More on Sharp's Rule, Trinitarianism and Rob Bowman
Part Two: Bowman's A Priori Objections
By Greg Stafford
Bowman and other trinitarians (all, in fact) bring certain assumptions to the
Bible when interpreting various passages. Since the doctrine of the Trinity is
nowhere articulated in Scripture (see below), trinitarians are constantly at
loggerheads with the Bible. The problem stems from the fact that trinitarians'
understanding of certain words and concepts springs from later doctrinal
developments. Because most trinitarians do not understand the history of their
doctrine, and, consequently, they do not appreciate the necessary distinctions
and definitions that the doctrine forces upon Scripture, many trinitarians claim
victory when they suppose that they have found a text that applies the Greek or
Hebrew words for G-god to Jesus. This, they have been taught, establishes
something consistent with their view.
But herein lies the problem: Trinitarians automatically assume that the Bible
teaches trinitarianism! Before coming to the text, they have already determined
that terms like "God," "Father," "Son," "image," "copy," "firstborn," and
others, cannot be taken in sense that contradicts their view. They also assume
that certain verbs (for example, "to give," "to make [= `appoint' (Acts 2:360],"
and others) are used in a sense different from every other use found in
Scripture. Rather than let the text speak for itself, they assume that the Bible
MUST be consistent with their view, and so they will only view the text in a
manner consistent with the Trinity.
It is no surprise to find Bowman claiming that I am the one guilty of a priori
interpretations. He says:
BOWMAN:
Greg repeatedly objects to the trinitarian interpretation of Titus 2:13 and 2
Peter 1:1 on the basis of certain a priori grounds (that is, objections that
rule out a trinitarian interpretation in advance of considering what the text
actually says).
STAFFORD:
So, then, since each of us consider the other guilty of a priori objections, let
us examine Bowman's objections, and I will explain my objections to his methods,
and you the reader will be left with making the final decision.
BOWMAN:
Greg argues that since the NT frequently refers to the Father as THEOS and only
rarely calls Jesus THEOS, it is unlikely that Jesus is called THEOS in Titus
2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1, although Greg has to admit that it is possible (Stafford,
26a; 32a). I'm really not sure what this is supposed to prove. By Greg's
reasoning we should conclude that it is unlikely that Jesus is called THEOS in
John 1:1.
STAFFORD:
With all due deference to Rob, it is hard to imagine anyone having a more
confused understanding of a very simple observation. How is it that the use of
THEOS in an historically ambiguous passage is in any way parallel with the
unambiguous application of THEOS in John 1:1? That Bowman would attempt to
dismiss my general observation on such grounds leads me to believe that he
either did not consider the issues carefully or he is really not interested in a
serious consideration of the issues.
Let me simplify what Bowman has complicated: If in a body of literature we find
a term used of one individual, say, 500 times, and then we comes across an
occurrence of this same term in a text that is ambiguous, that is, a text whose
translation is uncertain, it is quite acceptable to consider the general use of
the term, not as a DECIDING factor, but as something useful in determining a
possible application. Now, the meaning of THEOS in John 1:1c is uncertain to
some (because of their trinitarian background) but no one objects to the fact
that THEOS is being applied to HO LOGOS. So there is no parallel with Titus
2:13, in terms of our discussion, and the statistical probability of whether or
not THEOS is applied to Jesus in a text with an uncertain translation.
BOWMAN:
The argument is really an abuse of statistical reasoning. The fact that a term
is more commonly used in one way than in another has nothing to do with whether
it is being used in the less common way in any particular text. In John 1:1c the
probability that the noun THEOS refers to the Father is ZERO PERCENT. (That is,
the probability is zero percent that "the Word was THEOS" means that the Word
was the Father.) The fact that overall John uses THEOS more often as a title of
the Father than of the Son is irrelevant to how "likely" it is that it is used
of the Son in the last clause of John 1:1.
STAFFORD:
That is quite simply because there is nothing ambiguous about the grammar of
John 1:1, when it comes to reference.
BOWMAN:
Who the referent is in John 1:1c must be determined by exegesis of that text,
not by a priori considerations.
STAFFORD:
Then why do you assume a trinitarian understand for the terms THEOS and HO THEOS
when John nowhere articulates a distinction between the two in terms of "person"
(as understood by trinitarians) and specifically distinguishes the two in terms
of THEOS? NWT and other translations are simply maintaining the same distinction
John makes between the two, in terms of THEOS, which is consistent with the fact
that there are beings other than Jehovah who are "gods" and who serve Him. (Ps.
8:5) We will discuss Bowman's a priori objections to this matter in Parts Three
through Six of my reply.
BOWMAN:
Likewise, in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 the referent of THEOS must be determined
by exegesis of those texts, not by a priori abuses of statistics or by dogmatic
prejudgments of what the authors were likely to say.
STAFFORD:
Yes, Rob, we know that. But you are not focused on the issue at hand. No one
doubts that the application of the anarthrous THEOS is applied to HO LOGOS in
John 1:1. There is no other conceivable translation. But in Titus 2:13 there is
some uncertainty, and so we are justified in considering, among other things,
the author's habitual use of language. This is a VERY important exegetical
factor, which Bowman frequently ignores, due to his "dogmatic prejudgments."
BOWMAN:
Let me give a counterexample to Greg's argument. In Hebrews 3:1 we have a
reference to Jesus using the same construction in Titus 2:13, TON APOSTOLON KAI
ARCHIEREA TÊS HOMOLOGIAS HÊMÔN IÊSOUN, "the apostle and high priest of our
confession, Jesus." Here APOSTOLOS must refer to Jesus, even though, out of the
81 occurrences of this noun in the NT, it is used elsewhere of Jesus only once
(John 13:16), where we usually translate it "one who is sent." By Greg's
reasoning, we should be hesitant to admit that Jesus is called "apostle" in
Hebrews 3:1 (see Part Four of this series for further discussion of this verse).
STAFFORD:
Rob, the term "apostle" hardly carries the restrictive force that "God" does!
Let alone "the great God"! In this text we have no reason to think that TON
APOSTOLON is being applied to anyone but Jesus. But in Titus 2:13 the term THEOS
in used in such a way that we need to ask, "Is this usage consistent with the
author's habitual use of language?" We have a term, THEOS, that is hardly the
equivalent to "apostle" (!) in terms of its restrictive force, used in a context
where the glory of the One called THEOS is supposed to appear, together with
Jesus. The NT elsewhere states that Jesus will appear in the Father's glory!
(Matt. 16:27; Mark 8:38) So, please, stop offering us false analogies, trying to
parallel texts that are not similar in terms of ambiguity, and with semantic
signals that are in no way equal in their restrictive force.
BOWMAN:
2. One of Greg's favorite arguments against a trinitarian interpretation of
these texts runs like this: The Father is the God of Jesus, the Son. Therefore,
the Father is a different God from the "god" that Jesus is. Therefore, these
texts cannot be identifying Jesus as Jehovah God (Stafford, 10b; 10-11; 26a-b;
27a-b; 32a). This argument assumes, rather than proves, that the Father is
called Jesus' "God" in Scripture on the basis of the Father having created the
preexistent Logos or Son. I have argued otherwise in my books (Why You Should
Believe in the Trinity [Baker, 1989], 72; Jehovah's Witnesses [Zondervan, 1995],
27-28).
STAFFORD:
Bowman is here arguing that just because the Father is Jesus' God, it does not
mean the Father created the Son. Of course, this observation misses the point
entirely. I don't need to guess about whether the Father gave life to the Son,
the Bible says so in clear, unambiguous language. (John 5:26; 6:57) My point
about the Father being Jesus' God can be gathered from the following, which
Bowman neglected to quote:
<<FROM TRINITARIAN APOLOGETICS: A CASE STUDY>>
Bowman-Sharp, page 27
V. What "God" is Jesus? Faced with the evidence that in Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter
1:1 Jesus Christ is called God, some antitrinitarians, while denying that such
is the case, argue that it doesn't matter even if it is true. . . . Greg
Stafford, for example, writes, "It would be another qualified reference to Jesus
as theos, with the understanding that Jesus has one who is God to him."
Stafford, like all Jehovah's Witnesses, assumes that because Paul and Peter
elsewhere speak of the Father as Jesus' God (e.g., 2 Cor. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3), in
Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 they cannot mean that Jesus is himself the one true
God, Jehovah.
Stafford-Response
No, what we assume, based on clear biblical articulation, is that Jesus is not
the same God as the Father, for the Father is his God. Thus, since Jesus cannot
be God over himself (such a view would require clear biblical articulation, for
it contradicts every other use of the term "God of" someone, as denoting two or
more separate beings) he must be a different god, and the Bible states this
quite clearly.--John 1:18.
<<END OF QUOTE>>
STAFFORD:
Thus, since the Father is Jesus' God, Jesus and the Father cannot be the same
God! This fact alone removes the doctrine of the Trinity from the category of
biblical teachings.
BOWMAN:
In brief, I give reasons for concluding that the Father is called Jesus' "God"
by virtue of Jesus' having become a man. To this date I have yet to hear or read
an answer from any Jehovah's Witness, or any other antitrinitarian, to the
arguments I have presented for this view.
STAFFORD:
Then Bowman is not reading our arguments very carefully. Remember, I had asked:
<<FROM THE ORIGINAL STAFFORD-BOWMAN DISCUSSION>>
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.
<<END OF QUOTE>>
STAFFORD:
Bowman never responded to this, and now I will consider the sections of his book
to which he refers.
On pages 71-73 of Bowman's book, Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, to which
he referred, he puts forth the following arguments as justification for his view
about the two-natures of Christ. I will quote the first and last paragraphs and
then paraphrase the arguments in the remaining second and third paragraphs.
FIRST PARAGRAPH
BOWMAN:
"Then there are texts that speak of the Father as the God of Jesus Christ (e.g.,
John 20:17; 1 Cor. 11:3). The Watchtower booklet [Should You Believe in the
Trinity?] argues: `Since Jesus had a God, his Father, he could not at the same
time be that God' (p. 17). But again, trinitarians do not hold that Jesus is his
Father. They hold that Jesus, because he became a man, was placed in a position
in which as man he was required to honor the Father as his God. At the same
time, trinitarians may point out some aspects of the Bible's teaching that show
that JWs have misunderstood the implications of the Father being Christ's God."
STAFFORD:
Before we discuss the "aspects" to which Bowman refers, it should be pointed out
that 1 Cor. 11:3 does not refer to the Father as Jesus' God. This is not a
significant matter, but I find it odd that he would reference this passage as an
instance of the Father being Jesus' God. I don't think Bowman actually considers
"head" the equivalent of "God," which, in this context would not work very well,
given that man is the "head" of woman. Second, Bowman misrepresents our
argument. Please read the second sentence of the above paragraph. Notice, the
Witnesses' objection has to do with the fact that Jesus "had a God," which quite
obviously means that "he could not at the same time be that God"! But Bowman's
objection is, "trinitarians do not hold that Jesus is his Father." How does this
objection relate to the "Booklet's" objection?
In paragraph two Bowman attempts to distinguish the relationship that Jesus has
with God from the one the disciples have. In fact, regarding John 20:17 he
states: "Why did Jesus not simply say, `I am ascending to our Father and our
God'?" But is this a difference that makes no difference? I think so. After all,
why did Ruth say to Naomi, "Your people will be my people and your God my God"?
(Ruth 1:16) It appears to be an Hebraism that places a special emphasis on the
reality of a new relationship. But, still, Bowman claims that Jesus' use of "my
Father" in John 20:17 and elsewhere is intended to distinguish Jesus as a Son by
nature, from the disciples' adoption as sons. Thus, he evidently takes "my
Father" in John 20:17 as a reference to Jesus' divine nature, but when it comes
to "my God" he quickly switches gears, claiming that it is only meant for his
human nature. Very selective, don't you think? Also, the Bible says nothing
about this dichotomy, and Bowman has absolutely no justification for taking "my
Father" in reference to one of Jesus' "two natures," and "my God" in reference
to the other. But this is the nature of trinitarian apologetics: The text must
be in harmony with the Trinity, since we know the Trinity is true. Actually, the
text is quite clear: Jesus, in his resurrected state, has One who is God to him.
Not to one of his "two natures" (which is not a Bible teaching---See Chapter 8
of my book), but to him.
Bowman next interprets John 20:17 in light of John 20:28. Not only is the
interpretation of John 20:28 uncertain (see Chapter 7 of my book for details),
but even if both "Lord" and "God" apply to Jesus, we should understand their
sense in light of John 20:17 (for THEOS) and Acts 2:36 (for KURIOS). Bowman will
not do this, for then he would be forced to admit that Jesus' Lordship is
contingent upon the Father's will, and his Godship is subject to that of the
Father. (compare Col. 1:19) In any event, the language used by Jesus in John
20:17 and elsewhere (e.g., Rev. 3:12) is such that Jesus CANNOT be the same God
as the Father. This is a view TAKEN FROM the text; it is not an assumption that
has to be brought to it.
FOURTH PARAGRAPH:
BOWMAN:
"Then there are texts that simply refer to `God' alongside Christ in such a way
as to distinguish them. For instance, 1 Timothy 5:21 speaks of `God and Christ
Jesus,' and 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguishes between `one God, the Father,' and
`one Lord, Jesus Christ.' But trinitarians have a simple answer: These texts
refer to the Father as `God' not because Jesus Christ is less than God, but
simply because the title God was normally used of the Father."
STAFFORD:
On a side note, there are shortcomings on page 73 of Bowman's book that I will
not address here, but they are addressed in Chapter 4 of my book. Now, notice
that both 1 Timothy 5:21 and 1 Corinthians 8:6 distinguish God from Christ. THAT
MEANS they are not the same God! We will discuss this point further in a few
moments, but it should be noted that Bowman's answer, "These texts refer to the
Father as `God' not because Jesus Christ is less than God, but simply because
the title God was normally used of the Father," completely misses the point of
our objection. It is particularly noteworthy that 1 Cor. 8:6 refers to the
Father, one person, as the "one God." Yet, trinitarians consider the "one God"
three persons. It is important that we consider this fact in light of the
following:
BOWMAN:
3. Greg claims that when trinitarians say, "Jesus is God," they don't really
mean it; what they mean is that Jesus is one of three persons in a
consubstantial divine triad. But the Bible never defines or uses the term "God"
with such a meaning. Therefore, even if one of these verses did call Jesus
"God," it wouldn't support the trinitarian interpretation. Greg's critique
begins and ends on this note, and is repeated in the body of his critique (see
Stafford, introduction; 10b-c; 25-26; 33). Greg also raises this objection
frequently in all of his other posts responding to my arguments for the absolute
deity of Jesus Christ. I have already discussed this objection in an earlier
post in my multiple-part series responding to Greg. In brief, Greg is
misrepresenting the trinitarian position to teach an impersonal essence
grounding three personal beings. In trinitarian thought, each of the three
persons fully instantiates the divine being, so that each person IS "God," and
yet at the same time the divine being is not SOLELY instantiated in any one of
the three persons.
STAFFORD:
Part 4 of my reply to Bowman's earlier series will be sent in a separate post,
and has been delayed due to the fact that I gave attention to Ed Komoszewski's
posts on John 8:58, as well as to Bowman's recent posts on Sharp's rule and his
personal attacks against me. But I have not misrepresented the trinitarian
position, and Al Kidd has demonstrated quite clearly that trinitarians are the
ones who either do not understand the doctrine they have adopted, or they do
understand and are simply unwilling to admit the truth, and instead embrace a
lie. This may sound harsh, but there is no other way to put it, since this is
the truth, and is a VERY important point.
Now, consider: Bowman claims that "each of the three persons fully instantiates
the divine being." Who/what is this divine being that each of the three persons
are an instance of? Additionally, how can EACH of the three persons be a FULL
instantiation of the divine being? Think about that for a moment. It's word
magic! Each of the three different "persons" are a FULL instantiation of one
divine being? Of course, the Bible nowhere teaches such a thing, but the
language trinitarians use is self-contradictory. If there are three DIFFERENT
instantiations of the divine being, they cannot each be a FULL instantiation of
the divine being! And here is where we meet with the mystery argument, and are
told that the being of God is beyond human thought. That is true, but the Bible
does not give us any details about such a teaching, and spells out in clear
terms just who the "one God" is, and what His relationship is with His Son. What
it does tells us is not consistent with trinitarianism.
BOWMAN:
4. Greg repeatedly objects to my referring to the Father and the Son as
"persons," since he knows that I affirm that they are distinct persons but not
separate beings. Greg dogmatically asserts, "In the Bible, different 'persons'
are different beings" (Stafford, 10-11), but does not offer a shred of evidence
for this claim. (Please note that I am not saying I found Greg's evidence
unconvincing; he didn't even TRY to offer any evidence!)
STAFFORD:
How is this for evidence: Absolutely every single time a person is distinguished
from another person, whether spirit (angels) or human, it is always, at the same
time, a distinction of BEING. Now, I am not about to list every single
reference. Just take your pick. Now, if I am wrong, it should be quite easy for
anyone to refute my position. Again, any and every time a person is
distinguished from another person in the Bible, they are also, always, different
beings. Of course, Bowman didn't even try to justify his position. Because there
is no example in Scripture to support his view.
BOWMAN:
Elsewhere Greg is content to employ the argument from silence that the Bible
never differentiates persons from beings (Stafford, 11; 25a; 25c; 25-26; 26c).
This is hardly persuasive, though, since the Bible does not use the words
"person" and "being" in the context of our dispute, either in support of the
Watchtower's theology or in support of trinitarian theology.
STAFFORD:
The Bible never addresses your self-serving distinction because it does not
teach the view! How is it that the Bible can be considered consistent with
trinitarianism if there is no articulated theology about separate "persons" in
the Godhead not being separate beings? The fact that the Bible merely applies
the terms for G-god to Jesus, all the while maintaining the view that the Father
is the God of the Son, and that Jesus is a MONOGENES THEOS, shows they are not
the same God. The distinction John makes in his Prologue also shows that they
are not the same God. The Bible also uses the terms for G-god of others in
Scripture, and nowhere are we told that this implies anything but a distinction
in terms of being. The argument that Jesus is called G-god in the singular has
no bearing on the issue, since the angels are simply called gods collectively
and Jesus, being the center of focus in NT thought, is isolated from that group.
But whether a person is called G-god as an individual or as part of a larger
group, how does either view support trinitarianism? Again, it is not legitimate
to call ANY of the three persons "God," without qualification, since the Trinity
teaches that there is only one God, and this God is revealed in three persons.
Thus, none of the three persons can be considered "God" (= equal the triune
being). The only legitimate sense in which one can say that there is a FULL
instantiation of the divine being, without contradicting themselves, is to use
the term as a reference to the triune being. Again, if you use the term "God" of
any of the three persons, as a FULL instantiation of divinity, then you either
have three Gods or three triune beings. But at this point trinitarians simply
say, "No, we do not believe that." Yes, we know you don't, but that is what your
belief logically amounts to. REMEMBER: trinitarians believe that God is one,
revealed in three. But who/what is it that the three are FULL of? If it is
essence, then "God" is an impersonal substance in which three persons subsist.
If "God" is not impersonal, then you have a Quaternity.
BOWMAN:
That is, the Bible says neither that God is three persons nor that God is one
person; both conclusions have to be inferred from the biblical evidence, and the
question is which inference is faithful to the entirety of the biblical
revelation.
STAFFORD:
That is simply not true. The Bible says quite clearly and emphatically that the
"one God," "the only true God," is one person, the Father. But nowhere does the
Bible teach that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are FULL instantiations of the
"one God," and are not to be distinguished in terms of being, but only
distinguished as "persons."
BOWMAN:
Now, what do all of these arguments have in common? The answer is that these
arguments are intended to rule out of bounds the trinitarian interpretation, not
just of Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1, but of ANY AND EVERY BIBLICAL TEXT,
REGARDLESS OF WHAT IT SAYS. Read through all of Greg's posts, and you will see
that he raises these theological forcefields whenever a text or an argument
comes within range of threatening his antitrinitarian theological beliefs.
STAFFORD:
Rob, why would I let you import an unbiblical use of the term "God" into
Scripture, as well as an unbiblical distinction between "person" and being? Why
would I do that? You make it seem as if this is somehow unwarranted, when in
fact it is quite appropriate. I will not allow you to get away with importing
these concepts into Scripture so you can make it seem like you are somehow
establishing your view every time G-god is used of Jesus. Sorry, I know this is
frustrating for you, but it won't work here. I will not grant your erroneous
presuppositions, and without them it is impossible to establish your view from
Scripture.
BOWMAN:
If a text seems to call Jesus THEOS, Greg will first raise the protective screen
of the statistical improbability of any text calling Jesus THEOS (objection #1).
STAFFORD:
Since THEOS is generally reserved for the Father, if a text (containing THEOS)
is ambiguous in terms of its referent, then it is right to ask, "Is this another
instance of THEOS being applied to the One to Whom is it usually applied?" This
is a legitimate question to ask when confronted with such texts.
BOWMAN:
If the text penetrates that screen and appears to call Jesus THEOS, or just in
case it does, Greg will raise his shields. That is, he will argue that IF a text
calls Jesus THEOS, it MUST mean it in a weaker sense than when that same title
is applied to the Father, because the Father is Jesus' THEOS (objection #2).
STAFFORD:
There is no "screen." I have nothing to "fear" from applying the term THEOS to
Jesus. YOU, on the other hand, cannot legitimately use the term "God" of anyone
other than the triune being. Thus, I do not look for ways to keep the text from
calling Jesus THEOS; I recognize this as a legitimate use of the term for the
very reasons you reject: The Bible presents Jesus as a THEOS distinct from the
Father (John 1:1). Also, Jesus is different kind of THEOS (MONOGENES--John
1:18), and has One who is THEOS over him. Jesus worships this One as God.
Therefore, you're right about one thing concerning my view: Given the
aforementioned, biblical facts, if Jesus is called THEOS, "it MUST mean it in a
weaker sense than when that same title is applied to the Father." That is a
correct statement concerning my view, based on what the Bible CLEARLY teaches.
Now, your a priori objections come into play here, because you cannot accept the
fact that Jesus is a different THEOS than the Father, and you cannot accept that
the Father is the God of Jesus WITHOUT QUALIFICATION. Of course, the Bible
nowhere makes the kind of qualifications that you do, and thus you have to read
them into the text. To you, the Bible cannot disagree with the Trinity, and you
bring this assumption to the text and interpret things from there.
BOWMAN::
It doesn't matter if the context and OT language employed in the immediate
context indicates that Jesus is being called THEOS in the same sense as Jehovah;
in fact, Greg assumes that the text CANNOT do that.
STAFFORD:
I don't assume it, I know it is true because if one is the God of another, they
cannot be God in the same sense! There is no wiggling out of this one. But I
expect you to try using the same a priori objections you have used before, which
have never and will never work.
BOWMAN:
Moreover, Greg will argue that any text that calls Jesus THEOS contradicts the
doctrine of the Trinity because supposedly trinitarians don't really believe
that Jesus is God (objection #3).
STAFFORD:
Trinitarians believe there is only one God. This one God is triune. Therefore,
to use a term that refers to a triune being cannot be used in reference to one
of the "persons" of this being, WITHOUT THE PROPER QUALIFICATION. However, you
rarely make such qualifications, because the Bible never does so, and you know
that if you can get away with referring to Jesus as "God," then all you have to
do is establish from Scripture that Jesus is called G-god and others will think
you have shown the Trinity to be a biblical teaching! But, you are equivocating
on your use of the term God, using it in two different, misleading senses, since
you know that the Bible does not provide you with the kind of articulation
needed to use the term in a manner consistent with your post-biblical theology.
BOWMAN:
Finally, Greg will engage his "cloaking device" and disallow even speaking of
the Father and the Son as "persons," because this language is compatible with
trinitarian theology (objection #4).
STAFFORD:
No, you can call them "persons," but NOT in the sense that trinitarians use the
term in reference to members of the Godhead. That sense is nowhere articulated
in Scripture, and EVERYWHERE contradicted by it. There is no instance in the
Bible where a person is distinct from another person, and yet those two (or
more) "persons" are not also different beings. It is special pleading to suggest
that this is true only of members of the Trinity, and it also assumes that the
Bible teaches trinitarianism! But it is most important to notice that the Bible
DOES distinguish the Father and Son in terms of being, and that is why John 1:1
is such a hotly contested passage. But, again, the fact that the Father is the
GOD OF the Son is without question a distinction in terms of being.
BOWMAN:
Greg's strategic use of these arguments allows him to reject any and every
trinitarian appeal to Scripture, regardless of what exegetical evidence is
presented, on the basis that no biblical text could POSSIBLY contradict what
Greg (following his Watchtower authorities) infers from certain other biblical
texts (wrongly, I have argued).
STAFFORD:
There is nothing "strategic" about it. I simply apply the clear and repeated
sense that the Bible gives to such terms, when used of certain individuals.
Trinitarians falsely appeal to the Scriptures, because there is nothing in
Scripture that can be used to create harmony with the definitions they give to
certain words, and the distinctions they make. I appeal to the teachings of
Scripture, as they stand, and when that is done it becomes clear that the
Trinity is not a Bible teaching. It came about long after the canon was closed.
It is impossible to find the Trinity in the Bible, not because of a priori
objections, but because of what the Bible clearly and repeatedly states. On the
other hand, trinitarians bring MANY assumptions to the Bible and interpret it in
light of those assumptions. Well, if we are allowed to do that then the Bible
can be made to teach just about anything.
BOWMAN:
But then, why bother exegeting Titus 2:13 or 2 Peter 1:1 at all? Why bother
discussing Sharp's rule, or the use of EPIPHANEIA, or the associated terms "God"
and "Savior"? None of this matters in the slightest to Greg. He's already made
up his mind ON OTHER GROUNDS that these texts probably don't call Jesus "God,"
and if they do, well, they just CAN'T mean that he is the one true God, Jehovah.
STAFFORD:
Every passage of Scripture is of considerable importance, being the product of
God's holy spirit. So you are wrong when you say that the translation of Titus
2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 does not matter to me. You have also misrepresented the
basis for my objection to your view, and I actually don't hold that against you,
since I know you HAVE TO characterize my position this way. I mean, after all,
do you really think I expect you to admit that my grounds for rejecting your
view are biblical? But, as I have stated previously, and as I will outline
below, my basis for rejecting your trinitarian coloring of certain texts is
solidly based on the Bible. So, since the Bible will not allow your view of the
term "God," you are right: There is absolutely no point in arguing with me over
the correct translation of these (Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1) or any other passage
where THEOS may be applied to Jesus, for I have no problem with calling Jesus
THEOS. It is the sense of the term that is the issue, and what it means
according to the Bible versus what it means in trinitarian thought. The
trinitarian understanding of this term (and MANY others) cannot be substantiated
from Scripture, and that is the real issue.
BOWMAN:
All of Greg's exegetical argumentation is really defensive in mode; that is, he
discusses the exegesis of these texts, not to prove that they mean something
other than what trinitarians claim (he's already decided that on a priori
grounds), but to deflect the trinitarian exegesis of the texts. And even when
Greg offers exegesis, it is headlined and punctuated by these a priori
considerations.
STAFFORD:
No, Rob. What I do is accept the terms as they are used in Scripture, and I
recognize the biblical teaching that Jesus is a different THEOS than the Father,
and that the angels are also "gods," as well as the fact that the Father is the
"one God," "the only true God," and the God of the Son, and from these and other
clear scriptural teachings, I gather the sense of terms when used of certain
individuals. Then, when I confront a text that admits of more than one
rendering, I consider the possible referents based on context, the author's
habitual use of language, and the grammar, and on this basis I offer what I
believe is the best translation. But when it comes to gathering the sense of
terms like "God," and whether or not it can be used in harmony with the doctrine
of the Trinity, Scripture affirms that it cannot be so used, and so I simply
consider the different uses of the term in Scripture. The angels are gods but
are said to have a God. (Ps. 8:5; 136:2) Jesus is a god but is also said to have
a God. (John 1:1; Rev. 3:12) Jesus is said to be a certain kind of THEOS (John
1:18) and is distinguished from his God in terms of THEOS. (John 1:1) These and
MANY other scriptural truths are what I use to determine the sense of terms like
THEOS when applied to angels, Jesus, or anybody else. Trinitarians simply bring
post-biblical assumptions to the text and interpret various passages in light of
those assumed truths.
BOWMAN:
It is in this light that Greg's repeated assertion that interpretation must take
theological factors into consideration as well as grammatical factors (Stafford,
7c; 8-9; 9a-b; 13b; 19-20; 26e). What he really means is that the theological
conclusions he has reached (just mentioned) must be allowed to PREEMPT what on
exegetical, and especially grammatical, grounds Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1 SEEM
to say. That Greg operates in such a blatantly a priori manner he admits in part
2 of his recent series of posts responding to me.
STAFFORD:
I do not admit to any such a priori reasoning. But I do not give priority to
grammar over theology or the habitual use of language. These and other factors
must be equally considered when interpreting any passage. Trinitarians will
emphasize the grammar when it APPEARS (to them) to support their view (as in
Titus 2:13), but in other passages (such as John 1:1) they emphasize the
theology! Since they operate under the assumption that the Trinity MUST be true,
they feel no shame using such selective tactics.
All the clear confessions found in Scripture, which have a bearing on the
position of God and Christ, as well as the angels, support the view of Jehovah's
Witnesses. On the other hand, trinitarians have absolutely no support for
fundamental concepts associated with their belief, such as the two-nature
theory, the distinction between "person" and being, and their definition for
terms such as "God," "father," "son," "give," etc. But, again, every use of such
terms contradicts their understanding. In view of this, I'll stick with
Jehovah's Witnesses!
BOWMAN:
I had concluded that the Jehovah's Witnesses' rendering of Acts 1:24 in the NWT
was "based solely on theological, dogmatic grounds." Greg's reply: "As are a
great many decisions involved in Bible translation." That does appear to be the
case in regards to the NWT, but it is not proper translation methodology. How
can our theology be based on what the Bible says, if our understanding of what
the Bible says is itself based on our theology?
STAFFORD:
Rob, let me give you a hand in properly understanding this matter: The theology
to which I am referring is not my own theology, but the theology of the author
in question. We do not use ambiguous theology to assist us in translating
ambiguous passages, but we use what is clearly taught in Scripture to assist us
in understanding other passages that are not so clear, but that are related in
terms of their content. Let's put my words in the context in which they were
uttered:
<<FROM BOWMAN, THE BIBLE AND TRINITARIAN APOLOGETICS, PART 2>>
BOWMAN:
1. Since Acts 1:24 is not a quotation from the OT in which the divine name
Yahweh appears where the NT quotation has KURIOS, there is no necessity
even on Watchtower exegetical principles for substituting "Jehovah" in this
verse. In other words, the substitution is based solely on theological,
dogmatic grounds.
STAFFORD:
As are a great many decisions involved in Bible translation. Your point is?
BOWMAN:
2. In the immediate context someone has already been referred to as KURIOS,
namely, "the Lord Jesus" (v. 21). Going back to the previous occurrence,
we find KURIE, the vocative form of direct address, just as in verse 24,
and clearly directed to Jesus: "Lord, will you at this time restore the
kingdom to Israel?" (v. 6).
STAFFORD:
"Lord" in verse 21 is qualified and made specific by the addition of "Jesus,"
and the use of kyrie in verse 6 is much earlier in the account, but it also
occurs in an entirely different setting, many days earlier than the prayer of
verse 24. The two uses of the vocative are therefore quite distinct from each
other, and clearly have different referents, since, as you point out, prayer is
to be directed to the Father, even as Jesus said. (Matt. 6:9) Can you provide
one clear-cut example in the NT where proseukhomai is used of Jesus? Of course,
Acts 2 goes on to distinguish Jesus from God quite clearly. (Acts 2:22, 24, 32,
34, 36) And yet in this chapter we find kyrios used of both God and Christ in
the quotation of Psalm 110:1 (Acts 2:34), and kyrios refers to God in verse 39,
and possibly also in verse 47. So Bowman's objection is without merit. He also
fails (again) to recognize the significance of sense and reference in this
matter involving the use of "Lord" in NT.
<< END OF QUOTATION>>
STAFFORD:
So you see, I did not appeal to post-biblical theology, but I reasoned on the
immediate and larger context of the verse in question, and the author's habitual
use of language. Isn't that what you tried to do, Rob?
BOWMAN:
Greg's methodology is nothing new. He is simply reasoning like a good Jehovah's
Witness. Theological assumptions about what is possible are allowed to control
the exegesis and interpretation of the Bible at every turn. Does the Bible speak
about the wicked suffering torment forever (Rev. 20:10)? Don't worry, it can't
mean that, because "we know" that a loving God would never torture his
creatures. If we can possibly rationalize it, we'll translate biblical texts
that seem to say otherwise to avoid the idea (e.g., Matt. 25:46); where we can't
think of a translation that gets us out of the problem, we'll come up with an
explanation somehow. Does the Bible say that the body of Jesus that was killed
was the very same body that was raised (John 2:19)? Don't worry, it can't mean
that, because "we know" that Jesus was raised as a spirit creature. We weren't
able to come up with a different translation of that verse (we would have if we
could), but we've come up with some ingenious ways out of what it sounds like
it's saying. Does the Bible say that Jesus is "God" (John 1:1, 18; 20:28; Rom.
9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1; etc.)? Don't worry; some of these verses
can be translated so the offending idea is removed (and of course, if they can
be so translated, we'll go that route), and when all else fails we can run to
other verses to support our contention that Jesus is only a second-class god.
After all, "we know" that Jesus can't be Jehovah God.
STAFFORD:
If you were trying to be funny, Rob, it worked! But on a more serious note, you
misrepresented our methods of interpretation. However, you have characterized
you own quite well, only you do not argue for the same conclusions. There is
NOTHING offensive about calling Jesus THEOS. It IS offending when you import an
anti-biblical view of God into the text. That is what the Trinity is, and those
who advocate it are forced to redefine terms to fit with their post-biblical
theology and create distinctions that do not exist in Scripture, in order make
others think that they have somehow established a view of God that is consistent
with the Bible. Of course, the Bible could not be more opposed to the
trinitarian view of God, and it is for THAT reason that I reject it. All you
have done is attempt to turn the tables on me, and anyone reading this with a
fair grasp of the issues should be able to see right through you. But those who
don't know the truth about the Trinity, and who have been duped by the tactics
previously outlined, will probably just be happy to know that you wrote
"something," even though that "something" hasn't changed since our conversation
started, and the doctrine of the Trinity is just as much a post-biblical
teaching now, as it was when we began our conversation. The only difference, I
hope, is that people can see that the Bible does not use key terms in the same
way that trinitarians do, which is, needless to say, a very big problem.
BOWMAN:
In pointing out the a priori method used by Greg Stafford, I am not at all
relieving myself of the task of taking into account any substantive exegetical
observations or arguments he may present. I am, rather, warning that as long as
he maintains his a priori defensive posture, no amount of exegetical
argumentation is going to matter to him. That is, I expect Greg to dismiss
everything I say in the rest of this series of posts on the basis, explicitly or
implicitly, of the a priori considerations discussed here.
--Rob Bowman
STAFFORD:
Rob is the one guilty of using a priori reasoning, and he is trying to cover it
up by saying that I am the one using it. I am confident that anyone reading this
post can see that his position is not founded in Scripture, and that I object to
it based on that fact. I do not assume it is not true and then interpret
Scripture from there. Rob, however, assumes that it is true, and on that basis
he creates distinctions that do not exist in the Bible, and he redefines terms
that are otherwise used in a manner that is inconsistent with his theology.
Now, let us consider this matter involving Sharp's rule and proper names a bit
closer, and see what we find.
END OF PART TWO
GO TO PART THREE
|
