Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1502Re: [biblicalapologetics] Thanks Rob

Expand Messages
  • Patrick Navas
    Mar 8, 2007
      Thank you for the prompt reply to my questions. Essentially, you agree with me that the commonly advanced trinitarian argument that the plural term elohim (as it applies to Jehovah in the OT) and the argument that echad carries with it the notion of "plurality" or "compound unity" (in line with the Trinity) are both in error. I would also imagine this means that you, likewise, agree with me that these two arguments in particular should be abandoned by Trinitarians, as they do nothing to advance the credibility of the Trinitarian cause.
      You wrote:
      "Perhaps you misunderstood me to mean that the use of ELOHIM is somehow inconsistent with Trinitarian doctrine. That is not what I was saying. I was simply agreeing that one cannot appeal to the plural form of ELOHIM as a proof of the doctrine of the Trinity."
      Thank you for raising this issue, as it allows me to provide clarification. I quote you in my book on this point because I hoped it would be helpful in terms of dispelling the still commonly advanced trinitarian argument that the plural word elohim provides support or evidence for trinitarian theology. I did not, in any way, misunderstand you. Nor was I suggesting that you were implying that elohim is somehow inconsistent, or contradictory toward, the doctrine of the Trinity.
      This is actually an essential part of the theme of my entire book; namely, that, in nearly every case, Trinitarians themselves will contradict and essentially refute the arguments of other Trinitarians in behalf of the doctrine, as in the examples of echad and elohim. In this light, I'm sure you are able to see how this would contribute toward further skepticism on the part of non-trinitarians with respect to the validity of the doctrine. Then, just throw the following fact into the equation and I'm sure that you would also understand why the skepticism would increase even more:
      "[The Trinity] is not clearly or explicitly taught anywhere in Scripture, yet it is widely regarded as a central doctrine, indispensable to the Christian faith. In this regard, it goes contrary to what is virtually an axiom [that is, a given, a self evident truth] of biblical doctrine, namely, that there is a direct correlation between the scriptural clarity of a doctrine and its cruciality to the faith and life of the church. In view of the difficulty of the subject and the great amount of effort expended to maintain this doctrine, we may well ask ourselves what might justify all this trouble." (Millard J. Erickson)
      Thanks again, Rob. If you are interested, I'd love to share with you my discussion on 1 Cor. 15:28 as it appears in my book. I critique the arguments of James White, who argues that "God" in 1 Cor. 15:28 means "the triune God." I believe I have demonstrated, quite clearly, that such a meaning is extremely unlikely, if not impossible to sustain, in light of a number of contextual and linguistic evidences.
      Best wishes,
      Patrick Navas
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic