or synonymous terms not to draw conclusions not warranted by the text.
To "give" (!) another example, in Psalm 96:7-8 we are told, "Give to the LORD, O
families of the peoples, Give to the LORD glory and strength. Give to the LORD
the glory of his name" (the same statements are found in 1 Chron. 16:28-29 and
Ps. 29:1-2). In Revelation 5:13 we read, "To him who sits on the throne, and to
the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." In
none of these texts are people giving to God anything that is not really already
his. They are simply acknowledging or recognizing or publicly declaring that God
has these honors.
Greg Stafford:
In two of the above examples, we are not talking about giving something to
someone else, but we are talking about, as Bowman himself says, "acknowledging
or recognizing or publicly declaring that God has these honors." This is not
true of the passages that speak of Jesus being given life or authority. None of
the above texts refer to life or authority, also.
Bowman uses a simplified English-concordance approach that is not indicative of
serious scholarship. The LXX of Ps. 29:1-2 and Ps. 96:7-8 uses a form of the
word phero, which carries the meaning, "ascribe." This simply means recognizing
that which already belongs to God. The examples from 1 Chr. 16:28-29 do use
didomi, which is the same word used in John 5:26, but here we are indeed talking
about giving something to God, namely, glory and strength. Is this referring to
the glory He has or His own personal strength? No. We give Jehovah glory by
praising Him, and we give Him our strength by our worship and the work we
perform in His name. Unless we give these to Jehovah, He does not "have" them.
Rob Bowman:
f. Actually, I used a Hebrew concordance, as I was interested in the Hebrew OT
text, not the Greek Septuagint text. But in any case the two texts that use
phero are parallel to the 1 Chronicles text that you say uses the same Greek
word as in John 5:26, didomi. So I don't see how you can use this difference to
discount my point.
Greg Stafford:
Why would you be using a Hebrew concordance? And if you did, why not present
your Hebrew findings? But, are we not interested in the meaning of the Greek
word in John 5:26? Then why not use the LXX to find a use of the same word in
similar contexts? Why reference texts that use a word different from our subject
word? No, the examples you gave do not parallel the 1 Chronicles reference, nor
do they parallel John 5:26. The use of didomi in 1 Chronicles has a similar
meaning to the use of didomi in John 5:26, that is, giving something to someone
who previously did not possess it. Your point, Rob, has been supported with
nothing short of sheer desperation.
Rob Bowman:
Now, you need to make up your mind about something. In the two Psalm texts the
Septuagint, you say, translates using a word meaning "ascribe." But both of
these texts say that we are to "ascribe" the VERY SAME THINGS that 1 Chronicles
16:28-29 says we are to "give" to God - "glory and strength." You are trying to
have it both ways, and either don't know it or are being cunning.
Greg Stafford:
First of all, Rob, you create a false dichotomy. Even if different texts speak
of the same things, that does not necessarily mean they are taken in same way!
We can ascribe glory and strength to God, and we can also give Him glory and
strength by the work we do in His name. However, you are mistaken in your
assessment: The LXX in the two references in Psalms and the reference you gave
from 1 Chronicles does not refer to "the VERY SAME THINGS"! The references in
Psalms use doxa and time ("honor"), but 1 Chronicles uses doxa and ischus
("strength"). Perhaps you should read your LXX a bit more carefully.
Rob Bowman:
I'll make it easy for you: in all three passages it is God's strength, not ours,
that is to be "given" or "ascribed" to him (note 1 Chron. 16:8-9, 11-12, 24b,
27b; Ps. 29:4-8, 11; 96:3b, 5-6).
Greg Stafford:
You are killing me, Rob. You are also wrong again. When we declare his deeds
among the nations, we ascribe glory and strength to Jah, and it is also while we
declare such things that we give Him glory and our strength. Also, stop
misleading others into thinking that the same words are used in these passages.
Rob Bowman:
Likewise it is God's glory that is being spoken of, not us giving God something
he doesn't have (I'm sure you've already seen that if you looked up the verses
just cited).
Greg Stafford:
Well, it appears you are the one who has not looked up these verses, or, if you
did, you did not do so very carefully.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Bowman:
These points, taken together, seem to me to be an adequate answer from an
orthodox trinitarian perspective to the objection that Jesus could not be
Almighty God if he was given divine nature or authority.
Greg Stafford:
Trinitarians are in a difficult position. The Bible frequently and consistently
uses unambiguous language that argues against their view of God, and so they, as
we have seen from the above, must read certain texts in light of theology that
came into being hundreds of years after the closing of the Bible canon. We can
only hope that, given enough time, and with God's help, those who embrace the
Trinity doctrine will come to see it for what it truly is, and come to know God,
not as a substance of being shared by three persons, but as the person of the
Father, who lovingly gave life to His Son, that other might live by means of
him.--Joh 6:57; 1 Cor. 8:6.
Rob Bowman:
Some closing comments of my own.
1. The Bible, correctly translated, unambiguously calls Jesus "God" (Is. 9:6;
John 1:1; 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Tit. 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1; Heb. 1:8; 1 John 5:20) and
"Lord," i.e., the Lord YHWH (e.g., Rom. 10:9-13; Phil. 2:9-11; 1 Pet. 2:3;
3:15). Not once does the Bible, in any translation, not even the NWT, say that
Jesus is "not God."
Greg Stafford:
The Bible never says Michael is "not God," either! Also, you again fail to
properly explain what you mean by God, for it surely, having trinitarian
connotations, does not coincide with the Bible's use of theos for Jesus.
Additionally, when you show you have a grasp of the issues involved in the
proper translation of these verses, feel free to begin the discussion. Until
then, you are simply spinning your wheels.
Rob Bowman:
2. Watchtower theology came into being 19 centuries after the close of the NT
canon. If we open the discussion beyond the narrow confines of the doctrine of
the nature of God and the deity of Jesus Christ, we find that the whole
theological structure of the Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrinal system is a late
19th and early 20th century development. So, if late development is an issue,
the Jehovah's Witnesses are in a far worse situation than trinitarians.
Greg Stafford:
And, of course, you provide not one example. Your "eternal generation" certainly
qualifies as later theology, and most certainly is unbiblical, as we have seen.
But that is hardly the extent of the theological inventions trinitarians use to
try and legitimize their preferred theology.
Rob Bowman:
3. It is not we who are reading our theology into the Bible. We developed our
theology as faithful Christians in the church seeking to understand Scripture.
We did not develop our theology as disaffected persons who had left the church
because we did not like the doctrines of Scripture, only to decide that we could
be Christians if we could make it agreeable to our notions.
Greg Stafford:
Sure you did, Rob. Eternal generation, two natures in one person, a Godhead
Beingness shared by three persons…Need I say more? The Bible does away with all
these teachings: Jesus is a spirit person (1 Cor. 15:45), he has a God over him
(Rev. 3:12), and he is not eternal (John 5:26; 6:57). Also, the Bible never
articulates the term "God" as a reference to a consubstantial Triad.
Rob Bowman:
4. In Stafford's closing comments he again shows that he does not understand the
doctrine of the Trinity. We do not believe in an impersonal essence shared by
three divine entities (which is what Stafford clearly understands "persons" to
mean).
Greg Stafford:
Are you saying that the essence of the Father and Son is itself "personal"?
Rob Bowman:
We believe in one infinite-personal God who eternally exists in three persons (a
word itself used analogically). Our doctrine is that the Father sent his Son,
who was already in heaven with him in divine glory, into the world to be our
Redeemer. This is also the doctrine of Scripture (John 3:13-16; 13:3; 16:28; 1
John 4:9-10).
Greg Stafford:
Yes, I know you believe that, Rob, but the Bible does not speak in such
language. Also, the essence shared by the three persons is not personal, unless
you are advocating four persons.
Rob Bowman:
5. The burden of proof is not on the trinitarian. It is on the Jehovah's Witness
to show, not only that there are "difficulties" with the doctrine of the
Trinity, but that it is incontrovertibly false, AND then to show that their
alternative to the doctrine is better than all of the other antitrinitarisn
theories on the intellectual market.
Robert Bowman
Greg Stafford:
We need only refer to Scripture to show that such a doctrine is entirely foreign
to the Bible. In 1 Cor. 8:6 we are specifically told that the one God is one
person, the Father. Also, Jesus is not the same God as the Father, for the
Father is his God.
The trinitarian position is helpless in the face of biblical scrutiny, and those
who promote it are forced to read later theology back into the text, for the
Bible nowhere articulates their understanding of God.
Greg Stafford
Go to Stafford/Bowman Part Two.
Go to Al Kidd's Reply to Bowman.
|
