I just received the latest copy of Unitarian Anthony Buzzard’s Focus on the Kingdom newsletter (April 2008, Vol. 10, No. 7), and in it there is a short article written by a 12-year-old named Casey Hixon, entitled “The Trinity” (available here in PDF, see pp. 5-6). There’s absolutely nothing new in this article, and nothing that a decent understanding of the Hypostatic Union couldn’t clear up, but I did notice one thing: The level of argumentation isn’t much more sophisticated from adult Unitarians (of the Socinian variety) as it is from children. He gives us four points of why the Trinity can’t be true:
-
God cannot die.
-
Jesus was not a Trinitarian.
-
God is unchangeable.
-
God cannot be tempted.
Like I said, nothing new. The addition of a human nature reconciles the alleged problems of 1, 3, and 4 (i.e., the Son can be tempted and later die if he has humbled himself and taken the form of a servant; and his divine nature was not altered in adding this form).
The argument used to support #2 is that Jesus was a Jew and believed in the Shema. And also that echad means ‘one’ — ok, and? Without presupposing a unipersonal understanding of the Shema or Jesus’ Jewishness, how does this even begin to argue against the Trinity? Trinitarians believe in one God, and that YHWH is Israel’s God alone. Also, how is Trinitarian being defined? I don’t think anyone would argue that Jesus held to a creedal form of Trinitarianism since the creeds weren’t drafted until centuries later. But did Jesus make connections between himself, his Father, and the Spirit that would later lead to modern Trinitarian understandings? Of course he did.
Although much lengthier, and heavily footnoted, I haven’t found Anthony Buzzard’s arguments to be any more substantive or persuasive. In fact, this young (wo)man (?) seems to merely be parroting what he’s learned from Buzzard or those who Buzzard has taught.
B”H
Posted in Trinity, Unitarianism
