From the Archives: Book Review: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit:

Relationships, Roles, and Relevance

Bruce Ware authored a book on the Trinity, published through Crossway Books in 2005 titled Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. It is a focused examination of certain aspects of the Trinity. The subtitle reveals the focal points: "Relationships, Roles, & Relevance". In other words, Ware is going to explore the interactions of the persons of the Trinity, the roles they play in several areas, and the relevance the doctrine has for us today. The work is unique in both its content and length. Doctrinal works on the Trinity are relatively rare. Given the academic air that Ware breathes one could easily expect a voluminous treatment. This book is a short read. Not a quick read. Short.

Dr. Ware is briefly biographed on the back cover as the Senior Associate Dean and Professor of Christian Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY. I have read a couple of his other works and listened to some of his lectures responding to the Open Theism heresy. His has been helpful in understanding the issues with Open Theism from a conservative evangelical point of view. So, how about this book? It has proven to be a mixed bag. Some good, some bad. Let's look at the good first.

The Good

Wonder

Ware reflects with amazement that the Father involves us in his kingdom work. I identify with the author when he roots his amazement in his own personality flaw of perfectionism. It is very hard for a perfectionist to let go of the reigns and allow someone else to do the work. I had to nod my head in agreement with Ware. The Father's generosity of opportunity in labor that is everlasting in its fruits (namely sharing the gospel in many forms) is truly wonderful and can rightly bring wonder to our hearts as part of our vocabulary of worship.


True Fatherhood

Ware asserts that we can learn what true fatherhood is by looking to God the Father as our great exemplar. He raises distinct but complementary aspects for our consideration:

"God as Father insists on our respect and obedience."

"God fathers us by being lavish, generous, even extravagant in his care, love, provision, and protection for his children."

I love the way Ware builds both our awareness of God's care and our worship vocabulary simultaneously. He has hit the true mark of theology - this is theology that issues forth in doxology, theology that leads to worship. It is not an easy mark to hit


Radical Feminism

Ware spends a full paragraph defending God's self-revelation as Father and strongly denouncing the radical feminist pursuit to eradicate masculine language of God in Scripture. Given the heart-commitment that some have to the feminist viewpoint, it is unlikely (humanly speaking) that the arguments presented will sway their thinking. Their ears are stuffed full with zeal. Even so, I thought Ware wrote with appropriate strength about the unbiblical nature of the feminist view. If we are to take the Scriptures as God-breathed we must make sense of them as they stand, not by tinkering with the wording to make it more palatable to modern tastes (so much for my poker-face in gender-neutral translations and the egalitarian debate).


Reciprocal Honor

Ware highlights the need for reciprocal honor of those in authority and those under authority. He asserts that the inter-relationships of the Trinity are the model and basis for this mutual honor. He does not demand one-way honor directed towards authority. He calls for reciprocal honor, all based on observed relationships within the Trinity. There is a healthy balance that is all too easily thrown off-kilter by our lusts and love of idolatry (especially when we are the idol).


One clarification could be raised here. Ware designates the inter-relationships of the Trinity as the model for reciprocal honor between the one in authority and the one under authority and he intends us to apply it on our plane of human inter-relationships. That is where the reciprocal honor applies. Honor does not apply reciprocally between God and us. Perhaps I am naive in thinking this way, but I do not presume to expect God to honor me mutually in my relationship with Him. I may pray for His blessing, but honor flows one direction in this relationship... from me to Him.


Jesus and the Spirit

Ware examines an aspect of Jesus' human life that I've rarely seen explored. He makes the case that Jesus' sinless human life is grounded in his submission to the Spirit rather than his divine nature. In doing so, Ware is exerting himself to bring Jesus' humanity to the forefront in the single most challenging area of the Christian faith - our daily walk. How many times have you felt disconnected from the perfection of Jesus' life because of the easy excuse, "He was God in the flesh. What do you expect of me?" This life of submission to and reliance upon the Holy Spirit is a good point that needs to be explored more widely in modern evangelical circles. Holiness continues to be a challenge to the modern soul, at times disappearing from mention concerning the daily walk of the Christian. This is one of the points that Ware makes which could benefit from much more treatment. He cannot explore it adequately in the brevity of this work.


Real Humanity - Interconnected and Interdependent
Ware notes our American cultural autonomy and its appeal to the power of the individual. In contrast, he places Trinitarian inter-relationships as the pattern for real, authentic humanity - interconnected and interdependent. Anticipating potential reactions to what I've written here, I want to highlight that Ware is speaking of the influence of our cultural autonomy. Ware is not proposing a socialist political identity or some other nonsense as a corrective to our cultural autonomy.


Relationships and Essential Being Within the Trinity

Ware correctly attributes simultaneous worship of the Father and Son. He discusses equality of the essential nature of the persons of the Trinity (the ontological trinity, theologically speaking). He emphasizes and re-emphasizes the authority structure of the functional relationships of the Trinity (the economic Trinity).


Counsel for Christian Husbands
Ware writes forcefully and pointedly of the example set before Christian husbands in the care of their wives. His thought is founded upon the demonstrated interplay between the persons of the Trinity. I appreciate him including this section of the book. The way he presents the material is helpful and will make a difference in the way I care for my own dear wife.

Having noted all of the above points as good and profitable portions of Ware's book, let's move on to a couple of problematic propositions.






The Bad


I was surprised to find what Ware has written concerning Christian prayer and Christian worship as it relates to the Trinity. Prayer and worship sit squarely in the practice of the daily Christian walk. Several other areas Ware explores in the book are experiential, but none of them have the kind of deep impact that prayer and worship have in the life of the believer.




Prayer

Ware is deeply committed to the form of prayer prescribed by Jesus for the disciples in Matt 6/Luke 11. He emphasizes this form early in the work and repeats it often throughout the book. The repetition makes it obvious that this is a strong current in Ware's theology. In a nutshell, Ware believes Christian prayer is directed to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Spirit. Period.

Ware recognizes the radical nature of his position, identifying it as such in his first mention on page 18. Even though this is his initial presentation, it is phrased in very strong language. He exerts himself to bring home the controversial nature of his position. He writes the following:

"The Christian's life of prayer must rightly acknowledge the roles of the Father, Son, and Spirit as we pray to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Spirit. ... May I suggest something both clear and radical? If Jesus taught us to pray to the Father, then we ought to do this. ... So prayer rightly understood - Christian prayer - is prayer to the Father, through the Son, in the power of the Spirit. To pray aright, we need a deep appreciation for the doctrine of the Trinity." p.18

I agree with Ware on two points. His position is both clear and radical. In the face of such radical clarity, should we adapt our devotional life to fit Ware's definition of Christian prayer? After all, he is an established Christian scholar and seminary professor. It is obvious that he possesses the training and credentials to form a powerful case for his position. Nonetheless, in my years of research and observation of pseudo-Christian cults, I have constantly encountered hundreds of clear, radical beliefs. We clearly must ask the question, "Is this biblical?" Clear? Yes. Radical? Absolutely. Biblical? (spoiler alert) Absolutely not.
Ware understands well enough that he is setting himself in opposition to the devotional instruction and example that many (probably most) evangelicals have received. He writes, "We may encourage our children, especially, to open their prayers with, 'Dear Jesus,' despite the fact that Jesus said to pray 'Our Father in heaven . . .'". Let's be clear about this. Ware isn't suggesting a slight modification to the prayer life of the evangelical Christian, where we address the Father or the Son. He rejects prayer to Christ as Christian prayer; as praying aright; and as meaningful, biblical prayer. He explicitly states that addressing our prayers to the Father alone is to pray aright. If adherence to this position is to pray aright, then stepping outside of it is to pray awrong. Ware indicts modern evangelical piety head-on. In doing so, has he indicted biblical prayer as well?


Stephen - The First Christian Martyr

And they went on stoning Stephen as he called upon the Lord and said, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!" And falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them!" And having said this, he fell asleep. (Acts 7:59-60, NASB)

The Disciples When Replacing Judas Iscariot

And they prayed, and said, "Thou, Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two Thou hast chosen to occupy this ministry and apostleship
from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place. " (Acts 1:24-25, NASB)

Saul's Thorn in the Flesh

Concerning this I entreated the Lord three times that it might depart from me. And He has said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Most gladly, therefore, I will rather boast about my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may dwell in me. (2 Corinthians 12:8-9, NASB)

Christ Answers Prayer Directed to Him

"And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. "If you ask Me anything in My name, I will do it. (John 14:13-14, NASB)

Paul Entreats Jesus

Now may our God and Father Himself and Jesus our Lord direct our way to you; and may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love for one another, and for all men, just as we also do for you; (1 Thessalonians 3:11-12, NASB)

Now may our Lord Jesus Christ Himself and God our Father, who has loved us and given us eternal comfort and good hope by grace, comfort and strengthen your hearts in every good work and word. (2 Thessalonians 2:16-17, NASB)

The Last Prayer in the Bible

He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly." Amen. Come, Lord Jesus. (Revelation 22:20, NASB)

A Biblical View

The above is a sample of the examples. They provide ample biblical evidence that Christian prayer may be directed to Christ and not solely to the Father in Christ's name. Ware's view is clear, radical, and unbiblical. There is a sense in which Ware's rebuke of evangelical practice is proper. By and large, evangelical Christians appear to function as 'Jesus only' unitarians. We overemphasize Jesus and hold the Father at arms' length. As a corrective to this imbalanced piety, Ware is on target that a faulty understanding of the Trinity drives us away from the Father in our devotional life. It would be a much easier pill to swallow if Ware did not employ such stark language contrasting typical practice with his radical suggestion. If his goal was to encourage us to return to addressing the Father in concert with the Son, there was no need for the extreme contrast. Due to the fact he uses such contrast, this was obviously not his simple goal. He is intentional enough in what he has said to make it clear he is proposing a complete reformation of evangelical prayer.

James White addresses the evangelical 'Jesus only' prayer life in his book The Forgotten Trinity with as much clarity as Ware but without adopting the radical position Ware has taken up. I heartily recommend White's book on the Trinity as a fine starting point to understanding the Trinity and its necessary impact on all aspects of our life, faith, piety, and practice. It is a fuller treatment of the Trinity than Ware's book. Granted, Ware is focusing on specific aspects of the Trinity, which again indicates that his book is not the place for the committed reader to begin studying the Trinity.

The Normal Pattern
When you survey the pattern of prayer demonstrated in the New Testament, you will find that most prayers are directed to the Father. Ware pushes us towards this biblical model of prayer, but he does so too forcefully. We would all benefit from cultivating our devotional relationship with the Father but this does not justify making a case appear stronger than it is. If only Ware would have approached this imbalance in a balanced manner, he may have had a much more positive and wide ranging impact. Imbalance is not corrected by another imbalance.

Concerning Worship
Ware states:

"Hence, Christian worship must be worship of the Son, by the power of the Spirit, to the ultimate glory of the Father. Worship is deeply satisfying and correctly expressed to the glory of this triune God only as it is exercised within this trinitarian framework" (p.155)

In approaching the topic of worship, Ware again falls into language that is too strong and imbalanced. "Christian worship must be worship of the Son"? I believe Ware is less than coherent on this point. Jesus gave explicit instruction in Luke 4:8 concerning worship of God that is unreconcilable with his instruction to the woman at the well in John 4:21-24 if we adopt Ware's position. It feels as if Ware has made a similar error in thinking as he made with prayer. In offering a corrective to an imbalance in current practice, he goes too far and ends up out on a theological limb.

Worship and prayer are related. Many theologians consider prayer to be an act of worship. If Christian prayer (a form of worship) is to be directed to the Father alone and Christian worship (which would include prayer) is to be directed to the Son alone, we are stuck in a theological conundrum. Can we do either in a Christian fashion in the construct Ware has built? This is not theology that leads to doxology. It is theology that leads to paralysis. Other sections of the book do bring us to live as we should. The intermingled doctrines of prayer and worship as presented do not lead us to the same destination.



Not only have I been surprised at Ware's position on prayer/worship, I am perplexed at the unqualified recommendations that internet reviewers have given the book. Brothers and sisters, are you reading carefully? While I agree that Ware has many profitable things to say, they pale in comparison to the potential damage caused by his unbalanced and contradictory positions on prayer and worship. This error is the kind of minefield that could blow apart a local church. Has anyone become convinced by Ware's argument that prayer must be offered to the Father alone through Christ? If so, a balanced biblically-based worship service would be akin to scraping your forehead with a cheese grater. If the church has been protected wholesale by God's grace from falling into this error, I am thankful for His outpoured mercy.


So what is my overall opinion of the book? Although Ware presents several helpful points which will make a difference in my life, the deep impact of his position on prayer/worship gives me great concern.



For Further Study Concerning Prayer to Christ
Millard Erickson
God in Three Persons
The Word Became Flesh


H. R. Mackintosh
The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ

Robert Morey
The Trinity: Evidence and Issues


Simon Kistemaker
New Testament Commentary - Acts, I Corinthians


Gordon Fee
New International Commentary on the New Testament, I Corinthians


John Calvin
Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles


Robert Reymond
A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith


B. B. Warfield
The Lord of Glory


John Owen
Christologia


Wayne Grudem
Systematic Theology


Charles Hodge
Systematic Theology, vol II


Bruce Milne
Know the Truth


Robert Dabney
Lectures in Systematic Theology


Leon Morris
Reflections on the Gospel of John
Jesus is the Christ


Jerome Smith
The New Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, Acts 7:58-59

Rob Bowman In Discussions with former Mormon Shawn McCraney

Dear Friends of CRandE and Rob Bowman:  Please be in prayer today for Rob and Shawn McCraney. Rob has shared the following update earlier today. The livestream of the program starts at 8pm MST tonight.

From Rob Bowman on his facebook page: 'Tonight (2/25/14), I will be a guest on the TV program "Heart of the Matter," hosted by Shawn McCraney. Shawn is a former Mormon who became a born-again Christian and now leads an informal church in Salt Lake City. Shawn recently did a couple of programs disparaging the doctrine of the Trinity, in response to which I flew out to Salt Lake City yesterday to meet with him. We talked for four hours yesterday and are planning a similar meeting tomorrow. Tonight I am expecting to answer some questions about the doctrine of the Trinity on his live streaming broadcast: http://hotm.tv/. The situation with Shawn is complicated and difficult for a number of reasons. I would appreciate the prayers of my Christian friends for the program tonight and also my personal conversations with Shawn.'

Fred Sanders on the Trinity

 Fred Sanders, Associate Professor, Torrey Honors Institute, Biola University and author of The Deep Things of God, presented several sessions for the EFCA 2014 Theology conference, focusing primarily on the Trinity. The audio and outlines are linked below. 

• Approaching the Doctrine of the Trinity, pre-conference session (Audio) (Notebook outline)
• God According to the Gospel, pre-conference session (Audio) (Notebook outline)
• Tacit Trinitarianism and Q & A, pre-conference session (Audio) (Notebook outline)
• The Truth and Reality of the Trinity Affects Everything, pre-conference breakout session (Audio)
• Understanding the Times and Understanding the Places: Theological Localism (Audio) (Notebook outline)

Carl Trueman: A Brief History of Trinitarian Thought - John Owen

In my apologetics studies, the Trinity continually surfaces as a critical doctrine, impacting belief and practice in every aspect. Studying the historical background of Christian thought on the Trinity will help you grow in your sense of wonder at the profound nature of the God of Scripture.  Here is an opportunity to be exposed to some of this historical background.

John Owen

John Owen is a very important theologian in the history of the church. In the following link, Historical Theology Prof Carl Trueman explains the impact that Owen has had on understanding the nature of our Triune God. 

Click here to listen to Reformed Forum - Christ the Center

Carl Trueman

Trueman specifically highlights the contribution of Owen to Trinitarian theology and practice with his emphasis on the believer’s communion with each person of the Godhead and Owen’s understanding of the Holy Spirit as the bond of communion and communication between the divine and human natures of the one person of Jesus Christ. Listeners will go away from this episode with a renewed appreciation for the importance of understanding the God of Scripture as Triune.

A Brief History of Trinitarian Thought

The Trinity is a great doctrine which evangelicals would do well to spend more energy on (including myself).  As an encouragement for you, the following link will take you to an hour-long discussion on the history of Trinitarian thought, hosted by Reformed Forum.  The dialogue includes Dr. Carl Trueman, Professor of Historical Theology and Church History at Westminster Seminary. This is an academic introduction so is a bit of heavy lifting at times. 

A description of the program and the audio can be found here.  Or you can jump directly to the audio file by clicking here.

HT: FBH

The Great Trinity Debate: Bowman & Burke

Evangelical Rob Bowman and Christadelphian Dave Burke have completed their debate of the nature of God on the Parchment and Pen blog. Below are their posts collected in summary form to help you follow the discussion from beginning to end.

Preliminaries

• Resource List: Bowman & Burke
• Introduction: Bowman

Part 1 - On God and Scripture

• Bowman
• Burke

Part 2 - On Jesus Christ

• Bowman
• Burke

Part 3 - On Jesus Christ, continued

• Bowman
• Burke

Part 4 - On The Holy Spirit

• Bowman
• Burke

Part 5 - On The Trinity

• Bowman
• Burke
  
  
  
  

Part 6 - Closing Statements

• Bowman
• Burke

Putting Jesus In His Place

Jeff Miller gives a helpful review of Bowman's and Komoszewski's book Putting Jesus In His Place. Obviously, I think this is a book worth reading. I've read it through entirely once and have returned to it multiple times on specific questions. The HANDS acronym has stuck with me and serves to turn my mind towards contemplation of Jesus in worship and wonder.

Trueman on Owen Redux

Here's a little more helpful info on Trueman's introduction to Owen. Trueman presses one specific work of Owen for your initial consideration. It is Communion with the Triune God. This is a light editing by Kelly Kapic and Justin Taylor of Owen's Of Communion with God.


In his video introduction, Trueman mentions the struggle many Christians have to understand the importance and impact of the doctrine of the Trinity on their everyday spiritual and devotional life. Owen's work explores the right relationship of the Christian to the one true God considered in the individual persons of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.


You can read Kevin Vanhoozer's Foreword, Justin Taylor's Note on This Edition, Preface, Chapter 1, and Glossary -PDF.


Reality Check... this is not Owen lite. Reading him is hard work. Why bother? You will be better equipped to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Trueman on Owen

Carl Trueman gives a good brief overview of John Owen's life and impact. He also presses one of Owen's works for our consideration, which I now plan to read in the near future. (HT: JT)

Jesus Our Mediator - Reflections from Abraham Booth

Taken from chapter 11 of Abraham Booth's The Reign of Grace. Booth writes concerning the person of Christ in his atoning work.


"It was absolutely necessary also, that our Mediator and Surety should be God as well as man. For as he could neither have obeyed, nor suffered, if he had not possessed a created nature; so, had he been a mere man, however immaculate, he could not have redeemed one soul. Nay, though he had possessed the highest possible created excellencies, they would not have been sufficient; because he would still have been a dependent being. For as it is essential to Deity, to be underived and self-existent; so it is essential to a creature, to be derived and dependent. The loftiest seraph that sings in glory is as really dependent on God, every moment of his existence, as the meanest worm that crawls. In this respect, an angel and an insect are on a level. Every intelligent creature, therefore, whether human or angelic, having received existence from the Almighty, and being continually dependent on him, as the all-producing, all-supporting first cause; must be obliged to perpetual obedience, by virtue of that relation in which he stands to God, as his Maker and Preserver. It is highly absurd to suppose it possible for any creature to supererogate, or to do more in a way of obedience to Him from whom his all was received, than he is under the strongest obligations to perform, in consequence of his absolute and universal dependence. But whatever is previously due from any one, on his own account, cannot be transferred to another, without rendering the first devoid of that obedience which it is absolutely necessary for him to have. Universal obedience, in every possible instance, is so necessary in a rational creature, as such, being dependent on God and created for his glory, that the omission of it, in any degree, would not only be criminal, but expose to everlasting ruin.



The righteousness, therefore, of a mere creature, however highly exalted, could not have been accepted by the Great Supreme, as any compensation for our obedience. Because whoever undertakes to perform a vicarious righteousness, must be one who is not obliged to obedience on his own account. Consequently, our Surety must be a Divine Person; for every mere creature is under indispensable obligations to perfect and perpetual obedience. Now, as our situation required, so the gospel reveals, a Mediator and Substitute thus exalted and glorious. For Jesus is described as a Divine Person, as one who could, without any arrogance, or the least disloyalty, claim independence; and, when thus considered, he appears fit for the task. But of such an One we could have had no idea, without that distinction of Persons in the Godhead which the Scriptures reveal. Agreeably to this distinction, we behold the rights of Deity asserted and vindicated, with infinite majesty and authority, in the person of the Father; while we view every Divine perfection displayed and honoured, in the most illustrious manner, by the amazing condescension of the eternal Son: By the humiliation of Him who, in his lowest state of subjection, could claim an equality with God. Such being the dignity of our wonderful Sponsor, it was by his own voluntary condescension that he became incarnate, and took upon him the form of a servant. By the same free act of his will he was made under the law, to perform that obedience in our stead, to which, as a Divine Person, he was no way obliged.



The necessity there was that our Surety should be a Divine Person, might be further proved, by considering the infinite evil there is in sin. That sin is an infinite evil, appears from hence. Every crime is more or less heinous, in proportion as we are under obligations to the contrary. For the criminality of any disposition, or action, consists in a contrariety to what we ought to possess, or perform. If, therefore, we hate, disobey, or dishonour any person, the sin is always proportional to the obligations we are under to love, to honour, and to obey him. Now the obligations we are under to love, to honour, and to obey any person, are in proportion to his loveliness, his dignity, and his authority. Of this, none can doubt. If then infinite beauty, dignity, and authority belong to the immensely glorious God; we must be under equal obligations to love, to honour, and to obey him; and a contrary conduct must be infinitely criminal. Sin, therefore, is a violation of infinite obligation to duty; consequently an unlimited evil, and deserving of infinite punishment. Such being the nature of our offences, and of the aggravations attending them, we stand in absolute need of a surety, the worth of whose obedience and sufferings should be equal to the unworthiness of our persons, and to the demerit of our disobedience. If to the evil there is in every sin, we take into consideration the vast number of sinners that were to be redeemed; the countless millions of enormous crimes that were to be expiated; and the infinite weight of Divine wrath that was to be sustained; all which were to be completed in a limited and short time, in order to reconcile man to God, and to effect his eternal salvation; we shall have still stronger evidence in proof of the point.



Were a defence of the proper Deity of Christ my intention, the Scriptures would furnish me with ample matter and abundant evidence in favour of the capital truth. For the names that he bears, the perfections ascribed to him, the works he has done, and the honours he has received, loudly proclaim his ETERNAL DIVINITY. But I wave the attempt, and proceed to observe,



That it was necessary our Surety should be God and man, in unity of person. This necessity arises from the nature of his work; which is that of a Mediator between God, the offended Sovereign, and man, the offending subject. If he had not been a partaker of the Divine nature, he could not have been qualified to treat with God; if not of the human, he would not have been fitted to treat with man. Deity alone was too high to treat with man; humanity alone was too low to treat with God. The eternal Son therefore assumed our nature, that he might become a middle person; and so be rendered capable of laying his hands upon both, (Job 9:33) and of bringing them into a state of perfect friendship. He could not have been a mediator, in regard to his office, if he had not been a middle-person, in respect of his natures. Such is the constitution of his wonderful person, and hence he is called IMMANUEL God with us, or in our nature."

Concerning the Greatness of God

I originally posted the following challenge on a Christian/Jehovah’s Witness discussion board. Sam and I exchanged a brief series of replies to one another, documented here.

Dave wrote:

You believe Jehovah is God. You believe Michael/Jesus/Michael is one of his creations. This should make for marked contrast between Jehovah and MJM.

Is there any way you conceive of Jehovah as infinitely greater than Michael/Jesus/Michael? Not just a little bit greater. Not a lot greater. Infinitely greater.

Sam replied:

I would say yes there are ways the Father is infinitely greater than the Son. The Father is the source of all things as they are "out" (1Co 8:6) of him. That includes power and knowledge (John 5:20). Since no other person is the source of power and knowledge the Father is infinitely greater.

Sam,

Let me restate what I hear you saying at this specific point in our discussion. I’m hearing you say here that the Father is infinitely greater than the Son (and all the rest of creation) since he is the source of all things including power and knowledge, based on I Cor 8:6 supplemented by John 5:20.

The way you state it, it appears that you believe the ‘sourcing’ of these attributes is the ground of the Father’s infinite greatness, not necessarily that the Father’s power and knowledge specifically are infinite. In other words, it does not matter if the Father has a bottomless well of power and knowledge or if they are limited supplies. Rather, I see you arguing that since everything else possesses these attributes in a derivative sense as a result of the Father giving it to them, this is the hinge on which his infinite greatness turns.

However, later on in your post you do reference the Father’s infinite power. Thus, it does appear you intend that the Father is infinitely glorious based on an infinite supply of power which he inherently possesses and dispenses and not only that he is the source of power/knowledge. I cannot tell if you feel the Father is infinitely greater solely in the areas of power and knowledge. You do mention them repeatedly so I’m assuming, at the very least, that these are at the top of your list of the Father’s infinite greatness over creation.

To be clear, the God of the Watchtower is willfully ignorant. Therefore his knowledge is not infinite, and he cannot be termed omniscient in any real sense.

I Corinthians 8:6 is a great text contained in the context of a discussion about eating food offered to idols. In response to concerns about the appropriateness of eating food sacrificed to idols in various social and religious settings, Paul contrasts the false gods of idol worship with the one true God, comprehended in the titles “God” and “Lord”, which he distributes to the Father and the Son. Paul is intentionally broad in his use of both “God” and “Lord”, encompassing terms used among the nations to refer to their various false idol deities. Some religions would refer to their false deity as a god. Others would title theirs a lord. He is taking pains here to use broad language to encompass the various religious worlds of false gods, and display the uniqueness and reality of the one God/Lord of Christians over against the many gods and many lords who are indeed false.

1 Cor 8:6 there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him. NWT 1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. ESV 1Co 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we live, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we live. NET 1 Cor 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. NASB

Paul brings both the Father and the Son into view in this passage, and in no small way. He utilizes well-worn religious vocabulary in referring to both persons. Over against the many so-called gods and lords of the religious world, we have here the uniqueness of the one true God of Christians brought into magnification to aid our deficient view. It is writ large due to our slowness of mind and heart to believe. The true overcomes the false, displayed in the glory of creation and personal purpose. It is not simply creation in general that exists for the Father through the Son. No, not merely an impersonal creation. We do. We exist for the Father through the Son.

We see in the passage that “all things” are from the Father and “all things” are through the Son. I can detect nothing in the immediate context of this verse or passage to indicate that “all things” is intended by Paul to bear one meaning when applied to the Father and a different meaning when applied to the Son. What are these “all things”? “All things” indicates the entire creation. The entire creation from the Father. The entire creation through the Son. The Father and Son stand outside all things. They stand outside all creation. I know of no other like this. God alone is uncreated. Father and Son stand here, uncreated creator of all things.

In considering God as the Creator of all things, generally my understanding can be pictured as follows:

As creation is fleshed out within I Cor. 8:6, it could be represented as follows:

This interpretation of I Cor 8:6 bears the strength of consistency in taking the Father’s “all things” and the Son’s “all things” to have the same meaning. All things means all of creation, accomplished in the work of the Father and the Son in bringing all things into existence.

Due to the Watchtower’s doctrine of creation, they cannot take “all things” here in I Cor 8:6 as synonymous in reference to both the Father and the Son. They simply must take the Father’s “all things” in this passage to mean something other than the Son’s “all things”, else their doctrine of creation would be left in shambles. In Watchtower theology the Father’s “all things” cannot bear the same meaning as the Son’s “all things”, even though both “all things” are used within the same verse with no markers indicating a variance in their scope. To understand the Father’s “all things” and the Son’s “all things” as meaning “the entire creation” would introduce irreconcilable contradiction into the Watchtower doctrine of creation, rendering it incoherent. Again, nothing in the context of I Cor 8:6 indicates that the repetition of “all things” is intended to bear two different meanings. The Watchtower is shackled by preconceived doctrines that will not let the text speak as written.

From what I understand, the Watchtower view could be pictured as follows:

In Watchtower systematics, the Son must be subsumed under “all things” in creation, as it is believed he is a created being. The Watchtower cannot see the text in I Cor 8:6, having hidden it behind the theological construct they have fashioned. The chasm here exposed between the Father and Son from all creation is echoed consistently in several other passages as well. The Father and Son stand exalted above all of creation. The creature spoken of by the Watchtower is a poor shadow of the reality displayed gloriously throughout the Bible, with I Cor 8:6 being one of the special focal points.

Dave wrote:

You reference I Cor 8:6 as a foundational text for understanding the Father is infinitely greater than all of creation, including Michael/Jesus/Michael. What an interesting choice for a verse to base this on. You pick one that does not mention God alone. Instead, you choose a verse that mentions both the Father and the Son. Interesting. For my own benefit, here is the text of the verse in several translations.

Sam replied:

I find it strength to use a verse that describes the role of each and don’t agree with the approach some take to take two or more different verses by two or more different bible writers and assume that the writer is speaking about the same context in all verses. When both Father and Son are involved in the same context both the similarities and differences are evident.

I agree with you that great insight can be gained through examining passages like I Cor 8:6. The application of “all things” in relation to both the Father and the Son is visible here, in a manner which the Watchtower cannot acknowledge or embrace.

Dave wrote:

First, the fact that both the Father and the Son are mentioned here is significant. Given your commitment to the exaltation of Jehovah infinitely above everyone and everything else, it seems to me that this would not be the strongest foundation you could use to build your case.

Sam replied:

If one appeals to one verse that says something about the Father and a different verse that says something about the Son it is easier to equivocate because many rarely make the effort needed to prove the two verses are the same context.

Again, you are on track concerning passages of full mention and the clarity they can bring to our understanding.

Dave wrote:

Here we see both the Father and the Son intimately involved in creation, even cooperating to accomplish the grand plan. Does cooperation between the Father and the Son together in this grand plan give a clear indication of the Father's infinite greatness over the Son? Not from where I stand. I am amazed at the glory displayed here, of both the Father and the Son.

Sam replied:

Cooperation is not mentioned in this verse. You ask a question about cooperation and don’t therefore really add anything to this discussion. Also, what “seems to you” is not an argument. So regardless of where you “stand”, you have not advanced your position that the Father is not infinite in some way when compared to the Son. If God does something by means of a man such as Moses and Moses cooperates does this mean that God is not infinitely more capable than Jehovah?

Cooperation is not mentioned in the verse? Not by the specific word, no. We are not scholars or professional debaters. This is a discussion between non-scholars about matters of faith. Don’t you ever meditate on a verse and have it lift you to praise? This reminds me of several discussions I’ve had over the years with JWs. As a rule, JWs don’t open up at all about their own personal faith or passions, especially in a public venue like this. They have to watch every single word and make sure that no one gets to see the real person. It’s all “preposition this” and “anarthrous that”. I sometimes wonder if the Watchtower is a vampire that sucks all of the blood out of your lives... and replaces it with crabby appleton.

I’m searching for an illustration of what I’m hearing you say. It sounds as if you are saying the Father wielded the creature as an impersonal conduit of creative energy (would that be holy spirit?), almost like a fireman uses a firehose to direct water. What a poor, shriveled image of the Father and Son compared to the rich biblical imagery of I Cor 8:6.

SAM:

Note the term avpV evmautou/ as used by Moses and Jesus:

Both Jesus and Moses use the same words to deny that they are the source of what they did.

This supports my earlier analysis that the Father is infinite when it comes to performing works like creation. He is the source. When it comes to what Jesus did in the second half of 1Co 8:6 the things described by DIA, these things would also be not done by Jesus of his own will or on his own. That is the domain of the Father. In fact Jesus said in John 10:14 that he does not speak his own words and that the works people saw performed were not his doing, they were done by his Father.

Sam, I Cor 8:6 speaks loud and clear on several points of creation. As the source and agent of creation, the Father and the Son are placed outside the realm of creation. I want to be true to the biblical message, as true as I can be in this fallen world with my finite human mind. Infinity is in view here, but not the infinite chasm between the Father and the Son that you attempt to draw. The Father and Son stand infinitely above creation. I fully acknowledge DIA as used of the Son here, but it is not the only significant word concerning the work of the Son. What was DIA the Son? All things! What was EK the Father? All things! The Trinitarian understanding gives full allowance to the roles described with EK and DIA while also acknowledging the overarching and creation-encompassing all things from the Father through the Son. Both the Watchtower and your comments deny the full message, not acknowledging the supreme exaltation of the Father and Son presented in I Cor 8:6. It remains my great hope and prayer that you and many more Jehovah’s Witnesses will abandon the Watchtower caricature of Jesus and embrace the Son for all that he truly is.

SAM said:

If Jesus did not claim these things for himself do you really thing he would be pleased for you to contradict him?

Listen to Jesus.

You put words in my mouth. They taste bad. You can keep them for yourself.

Dave wrote:

When I consider the vastness of creation, the awe-inspiring energy of innumerable galaxies, the magnitude of the cosmos and the microcosm of subatomic particles... amazed is too small a word. I tell you honestly, accounts like this cause a fountain of praise to stream from my heart. How amazing our Creator is. And right here, smack dab in I Cor 8:6, we find both the Father and the Son. Worship and thankfulness are rightly offered to the Father and the Son for their infinite glory displayed through creation. If all of creation is an infinitesimally smaller display of God's infinite glory (and I believe it is), then the Father and the Son are awesome beyond description. Although words fail me, I will not be struck dumb in offering what praise and glory I can muster.

Sam replied:

Even if the Son were to have performed his part in the making of all things of his own will and of his own initiate and power, something that he denies, this would not make him infinite as you describe above. No amount of creation can be infinite compared to God. Creation, no matter how magnificent is finite. In what is described in 1Co 8:6 does not approach any limit to God’s creativity. This is because of the way that word EK is used in 1Co 8:6. The Father is the source of these things and since he is infinite in his power and brings things into existence as the initiator of them, there is no end to what the Father can create. However the Son is his instrument, his intermediate agent. His role is magnificent but it does not have the characteristics required of an infinite being.

Sam, I have no problem acknowledging the various roles presented in I Cor 8:6 (and in other passages) of the Father and the Son in creation. I am not alone in this. If you would take the time to read Trinitarian commentators on this text I think you would be quite surprised. To see the Father as the ultimate source and the Son as the agent of creation does not destroy the Trinity. In fact, it is commonly spoken of in this manner when looking into the deep details of creation.

Can you in turn acknowledge a consistent application of “all things”, relating it to both the Father and the Son as is done here in I Cor 8:6?

The infinity that I mentioned above is not some kind of magical multiplication of finite creation. I tried making that clear in both the above paragraph of mine that you quoted and one that follows. If I have failed in making that clear, the failure is mine. The infinite glory of the Father and the Son is displayed through the finite creation (Rom 1:20). The thought of this inspires me to magnify them as infinitely glorious over all creation.

Dave wrote:

The concepts of origin and agency are not foreign to Trinitarian thought. Many commentators and linguists echo those precise words in describing the roles of the Father and the Son in this passage. I am guessing that you see the roles of origin and agency as insuperable obstacles to a biblical doctrine of the Trinity, but they are not. You're not telling us something we don't already know. Let me echo what I said before. The fact that both the Father and the Son are inseperably linked in this verse over all of creation speaks volumes. We embrace the truths of origin and agency taught here, and I believe, we give the recognition due to both the Father and the Son that is indicated in this amazing text. This text does not indicate an infinite divide between the Father and all of creation. Instead, it places the Father and the Son infinitely above all of creation.

Sam replied:

The Son did not claim to do anything on his own. Therefore the scope of his role cannot be described as omnipotent. Since he is not the source of these things and since creation is not infinite, he cannot be described as infinite. However since the Father is the infinite source of all things he can be considered infinite. The Father can never run of creative works and the Son claims that he does nothing on his own. There is quite a contrast there. However I do agree that the Son’s role was magnificent and that this places him in second position to all others in the universe.

Sam, again – Trinitarians acknowledge and embrace the various roles of the Father and the Son in creation as displayed in I Cor 8:6. You say the Son’s role in creation was magnificent. Not even close. The Son’s role is infinitely beyond magnificent. Let’s be clear – the ‘second position’ that you so generously give the Son is infinitely less than the Father’s first position. How do you compare the finite to the infinite? Second place in a two horse race doesn’t come close to the contrast you claim. You approach the text with a theological construct (namely that the son is a creature) that will not allow you to acknowledge the full truth displayed plainly in the text.

Dave wrote:

Sam said, "The Father is the source of all things as they are 'out' (1Co 8:6) of him. That includes power and knowledge (John 5:20). Since no other person is the source of power and knowledge the Father is infinitely greater."

I am left wondering how this cannot also apply to the Son, as he is mentioned in I Cor 8:6 also. Would your construct not also apply equally to him as well? The Son is the agent of all things as they are "through" (1Co 8:6) him. That includes power and knowledge (John 5:20). Since no other person is the agent of power and knowledge the Son is infinitely greater than all of creation.

Sam replied:

Since what is described in 1Co 8:6 came out of the Father and did not exhaust the capability of the Father it cannot be considered infinite. The Son is greater than all of creation but not infinitely so, because he is not the source of the created order, and claims to have done nothing on his own.

Sam, you say the son is greater than all of creation, however, you believe he is a creature, a part of creation. You wrote earlier about avoiding equivocation. I trust you are sincere in your desire to do so. To speak carefully here, you MUST say that he “is greater than all the rest of creation”. Certainly you are aware that saying ‘the son is greater than all creation’ sounds exactly like what a Trinitarian believes. It is also clearly not what you believe.

Do we need to rehash the historical discussion between JWs and Trinitarians of the difference between “all things” and “all [other] things”? They don’t mean the same thing, pardon the pun. You do not mean the creature son you believe in is greater than “all of creation”.

SAM said:

Think of the example of the jars of oil and flour that Jehovah provided the widow that never ran out. He had an infinite capacity to make that oil to sustain her life.

While the flour and oil were not infinite, the miracle proves that Jehovah is infinite because he could supply it forever if he wished. The jars could have been used forever as the means by which Jehovah delivered infinite amounts of flour and oil to the women but they themselves are not infinite.

What a nice illustration. The one through whom and for whom you exist is as significant as a jar used as a tool by the Father. In your zeal to magnify the Father, you make it sound like the Father is performing this miracle of creation all by himself, independently of the Son. Ah, but that’s not what you believe, is it?

Dave wrote:

I asked originally if JWs could establish an infinitely marked contrast between Jehovah and Michael/Jesus/Michael. The text you have chosen has not shown this contrast. In fact, it has placed the Son on level with the Father, infinitely greater than all of creation.

Sam replied:

You claim victory prematurely as if I was not going to respond. How very confident of you! However it does not appear that you understand the word infinite. No matter how extensive creation is, it is not infinite. The way I prove that the Father is infinite is because he is the source of all things and because of faith that he will always continue to be the source of all things and that he has not exhausted the well of his creative works.

I do not see your “proof” acknowledging the full inspired text so I cannot embrace what you hold. No thank you on the whole happy, contradictory doctrine. All things are from the Father. All things are through the Son.

Dave wrote:

The infinite exaltation of the Father and the Son in this verse is further established when you look at the surrounding context. In I Corinthians 8, Paul is dealing with a Corinthian theological construct concerning food offered to idols. While there are many so-called gods in heaven or on earth (synonymously called 'gods' or 'lords' in various pagan religions) they are non-existent, false gods/lords. Paul identifies the true God/Lord comprehensively against these false deities. 'God' and 'Lord' here in I Cor 8:6 are used by Paul to cover all the bases of the false pagan deities. Whether the pagan refers to their deity as a lord or as a god, we have but one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. Concerning your desire to see the 'all things' here as merely communicable attributes and not all of creation, I think you're coming up short and not giving the text its full due. I Cor 8:6 refers to all of creation, entirely. It's not merely speaking of invisible things like knowledge, power, wisdom. It encompasses "life, the universe, and everything".

Sam replied:

I don’t recall limiting the scope TA PANTA in my analysis of this verse. What is limited in TA PANTA is that it is what was created and that the creation is not in itself infinite. It cannot be infinite because at any moment God could as the source of all things ADD to it. That would make it bigger and greater than it is and therefore it is not infinite. However the Son could not ADD to it because he is not the source of all things.

I explained and pictured much earlier in this post how you limit the scope of TA PANTA when you exclude the Father from TA PANTA but include the Son in TA PANTA with no reason to switch meanings in I Cor 8:6. I am not intending in the above to argue that giving I Cor 8:6 its full due is to multiply the finite to infinite proportions. I am saying that, if the Father and the Son stand outside all things, they are the one God, who is infinite in infinitely many ways.

Or are you saying that TA PANTA does mean all of creation, placing both the Father and the Son outside of creation? If TA PANTA is what was created, and what was created was created through the Son, the Son was not created. Is that where you stand?

Dave wrote:

Before we ever get to discussing the completeness indicated by 'ta panta' (all things), you can see it immediately in the verse by its reference to 'we for him' and 'we through him'. It is vast in scope, encompassing every created thing. Which raises a problem for you.

Sam replied:

Vastness is not infinity. That remains a problem for you, not me.

Again, if ‘ta panta’ means ‘all things’, then the Son stands outside of creation, making him God and thus infinite. ‘All things’. Not ‘all other things’.

Dave wrote:

If the Father is the origin of everything and the Son is the agent of everything, how did the Son come to be? He couldn't be the agent of his own creation, now could he?

Sam replied:

The agency of the Father in 1Co 8:6 is that of ultimate agent. The agency of the Son is that of intermediate agent. There is also another kind of agency that is not in the scope of this verse. This agency is normally described with a Greek syntax that employs the preposition EN (in) and describes an impersonal agency. I don’t limit the scope of this verse with regards TA PANTA with regards to anything covered by things that were out of the Father as the source (EK) and through the Son as his personal intermediate agent which in this verse is DIA.

In the same manner while God is a thing in the sense of an entity he can be excluded from it in context because the subject in verses describing PANTA can be excluded from PANTA as in 1Co 15:27.

It is interesting that in 1Co 8:6 you focus on the Son when you ask the question about how one would exclude the Son from TA PANTA. On what linguistic basis or syntax in this verse do you limit your question to the Son and not include the Father in TA PANTA? Or what in the immediate context excludes the Father from TA PANTA? If you base your limitation of the Father from this verse because of theology, then I could also base answer merely on theology. But I do not.

Here is how I do it. PANTA in the scope of what is being described here of necessity excludes the subjects. Here PANTA is that which has come about from the EK activity of the Father and the DIA (personal) activity of the Son. If I were to point to an example of EN being used with respect to the Son I would point to John 1:3-4 where “What has come into existence in him was life.” There the Son is not independent of the process (XWRIS) but is also not the personal agent. Creative life first came into being EN (in) the Son, not DIA (through) the Son. That being said, DIA does not always mean personal agency and EN does not always mean impersonal agency.

Sam, at I Cor 8:6 it is ‘all things’ in reference to both the Father and the Son, as even the NWT states. Not simply some things, or even most things, or supremely all things except one. All things come from who? All things come through who? Therefore, who is not member of all things? (Hint, there are two persons identified in I Cor 8:6.)

How about backing up your reference to John 1:3-4 to include verse 3? Your own NWT presents ‘all things’ here also, in reference to the Son. I’m detecting a theme.

Are you implying that, as a native english speaker, when I read the NWT and it says ‘all things’, it doesn’t mean that? Is it a clear translation intended to be understood or does it need a secret decoder ring to find the hidden meaning behind all those words? I see all these references to ‘all things’ and cannot escape the clear teaching.

According to the religion taught by the organization, the true message of the Bible cannot be discerned without the aid of the organization. The only theology you have is not your own. The only theology you have is what they allow you to have. You believe you have grammatical, linguistic reasons for your beliefs? Those reasons are simply a gas and a vapor when viewed through the epistemology of the religion you embrace. “Here’s how I do it” is a meaningless claim by JWs in any discussion concerning Watchtower teaching. The Watchtower claims that it alone understands the Bible. They say that you cannot understand the message of the Bible apart from their help. So you see, there is no room for “here’s how I do it”, on this or any other doctrine. Unless, of course, you are like the neo-Watchtower apologists that started surfacing a few years ago.

Did you accept the Watchtower’s message because you already understood it independently of their aid and found that their message matched your understanding? If so, you’re well on your way out of that religion because to claim this is to fly in the face of their authority claims. If not, then there is no way for you to “do this”. It’s up to the Watchtower to do it for you, and for you to accept what they say.

SAM said:

But I digress. Whether or not the Son is included in TA PANTA is a side issue and does not address my analysis which describes the Father as the infinite source of all things, TA PANTA which is great but not infinite and the Son who is great but not infinite.

If all things have been created through the Son, he stands outside the created order.

Dave wrote:

Acknowledging the vast scope of 'all things' will drive you to an irreconcilable difficulty, namely 'How can the Son create all things if he himself is a creation?' This is not a problem for the believer who embraces the Father and the Son in all their creative glory. God is uncreated. Everything else is created by God.

Instead of establishing that the unitarian Watchtower deity is infinitely greater than all of creation, you have pointed out how the Bible clearly exalts both the Father and the Son infinitely over all of creation.

Sam replied:

If the Son is infinite because a large but non-infinite TA PANTA was made through him then the jar which contained the oil is infinite because it was used to distribute and unending amount of oil to the widow from an unending source, or at least it had the capability of serving up oil forever should that have been necessary.

It was not irreconcilable and in fact is a red herring. Even if I had no answer for this it would not relieve you from the difficulty of proving that the Son is infinite because he was the intermediate agent in a non-infinite TA PANTA.

Even if I had no answer for that it would not disprove that the Father is infinite because he is the unending source of all things.

However I did have a Scriptural answer for it. You may disagree with me but I will not allow it to derail this discussion as it does not impact the initial question you asked and to which I replied.

If you do continue to discuss this as a side point, please don’t forget to explain on what basis you exclude the Father from TA PANTA. Adding other verses where the Son is the intermediate agent in making things such as Colossians 1:16 and John 1:3-4 will not resolve this for you as my question of how to exclude the Father from TA PANTA will still need to be answered in those verses as well.

Sam, you are right. I do disagree with you. I have no herring, salmon, or blowfish for sale. The text was your choice. And what have we found? The Father and the Son are displayed over all things here at I Cor 8:6. I see no marked contrast here between the Father and Son, only the various roles they play in the creation of all things. The various roles are not a marked contrast between the infinite Father and finite Son. Instead, we see the Son here as the intermediate agent of all creation – a fact the Watchtower cannot embrace or acknowledge in all its fullness. The Father and Son are lifted infinitely above the realm of creation. It remains my hope and prayer that you will come to believe in the true Son of God displayed in Scripture. You exist through and for Him.