Listen to this episode on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.
Jerry Wierwille and I systematically refute Michael Brown’s problematic case for the deity of Christ in his recent debate with Dale Tuggy. Due to the number of texts Brown crammed into his opening statement, this will have to be a multipart series. In this episode we begin by covering Brown’s assertion that believing that Jesus is a glorified man “neuter[s] the gospel” since a man’s death for our sins “is hardly a demonstration of the immeasurable love of God.” We discuss his contention that Isaiah 42.8 means that God does not share his glory with anyone else in light of the worship scene in Revelation 5. We explain the absurd claim that Jesus claimed to be the “I am” of the burning bush in John 8.58 as well as the alpha and omega texts in Revelation.
To help you follow along, here is the relevant portion of the manuscript Brown used for his opening statement:
Thanks so much for coming out tonight and for tuning in to our livestream, and thanks, Dr. Tuggy, for your comments, which I’m quite eager to rebut. The fact is, you claim that Jesus is simply a glorified man, and I want to declare in the clearest possible terms that the Son of God of the Bible – the one we rightly worship as God – is infinitely more than a glorified man. To make Him into a glorified man is to deny the clear and consistent witness of Scripture. To make Him into a glorified man is to neuter the gospel, since the idea that a glorified man died for our sins is hardly a demonstration of the immeasurable love of God. To the contrary, when God sent His Son to pay for our crimes, He was giving of His very self.
So, again, I’m eager to rebut Dr. Tuggy’s opening comments, and it’s clear that a lot of his difficulties come from the fact that Son took on human form, hence praying to the Father and having the Father as His God. But for now, in my opening statement, I will lay out the clear scriptural case that the Son is fully divine, and since there is only one God, then God must be complex in His unity. Simply stated, this one God has revealed Himself to us as Father, Son, and Spirit, and if we are to accept the testimony of the Scripture, this is the only fair conclusion.
For Dr. Tuggy and others, this is a logical contradiction, but the day we can fully wrap our minds around the nature of God is the day we’ve reduced Him to our level, thereby making a god in our image. The God of the Bible is marvelous and transcendent, without beginning and without end, rightly called in Judaism the eyn sof – the infinite One – and, according to the Scriptures, clearly complex in His unity. Will we accept the biblical witness, or will we try to create a god based on our own limitations and perceptions?
In the Old Testament, the Lord stated categorically that He would share His glory with no one. As written in Isaiah 42:8, “I am the LORD; that is my name; my glory I give to no other, nor my praise to carved idols.” (See also 48:11, “For my own sake, for my own sake, I do it, for how should my name be profaned? My glory I will not give to another.”)
Yet we see in the New Testament that massive glory and honor are given to the Son. As Revelation records, “Then I looked, and I heard around the throne and the living creatures and the elders the voice of many angels, numbering myriads of myriads and thousands of thousands, saying with a loud voice, ‘Worthy is the Lamb who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing!’ And I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying, ‘To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!’ And the four living creatures said, ‘Amen!’ and the elders fell down and worshiped” (Rev. 5:11-14).
Either God has gone back on His Word, and another, created being is sharing in His unique honor and glory, or the Son is one with the Father, equally God. And note here that all creation worships the Lamb, meaning that He Himself is not created.
Having interacted with religious Jews for the last 47 years, I can assure you that if the Son did not share in the divine nature, to worship Him like this would be blasphemous. That, indeed, would be detracting from the worship of the only God and engaging in some form of idolatry. This is not like one candle lighting another candle without the first candle losing its light. This is like the second candle becoming predominant – in this case, having millions of people praising and glorifying Jesus, often without mentioning the Father. If the Son is not God, then He has taken glory from the Father.
What makes this all the more interesting is that throughout Isaiah 40-48, God repeatedly says of Himself, “I am” or “I am He” (translated into Greek as ego eimi), yet that is the very language Jesus uses of Himself in John, most decisively in John 8:58: “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (again, ego eimi) – not, “I was,” but “I am.”
So, not only does Jesus share in the Father’s glory, but He identifies Himself with the eternal God, saying, “I am” (or, “I am He”), also declaring His external preexistence. And just as the Lord says in Isaiah 48:12, “I am he; I am the first, and I am the last,” so also, in the book of Revelation, both the Father and Son are called the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last. See Rev 21:6, speaking of the Father, who says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end,” then Rev 22:13, where Jesus says, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” (See also Rev 1:8, “‘I am the Alpha and the Omega,’ says the Lord God, ‘who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.’” And note Rev 1:17.)He is clearly and unequivocally identifying Himself with Yahweh. No created being could utter such words. Only the eternal God could say, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.” The Son is the eternal God!
We will continue where we left off in our next episode.
—— Links ——
- Find the other episodes in this series on Refuting Brown’s Opening Statement here
- You can either listen to the entire debate on podcast 158 or watch it on YouTube
- Check out post debate interviews with Michael Brown and Dale Tuggy
- Also see, Bill Schlegel’s 4 part series on explanations of misunderstood texts about Jesus
- Intro music: Jazzy Frenchy by bensound.com. Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License.
A common misconception is that the doctrine of the Trinity was formulated in Nicea, 325 AD.
Was it?
https://youtu.be/jU9Au_A8K2c
Yeah, I think I misspoke in this episode. The a.d. 325 Council of Nicea established the eternality and coequality of the son in response to Bishop Alexander’s innovations in a.d. 318. Constantine suggested homoousios as the key theological word that all must agree to at this point, thus making father and son coessential or consubstantial. However, these are still only the sprouts that later would become the tree of a full blown trinity theory under the guidance of the Cappadocians in a.d. 381. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.
Sean,
To be honest I didn’t catch that from you.
I was just making an overall point regarding the public misreporting out there by trinis.
PS: do you agree with my video thesis? i.e., this “doctrine” was only established “Orthodoxy” until the 1000sAD.
Thanks for a great rebuttal!
I see your point about the Athanasian Creed, however, I see “the” Trinity as orthodoxy from 381 when emperor Theodosius II made it illegal to deny the Constantinopolitan Creed and have a church in the city. I also see your point about the creed lacking clarity on the holy spirit being God in the same way that the Father and Son are God, but I’m pretty sure the Cappadocians used trinitarian language in their treatises. I’d have to defer to someone who has taken the time to read through Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Basil of Caesarea…like, say, Dale Tuggy.
Theodosius I 🙂
DSJ, thanks for the correction. I was thinking of the primary source, the Theodosian Code that catalogues the declarations of the empire up until the time of Theodosius II. You’re right, it was Theodosius I who presided over the Constantinopolitan Conference.
Yes very interesting that the Roman state mandated allegiance “in the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity.” [see Theodotian Code, 381AD]
So the State had a trini creed before the “Church”! 😛
PS for the Cappadocians “the fount [cause] of deity, the Father, is ‘God proper,’ while the Son and Spirit are of or from Him.”
YET, tritheism was equally fine!
“Peter, James, and John are called 3 humans, despite the fact that they share in a single humanity. And there’s nothing absurd in using the word for their nature in the plural…
If, then, general usage grants this, and no one forbids us to speak of 2 as 2, or of more than 2 as 3, how is it that we in some way compromise our confession [when] we can speak of 3 gods?”
Gregory of Nyssa, Answer to Ablabius on “Not Three Gods.”
It’s a historical fact that God = Yahweh in the OT and the Father in the NT “par excellence.” Both words obliviously denote a single self, individual, in this case a non-human Divine Person.
The so-called early “Church Fathers” like Tertullian, Martyr, Origen, etc., up to the 4th century AD agreed. As do ALL council creedal statements up to the so-called Athanasian creed (adopted by Rome as late as 1100 AD).
Even the Cappadocian Fathers (“architects” of the 3-in-1 God) saw the Father as THE God, even the divine ousia!
And most Latin “Church Fathers” speak of the Father as Deus, without qualification.
I look forward to Dr. Brown’s response to these historical facts.
Sean,
A problem with Trinitarians is that one of the building blocks of their distinction of persons is that God may speak of Himself in the third person. They say that, because of this, it’s another person being spoken of. (They thus refute themselves when they say that the Father speaks about the Son in Hebrews 1:8, seeing as how, in verse 9, God as the Father is spoken of in the third person). Another place that is problematic for them in that regard is Luke 20:36-38, where “the one” in the burning bush is the father of the sons of God, and is spoken of in the third person by Jesus, thus disproving the whole “I am that I am = Jesus” argument on their own grounds. (Actually, who am I kidding? I am getting to the point where I think that most of them are actually being malicious and throwing away morals at this point, whether they actually are or not, due to the constant doublespeak. I’m not kidding or mad, but am feeling sad about this.)
Sean and Jerry: I wholeheartedly concur with your refutation of Dr. Brown’s arguments, and I look forward to the next ! I also conclude that Dr. Brown makes many statements that, in my view, neuter the true *Unity between the One God, and Jesus Christ. *When our Lord is declaring, “I and the Father are one”; In normal language, He is declaring that two distinct beings are speaking/working/ruling as one, as the Father is the Lord over Him. So, the question is, what does *Unity even mean, if the two are collapsed into One-Self? IOW, you would speak like this, “I am Me, AND He, is also Me”. This is not the Biblical definition of *Unity in God. If one “person” and another “person” share the same Self (the One God); this is speaking of Modality; which is foreign to the holy Scriptures. The onus is on Trinitarians to prove that they can rightly, at will, manipulate an interpretation of personal pronouns to fit their doctrine. I have only heard, mere denials that “personal pronouns” have any significance to Biblical doctrine; never a genuine rebuttal. I see Trinity doctrine as a self-imposed exegetical dilemma; caused by assuming Trinity doctrine is the only right way to understand the One True God and Jesus Christ. The more you look into this, the stranger it gets. To me, Dr. Brown’s Christology poses questions like, “Isn’t the significance of obedience and love from Jesus Christ to His God virtually neutered, if He is basically loving/obeying/praying/trusting in Himself?
I am curious, if you had to choose only five texts to exegete in a debate Dr. Brown, which would you choose? It seems with Dr. Brown at least, you would only need to show that Jesus is not YHWH.
BTW, what you exposed in this episode (and I am sure you will continue to expose in the next) is that, like many Trinitarians, Brown’s readings of the texts are heavily informed by his philosophy, not by the actual record of the Bible. Though of course he claims otherwise, his arguments for the ‘Jesus is God’ position are based upon Jesus needing to be God for the sake of: 1. Substitutionary “Atonement”; 2. Because God cannot share His glory (whatever that means, since people give glory to God); 3. Only God can be worshipped (whatever that really means).
Ironically, he repeatedly accused Dr. Tuggy of reading the texts through the lens of his “Unitarian” philosophy.
Hi Sean,
You’re really doing Christians – and anyone interested, a great favour with this podcast. The Biblical Unitarian perspective is definitely minority and deserves much more exposure. A reason that it is relatively marginal also is because there are few publications, book or podcast from this position, – which is a shame – your classes at Living Hope and this podcast being notable exceptions.
I knew of Dale through his excellent comparative religion courses and always find his thoughts enlightening and valuable, though he may get a bit too technical for laymen at times. This debate with Dr. Brown was a great listen, and I’m enjoying the follow-ups. Although I conceit that Brown had the power of persuasion and confidence on his side, but these subsequent explanations make his case clearer and more persuasive. However confident and profoundly the Trinity may be stated, it always breaks down somewhere eventually and does neuter the gospel. The beauty of the gospel is God gave and sacrificed Jesus Christ, as a man who gave everything for our redemption. His sacrifice was real, his death was real and it makes his glorification and confession that he is Lord all the greater.
Going through these texts in specific detail, as you have here, is helpful and seems to fit with the logic and themes of the New Testament. I do have my doubts with the Unitarian position on the Holy Spirit which seems confusing to me. Maybe a good idea for a future episode.
I look forward to the rest of this series and the Theology series when it resumes. Thank you for the great work!
Noah, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Thank you for posting Brown’s opening statement, a conclusionary one that preys on those ignorant of the Scripture. Brown’s bombastic tone matched his lack of humility in handling scripture as his statement shows. So much in error. I will pray for him. On the other hand, Dale Tuggy did a fine professorial job.
Only thing I could think of that was bypassed in this refutation of Brown’s opening statement was Brown’s claim(actually, James White’s claim) from Revelation 5:
“And note here that all creation worships the Lamb, meaning that He Himself is not created.”
This is a non-sequitur fallacy easily demonstrated with an equal character/identity claim:
“All Americans saluted the U.S. President, therefore the U.S. President is not an American”
It’s ironic to me that Brown kept wanting to decry logic and philosophy, yet had no problem attempting to engage in it within his own claims against Tuggy. I find this quite often with Trinitarians sadly–which, if this belief that logic should not be applied to understanding of the Scriptures(or theories about their understanding) were true, we wouldn’t even be having this debate in the first place!
I’m glad you guys pointed out that in the Septuagint, Exodus 3:14 says, “Ego eimi ho on,” not, “Ego eimi ego eimi.” I find it suggestive that while John doesn’t use “ho on” in quoting Jesus, he DOES use it to describe the Lord God in Revelation — “the one who was, WHO IS, and who is to come.”
Sean and Jerry,
My understanding is that the Alpha and Omega passages of Revelation 1:8, 21:5-6, 22:12-13, are all concerning (spoken by) the LORD (Yahweh) Almighty, the Father. Michael Brown kept referring to these passages as if they referred to (or were spoken by) Jesus. That is obviously not the case for the first two references. The only reference that might be in question is the third one, Rev. 22:12-13. It is not so clear who is speaking in Revelation 22:10-14, but comparing the first two references, I believe it is the LORD (Yahweh) Almighty who is speaking also in 22:12-13. In 1:8 the LORD God is “coming”, and also in Rev. 22:12-13. This does not necessarily have to mean through agency either (though it may), considering Rev. 21:3. In short, all the Alpha and Omega passages in Revelation refer to the LORD God.
Yes
Revelation 1:8
“I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” (NIV)
1. These words apply to God, not to Christ. The one, “who is, and who was and who is to come” is clearly identified from the context. Revelation 1:4 and 5 reads: “Grace and peace to you from him who is, and who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits before his throne, AND from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.” The separation between “the one who was, is and is to come” and Christ can be clearly seen. The one “who is, and who was and who is to come” is God.
2. This verse is made slightly more ambiguous in the KJV because the word “God” is left out of the Greek text from which the KJV was translated. Nevertheless, modern textual research shows conclusively that it should be included, and modern versions do include the word “God.”
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/verses/revelation-1-8
First, a strong argument can be made that in Hebrew idiom the titles “Alpha and Omega” and “the first and the last” are synonymous.
The real issue is whether or not shared titles, like shared imagery, means shared identity!
For example, God is “King of kings” yet the title is applied to pagan kings, no less (Ezra 7:12; Daniel 2:37, 47)!
Isa 43.11 famously says that that apart from YHWH “there is no other Savior,” yet Judg 2:16; Oba 1:21; Neh 9:27 talks of “saviors.”
Lastly, scripture says only God can raise the dead [Ezek 37.13]; bring rain [Deut 28.12] and “open the womb” [Gen 30.22]. Yet, these seemingly unique attributes are applied to the prophet Elijah [1K 17-18; 2K 4]!
Really enjoyed the rebuttal and the comments here
Really enjoyed listening to this series of episodes.
Having read a couple of Brown’s books, I’ve had to now reassess his consistency. When on solid scriptural ground, he is excellent and clever. But he’s tempted to wade into arguments that he’s not got the foundations for, but appears to because it’s his mission to defend what is right at whatever cost.
Hence I was incredibly disappointed by the tactics he employed in this debate. It’s as if he realised the weaknesses of his quotations, so sought to overload the system and speak with too much bravado.
You said that there was too much material to even dent his attack. I disagree, in fact if one were to pick out his weakest argument – such as God not sharing his glory, when Jesus can be shown to share his. Disproving that he’s God! It undercuts the whole air of authority he shows. Add to that the fact that he lied, in saying that certain passages clear reading is plain and beyond dispute! Again, a short example that he’s ignoring trinitarian scholars years of dispute over these verses.
Just two points like that cut to the core of his tactics and can be used as examples of the lack of value in his machine gun bullets.