It’s no secret that discussion of Christ and His relationship to the God the Father has surfaced around blogdom, most recently in my exchange with Mike Whitenton over at Ecce Homo (more on this here and here). To my amazement (and this is no reflection on Mike or his blogpost), there have been a many historical theologically and Scripturally ignorant comments (or more like one-liners) in the comments section of a certain blog post that in my opinion show just how ignorant the Church is becoming to the whole debate on Trinitarianism in the first four centuries of Church history (see the comments I refer to below by clicking here). Albeit there are only two yahoos that need to be addressed in particular, but I hear such ignorant comments all the time that almost always go without correction.
In defense of an ontologically subordinate view of the relationship between Christ and the Father, one yahoo writes:
“At no time in the NT records does Jesus claim equality with the Father”
Oh. Well thanks for solving the debate. And I suppose it doesn’t count when Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and My God”? Indeed Christ didn’t speak the words, but He certainly didn’t correct Thomas, now did he? As such maybe this yahoo would do well to say “Jesus never said he was equal with the Father.”
The same yahoo later suggests an argument based on the fact that Christ never said the following:
“Okay boys, I know I’m not making myself very clear here. Yeah, it’s been three years, but I’m sorry, I can’t be more precise about what I have trying to teach you. But, don’t despair, I’m going to send someone, Paul by name, who knows this stuff much better than me and he will explain things further. Bye!”
Oh, well if you put it that way, I now see the light.
And again later,
“it actually goes much further than the incarnation. Did Jesus raise himself from the dead? Or did his Father”
OOOOOOH, no one ever thought to wrestle with that!!!!! Surely I’m now convinced.
Another yahoo says:
“… Jesus himself stated that the Father was greater than him in John 14:28. I shifted my beliefs from trinitarian to non-trinitarian about two years ago.”
Oh, well in that case, Trinitarian theology as argued from the orthodox should be abandoned. Personhood? Essence? What’s that?
I mean really people, tolle lege some of the ANF and NPNF so you don’t embarrass yourself or at least stop the one liner sarcastic drive-byes and engage in actual academic conversation. In case you wondered, yes my tone is absolutely condescending here because they need a scolding. Out of all the blog readers who read Ecce Homo (a top 50 biblioblog) and for no one scold these comments in the midst of a post that is hinting at suborinationism (no disrespect to you Mike) must either validate the fact that people are not educated in the actual beliefs of Trinitarianism and no educated in a knowledge of the Fathers or perhaps it just shows that no one really cares about this topic. I hope for the sake of the Church the latter is true, nonetheless such apathy is questionable as well. But may this very sarcastic blog give a due reaping to what has been sown.
[Update: John Anderson has posted a similar rant here]


34 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 26, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Mike Aubrey
Historical ignorance. Biblical ignorance. Doesn’t anyone read Matthew 28?
July 26, 2009 at 9:21 pm
Nick Norelli
Mike: You know I do!
Rob: You are very correct, there were plenty of uninformed one-liners toward the end of the comments there. I tend to ignore such things because I’m used to dealing with a higher class of Unitarian who actually put forth arguments against the Trinity (albeit unconvincing arguments), but I appreciate your taking the time to scold the yahoos.
But let’s be honest, it’s en vogue to be a heretic these days. God forbid you hold to historic Christian beliefs, because to do so obviously means that you haven’t read the Scriptures for yourself and that you’re brainwashed, completely dependent on pagan church traditions that crept in from Greek philosophers…
July 26, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Great Minds… « Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth
[...] Rob Kashow recently posted a nice rant against ignorance concerning the Trinity. Interestingly enough, I was going to post something [...]
July 26, 2009 at 11:38 pm
Rob Kashow
Mike: There is indeed a host of evidence that points to Christ as equal with God, as well as a host of evidence demonstrating his subordination. I think Nicea deals well with the reconciliation. It seems the problem is people speak without educated research.
Nick: I suppose you’re right, it is indeed “in” to be a heretic. And to be honest, from an academic perspective if someone believes in a heretic argument that’s fine, but if you are going to advance your belief in the academic setting, Church setting, or even blogosphere, at least have a clue what your talking about and give fair credence to the opposing views. Of course my post refutes those who make sweeping statements without even recognizing that Trinitarians are aware of those verses and deal with them in suitable ways.
July 27, 2009 at 3:33 am
wellwateredgarden
Re: “My Lord and my God” … Jesus doesn’t become equal with God the Father just because Thomas makes a statement addressing him as such. You call that ‘academic conversation?’
But, you see, it’s the academic conversation by you “theologians” that have been fooling the masses all these years.
Re: Matthew 28 … you mean the point about “all authority has been GIVEN to me?”
July 27, 2009 at 4:08 am
Rob Kashow
Academic conversation isn’t one liner drivebyes. It’s interaction with various perspectives and not dropping obvious arguments that have been argued for years and acting like there has been no answer to those arguments.
The example of Christ and Thomas is academic because it was a response to a claim that Christ did not claim to be God in the Scriptures. This verse would be a clear wrench to that thesis. Whether or not Christ is to be considered God is up for further discussion which is a much broader conversation, but if the question at hand is Christ’s proclamation of himself as God in the Gospels then you have some serious problems with this verse (as there are many others).
July 27, 2009 at 4:22 am
Mike Aubrey
You’re cute, wellwatered, you’re cute.
And while you’re entertaining, you haven’t said much of substance.
July 27, 2009 at 2:56 pm
John Anderson
Rob:
I’ve posted up a similar, though more general rant about what I have long called “dumb faith” on my blog. Please do check it out (and others commenting here). Link to it also if you like (I won’t myself post the link here in the off chance wordpress catches it as spam).
Good stuff, buddy.
Edit: Here’s the link.
July 27, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Rob Kashow
Thanks for the kind word, John. As you can see I have indeed linked to your rant. I’ll check back on your blog later and chime in.
July 27, 2009 at 4:01 pm
wellwateredgarden
Let’s talk substance … for centuries the theologians have been debating this subject (and many others) with to date very little consensus as even these recent blogs prove, and all the while our pulpits were filled with Phd’rs and their academic conversation.
Get a life, you people! Jesus’ teachings aren’t that difficult. They only need to be believed. I remind you of the Hebrews 11:6.
Atheism and Islam is taking over the world and ‘academic conversation’ is still discussing angels on pinheads!
July 27, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Mike Aubrey
Wellwatered, if we don’t have lives, what does that say about you who took to the time to find and then argue on this blog…?
Grow up and actually make an argument. Maybe you can find something to respond to after reading this HERE
July 27, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Michael
All parties involved need to immediately: (1) repent, and (2) “get together and love one another right now.”
July 27, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Rob Kashow
What do you know, Michael? All you do is write blogs and make academic arguments. Obviously from that I can conclude that you do not contribute to the mission of God (didn’t you realize islam and atheism is winning the battle?) in any way.
July 27, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Michael
I’m too happy here in my ivory tower to be disturbed by Islam and Atheism. But this name-calling and vicious language… it’s going to give me an ulcer or prostatitis or hemorrhoids…
July 27, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Rob Kashow
yeah but “he started it!”
July 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm
John Anderson
Seriously? Hemorrhoids from language? Remind me to lift my “no swearing ban” when I meet you for the first time! Better bring the ben gay.
July 27, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Rob Kashow
Remember, John, Mike only reads the New Testament.
July 27, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Mike Aubrey
Mike only reads the New Testament.
Only reads the NT?
No.
Only reads Greek?
Yes.
July 27, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Mike Aubrey
Vicious language?
*#$&$@! are you talking about?
July 27, 2009 at 7:03 pm
wellwateredgarden
How about those one-liner drive-bys now, eh?
July 28, 2009 at 1:21 am
John Anderson
Not Mike Aubrey, Mike Whitenton.
July 28, 2009 at 1:31 am
Mike Aubrey
so confusing…
July 28, 2009 at 2:13 am
Rob Kashow
oh yeah, I forgot we had two Mike’s chiming in. Yeah Mike (Aubrey) we have an ongoing joke about Mike not reading the Old Testament, sorry for not specifying.
July 29, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Grommel
The concept of the Trinity is still illogical and irrational though.
July 29, 2009 at 11:26 pm
Rob Kashow
Care to elaborate a bit Grommel?
July 30, 2009 at 6:18 am
Grommel
If The Son = God and The Father = God and The Spirit = God then The Son = The Father = The Spirit. But that’s not the case, they’re different ‘entities’, correct?
So it’s more like The Son + The Father + The Spirit = God = The Trinity.
Or does each part equate to the Trinity? If yes then that’s irrational. Because a part (if it’s not the only one) can’t equate to the whole.
Etc.
And that’s only the beginning of the paradoxes, inherent contradictions and incoherences.
There’s a reason that the Trinity has been labeled a ‘mystery’ by the church (and by believers).
But if you can explain it rationally and logically, be my guest! I’m curious
August 1, 2009 at 5:56 am
Rob Kashow
Grommel,
I just saw this reply, sorry for the delay. I certainly am not one to reinvent the wheel, there have been several works out there that attempt to explain the trinity, so I first would point you to them. I have found Garald Bray’s “The Doctrine of God” most helpful in explaining the orthodox Christian perspective.
One question I would pose, however:
If we presuppose the existence of God and He attempts to reveal himself to humans through human words, would we not find human words and the finite human mind incapable of fully explaining the knowledge of Him with the result that there would indeed be many paradoxical statements?
For this reason, I think the formulations of the Trinity by first 400 years of early Church history deserve careful consideration and at least be taken seriously. This presupposes of course an interest in the Bible as Scripture, but nevertheless, even if one does not hold such presuppositions, it should at least be understood why Christians would hold to such a paradoxical equation. Does that make sense?
By the way, it appear that your native tongue is German and so I take it you are from Germany… if that is so I’m very impressed with your English.
August 1, 2009 at 6:21 am
Rob Kashow
Let me add one basic way the trinity has been understood:
The Father is God
The Father is not the Son
The Father is not the Spirit
The Son is God
The Son is not the Father
The Son is not the Spirit
The Spirit is God
The Spirit is not the Father
The Spirit is not the Son
This is essentially explained by saying all are God in ‘essence’ while they are distinct in ‘person.’ See my recent post for further elaboration.
August 1, 2009 at 6:24 am
Grommel
Rob,
I’m am actually from Luxembourg, which is a small country next to Germany. I speak Luxembourgish, German, French and English. But thank you for your compliment
As for the Trinity: in the end ALL explanations come down to claiming that it’s a ‘mystery’ and can’t really be rationally understood, correct? Otherwise you, or anyone else, could simply point to a rational explanation and justification of the concept.
And I don’t see why a God couldn’t reveal himself without creating paradoxes?
The Trinity is simply full of paradoxes because it’s the result of Christians desperately trying to uphold the claim that they’re monotheists despite there being more divine beings. That required all kind of mind-boggling constructs and assumptions. Which often can sound very sophisticated, but that doesn’t mean they’re true. In most cases new and artificial, but actually meaningless, words are invented allowing the believers to ‘make their case’. But in the end it’s like the Emperor with no clothes: the believers are all referring to concepts which in the end, fundamentally, are unsupported or make no rational sense.
August 1, 2009 at 6:50 am
Rob Kashow
Sure, I know Luxembourg. My grandmother was born and raised all her life in Belgium (the Flemish side).
For me, the root of the issue is your comment, “And I don’t see why a God couldn’t reveal himself without creating paradoxes?”
My response is that the problem isn’t on God’s end. It’s on the end of the human and his limitations.
I would disagree that “The Trinity is simply full of paradoxes because it’s the result of Christians desperately trying to uphold the claim that they’re monotheists despite there being more divine beings.” Rather I think it is a result of Christians trying to make sense of differing statements within the Bible that often seem in tension with each other. The way they explain it via the trinity is the best any one is yet to come up with.
I would maintain that Christians are not monotheists or polytheists. This is what makes Christianity so different from Judaism, Islam, or any other religion.
August 1, 2009 at 6:26 am
Grommel
correction:
But in the end it’s like the Emperor with no clothes: the believers are all referring to something that isn’t actually there, namely the concepts which in the end, fundamentally, are unsupported and/or make no rational sense.
August 1, 2009 at 6:38 am
Grommel
Rob,
But if they are different in person then they can’t all be the same. That’s simply illogical. And irrational to claim. Either they are 100% the same thing or they aren’t. And ‘essence’ is by the way such a vague weasel word that in the end doesn’t explain much actually.
And how could anyone, or anything, be his own son or father? A ‘father and son’ concept requires two different, separate entities to make sense.
August 17, 2009 at 2:12 pm
Making It Plain: Explaining the Trinity in Laymen’s Terms? « Political Jesus: Journeys In Nonresistant Love
[...] Kashow: Here, here, and [...]
September 7, 2009 at 1:09 pm
On “Dumb Faith” (or the Faith of the Ignorant) « Hesed we 'emet
[...] “Dumb Faith” (or the Faith of the Ignorant) Rob Kashow has recently posted a rant on ignorance pertaining to the trinity. I’m glad he did; I find [...]