Ignoring this Biblical pattern [i.e., the use of singular pronouns in reference to God], Trinitarian doctrine developed new definitions for the words “being” and “person.” In Trinitarian parlance, a “being” can consist of more than one “person”, while a “person” is not necessarily a “being.” Thus, while “God the Son” (Jesus) is one “person”, he is not an individual “being”; instead he exists as one “person” within a tri-personal “being” known as the “Trinity.” To date, the use and acceptance of these definitions remain unique to Trinitarianism, since they contradict the use of “being” and “person” in regular human communication.
So apparently Trinitarians aren’t regular humans. When Trinitarians speak of the Trinity, whether we’re defining the doctrine for those who don’t believe it, or defining the doctrine to those who do believe it, we use these words (being & person) to consistently mean what we define them to mean. But I suppose such consistency is not “regular.” Funnily enough, earlier in David’s introductory post he said, “A proper understanding of context is vital because context determines meaning; thus, the use of a word in one passage may be very different to the use of that same word in another passage.” So apparently this doesn’t apply to irregular Trinitarian types, only passages of the Bible. How regular is that?
B”H
Nick, how do you get “So apparently Trinitarians aren’t regular humans” from what I have written?
I don’t think you’ve read my article very carefully, or perhaps you simply didn’t understand it. My point is that Trinitarians apply selective definitions of their own devising to words which already have a common definition. The Trinitarian use of “being” and “person” contradicts the standard use of these terms. That’s the inconsistency. The fact that you consistently use inconsistent language, does not make the language itself consistent!
This cannot simply be brushed away by quoting my statement about context determining meaning, because the Trinitarian definitions of “being” and “person” are (a) unBiblical, (b) the result of post-1st century philosophical speculation (even Tertullian used “being” and “person” synonymously, a practice which was later condemned) and (c) demonstrably illogical.
If the Bible defined and used these words in the way that Trinitarianism does, you would have grounds for defending Trinitarian usage on that basis. But this does not occur. The Bible consistently equates beings with persons in a way that is simply untenable for Trinitarian Christology.
I really do think you need to read the article again, or perhaps get yourself a good book on exegesis and hermeneutical methodology. Preferably one which explains the role of logic and reason in the formulation Christian theology.
Dave: You want to allow context to determine meaning for everyone but Trinitarians. If we define our terms, regardless of what those terms might “normally” mean, then what’s the problem? The so-called “standard” use is irrelevant when the terms are being used in a “theological” context.
As to your points: (a) No, they’re extra-biblical, not unbiblical, (b) so what if they are?, and (c) not at all since as Trinitarians define them they aren’t.
You don’t get to tell the Trinitarian that they’re not allowed to define their terms because you don’t like them. The Bible doesn’t define these terms at all. Can you show me where the Bible defines the word “person” or the word “being”? The Bible doesn’t make the equation that you suggest; the Unitarian interpreter does!
I’ve read your article carefully and your elaboration here simply confirms your inconsistency. Context is king except when that context is the context in which Trinitarians explain their understanding of God. Got it.
“The fact that you consistently use inconsistent language, does not make the language itself consistent!”
This is a very odd thing to say. In almost every specialized field of study – take mathematics for instance – a set of terms from the standard common language are taken over and nuanced to the point of sometimes complete distance from the original terms. Mathematics, especially, is interested in quite consistent usage of “inconsistent” terminology, as it relates to “normal” usage (consistency, completeness, manifold, product, factor, variable, etc. are all given mathematically specific flavors). It is no less “consistent” in its own context, however. In fact, this mathematical “jargon” is used to even define what we know as logic and even “consistency” within the fields of mathematics and computational science.
Rambling – but the point is that usage inconsistent from standard context does not necessitate that usage in other contexts will also be “inconsistent”. We are simply playing with words to say otherwise.
George: You’re exactly correct.
I always think it’s funny when people tell others they should go learn exegesis, hermeneutics, or logic.
Bryan: Yeah, me too.
Nick, Bowman just posted a comment to Burke’s article which I think is worth reading since it shows that Burke is dealing with someone who is far above him in terms of exegetical and intellectual abilities. It won’t look too good for Burke, that’s for sure.
I thought Burke and Bowman both gave good introductory remarks. Although, as Sam just said, I think Bowman’s response to Burke does show some of the faulty logic that Burke raised.
I actually used to post on the christadelphian forums a couple of years ago (I was a Trinitarian believer trying to understand unitarianism/christadelphianism). I remember reading Evangelion’s articles on the forums and thinking that I would like to see him debate a Trinitarian believer as I found Evangelion had given the best defense of Unitarianism that I had read. And yesterday I found out (from reading Burke’s introductory post) that he is Evangelion.
I look forward to Bowman’s response and to the rest of the debate.
Oops, I meant to say, “I look forward to Burke’s response to Bowman.”
Sam: Thanks for pointing it out. I just read it and I think Bowman has once again highlighted some significant problems. Like I said, I think Bowman nullified most of Burke’s arguments before Burke had the chance to make them.
Diglot: I was more excited about the debate before it actually started. Now I just think it’s going to be pretty one-sided. I heard from a friend that Burke is pretty much the best that non-Trinitarians have to offer (at least as far as he’s seen). This may be true but that just points to the inherent weakness in Unitarian theology. In the end it’s the same old stuff that every internet apologist with a half-decent website has debunked ages ago.
I would agree with your friend. Of all the different varieties of people that do not believe in the Triune nature of God (Jehovah Witnesses, Muslims, etc), the best I have encountered is Burke (as Evangelion on the Christadelphian forums).
Although, no disrespect intended to Burke, but that doesn’t exactly mean much because a lot of the arguments for Unitarianism (and thus anti-Trinitarianism) have been horrible (such as people who just blatantly misrepresentating Trinitarian belief, or a Muslim apologist quoting John 17:3 and completely skipping over 17:5).
Diglot: I think the best I’ve come across was a guy known as KNS who had a website called Trinity on Trial. But his objections were the same as everyone else’s and in the end his arguments were just as futile.
Let me quite honest, if Burke is the “best” that anti-Trinitarians have then the anti-Trinitarians, specifically Unitarians, are really in trouble! I think Diglot is being too nice in his assessment since Burke’s stuff is pathetic.
Sam: I’d have to agree and that’s really the issue. The best Unitarian in the world will never present a genuine obstacle for the truth.
Sam: When I said that Burke is the “best” I have seen, I didn’t mean it in the sense of “he almost convinced me to become unitarian.” Rather, I was referring to how he comes across in writings as intelligent and a man who has done a lot of research on the issue. While I would strongly disagree with his interpretations of Scripture and conclusions, I appreciate the fact that he will (for instance) actually try to deal with John 17:5 instead of just skipping over it like so many other anti-trinitarians that I have come across.
Diglot: I’ve seen plenty of Unitarians of varying backgrounds who’d measure up to Burke. Anthony Buzzard, Sean Finnegan, Greg Stafford, and a bunch of others come to mind immediately. It’s not all that rare to find intelligent and well read Unitarians although it’s extremely rare to find any that accurately understand, or supposing they do understand, accurately represent Trinitarian theology.
Oh yea, I forgot about Greg Stafford. Last I heard, he had a falling out with the Watchtower Tract and Bible Society?
Diglot, Greg started his own group called Christian Witnesses of Jah and is actively posting on his site and blog: http://elihubooks.com/
Diglot: Yeah, what Sam said.