After mentioning the plural verb White then suggests that there are non-Trinitarian systems. In other words, the presence of a plural verb here proves more than one divine person for White. This is why he segues into a discussion about non-Trinitarian systems. As I point out in the following post that is not a grammatical reality. Oneness Pentecostals do not deny that there is a distinction between the Father and the Son. They do not however say they are different divine persons sharing the same divine nature. It seems that neither Christ's "other" experience with God or His oneness with the Father amount to a difference in person.
White suggests the Father and Son are a package deal. How would one begin to describe that package? Any conceptual tool or any analogy White or any other Trinitarian can or will appeal to will be counterproductive if not contradictory. After watching the video it seems the Trinitarian interpretation is left up to the "hard work" or exegesis. A result of White's demands here it would seem clear then that the Trinity is taught nowhere explicitly in Scripture. It can only be seen after "hard work".
Does White mean then that the Trinity cannot be adequately understood from the English translations alone? Does this mean that the layman is now unable to speak certainly of the Trinity unless he has a Hebrew or Greek exegete? Prior to the translation of the Scripture into English such an idea may have been interesting or even normal. Not anymore, Dr. White. The meaning of the Scriptures are not beyond the common man.
James White affirms that John 10:30 teaches:
Does White mean then that the Trinity cannot be adequately understood from the English translations alone? Does this mean that the layman is now unable to speak certainly of the Trinity unless he has a Hebrew or Greek exegete? Prior to the translation of the Scripture into English such an idea may have been interesting or even normal. Not anymore, Dr. White. The meaning of the Scriptures are not beyond the common man.
James White affirms that John 10:30 teaches:
1. Teaches the deity of Christ
2. Is relevant to the relationship of the Father and Son
3. Really need to understand that there are different levels of our interpretation of Scripture. Meaning supernatural. We must do exegesis.
It seems White assumes exegesis leads to correction interpretation. If Christ is saying that He and the Father are two divine persons that are God then this was totally lost upon those who were standing by for this revelation was never repeated. Jesus is not saying that He is God who is with or beside another who is God the Father. The Jews would have probably suggested Jesus was advocating polytheism but that's not what they understood Jesus to be saying. They understood Jesus to be saying "...though only a human being, are making yourself God." (10:33 NRSV) or "being a man, make yourself God." (ESV) or "make yourself to be God!" (LEB) The word "God" in verse 33 is preceded by a definite article giving it personality. Jesus was not making Himself out to be God the Son. He was the God of Israel come in the flesh.
Once you've watched Dr. White's video you are ready to proceed. Click here to read my reply on interpreting John 10:30.
Once you've watched Dr. White's video you are ready to proceed. Click here to read my reply on interpreting John 10:30.
No comments:
Post a Comment