Online Debate between Greg Stafford and Rob Bowman (Part 1):

The following discussion too !lace online" through mediums for both Greg Stafford and
Robert Bowman" during the month of #!ril" 1$$%&
The medium for Greg Stafford" 'ar Ross" was not able to cut and !aste Greg(s re!l)"
and resorted to t)!ing in the re!l) directl) from a !rinted hardco!)& #s a result" the actual
!osted re!l) contained se*eral s!elling errors" and a few missing words& These ha*e
been corrected b) u!loading Greg(s own co!) to this !age&
#s a result of this debate" se*eral other indi*iduals +oined in the discussion" and *arious
!oints were clarified and considered in greater detail" and these ha*e been wored into
the discussion so as to gi*e as com!lete an understanding of the issues in*ol*ed as
!ossible&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
'ar Ross -one of .eho*ah(s /itnesses0 wrote:
'atthew" worshi! (Gr latreuw) includes honor" but honor does not necessaril) include
worshi!& .esus is gi*en the authorit) to +udge b) his 1ather" and the 1ather 2343R gets
authorit) from an)one& 5 don(t understand what the big deal is& BT/" -.ohn 60 4erse 78
sa)s that while the 1ather has (life in himself( he is !leased to G543 to 9hrist to ha*e (life
in himself(& :ow is it that the 1ather has this b) nature and the Son does not if the Son is
e;ual and co,eternal with the 1ather < 5 ha*e 2343R had a trinitarian successfull)
address this one& Perha!s )ou will be the first <
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
1& 5f .esus has the nature and !rerogati*es of the onl) true God" that maes him God"
howe*er he got that nature and those !rerogati*es&
Greg Stafford:
The errors begin earl) in Bowman(s re!l)& #bo*e we ha*e a non se;uitur& Bowman also
asserts that which he has )et to !ro*e" that is" where does the Bible sa) =.esus has the
nature and !rerogati*es of the onl) true God=< #lso" how .esus obtained a di*ine nature
and di*ine !rerogati*es has a direct and substantial im!act on our understanding of his
!osition in relation to the 1ather& Bowman also uses the word =God= in two different
senses: The first use a!!ears to be in reference to the Godhead Beingness that is
allegedl) shared b) three =!ersons&= This is not a !ro!er use of the word in this
discussion" for nowhere does the Bible articulate the word =God= as denoting a
substance of being shared b) three !ersons& #nd when Bowman sa)s that .esus( ha*ing
=the nature and !rerogati*es of the onl) true God" that maes him God"= he does not
state the matter correctl)& # trinitarian would ha*e to sa)" =maes him God b) nature"= or
maes him a sharer of the di*ine essence& #s he has it" it is misleading" for man) (and
rightl) so) tae the term =God= as a noun of !ersonal descri!tion" for that is the onl)
sense in which the Bible writers mae use of it" unless it is used figurati*el) of the =bell)=
or something similar" of course& Does Bowman mean" b) sa)ing" =maes him God"= that
this maes .esus =the Godhead Beingness=< 5 doubt that& Thus" he e;ui*ocates on the
meaning of the word =God&=
Rob Bowman:
a& 5 don(t thin Stafford gets" or wants to get" the logic of what 5 asserted abo*e& >et me
!ut it more formall) and com!letel)&
(1) /hoe*er does what O2>? God can do" is God&
(7) .esus does what O2>? God can do&
(@) Therefore" .esus is God&
Greg Stafford:
1irst" Bowman again assumes that which he has )et to !ro*e" and ignores the conce!t
of imitation&
5 recogniAe the *alid structure of Bowman(s argument and the deducti*e inter!retation if
one assumes the !remises are true& 1or" if 5 said:
1) /hoe*er does what onl) dogs can do" is a dog&
7) ') cat does onl) what dogs can do&
@) Therefore" m) cat is a dog&
then this" too" would be *alid structurall)&
2ow" this is onl) a sound argument if the !remises (Bs 1 and 7) are assumed true" for
then the conclusion (B@) must be true& :owe*er" this argument contains a false !remise:
5 ha*e not gi*en an) !roof that m) cat does what onl) dogs can do" and" franl)" that
would be tough to doC Thus" the abo*e argument is unsound" and the conclusion is false&
5 call on Bowman to !ro*e his !remises" for he assumes in them a truth *alue that is
unscri!tural& :e also mis;uoted .ohn 6:1$ in an attem!t to su!!ort his argument& That is
wh) 5 sa) he has assumed that which he has )et to !ro*e" namel)" !remise B7&
Bowman fails to !ro*ide !recise eDam!les so we can e*aluate his conclusion" and
determine if .esus( imitation of the 1ather (note his im!ro!er use of =God= as a !ersonal
reference" againEsee below) is contingent u!on an)thing&
Bowman also uses God in an e;uati*e sense which e*en he does not acce!t& #gain"
when a trinitarian sa)s" =.esus is God"= the) mean =.esus is God the Son" second
!erson of a consubstantial Triad&= But the) do not !ut it that wa)" because the Bible
ne*er !uts it that wa)C Thus" his conclusion is im!ro!er from a trinitarian !oint of *iew"
without the !ro!er ;ualification" and it does not follow from his !remises&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
The !arallel s)llogism is also logicall) *alid:
(F) /hoe*er has characteristics that O2>? God has" is God&
(6) .esus has characteristics that O2>? God has&
(8) Therefore" .esus is God&
Greg Stafford:
Bowman fails once again to !ro*e his !oint& /hat if 5 said" =#ngels ha*e characteristics
that onl) God has& 1or eDam!le" the) are s!irit beings" and onl) God is a s!irit being&=
/ell" then" for me to sa)" =The angels ha*e something onl) God has" namel)" s!irit
nature"= would be to assume that a s!irit nature is something onl) God has (the Bible
ne*er sa)s this)" and that an)one else who is said to ha*e a s!irit nature must therefore
be God& This is similar to what Bowman is arguing& :e assumes that .esus does what
onl) God can do" when in fact the Bible ne*er sa)s onl) God can do the things that :e
allows :is Son to do in :is name&
Rob Bowman:
2ow" m) !oint was that these two !arallel s)llogisms are both *alid regardless of how
.esus came to do what onl) God can do" or to !ossess characteristics that onl) God
has&
Greg Stafford:
#nd )our conclusion is incorrect for it is 1) based on fault) e*idenceG 7) couched in
ambiguous termsG @) does not necessaril) follow from the !remises laid" unless )ou
further clarif) )our meaning of =God= as used in )our conclusion&
Rob Bowman:
5f .esus does e*en O23 T:52G that Scri!ture sa)s O2>? God can do" or he has e*en
O23 characteristic that Scri!ture sa)s O2>? God has" then .esus is God" regardless of
how that state of affairs came about&
Greg Stafford:
This is a non se;uitur" !ure and sim!le& Bowman also assumes that which he has )et to
!ro*e& The Bible does not sa) =5f .esus does e*en O23 T:52G that Scri!ture sa)s
O2>? God can do" or he has e*en O23 characteristic that Scri!ture sa)s O2>? God
has" then .esus is God" regardless of how that state of affairs came about&= # little !roof
from the Bible might be in order& The *er) fact that .esus is gi*en ()es" G5432) certain
!rerogati*es that !re*iousl) were eDercised onl) b) God" sim!l) means that God is now
allowing another" :is Son" to act in a certain ca!acit)& #nd his acting in that ca!acit) is
not due to his own authorit)" but because it was gi*en to him& :e is not e;ual to the
1ather in his di*ine authorit)& Thus" it is clear that" if .esus is doing something that was
!re*iousl) done onl) b) God" then it is now no longer something onl) God can doC
Rob Bowman
Thus" to dis!ro*e the conclusion of either of these two s)llogisms (that .esus is God)"
Stafford will ha*e to dis!ute one or more of their !remises (i&e&" statements -10" -70" -F0"
and -60)& #dmitting that statements (7) and (6) are true but ob+ecting that the arguments
ignore :O/ the) came to be true fails to show the arguments to be unsound&
Greg Stafford
/ho admitted to 7 and 6 being true< /hen )ou offer !roof then we will e*aluate it&
Second" )our entire argument is fault) on a number of fronts" se*eral of which 5 ha*e
outlined abo*e&
Rob Bowman:
b& 5t is true" of course" that how .esus came to !ossess di*ine nature and !rerogati*es
has a bearing on our understanding of his relation to the 1ather&
Greg Stafford:
5f it has a bearing then wh) do )ou sa)" =5f .esus does e*en O23 T:52G that Scri!ture
sa)s O2>? God can do" or he has e*en O23 characteristic that Scri!ture sa)s O2>?
God has" then .esus is God" R3G#RD>3SS -em!hasis added0 of how that state of
affairs came about=< Does it matter or not<
Rob Bowman:
But it does 2OT ha*e a bearing on the *alidit) of the abo*e arguments&
Greg Stafford:
5f )our argument is in relation to .esus( !rerogati*es and whether ha*ing these
!rerogati*es maes him God" then how he came to !ossess these !rerogati*es most
certainl) has a bearing on the #99HR#9? of )our argument& /hether )our argument is
=*alid= from a logician(s !oint of *iew is not the e) issueG 5 am e*aluating the accurac) of
)our conclusion& ?our argument ma) be *alid structurall)" but the !remises are incorrect"
and so is )our conclusion&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
/e trinitarians do not ignore the matter of how .esus came to be GodG but we insist that
the =how= cannot be used to negate the =that&=
Greg Stafford:
Of course" )ou do& ?ou ha*e to" for the =how= does negate the =that&= 5f he came to ha*e
a di*ine nature" then he was not eternall) grounded in the nature of God" and therefore
is not eternal God&
Rob Bowman:
?our difficult) in understanding =how= .esus could be God and recei*e hisnature andIor
authorit) from another is +ust that , it is )our difficult)& 5t is not a logical or biblical dis!roof
of his being God&
Greg Stafford:
') difficult) lies in harmoniAing unbiblical teachings with clear statements of faith& 5t is" in
fact" )our difficult)" for the Bible(s =how= cannot be made to agree with )our =that&=
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
c& Stafford erroneousl) attributes to me a belief that 5 do not hold and a meaning that 5
did not intend when he asserts that 5 use the term =God= to mean =the Godhead
Beingness that is allegedl) shared b) three (!ersons&(= 5 will come bac to this !oint
further below where Stafford(s misconstrual of the trinitarian !osition is further
elaborated& :ere let me tr) to eD!lain that 5 am not at all e;ui*ocating& To clarif)" an) of
the following forms of the first !remise in the first s)llogism will wor for m) !osition to be
sustained:
Greg Stafford:
Rob" )ou ha*e got to be idding& 5 now that )ou ma) not ha*e intended to use the term
=God= as a reference to the di*ine essence" but 5 am !ointing out that )ou" as a
trinitarian" cannot legitimatel) use the term in an) other wa) than of one who shares the
di*ine essence& Thus" to sa)" =maes him God"= without ;ualif)ing what )ou as a
trinitarian mean b) that" is misleading& Of course" )ou missed this !oint&
-BR3#J , 1or more on Bowman(s failure to a!!reciate the !oint made b) Stafford" see
the res!onse b) #l Jidd to Rob Bowman" to which Bowman ne*er re!lied&0
Rob Bowman:
(1a) /hoe*er does what onl) deit) can do" is deit)&
Greg Stafford:
Premise B1: assumed and un!ro*en& B) this 5 mean )ou ha*e assumed a relationshi!
between )our !remise and the !resention of .esus in the Bible& 2ow" a deit) can allow
another to !erform certain functions that heIshe !re*iousl) !erformed" without raising
that !erson to the le*el of deit)& /e are taling about actions" and if a deit) is trul) a
deit)" then allowing another who is not a deit) to imitate what that deit) does" is not hard
to imagine& This a!!lies e;uall) for all the !remises listed below&
Rob Bowman:
(1b) /hoe*er does what onl) #lmight) God can do" is #lmight) God&
Greg Stafford:
Premise B7: assumed and un!ro*en& #gain" )ou ha*e not shown a relationshi! between
)our !remise and the !resentation of .esus in the Bible&
Rob Bowman:
(1c) /hoe*er does what onl) .eho*ah can do" is .eho*ah&
Greg Stafford:
Premise B@: assumed and un!ro*en& #gain" )our !oint in relation to .esus has not been
established&
Rob Bowman:
(1d) /hoe*er does what onl) the 9reator can do" is the 9reator&
Greg Stafford:
Premise BF: assumed and un!ro*en& #gain" )ou ha*e assumed that this a!!lies to
.esus" when such language is nowhere used of him in the Bible&
Rob Bowman:
(1e) /hoe*er does what onl) a member of the Trinit) can do" is a member of the Trinit)&
Greg Stafford:
Premise B6: :ere )ou ha*e assumed a trinitarian relationshi! between .esus and the
1ather that is nowhere articulated in Scri!ture&
Rob Bowman:
These are eDam!les" not an eDhausti*e listG the) illustrate the !oint that no e;ui*ocation
is at wor in the !remise& #nd the same would a!!l) to !remise (F) in the second
s)llogism&
Greg Stafford:
Rob" )ou are e;ui*ocating b) using the term =God= in two different and misleading
senses& ?ou said" =5f .esus has the nature and !rerogati*es of the onl) true God" that
maes him God" howe*er he got that nature and those !rerogati*es&= 5s not the =onl)
true God"= according to classical trinitarianism" a consubstantial Triad< That is" three
!ersons who share the di*ine essence< /hen )ou sa)" =maes him God"= do )ou not
mean =maes him one who shares the di*ine essence=< ?et )ou use the term =God= in
the second instance in an e;uati*e sense as a noun of !ersonal descri!tion& ?ou are
using the word in a sentence that is ambiguous and which does not state the full truth of
)our !osition&
Rob Bowman:
2ow" Stafford is on to something& 5t is true that in the eD!ression =what God can do= the
term =God= 9OH>D be understood to be referring to God as the triune Being !er se& On
the other hand" in the conclusion =is God"= the term =God= ob*iousl) 9#22OT refer to
God as the triune Being !er se (or it would im!l) that .esus is the triune Being rather
than the Son alone)& On this basis" Stafford thins he has caught me in an e;ui*ocation&
But there are at least two !roblems with this argument&
1irst" it reall) amounts to begging the ;uestion& 1or at e*er) turn Stafford can (and
!robabl) doesC) use the same ob+ection to rule out a !riori the trinitarian belief& 5n other
words" sa)ing that =God= cannot be used with these two different connotations (God as
triune" one of the three !ersons as God) reall) amounts to sa)ing that the Trinit) cannot
be true&KK
Greg Stafford:
ThatLs rightC 5 am arguing that the onl) !ro!er use of the term =God"= b) a trinitarian" is in
reference to the !ersons of the Godhead as sharers of the same Beingness& # trinitarian
cannot sim!l) sa)" =.esus is God&= The) mean" =.esus shares the nature of God&= Of
course" )ou ha*e to use it as a noun of !ersonal descri!tion" for that is the onl) sense in
which the Bible uses it& But )ou do not reall) belie*e that an) of the members of the
Trinit) are God" )ou belie*e the) share the essence of God& So )ou ha*e to eD!lain what
)ou mean e*er) time )ou mae such a confession" otherwise )ou will mislead those who
recogniAe the !ro!er use of the word =God= in the Bible" namel)" as a noun of !ersonal
descri!tion& 5t is a title denoting one(s !osition" not the substance of being in which :e is
grounded&
Rob Bowman:
Second" it is not at all necessar) for these two different connotations to be em!lo)ed in
the s)llogisms 5 !resented abo*e& 5n sa)ing" =/hoe*er does what O2>? God can do" is
God"= the term =God= ma) in both instances be used with the same connotation& The fi*e
eD!anded forms of !remise (1) detailed abo*e illustrate the !oint& 1or eDam!le" we might
tae the term =God= in both instances to connote =9reator= (1d)& Or we might understand
the term in both instances to connote sim!l) =.eho*ah= (1c)& Or" alternati*el)" we might
understand the term in both instances to connote =a member of the Trinit)= (1e)& Thus"
Stafford has fallaciousl) mo*ed from the correct understanding that the term =God= in
trinitarian usage 9#2 ha*e two distinct connotations to the erroneous conclusion that
two such distinct connotations 'HST be !resent in the two hal*es of the !remise to m)
argument&
Greg Stafford:
5t a!!ears ;uite clear that )ou did not understand m) !oint& #gain" 5 am arguing that )our
use of =God"= as referring to an)thing but the consubstantial Triad" in )our statement" is
incorrect" misleading" and a teDtboo eDam!le of e;ui*ocation&
Rob Bowman:
d& 5(m not sure what Stafford means when he sa)s that the Bible uses the word =God=
onl) as a =noun of !ersonal descri!tion&= /hate*er !recisel) he means" though" 5 do not
see how it in*alidates m) argument" as eD!ounded abo*e& But 5(ll let Stafford eD!lain
himself& (') guess is that this is a statement he will later want to retract&)
Greg Stafford:
?ou guess wrong& /hat is unclear about m) statement< 5 ha*e articulated m) !oint
enough" and 5 will not go on and on about a matter that has alread) been discussed&
Rob Bowman:
5n .ohn 6:1$" .esus sa)s that he does Monl)M what God does" that he does Me*er)thingM
that God does" and that he does it +ust lie God does it& 5(d sa) that maes .esus GodC
Greg Stafford:
Bowman e;ui*ocates )et again& 5f =God"= according to trinitarians" means a substance of
being shared b) three !ersons" then =God= cannot do an)thingC Bowman here attributes
!ersonalit) to an im!ersonal substance that he belie*es is shared b) three !ersons&
#gain" the word =God= can onl) !ro!erl) be em!lo)ed b) trinitarians as referring to the
Godhead Beingness" which is im!ersonal& Otherwise the) com!romise their *iew of
monotheism& Bowman uses =God= where .ohn 6:1$ uses =1ather&= So Bowman is
carelessl) using =God= as a s)non)m here for the 1ather& #lso" since God sent :is Son
into the world to gi*e his life in our behalf" according to Bowman(s reasoning" .esus
would ha*e to ha*e liewise sent his Son (who might that be" Rob<) to earth to similarl)
gi*e his life in our behalf& Ob*iousl)" when .esus said he does onl) what he sees the
1ather doing" he did not mean for us to tae this as an all,inclusi*e statement" but a
statement in relation to his soteriological and eschatological functions" lie +udging and
raising the dead" both of which are mentioned in the conteDt of .ohn 6:1$&
Rob Bowman:
e& Stafford again insinuates into m) argument an understanding of the Trinit) that 5 do
not hold and for which he has !ro*ided no documentation that it is held b) trinitarians& 5
do 2OT belie*e that there is an =im!ersonal= substance =shared= b) three !ersons& The
triune God is one infinite,!ersonal Being" not an im!ersonal abstract beingness
subdi*ided into three !ersonal entities&
Greg Stafford:
/ho said an)thing about =subdi*ided=< :owe*er" the Trinit) most certainl) does teach a
consubstantial Triad& 5s the =substance= shared b) the three !ersons =!ersonal=<
Rob Bowman:
To assert that =the word (God( can onl) !ro!erl) be em!lo)ed b) trinitarians as referring
to the Godhead Beingness" which is im!ersonal= is to attribute to trinitarians a belief that
we do not hold& 2or is it true that we must define God this wa) to !reser*e our *iew of
monotheism& #s a matter of fact" the re*erse is true& 5f we defined God as an im!ersonal
abstract essence or =beingness= shared b) three indi*idual concrete beings" that would
im!licitl) result in a ind of tritheism&
Greg Stafford:
/hat" then" eDactl)" does the word =God= !ro!erl) denote" in )our *iew& Please articulate
it for us& #lso" where did 5 s!ea of =three indi*idual concrete beings=<
Rob Bowman:
/hether an) trinitarians ha*e e*er defined the doctrine of the Trinit) in the wa) Stafford
does" 5 do not now& But 5 do now that in all m) )ears of stud)ing the doctrine" writing a
boo on it" and discussing it with trinitarians of all denominations" 5 ha*e ne*er
encountered an) trinitarian who defined the doctrine in that wa)& On the other hand" 5
ha*e encountered antitrinitarians who do insist on defining it in this wa)& #nd 5 ha*e read
trinitarians who ha*e eD!licitl) !ointed out that the doctrine should not be misconstrued
in the wa) Stafford misconstrues it& 5 conclude that Stafford has sim!l) bought into a
!o!ular antitrinitarian assum!tion about the doctrine of the Trinit)&
Greg Stafford:
5 conclude )ou are e*ading the !oint& ?ou wrote a boo defending what )ou a!!arentl)
do not understand& Of course" when one reads the earl) wors on trinitarianism" it is
eas) to see wh) a !ro!onent of the doctrine would tr) to a*oid association with its clear
im!lications" if one ho!es to defend it& #fter )ou answer m) ;uestion in the !aragra!h
abo*e )ours" we can !roceed with this thought&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
f& 5t is true that 5 used the term =God"= whereas .ohn 6:1$ actuall) s!eas of the 1ather&
But this was not carelessness on m) !art& 1irst of all" according to .eho*ah(s /itnesses"
the 1ather alone is God" and God is no one but the 1ather& So" according to Stafford(s
theolog)" an argument that assumes an identit) between the 1ather and God should not
be !roblematic&
Greg Stafford:
5t is not !roblematic for me" but for )ou" and that is the !oint 5 was maing&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
>et(s cut to the chase" now& 5 as Greg Stafford" and an) other .eho*ah(s /itness" this
sim!le ;uestion: 5s there an)thing the 1ather does or can do(in relation to creation) that
the Son does not or cannot do< That is" is there an) wor (ad eDtra" as we sa) in
trinitarian theolog)G i&e&" an)thing done outside of God) that the 1ather does that the Son
does not do< 5f so" how does that s;uare with .ohn 6:1$< #nd if not" does that mean
there is nothing that .eho*ah can do that his su!!osedl) created and inferior son .esus
(aa the >ogos" aa 'ichael the #rchangel) cannot also do< KK
Greg Stafford:
Of course& The Son does not create in the same sense that the 1ather does& The 1ather
is the source and the Son is the agent of the 1ather(s creati*e acts& (1 9or& %:8) .ohn
6:1$ sim!l) states that .esus homoios !oiei what the 1ather shows (deinusin) him& 1or"
again" the Son cannot do an)thing of his own *olition& This shows a de!endence on the
1ather that is irreconcilable with trinitarianism" for the teDt does not limit such
de!endence to the Son(s human nature& #dditionall)" the Son does not e*en act in
accordance with his own will& (.ohn 6:@N) :is will is distinct and com!letel) de!endent
u!on the 1ather& #lso" in conteDt" the statement of .ohn 6:1$ seems to be related to the
Son(s soteriological and eschatological functions" some of which in*ol*e raising the dead
(*s& 71) and +udging (*s& 77)& Thus" to mae it an all,inclusi*e statement is not necessar)&
.eho*ah(s trul) created and ;uite inferior Son can onl) do what the 1ather shows him
and wills him to do& Such could hardl) be said of .eho*ahC,,5sa F8:1N,11&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Greg Stafford:
Bowman also fails to note that .esus" in the *er) same *erse to which he refers" states
that he cannot do an)thing of his own initiati*e& 2aturall)" trinitarians tae this in
reference to .esus( fleshl) de!endence on the 1ather" but then should we not tae the
*er) words to which Bowman refers as also referring to his fleshl) state< That is" since
.esus does nothing of his own from his human stand!oint" he must" of necessit)" do
what the 1ather does& #re we to understand" 'r& Bowman" that the words of .ohn 6:1$
deif) .esus( fleshl) nature< Of course" .esus goes on to identif) some of the things he
does in imitation of the 1ather: raising the dead and acting as .udge& But the 1ather still
had to =gi*e= (*s& 77G dedoen) such authorit) to the Son& The Son could not do the
+udging that the 1ather did" unless the 1ather ga*e him that authorit)& See below for
more on this matter of =gi*ing&=
Rob Bowman:
g& /hile the words of .ohn 6:1$ might a!!l) to .esus s!ecificall) in his human state" 5
don(t thin the) need to be limited to that state& 5n an) case" 5 don(t tae .ohn 6:1$ to be
deif)ing .esus( human nature in the abstract" but to be an affirmation of the deit) of the
P3RSO2 of the Son who at that time had (and still does ha*e" in orthodoD theolog))
human nature& The incarnate Son could do nothing on his own" and the incarnate Son
could do and did do e*er)thing the 1ather did& There is no !roblem here for the orthodoD
!osition&
Greg Stafford:
There is a huge !roblem here for the =orthodoD !osition"= and it is onl) further
com!licated b) )our re!l)& There are 1N7 words in the abo*e !aragra!h" and )et )ou fail
to address the !oint& 5 will as again" to what nature does .ohn 6:1$ a!!l)< The !erson
of the Son" according to )ou" !ossesses two natures" so )ou cannot a*oid the ;uestion&
5f it a!!lies to =the P3RSO2 of the Son"= then it must a!!l) to one or both of his natures&
/ell< /as the Son(s deit) so de!endent on the 1ather that the Son" as a di*ine !erson"
had to imitate the 1ather" onl) after the 1ather re*ealed his will to the di*ine !erson of
the Son< Or" did the Son in his humanit) imitate the 1ather(s actions" so that )ou would
then be forced to either deif) his humanit) or acce!t that the imitation is not that which
!laces the Son on !ar with the 1ather in =all he does=<
Rob Bowman:
2o orthodoD trinitarian has e*er dreamed that the Son could do an)thing on his own"
a!art from the 1ather&
Greg Stafford:
#nd" of course" )ou are referring onl) to his humanit)" right< :ow con*enient& But )ou
still ha*e not addressed the !roblem 5 outlined abo*e& Please tr) to sta) focused on the
!oint at hand" so we do not become o*erl) word) in our discussion" as our readers are
liel) tr)ing to follow along and glean the e) !oints& /e don(t need a lesson in
obfuscation&
Rob Bowman:
#n)one who suggests otherwise is either ignorant of trinitarian theolog)" or dishonest&
Greg Stafford:
:ow is this rele*ant here< 5 am asing )ou a ;uestion about the matter& 5 clearl)
recogniAe the loo!hole trinitarians wrongl) mae in a!!l)ing the Son(s de!endenc) to his
human nature" so can )ou sim!l) deal with the issue of whether or not the words under
discussion a!!l) to his human or di*ine nature<
Rob Bowman:
The Son is not an inde!endent deit)" off doing his own thingG he is the Son" woring
alwa)s in union with the 1ather" alwa)s acting to bring glor) to the 1ather&
Greg Stafford:
#gain" let(s sa*e s!ace and deal with the issues& The Son is ;uite de!endent u!on the
1ather" and that is the *er) !oint 5 am raising against )our teachingC 5 contend that this
de!endence is nowhere limited to his human nature" and that )ou are !la)ing fast and
loose with .ohn 6:1$ and other teDts" choosing which !ortions )ou want to a!!l) to his
human nature and which !ortions )ou want to a!!l) to his di*ine nature" when the Bible
maes no such distinction&
Rob Bowman:
That the 1ather =ga*e= authorit) to .esus to raise and +udge the dead is not a !roblem
for our !osition , it is a !roblem for )ours&
Greg Stafford:
5t is a !roblem for )ou when it comes to answering this ;uestion: /as the Son(s human
nature gi*en this authorit)" or his di*ine nature<
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
On )our *iew" .ohn 6 a!!arentl) means that .eho*ah God has delegated all +udgment to
a finite creature& /orse" he did so in order that e*er)one would honor that finite creature
+ust as the) honor .eho*ah God himself (**& 77,7@)&
Greg Stafford:
#nd here )ou assume that being a =finite= creature somehow maes one unworth) to
recei*e the !ower to +udge& /h) don(t )ou show that from the Bible" Rob< #s for the
honor gi*en to the Son" since he is now .udge" we must honor him as we would honor
the 1ather as .udge" for such authorit) has now been delegated to the Son& /ould an
infinite being need to be gi*en authorit) to +udge< Of course" if )ou here sa) it is 9hrist(s
humanit) that is gi*en the authorit)" then )ou contradict )ourself" for then )ou would be
suggesting that a finite creature was gi*en =all authorit) to +udgment=C /ell<
Rob Bowman:
/rangle all )ou want about the !recise nuance of athos (=+ust as=)" the !oint still comes
through clearl) if one reads the whole !aragra!h instead of dissecting it according to
!reconcei*ed theological biases&
Greg Stafford:
#nd +ust where did 5 =wrangle= about =the !recise nuance of athos=< 'a)be )ou should
wait until )ou hear m) argument before )ou offer a re!l)& /e must honor the Son as
.udge +ust as we honor the 1ather" and that is the conteDt of the statement in .ohn 6:7@&
Of course" 5 could certainl) a!!eal to the different nuances of athos" but it is not
necessar)& The role of .udge is directl) related to the honor !aid to the Son" as is
manifest in the hina clause of *erse 7@&
Rob Bowman:
On the trinitarian *iew" .esus had to be =gi*en= that authorit) because he had taen the
!ath of self,humiliation and self,denial in order to redeem us (see further below)& #gain"
the gi*enness of his di*ine authorit) does not detract from the fact that it is indeed di*ine
authorit)& The !erson who will be maing the life and death decisions for e*er) human
being for all eternit) will be , .esusC :e will decide if )ou will li*e eternall) or not& :e will
decide who will be sa*ed and who will not& :e has the !ower to gi*e eternal life" or to
withhold it& Biblicall)" theologicall)" and !ersonall)" that maes him =m) >ord and m)
God= (.ohn 7N:7%)&
Greg Stafford:
5 understand that" Rob" but )ou are a!!arentl) unaware of what 5 am sa)ing& The Son in
his di*init) could not be gi*en this authorit)" could he< 2o" for if that di*init) is infinite"
and it is" according to )ou" then it would alread) ha*e the authorit) to +udge& But if the
Son in his humanit) is gi*en what )ou sa) is =di*ine authorit)"= then how can )ou then
argue that the Son has a de!endence u!on the 1ather as to his humanit)" when that
humanit) now has di*ine authorit)< 5 ha*e no !roblem calling .esus m) >ord and m)
God" in the ;ualified sense in which the Bible !resents him as a di*ine being& But
Thomas ma) not ha*e addressed .esus as such (see m) boo for details)& ?ou are the
one who has the !roblem" for neither Thomas nor an) other Bible !ersonage uses the
term =God= in a manner consistent with trinitarianism& ?et" )ou and others a!!eal to
these *erses as if the) su!!ort )our theolog)C
Rob Bowman:
The !erson who will be maing the life and death decisions for e*er) human being for all
eternit) will be , .esusC
Greg Stafford:
?esC #nd that is because the 1ather ga*e him that authorit)G this authorit) is not original
to him& /e are" of course" grateful to ha*e such a merciful and glorious +udge" who will
mae decisions and act in such a wa) as to bring glor) to his God and 1ather&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
5n .ohn 18:1@ .esus said something about the :ol) S!irit *er) similar to what he said
about himself in .ohn 6:1$& =:e will not s!ea on his own" but whate*er he hears he will
s!ea&= Ob*iousl)" this has nothing to do with the :ol) S!irit being in a human state"
since the :ol) S!irit did not become flesh& 5t has to do" rather" with the :ol) S!irit not
acting inde!endentl) of the 1ather (or of the Son" in the immediate conteDt) but s!eaing
on behalf of the 1ather (andIor the Son)& But now we encounter what a!!ears to me to
be some serious difficulties for the /atchtower *iew& KK
Greg Stafford:
2ot so fast" Rob& The hol) s!irit does not sa)" ='ost trul) 5 sa) to )ou" -50 cannot do a
single thing of -m)0 own initiati*e&= (.ohn 6:1$) #gain" is this related to .esus( human or
di*ine =state=< The hol) s!irit is not said to ha*e been gi*en the authorit) to +udge&
Rob Bowman:
(i) Since in .ohn 6:1$ the one who does not act on his own is ob*iousl) a !erson" one
would eD!ect that the same language used in .ohn 18:1@ would also a!!l) to a !erson&
(The im!ression is reinforced and confirmed b) se*eral other features of the teDt: the
term !neuma in the 2T customaril) refers to !ersons" the S!irit here is said to =hear= and
=s!ea"= and so forth&) But the /atchtower teaches that the :ol) S!irit is an im!ersonal
force&
Greg Stafford:
5 am more than ha!!) to discuss )our misunderstanding of this matter" but 5 !refer to
finish the discussion at hand& 5 can understand )our desire to do so" but 5 do not care
much for Bible ho!scotch& /e are discussing the Son(s relationshi! with the 1ather *is,
O,*is the Godhead Beingness the) allegedl) share" and how this relationshi! is
harmoniAed with statements such as those found in .ohn 6:78& Please tr) to sta)
focused on the sub+ect under discussion& #gain" we(ll get to )our *iew of the hol) s!irit
soon enough&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Bowman:
7& The doctrine of the Trinit) teaches that the Son was =eternall) begotten= b) the 1ather"
that is" that the Son is in some (admittedl) unfathomable) wa) d)namicall) related to the
1ather as his Son& This doctrine is based on the 2T teaching that .esus 9hrist has
alwa)s been the Son (e&g&" .ohn 1:1,7" 1F" 1%G 9ol& 1:1@,1PG :eb& 1:7)&
Greg Stafford:
5n the abo*e teDts" or an)where else in the Bible for that matter" one will search in *ain
for the words" =.esus 9hrist has alwa)s been the Son&= #lso" )ou will ne*er encounter
the words or the conce!t of =eternal generation= in the Bible& :ere we ha*e an eDam!le
of a later doctrinal de*elo!ment read bac into the teDt of the Bible" in order to su!!ort a
doctrinal !resu!!osition& The Bible fre;uentl) uses terms that denote a distinction in
terms of age" such as =1ather= and =Son"= but ne*er do we find the Bible writers
articulating an understanding of these and other terms that would cause us to thin the)
are using them in a sense different from that of the e*er)da) meaning associated with
these terms in Bible times" in terms of tem!oral !riorit)" and certain filial associations&
Rob Bowman:
There are se*eral reasons wh) we would" in fact" conclude that .esus is called God(s
=Son= in a wa) that *aries from that term(s =e*er)da) meaning"= and s!ecificall) that it
does not im!l) that .esus(s sonshi! was a tem!oral" created sonshi!& 5 ha*e detailed
se*en such reasons in m) boo /h) ?ou Should Belie*e in the Trinit): #n #nswer to
.eho*ah(s /itnesses (Grand Ra!ids: Baer" 1$%$)" %6,%8&
5n .ohn 1:1,@" the a!ostle tells us that the /ord eDisted in the beginning and that all
tem!oral things owe their eDistence to him& See m) boo .eho*ah(s /itnesses" .esus
9hrist" and the Gos!el of .ohn (Grand Ra!ids: Baer" 1$%$)" 7N,7F" for a defense of the
eternit) of the /ord in .ohn 1:1&
Greg Stafford:
?ou are wrong" and 5 !ro*ide reasons for *iewing )our argument as incorrect in m) boo"
.eho*ahLs /itnesses Defended: #n #nswer to Scholars and 9ritics& See 9ha!ter P for
details&
Bowman:
5n .ohn 1:@" .ohn sa)s eD!licitl) that e*er)thing that =came to be= (that is" all tem!oral
things) did so through the creati*e agenc) of the /ord&
Greg Stafford:
Once again )ou assume that which )ou ha*e )et to !ro*e& 5s this going to be a
reoccurring theme in )our writings< Please show us" from the Bible" that !anta refers to
=all tem!oral things&=
Bowman:
Therefore" once again" the /ord is eternal&
Greg Stafford:
1rom false !remises will come false conclusions& .ohn 1:1 sa)s nothing about the /ord
being eternal" but that he eDisted with God (not the 1ather" mind )ou) in the beginning"
that is" the beginning of Genesis 1:1" where the creation of all tem!oral !h)sical things
came into being& 5 belie*e the o!ening words of .ohn 1:1 are !ur!osefull) the !recise
words used in the >QQ of Genesis 1:1& Genesis 1" of course" articulates the creation of
the !h)sical uni*erse&
Rob Bowman:
Then" *erses 1F and 1% mae it clear that this /ord was the Son before he became
human (a fact with which the .eho*ah(s /itnesses agree) and that the /ord,Son is the
same !erson who we now now as .esus (again" the .eho*ah(s /itnesses agree)& Thus"
5 assert that .ohn 1:1,@" 1F teaches that .esus has alwa)s been the Son&
Greg Stafford:
?es" we now that is what )ou assert" Rob" but the Bible maes no such assertion&
Rob Bowman:
9olossians 1:1@,1P s!eas s!ecificall) of God(s belo*ed =Son= (*& 1@b)& 5t sa)s of him
that all things were created in" through" and for him (*& 18)" that he is before all things (*&
1Pa)" and that all things cohere or consist" are held together or sustained" in him (*& 1Pb)&
'uch the same things are said about the Son in :ebrews 1:7,@& Thus" these teDts also
su!!ort the assertion that .esus has alwa)s been God(s Son&
Greg Stafford:
5 belie*e )ou left out the *er) tem!oral designation =1irstborn= from 9ol& 1:16" and the
also tem!oral descri!tion of the Son as the charater tes hu!ostaseos autou& (:eb& 1:@)
This maes it e*er so clear that the Son is not as old as the One of whom he is a
charater& #nd" of course" this is referring to his !rehuman state" the one through whom
God made the ages& #n) !articular reason )ou neglected to highlight these as!ects of
the *erses to which )ou referred" Rob<
Rob Bowman:
1ar from reading a later doctrinal de*elo!ment bac into teDts" 5 am reiterating the
biblical teaching that dro*e the earl) church !recisel) to de*elo! those doctrinal ideas&
Greg Stafford:
Reall)< /ell" when are )ou going to reference the =biblical teaching= that )ou are
=reiterating=< #ll )ou ha*e done so far is refer to sections of Scri!ture that contain
descri!tions of the Son that are irreconcilable with trinitarianism&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
5n this sense it is eternall) true that the Son recei*es his nature and authorit) from the
1ather& One might read .ohn 6:78 in this sense assa)ing that .esus eternall) recei*ed
self,eDistent life from the 1ather in his eternal generation&
Greg Stafford:
One might read it an)wa) one wishes" but that does not maes one(s reading accurate&
There is nothing about eternall) recei*ing an)thingC #gain" Bowman inter!rets the teDt in
light of later" !ost,biblical theolog)& #lso" the idea of recei*ing life =eternall)= is a
contradiction in itself& 5f he recei*ed it" it is not something he had =eternall)"= and there is
no +ustification for such a *iew in Scri!ture& The Bible sa)s the Son was =gi*en life&= (.oh
6:78) .esus acnowledges that he Rli*es because of the 1ather&( (.oh 8:6P) These two
statements are consistent with some of the ideas commonl) associated with the
relationshi! between =1ather= and =Son"= in biblical times& 5f )ou are looing for
straightforward teDts around which to build )our doctrine" these two *erses are not a bad
!lace to start& The) are certainl) much better than reading the teDt and tr)ing to mae it
fit with !ost,biblical theolog)&
Rob Bowman:
a& Stafford once again begs the ;uestion& B) asserting that one cannot recei*e
something eternall)" what he is reall) sa)ing is that" no matter what the Bible sa)s" the
doctrine of eternal Sonshi! can(t be true because it seems contradictor)&
Greg Stafford:
2ow )our arguments are dis!la)ing considerable weaness& /here do 5 sa)" =no matter
what the Bible sa)s=< ?ou are the one who has assumed that which )ou ha*e )et to
!ro*e" while 5 am sim!l) !ointing out that the Bible does not teach an inherentl)
contradictor) doctrine lie =eternal generation&= 2o< ?ou belie*e it does< Then !oint us
to those sections of scri!ture where such a teaching is clearl) articulated& Of course" it is
not until hundreds of )ears later that we meet with this idea of =eternal generation"= and it
is sur!rising that so man) trintitarians cling to it when it is found nowhere in the Bible"
and when it in*ol*es conce!ts that contradict one another&
Rob Bowman:
This is the reasoning of a se!tic" not of a Bible,belie*ing 9hristian& Sorr) to be so blunt"
but it(s true , and it(s been true of .eho*ah(s /itnesses all along" beginning with 9harles
TaAe Russell himself&
Greg Stafford:
?ou are ;uite the card" Rob (sorr) to be so blunt)& # Bible,belie*ing 9hristian is not one
who is du!ed into acce!ting ideas and !hiloso!hies that are not in an) wa)" sha!e" or
form grounded in Scri!ture& =3ternal generation=< ?ou ha*e go to be idding& /hen )ou
!ro*ide e*idence for such a *iew from Scri!ture" 5 will begin to tae )ou more seriousl)&
Hntil then" )ou are sim!l) reading later theolog) bac into the Bible" in order to su!!ort
)our !reconcei*ed *iew of what the Bible teaches&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
Russell re+ected 9hristianit) until he found out that some !eo!le had figured out a wa) to
acce!t the Bible without ha*ing to belie*e those incom!rehensible doctrines of the Trinit)
and hell& Thus" the /atchtower religion is founded ultimatel) on an unbelie*ing s!irit , =5
won(t belie*e if it 5 can(t mae sense of it&= See further m) Hnderstanding .eho*ah(s
/itnesses: /h) The) Read the Bible the /a) The) Do (Grand Ra!ids: Baer" 1$$1)"
P6,%F&
Greg Stafford:
?ou are wa) off the mar" and 5 ha*e made a!!eal onl) to the fact that )our *iews are
not founded u!on Scri!ture" and the) are inherentl) contradictor)& ?ou ha*e no idea wh)
we =read the Bible the wa) we do&= ?ou don(t e*en realiAe wh) )ou read the Bible the
wa) )ou do: ?ou are forced to reconcile later theolog) with the Bible" regardless of how
)ou bend it" less )ou bear the brand of heretic&
Rob Bowman:
b& 5f we understand .esus to be s!eaing of his !ossessing =life in himself= e*en before
becoming a human" then in light of .ohn 1:1,F we will ha*e to understand it to refer to
the 1ather =gi*ing= the Son self,eDistent life before creation& 5n light of a !ro!er eDegesis
of .ohn 1" as alread) discussed briefl)" this =gi*ing= occurs be)ond s!ace and time"
because 9hrist alread) has it when time begins&
Greg Stafford:
#nother un!ro*en assum!tion (this is getting ridiculousC)" which 5 refute in m) boo& .ohn
1:1 sa)s nothing about =be)ond s!ace and time"= but it is onl) b) reading these thoughts
into the teDt that one can ho!e to reconcile the trinitarian *iew of .esus with later
theolog)& The 1ather ga*e the Son life" and that is all we are told in .ohn 6:78& There is
no ;ualification made" and no mention of =be)ond s!ace and time&= :istoricall)"
trinitarians ha*e been forced into the role of =eisegete"= for the Bible" as it stands" cannot
su!!ort their teachings&
Rob Bowman:
This leads directl) to the idea of an eternal gi*ing of self,eDistent life from the 1ather to
the Son" which is what is meant b) eternal generation& Thus" once again" 5 am not
reading later theolog) bac into .ohn" but reiterating the teaching of .ohn that led the
church later to formulate their theolog)&
Greg Stafford:
(C) #ll )ou ha*e done and continue to do is read later theolog) into the teDt and add
words and conce!ts that are not all at found in the !assages )ou reference& =3ternal
gi*ing=C /here is that in the Bible< /e ha*e the gi*ing" and )ou ee! tr)ing to read the
=eternal= into the teDt" but it +ust is not there& 5 guess the faith teachers( *iews are not to
be condemned" for the) hardl) attem!t to read more into the Bible than trinitariansC
Rob Bowman:
c& /hich teDts seem =straightforward= will" notoriousl)" de!end on wha tdoctrinal
assum!tions one has alread) nailed down as fiDed !oints of reference& .ohn 6:78 and
8:6P are fine teDts" and the) should be taen seriousl) (and are) b) trinitarians" but the)
don(t gi*e a straightforward" direct answer to the ;uestion" =5s .esus God<= or =:as
.esus eDisted eternall)<=
Greg Stafford:
Some teDts are clear enough that the) re;uire little if an) inter!retation& :owe*er"
ambiguous teDts should alwa)s be inter!reted in light of clearer !assages& Trinitarians
do not tae .ohn 6:78" 8:6P seriousl)& 5nstead" the)" as is e*ident b) )our eDam!le" read
them in light of later theolog) in order to bring them into agreement with their beliefs&
Rather" the) should bring their beliefs into agreement with the teDts& #gain )ou use the
term =God= ina!!ro!riatel) for a trinitarian" for )ou reall) mean to as" =5s .esus
grounded in the di*ine essence of God<= .ohn 6:78 and 8:6P are two teDts that stand in
direct contradiction to the Trinit)& 5f .esus was gi*en life" then he did not alwa)s ha*e it"
and therefore did not alwa)s eDist& 5f he did not ha*e life" he could not ha*e been
eternall) grounded in a substance of Being shared b) other =!ersons&=
Rob Bowman:
5 find much more direct answers to the first ;uestion in such teDts as .ohn 1:1G 7N:7%G
Rom& $:6G Titus 7:1@G 7 Peter 1:1G :ebrews 1:%G 1
.ohn 6:7NG and to the second ;uestion in such teDts as .ohn 1:1G %:6%G 9ol&
1:18,1PG :eb& 1:7,@" 1N,17&
Greg Stafford:
2one of the abo*e teDts can be harmoniAed with the tenets of trinitarianism" and all of
them argue negati*el) against both the first and second ;uestions& See m) boo for
more details&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
@& The doctrine of the 5ncarnation teaches that the Son became a man and as such was
God incarnate (based" e&g&" on .ohn 1:1" 1FG 7N:7%G 9ol&7:$)&
Greg Stafford:
/hile the doctrine of the 5ncarnation ma) teach that" the Bible does not& The Bible
teaches that .esus =became= flesh (.ohn 1:1F)G he did not =clothe= himself" or =*eil= his
di*init)& :e ga*e it u! (Phil& 7:P)" showing true humilit) (Phil& 7:@,6)&
Rob Bowman:
2otice once again that Stafford uses language to describe m) !osition that 5 m)self ha*e
not used&
Greg Stafford:
5 use the terms that are commonl) gi*en b) those who embrace the doctrine of the
5ncarnation& 5f )ou do not agree" then sa) so&
Rob Bowman:
5n an) case" the ;uestion is whether" when .esus became a man" he remained who and
what he was before becoming a man& Surel) the answer to that ;uestion must be ?es&
Greg Stafford:
This is getting old" fastC Please !ro*e what )ou here assert as true&
Rob Bowman:
:e was the Son of God beforeG he was the Son of God on earth" in the flesh (e&g&" .ohn
1:1F" 1%G @:18G Rom& %:@7G 1 .ohn @:%G F:$)&
Greg Stafford:
:e will alwa)s be the Son of God for nothing can erase this as a historical fact& But this
does not im!l) that he would ha*e to retain the same nature throughout his eDistence&
Rob Bowman:
The man who !resented his wounded hands and side to Thomas for ins!ection was
Thomas(s >ord and God (.ohn 7N:7P,7%)& 2ow that(s 5ncarnationC
Greg Stafford:
2o" that(s an un!ro*en assum!tionC 1irst" we are dealing with a !ost,resurrection
a!!earance and so .esus is no longer flesh" but has become a =life,gi*ing s!irit= (1 9or&
16:F6) and has manifested himself in human form" much the same wa) angels did in the
!ast" when the) sat down and ate a meal with >ot& Second" it is not clear that Thomas
intended for .esus to be called =God= in this *erse" but e*en if he did it would be in the
;ualified sense in which the Bible refers to .esus as theos: There is one who is God to
him&,,.ohn 7N:1P&
Rob Bowman:
9olossians 7:$" about which Stafford said nothing here" eD!licitl) sa)s that .esus 9hrist
has the fulness of deit) dwelling in him bodil)& 5 thin Stafford is o*erl) dismissi*e here&
On Phili!!ians 7:@,6" see /h) ?ou Should Belie*e in the Trinit)" 1N1,@&
Greg Stafford:
#nd if an)one has an) ;uestions about !ages 1N1,1N@ in /h) ?ou Should" +ust as& #s
for 9ol& 7:$" Bowman fails to recogniAe that 9hrist(s own fullness is contingent u!on the
1ather(s willC (9ol& 1:1$) Thus" once again we see that 9hrist is not eternal" for he has
not alwa)s had the *er) fullness that constitutes him a godC Of course" anointed
9hristians will also !ossess this fullness" according to 9ol& 7:1N& 1or more on 9ol& 7:$"
see m) boo" !ages 7F,7P&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
#s such" .esus in his incarnate state had =life in himself&= Since the Son was sent to be
our redeemer b) the 1ather" .esus in .ohn 6:78 might ha*e been sa)ing that the 1ather
had willed that .esus" the MincarnateM Son" should embod) self,eDistent life in himself&
Greg Stafford:
H!on rereading the teDt" we find no such teaching in .ohn 6:78& .esus maes no such
;ualification of the life he was gi*en& :e sim!l) sa)s that as the 1ather has life" so :e
has gi*en life to the Son&
Rob Bowman:
2ot +ust life" but =life in himself&= #gain" what is said here needs to be correlated with
.ohn 1:1,F" among other !assages in .ohn&
Greg Stafford:
2o !roblem& But the conclusion is the same: .esus was gi*en life in himself& 5n what
other wa) could he be gi*en life than for that life to dwell in him< 5t is not some tangible"
eDternal !roduct&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
5n an) case" =life in himself= is a descri!tion of the Son(s nature& That is what he is& .ohn
tells us that =in him was life= (.ohn 1:F)" that is" e*en before he became incarnate&
Greg Stafford:
?es" in him was life& But the !oint we are maing is he was gi*en that life& .ohn 6:78
does not sa) when he was gi*en that life& #gain" the sim!le truth is that the life .esus
has in himself was gi*en to him b) the 1ather& Thus" he did not alwa)s !ossess that life&
Rob Bowman:
#gain" Stafford is assuming what he needs to !ro*e , that the 1ather(s =gi*ing= life to the
Son im!lies that the Son recei*ed it tem!orall)&
Greg Stafford:
There is no other meaning one can deri*e from a sim!l) reading and a!!reciation of the
term =gi*e&= Hnless the Bible articulates the word =gi*e= in such a wa) as to restrict its
meaning and !lace in some non,tem!oral categor)" we are not at libert) to dissociate its
inherentl) tem!oral connotationsC Of course" )ou ha*e to" for otherwise )our theolog)
crumbles& But" it is )ou who ha*e once again assumed that which )ou ha*e )et to !ro*e&
5 assume that the word is used with its normal meaning (for 5 ha*e no reason to belie*e it
is not)" while )ou assume that it is used in a sense that is nowhere articulated or
demonstrated in Scri!ture&
Rob Bowman:
Po! ;uiA: 5f a tem!oral father gi*es tem!oral life to his son" what ind of life does an
eternal 1ather gi*e to his one true Son<
Greg Stafford:
:e gi*es the same ind of life that :e =gi*es to all !ersons= (#cts 1P:76)" being as :e is
the =source of life&= (Ps @8:$) >ife is ne*er s!oen of in the Bible as something that
carries with it the age of the One who ga*e it&
Po! ;uiA: 5f God gi*es life to another" :is true Son" wh) is he the Son if no difference in
age se!arates them< :ow is it a gi*ing of life if the Son has alwa)s had life<
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
F& The doctrine of the 5ncarnation teaches that the Son humbled himself to become the
1ather(s ser*ant as a man (Phil& 7:8)& #s such 9hrist had !laced himself *oluntaril) in a
!osition of ser*itude in which he did not eDalt himself but recei*ed eDaltation from the
1ather in his resurrection and ascension (Phil& 7:$,11G cf& :eb& 6:6)& This is wh) 9hrist
could be =gi*en= all authorit) in the uni*erse ('att& 7%:1%)& /hat he was gi*en alread)
rightl) belonged to him" but in order to redeem us 9hrist too the !ath of humilit)& The
glor) that he recei*ed in the resurrection and ascension was actuall) the glor) that he
alread) had before the world was created (.ohn 1P:6)&
Greg Stafford:
Suestion: /as 9hrist(s deit) or humanit) gi*en =all authorit)=< #lso" Bowman assumes
that what 9hrist was gi*en =alread) belonged to him&= But the Bible does not sa) this&
Dwelling in glor) with the 1ather does not i!so facto means he had =all authorit)&= #t
least the Bible does not s!ea in such terms&
Rob Bowman:
The answer to Stafford(s ;uestion is" neither: 9hrist the P3RSO2 was gi*en authorit)G it
was not gi*en to his humanit) or his deit) !er se" but to the !erson who was now
!ermanentl) both deit) and glorified humanit)&
Greg Stafford:
1ine& Then 9hrist the =P3RSO2= was gi*en that which he did not alread) !ossess& But if
the =P3RSO2= of 9hrist was gi*en it" then one or both of his =natures= had to be gi*en it&
#lso" if 9hrist has two natures" and one nature is" sa)" omniscient (his di*ine nature)"
and his human nature is finite in terms of nowledge" then )ou ha*e two centers of
consciousness" and thus two !ersons& ?ou den) this" but there is no wa) around it other
than to den) realit)& /hen ased to eD!lain it" well" the m)ster) is usuall) in*oed and
the dialogue ends& 5t(s no m)ster)" Rob" it is unbiblical&
Rob Bowman:
There(s no =assuming= on m) !art about 9hrist alread) ha*ing the authorit)& Does
'atthew 7%:1% mean that 9hrist did not ha*e all authorit) before his resurrection< /ell"
consider this: 5n 'atthew 11:7P .esus asserts" =#ll things :#43 B332 -not =will be=0
handed o*er to me b) m) 1ather&= So" when did this ha!!en" if it did not ha!!en at his
resurrection<
Greg Stafford:
The Bible does not !ro*ide an eDact =da)= when these things were gi*en to 9hristG it
sim!l) tells us the) were gi*en to him& So )our !oint is meaningless in a discussion
concerning what was in fact gi*en to 9hrist& #lso" the !recise time he was gi*en the
authorit) need not be considered the same time he began to eDercise that authorit)&
Rob Bowman:
') statement about 9hrist recei*ing glor) he had !re*iousl) before creation (.ohn 1P:6)
was meant as a further illustration of the fact that 9hrist =recei*ing= something or being
=gi*en= something does not necessaril) mean he didn(t ha*e it before&
Greg Stafford:
#nd )ou are wrong" for =glor)= can be that which is grounded in 9hrist(s own !rehumanl)
eDisting di*ine form (Phil& 7:8,P)" or =glor)= can be the !raise and honor that comes as a
result of the 1ather(s eDaltation of the Son& (Phil& 7:11) The glor) 9hrist had before he
came to earth is not the same as that which he will recei*e when e*er) nee bends and
e*er) tongue confesses him as >ord" to his God and 1ather(s glor)" for the glor) he
recei*es as an a!!ointed >ord in*ol*es the !raise that comes from humanind" and this
was not the case with the glor) he owned in his !rehuman state" for the world of
humanind did not then eDist&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
6& Se*eral of the eDalted titles .esus has are said in one !lace or another to be gi*en to
him after he alread) had them& 1or eDam!le" Peter sa)s after .esus( resurrection that
God has =made= .esus both >ord and 9hrist (#cts 7:@8) ,, but he was alread) both (e&g&"
>ue 7:11)&
Greg Stafford:
/here does Peter sa) he was made >ord after his resurrection< :e sim!l) states that
God made .esus =>ord= and =9hrist= in the course of his con*ersation with the .ews& Did
God mae .esus =9hrist= after his resurrection<
Rob Bowman:
a& That wasn(t eDactl) what 5 said& 5 said that after 9hrist(s resurrection Peter said what
he said& 5n fact 5 don(t thin God made .esus >ord or 9hrist for the first time at or after
his resurrection& /hat 5 thin Peter is clearl) sa)ing in the conteDt" though" is that in or
b) his resurrection and eDaltation to the right hand of God (#cts 7:@@)" .esus was shown
to be both >ord and 9hrist (*& @8)&
Greg Stafford:
Then )ou are wasting our time and failing to mae )our !oint" for )ou were attem!ting to
demonstrate how something can be gi*en to someone" e*en though that !erson alread)
owns =it&= Showing someone to be something has no business in a discussion
concerning the meaning and true im!ort of gi*ing something to someone for the first
time&
Rob Bowman:
:is language" though" if !ressed the wa) ?OH !ress other teDts that s!ea of .esus
being gi*en something or made something" would im!l) that .esus did not become >ord
or 9hrist until he was raised and eDalted& #nd that is eD!licitl) contrar) to Scri!ture&
Greg Stafford:
(<C<) 5 don(t now when )ou t)!ed this" but ma) 5 suggest that )ou do not do so late at
night and that )ou gi*e careful thought to what )ou sa)" before )ou sa) it< 5 mean" there
is no rush to !ut u! a re!l) +ust so )ou can thin" =/ell" 5 re!lied&= Substance counts&
2ow" how in the world does his language" =if !ressed"= =im!l) that .esus did not become
>ord or 9hrist until he was raised and eDalted=< 5 +ust got through telling )ou that the teDt
sa)s nothing about when this was done" but merel) that it was done at some !oint& 5f )ou
continue to ignore what 5 sa) and reiterate the same thing that 5 +ust addressed" then this
is sim!l) an eDercise in futilit)& #ctuall)" 5 thin )ou see the !roblem )our =logic= !resents
)ou with" and now )ou are bacing off& 5f not" then deal with the issueG do not sim!l)
re!eat the !oint 5 alread) considered&
Rob Bowman:
Thus" 5 am arguing that )ou should not !ress such language to !ro*e that 9hrist(s deit)
or authorit) are tem!oral and inferior when the Bible clearl) sa)s otherwise&
Greg Stafford:
?es" 5 now that is what )ou want" Rob" but )our arguments fail to mae )our !oint" and
so )ou are left in with the same !roblem: The Bible uses tem!oral language with regard
to the authorit)" life" and nature (di*ine fullness) that the Son !ossesses&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
Paul sa)s that .esus was =a!!ointed= as God(s Son b) his resurrection from the dead
(Rom& 1:F) ,, but .esus was alread) God(s Son when he li*ed and died in the flesh
(Rom& %:@)& These eDam!les (more could be =gi*en=C) show that 9hrist(s eDaltation was
actuall) the 1ather showing to the world that .esus was the di*ine Son and >ord and
now called on the world to confess .esus as such&
Greg Stafford:
The word =son= is used in se*eral conteDts with slightl) different connotations& .esus was
the Son of God before coming to earth because he was gi*en life b) the 1ather&
Similarl)" he is God(s son b) means of a resurrection" for at that time God once again
ga*e .esus life& #lso" Romans 1:7N sa)s .esus was designated (horisthentos) God(s
Son b) means of the resurrection" so it ma) sim!l) be that .esus( sonshi! was
recogniAed at the time of his resurrection& :owe*er" Paul(s use of Psalm 7:P in #cts
1@:@@ seems to indicate that it is the life .esus recei*ed at his resurrection that allowed
him to be designated =God(s Son&= Therefore" the eD!ression =God(s Son= used in
different conteDts does not su!!ort the assum!tion Bowman maes that God bestows
titles on .esus that he alread) had& #lso" if .esus had a title !rior to the world(s or our
recognition of it" this would not !ro*ide a useful !arallel to our discussion of .ohn 6:78"
which s!eas of =life= being gi*ing to .esus" not a title&
Rob Bowman:
b& The fact that the title =Son of God= has =slightl) different connotations= in different
conteDts does not change the fact that this is an eDam!le of a title that God bestowed on
.esusKK
Greg Stafford:
Did 5 sa) it did< 5 am sim!l) !ointing out that this title" with different connotations" can be
gi*en to .esus on different occasions" in accordance with the !articular connotations
intended at a gi*en timeIe*ent&
Rob Bowman:
/hile m) !oint about titles is not directl) !ertinent to the eD!ression =life in himself= .ohn
6:78" it is !ertinent as a re!l) to 'ar Ross" who had asserted that .esus recei*ed
authorit) and therefore could not ha*e alread) had it& Since .esus( di*ine titles are
eD!ressi*e of his di*ine authorit)" m) !oint about .esus( titles is rele*ant to answering
'ar(s argument&
Greg Stafford:
2ot reall)" for )our eDam!les do not mae )our !oint& But 5 belie*e 'ar(s ;uestion
!rimaril) related to .ohn 6:78&
Rob Bowman:
5 thin Stafford means Romans 1:F" not Romans 1:7N&
Greg Stafford:
?es" 5 did& Than )ou for the correction&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
8& There is one Scri!ture that" in a sense" s!eas of the 1ather recei*ing authorit)& 5n 1
9orinthians 16:7F" Paul sa)s that at the Rob Bowman:
8& There is one Scri!ture that" in a sense" s!eas of the 1ather recei*ing authorit)& 5n 1
9orinthians 16:7F" Paul sa)s that at the end" 9hrist =deli*ers u! the ingdom to the God
and 1ather&= So here we find 9hrist in a sense gi*ing the 1ather the ingdom (a word
!erha!s better translated =ingshi!"= that is" ro)al authorit))& Of course" that does not
mean that the 1ather was not alread) in !ossession of ingdom authorit) o*er all
creation& But there will be a sense in which 9hrist !resents to the 1ather a reconciled
new creation that !erfectl) embodies God(s rule&
Greg Stafford:
The Bible sa)s .esus gi*es the ingdom" or rule" bac to the 1ather" thus" the 1ather will
not ha*e it while it belongs to :is Son& This teDt sim!l) states that that which the 1ather
gi*es to the Son" the Son gi*es bac to the 1ather& /hile the Son eDercises authorit)
o*er the ingdom a!art from the 1ather(s inter*ention" the Son ne*er eDercises authorit)
o*er the 1ather" but the 1ather does eDercise authorit) o*er the Son as his God& (1 9or&
11:@G Re*& @:17) This im!lies that" as the Son(s God" the 1ather could tae bac the
ingdom if :e chooses to" but :e will not do so" according to the Bible&
Rob Bowman:
a& So" .eho*ah God is currentl) not ruling manind<
Greg Stafford:
2o& #t this time" Satan is the ruler of the world of manind (1 .oh& 6:1$)" and during the
'illennial Reign God will not rule manind directl)" for" again" :e has gi*en the authorit)
to rule and +udge to :is Son& /as 5 unclear about this<
Rob Bowman:
b& So" .esus( ingdom will ha*e an end" des!ite" for eDam!le" >ue 1:@7,@@<
Greg Stafford:
That(s a rather sli!!er) slo!e )ou(re riding" Rob& The ingdom .esus established with his
God,gi*en authorit) will ne*er end& .esus( direct authorit) o*er that ingdom will end"
and be gi*en bac to God" the One who ga*e it to .esus in the first !lace& #fter the
'illennial Reign the Bible clearl) states that the Son will once again come under the
authorit) of his God (not sim!l) the =1ather=)" and then God will once again resume
direct control o*er earth(s affairs& (1 9or& 16:7F,7%) 5 do ho!e )ou will be there to see
God(s !romised =new earth= as :e intended it to be&
Rob Bowman:
c& 5s it e*en theoreticall) !ossible for .esus to mae a mistae<
Greg Stafford:
2o" for he is a !erfect s!irit being" and" as we ha*e discussed" he onl) does what the
1ather shows him& During his rule" he will liel) maintain the same outloo" and do all
that his 1ather taught him&,,.ohn %:7%&
Rob Bowman:
d& 5f the 1ather can be God for thousands of )ears without ruling as such" can(t .esus
ha*e been God for thousands of )ears before beginning to rule with di*ine authorit)<
Greg Stafford:
/here do )ou see the 1ather as =God for thousands of )ears without ruling as such=< 5n
answer to )our ;uestion" .esus could be" but )ou can !ar )ourself in a garage and call
)ourself a car and that does not mean it(s true& The Bible sa)s .esus was =a god= and
was with =God&= The) are different in terms of their being& The Bible sa)s that the God
.esus was =with= ga*e him the authorit) to rule and +udge" but no one is said to ha*e
gi*en God the authorit) to rule and +udge" let alone said to ha*e gi*en :im =life&= :a*ing
the authorit) for thousands of )ears and not using it is entirel) different from being gi*en
that authorit)& 5n one instance )ou ha*e it" and in the other )ou are gi*en it& Thus" )ou
create a false analog)" at least in relation to the !oint we are su!!osed to be discussing&
But since )ou are +um!ing all o*er the !lace" it is hard to tell where )our mind is" as
o!!osed to where it should be&
Rob Bowman:
e& ?es" the 1ather is .esus( God" because .esus became a human being and as such
loos to the 1ather as his GodG but this does not mean that .esus is not also God& See
/h) ?ou Should Belie*e in the Trinit)" P1,P7" for more on this !oint&
Greg Stafford:
>et(s see" does the Bible e*er ;ualif) the fact that the 1ather is God o*er the Son as
referring solel) to the Son(s humanit)< 2oC ?our boo has nothing to use effecti*el) in
)our behalf& :ere )ou go again: /hen it suits )our needs" )ou all of a sudden classif)
teDts that are de*astating to )our theolog) as referring to .esus( humanit)& But the Bible
!ro*ides no license for doing so& :e also has a God since his resurrection (Re*& @:17)"
and he does not still ha*e his human nature in hea*en& See 9ha!ter % of m) boo for
details& The dual,nature conce!t has all sorts of !roblems" not the least of which is the
fact that )ou end u! creating two !ersons" whether )ou lie it or not& 5t(s nothing but word
magic&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
') !oint is that we need to be careful when running across language about =gi*ing= or
s)non)mous terms not to draw conclusions not warranted b) the teDt& To =gi*e= (C)
another eDam!le" in Psalm $8:P,% we are told" =Gi*e to the >ORD" O families of the
!eo!les" Gi*e to the >ORD glor) and strength& Gi*e to the >ORD the glor) of his name=
(the same statements are found in 1 9hron& 18:7%,7$ and Ps& 7$:1,7)& 5n Re*elation 6:1@
we read" =To him who sits on the throne" and to the >amb" be blessing and honor and
glor) and dominion fore*er and e*er&= 5n none of these teDts are !eo!le gi*ing to God
an)thing that is not reall) alread) his& The) are sim!l) acnowledging or recogniAing or
!ublicl) declaring that God has these honors&
Greg Stafford:
5n two of the abo*e eDam!les" we are not taling about gi*ing something to someone
else" but we are taling about" as Bowman himself sa)s" =acnowledging or recogniAing
or !ublicl) declaring that God has these honors&= This is not true of the !assages that
s!ea of .esus being gi*en life or authorit)& 2one of the abo*e teDts refer to life or
authorit)" also&
Bowman uses a sim!lified 3nglish,concordance a!!roach that is not indicati*e of
serious scholarshi!& The >QQ of Ps& 7$:1,7 and Ps& $8:P,% uses a form of the word
!hero" which carries the meaning" =ascribe&= This sim!l) means recogniAing that which
alread) belongs to God& The eDam!les from 1 9hr& 18:7%,7$ do use didomi" which is the
same word used in .ohn 6:78" but here we are indeed taling about gi*ing something to
God" namel)" glor) and strength& 5s this referring to the glor) :e has or :is own !ersonal
strength< 2o& /e gi*e .eho*ah glor) b) !raising :im" and we gi*e :im our strength b)
our worshi! and the wor we !erform in :is name& Hnless we gi*e these to .eho*ah" :e
does not =ha*e= them&
Rob Bowman:
f& #ctuall)" 5 used a :ebrew concordance" as 5 was interested in the :ebrew OT teDt" not
the Gree Se!tuagint teDt& But in an) case the two teDts that use !hero are !arallel to
the 1 9hronicles teDt that )ou sa) uses the same Gree word as in .ohn 6:78" didomi&
So 5 don(t see how )ou can use this difference to discount m) !oint&
Greg Stafford:
/h) would )ou be using a :ebrew concordance< #nd if )ou did" wh) not !resent )our
:ebrew findings< But" are we not interested in the meaning of the Gree word in .ohn
6:78< Then wh) not use the >QQ to find a use of the same word in similar conteDts< /h)
reference teDts that use a word different from our sub+ect word< 2o" the eDam!les )ou
ga*e do not !arallel the 1 9hronicles reference" nor do the) !arallel .ohn 6:78& The use
of didomi in 1 9hronicles has a similar meaning to the use of didomi in .ohn 6:78" that is"
gi*ing something to someone who !re*iousl) did not !ossess it& ?our !oint" Rob" has
been su!!orted with nothing short of sheer des!eration&
Rob Bowman:
2ow" )ou need to mae u! )our mind about something& 5n the two Psalm teDts the
Se!tuagint" )ou sa)" translates using a word meaning =ascribe&= But both of these teDts
sa) that we are to =ascribe= the 43R? S#'3 T:52GS that 1 9hronicles 18:7%,7$ sa)s
we are to =gi*e= to God , =glor) and strength&= ?ou are tr)ing to ha*e it both wa)s" and
either don(t now it or are being cunning&
Greg Stafford:
1irst of all" Rob" )ou create a false dichotom)& 3*en if different teDts s!ea of the same
things" that does not necessaril) mean the) are taen in same wa)C /e can ascribe
glor) and strength to God" and we can also gi*e :im glor) and strength b) the wor we
do in :is name& :owe*er" )ou are mistaen in )our assessment: The >QQ in the two
references in Psalms and the reference )ou ga*e from 1 9hronicles does not refer to
=the 43R? S#'3 T:52GS=C The references in Psalms use doDa and time (=honor=)" but
1 9hronicles uses doDa and ischus (=strength=)& Perha!s )ou should read )our >QQ a bit
more carefull)&
Rob Bowman:
5(ll mae it eas) for )ou: in all three !assages it is God(s strength" not ours" that is to be
=gi*en= or =ascribed= to him (note 1 9hron& 18:%,$" 11,17" 7Fb" 7PbG Ps& 7$:F,%" 11G
$8:@b" 6,8)&
Greg Stafford:
?ou are illing me" Rob& ?ou are also wrong again& /hen we declare his deeds among
the nations" we ascribe glor) and strength to .ah" and it is also while we declare such
things that we gi*e :im glor) and our strength& #lso" sto! misleading others into thining
that the same words are used in these !assages&
Rob Bowman:
>iewise it is God(s glor) that is being s!oen of" not us gi*ing God something he
doesn(t ha*e (5(m sure )ou(*e alread) seen that if )ou looed u! the *erses +ust cited)&
Greg Stafford:
/ell" it a!!ears )ou are the one who has not looed u! these *erses" or" if )ou did" )ou
did not do so *er) carefull)&
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Rob Bowman:
These !oints" taen together" seem to me to be an ade;uate answer from an orthodoD
trinitarian !ers!ecti*e to the ob+ection that .esus could not be #lmight) God if he was
gi*en di*ine nature or authorit)&
Greg Stafford:
Trinitarians are in a difficult !osition& The Bible fre;uentl) and consistentl) uses
unambiguous language that argues against their *iew of God" and so the)" as we ha*e
seen from the abo*e" must read certain teDts in light of theolog) that came into being
hundreds of )ears after the closing of the Bible canon& /e can onl) ho!e that" gi*en
enough time" and with God(s hel!" those who embrace the Trinit) doctrine will come to
see it for what it trul) is" and come to now God" not as a substance of being shared b)
three !ersons" but as the !erson of the 1ather" who lo*ingl) ga*e life to :is Son" that
other might li*e b) means of him&,,.oh 8:6PG 1 9or& %:8&
Rob Bowman:
Some closing comments of m) own&
1& The Bible" correctl) translated" unambiguousl) calls .esus =God= (5s& $:8G .ohn 1:1G
7N:7%G Rom& $:6G Tit& 7:1@G 7 Pet& 1:1G :eb& 1:%G 1 .ohn 6:7N) and =>ord"= i&e&" the >ord
?:/: (e&g&" Rom& 1N:$,1@G Phil& 7:$,11G 1 Pet& 7:@G @:16)& 2ot once does the Bible" in
an) translation" not e*en the 2/T" sa) that .esus is =not God&=
Greg Stafford:
The Bible ne*er sa)s 'ichael is =not God"= eitherC #lso" )ou again fail to !ro!erl) eD!lain
what )ou mean b) God" for it surel)" ha*ing trinitarian connotations" does not coincide
with the Bible(s use of theos for .esus& #dditionall)" when )ou show )ou ha*e a gras! of
the issues in*ol*ed in the !ro!er translation of these *erses" feel free to begin the
discussion& Hntil then" )ou are sim!l) s!inning )our wheels&
Rob Bowman:
7& /atchtower theolog) came into being 1$ centuries after the close of the 2T canon& 5f
we o!en the discussion be)ond the narrow confines of the doctrine of the nature of God
and the deit) of .esus 9hrist" we find that the whole theological structure of the
.eho*ah(s /itnesses( doctrinal s)stem is a late 1$th and earl) 7Nth centur)
de*elo!ment& So" if late de*elo!ment is an issue" the .eho*ah(s /itnesses are in a far
worse situation than trinitarians&
Greg Stafford:
#nd" of course" )ou !ro*ide not one eDam!le& ?our =eternal generation= certainl)
;ualifies as later theolog)" and most certainl) is unbiblical" as we ha*e seen& But that is
hardl) the eDtent of the theological in*entions trinitarians use to tr) and legitimiAe their
!referred theolog)&
Rob Bowman:
@& 5t is not we who are reading our theolog) into the Bible& /e de*elo!ed our theolog) as
faithful 9hristians in the church seeing to understand Scri!ture& /e did not de*elo! our
theolog) as disaffected !ersons who had left the church because we did not lie the
doctrines of Scri!ture" onl) to decide that we could be 9hristians if we could mae it
agreeable to our notions&
Greg Stafford:
Sure )ou did" Rob& 3ternal generation" two natures in one !erson" a Godhead Beingness
shared b) three !ersonsT2eed 5 sa) more< The Bible does awa) with all these
teachings: .esus is a s!irit !erson (1 9or& 16:F6)" he has a God o*er him (Re*& @:17)"
and he is not eternal (.ohn 6:78G 8:6P)& #lso" the Bible ne*er articulates the term =God=
as a reference to a consubstantial Triad&
Rob Bowman:
F& 5n Stafford(s closing comments he again shows that he does not understand the
doctrine of the Trinit)& /e do not belie*e in an im!ersonal essence shared b) three
di*ine entities (which is what Stafford clearl) understands =!ersons= to mean)&
Greg Stafford:
#re )ou sa)ing that the essence of the 1ather and Son is itself =!ersonal=<
Rob Bowman:
/e belie*e in one infinite,!ersonal God who eternall) eDists in three !ersons (a word
itself used analogicall))& Our doctrine is that the 1ather sent his Son" who was alread) in
hea*en with him in di*ine glor)" into the world to be our Redeemer& This is also the
doctrine of Scri!ture (.ohn @:1@,18G 1@:@G 18:7%G 1 .ohn F:$,1N)&
Greg Stafford:
?es" 5 now )ou belie*e that" Rob" but the Bible does not s!ea in such language& #lso"
the essence shared b) the three !ersons is not !ersonal" unless )ou are ad*ocating four
!ersons&
Rob Bowman:
6& The burden of !roof is not on the trinitarian& 5t is on the .eho*ah(s /itness to show"
not onl) that there are =difficulties= with the doctrine of the Trinit)" but that it is
incontro*ertibl) false" #2D then to show that their alternati*e to the doctrine is better
than all of the other antitrinitarisn theories on the intellectual maret&
Robert Bowman
Greg Stafford:
/e need onl) refer to Scri!ture to show that such a doctrine is entirel) foreign to the
Bible& 5n 1 9or& %:8 we are s!ecificall) told that the one God is one !erson" the 1ather&
#lso" .esus is not the same God as the 1ather" for the 1ather is his God&
The trinitarian !osition is hel!less in the face of biblical scrutin)" and those who !romote
it are forced to read later theolog) bac into the teDt" for the Bible nowhere articulates
their understanding of God&
Greg Stafford
Go to StaffordIBowman Part Two&end" 9hrist =deli*ers u! the ingdom to the God and
1ather&= So here we find 9hrist in a sense gi*ing the 1ather the ingdom (a word
!erha!s better translated =ingshi!"= that is" ro)al authorit))& Of course" that does not
mean that the 1ather was not alread) in !ossession of ingdom authorit) o*er all
creation& But there will be a sense in which 9hrist !resents to the 1ather a reconciled
new creation that !erfectl) embodies God(s rule&