“Identifying Jesus as Yahweh” as heresy.
McLatchie’s mistake about historical, mainstream Christian theologies.
(The article is reblogged from the Trinities site of professor Dale Tuggy)
Check out this exchange between Islamic apologist Paul Williams and evangelical Christian apologist Jonathan McLatchie:
Williams makes the reasonable point that for a (consistent) trinitarian, Jesus is not the Trinity, while God just is the Trinity. So then, for the trinitarian, Jesus is not God (not numerically identical to God); the relation between Jesus and God is going to have to be something less than that. Most evangelical apologists simply choose not to think about this difficulty. Battling the infidels with stock rhetoric and a fistful of proof-texts is far more enjoyable than working out the problems with one’s own theories.
The Trinity issue too is generally rushed past, with a nod to the old catholic language, or to recent simplifications of it. Most evangelical apologists more or less ignore the plethora of Trinity theories and instead focuses all on “the deity of Christ,” i.e. the claim that Jesus is God himself, that Jesus and God are numerically one. You see this in pop evangelical spirituality constantly in prayer, when the names “God,” “Father,” and “Jesus,” are swapped just for matters of good style, as if they’re just interchangeable, co-referring terms.
They then move (as in the last half of this video) to show that New Testament writers are always slyly (but in their view clearly) asserting the numerical identity of Yahweh (pronounced YAH-hu-way) and Jesus. They employ here what I think is a beginner’s mistake in reading the NT – what I call the fulfillment fallacy. (I’ve lampooned it here.) In the clip Bart Ehrman quite correctly resists the confusion. All NT writers habitually and clearly distinguish God and his Son as two selves and two beings.
But the important point is this: Mr. McLatchie’s confidence is misplaced. There have been plenty of Christians who’ve denied that Jesus and God are one and the same. One sort of case would be mainstream (catholic) Christians who defended logos speculations c. 150-381. These were opposed by “monarchians,” some of whom allegedly identified God and his Son, even using the term “Son-Father.” McLatchie’s statement reminded me of a passage feature in a recent podcast, from famous church historian and theologian-bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, expressing a view which was the majority view at least in the East in his time, and which was expressed by many councils.
But why do I dare essay a hopeless task, to recount the mighty works of the Word of God, and describe an energy which surpasses mortal thought? By some, indeed, he has been termed the Nature of the universe, by others, the World-Soul, by others, Fate. Others again have declared him to be the most High God himself, strangely confounding things most widely different; bringing down to this earth, uniting to a corruptible and material body, and assigning to that supreme and unbegotten Power who is Lord of all an intermediate place between irrational animals and rational mortals on the one hand, and immortal beings on the other.
On the other hand, the sacred doctrine teaches that he who is the supreme Source of good, and Cause of all things, is beyond all comprehension, and therefore inexpressible by word, or speech, or name; surpassing the power, not of language only, but of thought itself. Uncircumscribed by place, or body; neither in heaven, nor in ethereal space, nor in any other part of the universe; but entirely independent of all things else, he pervades the depths of unexplored and secret wisdom. The sacred oracles teach us to acknowledge him as the only true God, apart from all corporeal essence, distinct from all subordinate ministration. Hence it is said that all things are from him, but not through him. (Ch. 11-12 here.)
This “supreme source” is God, aka the Father (note the allusion to 1 Corinthians 8:6 at the end). So yes, there have been many Christians – mainstream ones, in good standing with the majority, and even leading thinkers – who asserted that it is a serious mistake to identify the eternal Son with his (and our) God. Eusebius is no oddball here. Other examples would be the outstanding catholic apologists of their generation, Tertullian and Origen. (Many like Origen also distinguish this Son from the man Jesus, but they’d say it’d be at least as great a mistake to identify the man Jesus with his God too.)
If McClatchie wants to hold out for a council statement, here’s one in which a distinction between God and Jesus is implicit, but clearly drawn, in this creed, widely used and reaffirmed c. 342-359. (Here, section 25.) It’s subtle, though. The distinction takes the form here of (1) declining to describe the Son as “true God,” (2) omitting the claim that God and his Son are one ousia, and (3) describing the Son as “begotten,” which they take to imply that he’s another being than the one who eternally caused him. In the context of this catholic controversy, their point was that God and his Son are two beings, not one (historians call this “duohypostatic” theology).
A similar meeting of bishops (discussed here) declares “Whosoever says that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are one Person, be he anathema.” One self, one intelligent being (here, hypostasis), one God – yes, that’s what evangelical apologists like McClatchie constantly assert as NT teaching.
Perhaps Mr. McLatchie should withdraw his promise…
Dale Tuggy is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York, where he teaches courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.
Categories: Bible, Biblical scholarship, Christian extremism, Christianity, Daw'ah, Debates, Missionaries, Speakers Corner, Utterly idiotic
Blogging Theology 
“So then, for the trinitarian, Jesus is not God (not numerically identical to God); the relation between Jesus and God is going to have to be something less than that. Most evangelical apologists simply choose not to think about this difficulty.”
Yes! Their apologists do ignore this.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Most evangelical apologists simply choose not to think…….”
LikeLiked by 1 person
A few days ago i responded to jonathan, i still await for his reply.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Nice!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very excellent points,Mustafa.
LikeLiked by 1 person
John 1 v 1 both affirms and denys the numerical identity of the Word with God. Both are always true. Neither can be affirmed to the exclusion of the other. This is the fundamental flaw of unitarianism in whichever form it is affirmed. The law of non-contradiction does not hold with respect to the being of God.
“The Word was with God and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God.”
LikeLike
“Jesus is not the Trinity, while God just is the Trinity.”
But how are you defining the trinity here? In terms of person or being? It seems you craftily switch from one to the other in same sentence.
Jesus ( as a person ) is not the Trinity, while God ( as a being ) is the Trinity.
Seems to be a sleight of hand at work here.
LikeLike
Madnanna
Do you believe Jesus is Yahweh?
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yes, they are using the fallacy of equivocation madmanna
LikeLike
Paulus
Do you believe Jesus is Yahweh?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Paul, do you believe Allah is Yahweh?
Why not define your terms properly as expressed by madmanna and Samuel? Rather than always just trying to “trap” people with illogical semantics?
LikeLike
It is not a trap (lol) to ask if you believe Jesus is Yahweh. Jonathan said “yes” without any hesitation.
I note you failed to answer this question.
What are you afraid of Paulus?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul asked…
“Do you believe Jesus is Yahweh?”
Yes Paul that is what the bible teaches…
“By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. 24 Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens.” Gen 19:23 – 24
And Jesus own brother…
“Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved[c] a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not stay within their own position of authority, but left their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains under gloomy darkness until the judgment of the great day— 7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire,[d] serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.” Jude 5-7
BTW Paul in the video that Yahya posted you said that Peter said that Jesus was a MAN sent by God,which we Christians believe. Do you also believe Peter when He said that Jesus was the AUTHOR of life?
“But you rejected the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a man who was a murderer be released to you. 15 You killed the Originator of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this fact we are witnesses!” Acts 3:14-15
LikeLike
If you agree with Peter who said “Jesus was a MAN sent by God”, you are not a Trinitarian!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul I absolutely believe Peter said that Jesus was a man sent by God, thats why I am a trinitarian. But you seem to believe Peter so do you also believe Peter when he said “you killed the Originator of Life”?
LikeLike
‘I absolutely believe Peter said that Jesus was a man sent by God thats why I am a trinitarian
Then you are a VERY confused Christian. Watch the video again and THINK!
LikeLiked by 1 person
LOL notice how Paul will not answer the question.
Paul pay attention that verse only makes sense if God is a Triune being. Who else can send God but GOD? Or do Muslim really believe that Mohamed can send allah?
LikeLike
‘Who else can send God but GOD?’ That makes two gods. You are a polytheist!
LikeLiked by 1 person
ALM wrote:
==Paul pay attention that verse only makes sense if God is a Triune being. Who else can send God but GOD?==
John 1:1 only makes sense if the term God (theos) is used in two distinct senses.
Paul said:
==That makes two gods. You are a polytheist!==
Not if the “the God” (ton theon) of John 1:1 has reference to God the Father only (which it does), and the anarthrous “God” (theos)—a predicate nominative—is adjectival (which it is).
Grace and peace,
David
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul, you seem to let all logic fly out the window when you try and refute the truth.
If you believe that Allah is eternal and that the Koran is eternal, then by your own logic you believe in two eternals. That’s how dumb and childish your “arguments” are these days.
You’ve lost the battle my friend…
LikeLike
No that makes ONE God, who is three persons silly
LikeLike
“No that makes ONE God, who is three persons silly”
ONE God who is three Who’s. That’s silly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhan wrote…
“ONE God who is three Who’s. That’s silly.”
My response: Why is that silly? Why is the belief in the Unique GOD who is nothing like creation being “One What and Three Who’s” why is that silly?
Please explain
LikeLike
ALM
Thinking matters.
ONE “Who” is not not ONE “What”.
If you believe GOD is “One What and Three Who’s”, the belief in the Unique GOD WHO is …
is wrong.
You believe in the Unique God which or that is three Who’s.
How many “Who’s” is your God?
LikeLiked by 2 people
ALM busted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhan wrote…
“If you believe GOD is “One What and Three Who’s”, the belief in the Unique GOD WHO is …
is wrong.
You believe in the Unique God which or that is three Who’s.”
My response: “If you believe GOD is “One What and Three Who’s”, the belief in the Unique GOD WHO is …
is wrong.
You believe in the Unique God which or that is three Who’s.”
My response: What? Trying to decipher what your saying. I say God is UNIQUE in that he is ONE What and Three Who’s. You seem to imply that this God is not Unique since he is One What and Three Who’s? But do tell me do you know anything that is One What and Three Whos?
If not then the Triune God is Unique lol.
Paul wrote..
Busted
My Response. Please explain how so
LikeLike
Thick as a brick. Humanity. One Human nature/essence in 7 billion persons.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Yep thick!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhan wrote…
“Thick as a brick. Humanity. One Human nature/essence in 7 billion persons.”
My response: WOW let me see if I understand you correctly.
Since I am one Human being nature/essence in 7 billion persons that equates to the Unieque God that is One Being who is three persons. Is that correct?
If so then you missed the boat.
I am one Human being who is ONE person, I am not 7 Billion persons lol.
Wow you are THICK
LikeLike
OMG
last try
You are saying that God is one “What” WHO ??? is three who’s.
How many Who’s is you God?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhan wrote…
“How many Who’s is you God?”
My response: Are you ok? You feeling well? I only ask because I have answered that question almost half a dozen times now. So don’t know why you keep repeating the same question.
So tell me did I understand you correctly?
Are you saying that the Triune God is not a Unique being, One God who is three persons, because human beings are ONE being who are only ONE person?
LikeLike
Burhan must have taken his meds and went and laid down.
So Paul maybe you can explain.
How is the Triune God, which is One Being and three persons not unique?
LikeLike
Of course it is unique.
LikeLike
Looks like Paul took his meds and took a nap too. Let me know when you guys wake up
LikeLike
I count 4 Who’s.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Burhan I can’t help you if you don’t know how to count. Must have studied in a Madrasa. Go to a real western school and learn how to count correctly and then get back to me.
LikeLike
> Jesus is not the Trinity, while God is the Trinity
I agree with madmanna. Paul has not defined the Trinity accurately. My understanding is that the one divine nature/essence is share equally by three distinct persons.
LikeLike
Samuel
Do you believe Jesus is Yahweh?
LikeLiked by 2 people
The one human nature is not shared equally by three distinct persons.
LikeLiked by 2 people
LOL Wow an Anti Trinitarian apostate lol. To funny
LikeLike
boring
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trinitarians are being taken to task by fellow Caucasian Western Christian Bible believing Philosophers and Scholars. They are being forced on the defensive. Muslims are enabling this Unitarian Storm, by spearheading the attack. There is no way the Trinity can survive this simultaneous assault from all sides by all forces, including Secular Scholarship and Moderate/Liberal Christianity Islam Judaism Atheism and Unitarian Christian Theology. Shamoun and David Woods days are numbered, seriously numbered. The Muslims need to maintain and sustain this unprecendent intellectual effort, without being distracted or losing steam. I applaud Paul Williams, D G Dunn, Yahya Snow, Ijaz Ahmed, Ibn Anwar, Eric Kassim, Larry Hurtado ,Bart Ehrman, Dale Tuggy and Anthony Buzzard for annihilating the Trinity, let us hope they increase their efforts.
LikeLiked by 3 people
==I applaud Paul Williams, D G Dunn, Yahya Snow, Ijaz Ahmed, Ibn Anwar, Eric Kassim, Larry Hurtado ,Bart Ehrman, Dale Tuggy and Anthony Buzzard for annihilating the Trinity, let us hope they increase their efforts.==
Two important points: first, Larry Hurtado is a Trinitarian; second, Trinitarianism is expressed in a number of competing forms. The gentlemen mentioned above have not successfully dealt an “annihilating” blow to all of the forms.
Grace and peace,
David
LikeLike
Trinitarian evolution. Survival of the fittest.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This is excellent. A welcomed, educated and academic response. In the meanwhile, we get this from “Apologetics” “Academy”…
LikeLiked by 3 people
we are not surprised that people who know they are lying and deceiving are also hypocrites? One naturally follows the other.
LikeLike
With such a powerful refutation by a prominent scholar I anticipates McLatchie’ shahada is imminent…
LikeLiked by 3 people
Isn’t this the subject which James wants to debate Bart Ehrman about ?
LikeLike
“I count 4 Who’s.”
As trinitarians under the new covenant we have a spiritual relation to 3 persons. If there is another person who is it and with whom does it have communion at this moment in time? Anyone advise?
LikeLike
:”Madnanna
Do you believe Jesus is Yahweh?”
Yes I do.
Food for thought:
YB, do you believe that the Father is Yahweh?
If so where does the Father identify himself with Yahweh using his own name?
Just a question I would like a unitarian to answer.
LikeLike
I’m not seeing what is so devastating about this rebuttal – the argument seems to be that there have been much dialogue about the nature of god, therefore, the trinity is false!!!!
You guys are so gullible.
LikeLike
Paul I’m sorry I missed your response to me as I was too busy teaching Burhan how to count properly, an endeavor I have long abandoned now.
But you wrote in response to my question on how the Triune God is not unique.
“Of course it is unique.”
So you admit that the Triune God is unique yet you and your fellow co coreligionists mock the Unique God?
Why is that?
LikeLike
Bobby have you seen this? How embarrassing! lol
https://bloggingtheology.net/2017/03/10/robert-wells-needs-help-responding-to-muslims-on-blogging-theology/
LikeLike
LOL ha ha ha ha ha ha, oh man thats to funny what is even funnier is that Ijaz and evidently you didn’t get the joke LOL Oh ,man.
Yes it is quite embarrasing for Muslims especially YOU lol
LikeLike
Bobby boy, you do provide endless entertainment. Keep it up
LikeLike
I think you have missed the point. On the Athanasian Creed, is God a “What”? or a “Who”? If he is a “what” then God cannot forgive or get angry or supposedly think that Trump is the “messiah”, Things like that
Then how in the world can we make sense of phrases like this in the Old Testament ?
“God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM….”
Can a collective now speak of itself like this? To me that would be a bizarre reading of the old testament and, let me be blunt, deceit on the part of God.
He tells the Jews that God is a person and yet we have certain trinitarians saying he is a “what” now.
Progressive revelation cannot help you here my friend
LikeLiked by 1 person
The poor boy! He cannot handle the scandal.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“collective now”
obviously meant “collective noun”
LikeLike