Illogical attempt at logic refuted

Recently, a Trinitarian offered the following argument against the Mormon concept of God:

1.Jesus is the only Sovereign and Lord of Christians (Jude 1:4)

2.Jesus and the Father are seperate beings

3.Since Father and the Son are not the same being if one is characterised as only in a category,

the other one cannot be included into it

4.If above premises are true,Father cannot be our only Sovereign and Lord

5.If father is not our Sovereign and Lord he could not possiblly be our God

6.Therefore either premise 2. is false or Father is not God!

Firstly, why stop at separate beings; this "logic" can also work for Modalism--just replace "beings" with "persons" in no. 2 (unfortunately, my point here and elsewhere was missed by the author in an attempted "response"--I am aware of Christological heresies, Modalism included; however, what can be said of the persons having the same "being" [ousia] á la Latin/Creedal Trinitarianism could also be used for those who hold to a form of Modalism who hold that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same numerical person)

Using such "logic," Jesus and Moses are the same "being." Jesus is referred to as being the only μεσίτης (mediator) in 1 Tim 2:5, and yet, Paul uses the term for Moses in Gal 3:19. Now, one may claim that μονος (only) is not used in 1 Tim 2:5, this is not a perfect parallel, but the number εἷς meaning "one" is used in this text, and I doubt that the Trinitarian apologist who would use such an argument will hold that there are other mediators with Jesus, even "co-mediators" a la Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology. So, to rework Vladimir's "logic":

1.Jesus is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim 2:5)

2.Jesus and the Moses are separate beings

3.Since Moses and Jesus are not the same being if one is characterised as only in a category,

the other one cannot be included into it

4.If above premises are true, Jesus is not the only mediator

5.If Jesus is not the only mediator, then

6.Therefore either premise 2 is false and Moses and Jesus are indeed the same "being" or the Jesus is not the only mediator between God and man!

If the above sound stupid, at least I will admit that this is a bit of a parody; the original attempt at deductive logic, however,

It also works from the inane approach that any title and/or function predicated upon Jesus ipso facto can be predicated upon the person of the Father (as well as the person of the Holy Spirit), and yet we know there are titles and functions predicated singularly upon Jesus that are not, and cannot be said of, the Father and Spirit. Jesus is the only Lamb of God who remits our sins, for example (John 1:29). But as the "being" of the Son is shared by the Father and the Spirit, the Trinitarian apologist, if he were consistent, would have to argue that the Father and Spirit were slain for the sins of the world, too.

Furthermore, it does smack of the whole “the NT uses a title/function of Jesus that is a title/function of God in the OT, ergo, Trinity!” nonsense one often finds.

E.g.:

First premise: If Jesus is Yahweh, he will be called “the Good Shepherd”

Second premise: Jesus is called the Good Shepherd

Conclusion: Thus, Jesus is Yahweh

Fallacy: Affirming the consequent.

Also:

First premise: If Jesus is God, he would be called Saviour

Second premise: Jesus is called Saviour

Conclusion: Thus, Jesus is God.

Fallacy: Affirming the consequent

I am sure you get the point, but here are some others:

First Premise: Yahweh is said to be the only "saviour" (מוֹשִׁיעַ) in Isa 43:11

Second Premise: Othniel, the son of Kenaz, is a "saviour" (מוֹשִׁיעַ) in Judg 3:9

Conclusion: Othniel is numerically identical to Yahweh

First Premise: Only God knows the heart of man

Second Premise: Peter knew the heart of Ananias and his wife in Acts 5

Conclusion: Peter is Yahweh

First Premise: Only Yahweh knows the heart of man

Second Premise: David knew the heart of Eliab in 1 Sam 17:28

Conclusion: David is Yahweh

To further see the inanity of this:

Psa 2:9 is applied to Jesus in Rev 19:15
Psa 2:9 is applied to Christians who endure to the end in Rev 2:27

Ergo, Christians = Jesus, and by extension of Jesus having the same being as the Father, Christians = part of the Tri-une being?

As Dale Tuggy pointed out in the entry on the History of Trinitarian Doctrines for The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy:

Another form of argument runs as follows.

1.     Passage E is a true prophecy predicting that the God of Israel, Yahweh, will do action A.

2.     Passage F truly asserts that the prophecy in E was fulfilled in the life of Jesus Christ.

3.     Therefore, Jesus Christ just is the God of Israel, Yahweh.

Opponents reply that this argument is invalid; it is possible for the premises to be true even though the conclusion is false. Even though the prediction “George W. Bush will conquer Iraq” may be said to be fulfilled by the actions of General Smith, it doesn't follow that Smith and Bush are one and the same. Rather, Smith acted as the agent of Bush. Similarly, Yahweh acts through his servant Jesus. Another disadvantage of this argument is that even if it is sound, the conclusion is undesirable. If Jesus and God are held to be (numerically) identical, and one adds that the Father is “fully divine” in this same sense, i.e. the Father is numerically identical to God, then it logically follows that Jesus just is (is numerically identical to) the Father. And yet, according to any trinitarian, some things are true of one that are not true of the other. This is why nearly all trinitarian theories decline to identify more than one of the three persons with God. On the other hand, some embrace this as a mystery —something which appears contradictory but is in fact true. (See main entry section 4.2.)

One could also use this for texts that clearly differentiate between θεος and Jesus, such as 1 Cor 8:4-6 (cf. John 17:3), unless one wishes to argue in favour of Bauckham's nonsense of "divine identity."

It should also be note that "master" (δεσποτης) in Jude 4 is predicated upon Jesus as it is used figuratively of Jesus to denote His being the one who "purchased" us through His atoning death (something the persons of the Father and the Spirit did not do). Note the parallel text in 2 Pet 2:1:

But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord (δεσπότης) that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Obviously, the singular person of Jesus, not the three persons of the “being” of the Trinity, is the Master/Lord (δεσποτης) whose atoning sacrifice purchased us, showing the anti-biblical basis of the Trinitarian apologist’s attempt at “logic” (which itself is illogical, too).

As Richard Bauckham noted about Jude 4:

The term δεσποτης is appropriate to the image of Jesus as the Master of his household slaves. This is how it is used in 2 pet 2:1 ("the Master who bought hem"), and it is how the equivalent term οικοδσποτης, "the master of the house," is used, figuratively, of Jesus in Matt 10:25 and, in parables, in Mark 13:27; Luke 13:25 (where P⁷⁵ has δεσποτης). Of course, κυριος was used in the same way, but as a Christological title it rapidly acquired much broader and more exalted connotations. Perhaps, then, it was in order specifically to involve the image of Christ as the Master of his Christian slaves specifically that δεσποτης was used [in verse 4], and this will explain why Jude should *add* δεσποτης to κυριος. For Jude, κυριος is the title of Jesus' divine authority as the one who exercises the divine function of judgment (v 14, and perhaps vv. 5-6, 9); in v 4 he adds δεσποτης to convey the thought that, as Christians, the false teachers belong to Jesus as his slaves whom he has bought. They are both disowning him as Master and flouting his authority as universal Judge. (Richard Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter [Word Biblical Commentary vol. 50; Dallas: Thomas Nelson, 1996], 39 [comment in square brackets added for clarification]

One final problem is that of theology and exegesis--it ignores the fact that Jesus is not God in an underived sense (i.e., he is not autotheos). Consider Heb 1:3

Who [Christ] being the brightness of his [the Father's] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

A careful, succinct exegesis of this text from the Greek was presented by D. Charles Pyle in his FAIR Conference paper from 1999, "I have said, 'ye are gods': Concepts Conducive to the Early Christian Doctrine of Deification in Patristic Literature and the Underlying Strata of the Greek New Testament Text"

There is also scripture that can used to potentially support the idea that God could have a physical body. One of these is Hebrews 1:3. Christ could only be the exact representation of the Father if the Father himself possessed a body of some sort. In fact, some who wish to avoid what I feel is the plain meaning of Hebrews 1:3 actually go so far as to separate the natures of Christ or declare that the passage could not possibly infer that the Father is embodied.

Those who criticize this meaning thus, however, do not take into account the fact that there is not one portion of the passage that differentiates between the divine or human nature of Jesus. Secondly, the particle ων on indicates being, i.e., the present state of existence of Jesus from the perspective of the author of Hebrews. It has absolutely nothing to do with only Jesus’ previous state or of only a portion of his supposed dual nature. It only speaks of his total existence as a person.

Further, many grammarians have severely misunderstood the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma (English: [active] effulgence or radiance; [middle, passive] reflection) in this passage to have the active sense. The Greek και kai (English: and) is here a coordinating conjunction which combines the first and second parts (the second part being of a passive character) of a parallel couplet. Due to this fact, as much as the Evangelicals wish doggedly to hold to their interpretation, the Greek απαυγασμα apaugasma should be understood as having a passive sense.

Why? Because the second portion of the couplet indicates that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature, not that he is synonymous with that nature. Since this passage is a couplet, with the second portion being passive in nature, the first portion must be understood as having a passive sense as well. Thus, Jesus is properly to be seen as he “who is the reflection of the glory (of God) and the exact representation of the substantial nature of him (i.e., the Father).”

In short, the glory of God reflects from Jesus rather than having Jesus as its source, according to the theology of the author of Hebrews. Thusly, Jesus exactly represents God as he exists in all aspects of Jesus’ existence. The passage does not allow differentiation of Jesus’ divine and human natures in relation to God. Quite the opposite is in view here, although I doubt that Evangelicals will wish to agree with my assessment of the passage. Nevertheless, if it is true that Jesus is the exact representation of the Father’s substantial nature in all aspects, the Father must have possession of a physical body. Otherwise, Jesus is not and could not be the exact representation of the Father, for the two would differ. This fact is further strengthened by another pertinent fact: the Father is never said to be bodiless in any place within the text of the Bible. That was for a later generation to develop.

To read an actually sound logical presentation on the problems of the Trinity, see the following essay by Richard Cartwright:

 On the Logical Problem of the Trinity

A friend shared the following comments which were rather spot-on with the problems with the apologist’s “arguments”:

I believe this type of argument falls in the same category as the "no god bedside me" Second Isaiah argument. Just as cities/peoples could declare the same thing to promote their superiority, it never meant they thought that no other city/people had ever existed: "I am, and there is none else besides me" (Isa 47:8; see also Zeph 2:1).

It was a manner of speaking to identify an incomparable or supposed status among others. The gospel of John alone gives several examples of this manner of speaking. First, the Jews boldly state, "Abraham is our father" (John 8:39) only to say a few verses later, "We have one Father—even God" (John 8:41). Were they denying what they had just said of Abraham? No.

Jesus calls the Father "the only true God" (17:3). Yet, the author calls the Word "God" (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος) in the first chapter verse 1, distinguishing him from the God with whom he had been in the beginning (ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν). Again in verse 18, the prologue identifies God the Father and the only begotten God (μονογενὴς θεὸς). That makes two. At the end of the gospel, Jesus is called God (20:28) and he distinguishes himself from his own God (20:17).

Even when calling the Father "the only true God," Jesus did not deny his own divinity (nor does it ever say they are the same ontological divinity).

The word μονογενής (John 1:14, 18; 3:16) has been translated as "only begotten," "unique," etc. and can mean the only child (Luke 7:12; 8:42; 9:38). However, it can also be used for a unique or special child as in Hebrews 11:17 for Isaac. As we know, Ishmael was a Abram's (Abraham's) child also but not the child of promise (Gen 16:15). Jesus also acknowledges that he has siblings: "...go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father" (John 20:17; cf. 1:12).

Jesus of himself says, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6). Yet Jesus associates some of these same attributes to the Spirit. Of truth he says, "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (John 16:13). Of life he says, "It is the Spirit who gives life" (John 6:63). Of approaching the Father he says, "the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him" (4:23). Thus, through the Spirit we can come to the Father also but this is because of Jesus.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in MY NAME, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I HAVE SAID to you" (John 14:26; emphasis added).

Further Reading

Latter-day Saints have chosen the True, Biblical Jesus

Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought, vol. 3: Of God and Gods (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008)

For a TL;DR version of the "response" from the Trinitarian apologist (which sums up all his comments online and elsewhere):