I have often
argued that, functionally,
Trinitarians often are, in their Christology, Nestorian, splitting Jesus into two
persons (a human person and a divine person). An example of this comes from a
recent debate book between a proponent of Socinian (so-called “Biblical”
Unitarianism) and Trinitarianism. The Trinitarian, commenting on the limitation
Jesus experienced during mortality, wrote:
By virtue of the human nature in which the
Son subsists, he did not know everything, was tempted, was subject to the
creator, and suffered and died. I fail to understand how he could therefore
fail to qualify as genuinely human. (Christopher M. Date, “Negative Rebuttal,” in Dale
Tuggy and Christopher M. Date, Is Jesus
Human and Not Divine? A Debate [Essential Christian Debates; Apollo, Pa.:
Areopagus, 2020], 91)
In the
footnote for the above, we have this shocking admission:
By saying the Son was limited in knowledge and subject to the creator by virtue of
his human nature, I in no way mean to imply he no longer is. It is quite
reasonable to believe he is forever limited in knowledge and subject to his
Father, by virtue of his incarnation. (Ibid., 91 n. 47)
In other
words, Jesus, a divine person, will be eternally limited in knowledge and
dependent on his knowledge from the person of the Father! I wonder how many
Trinitarians will recoil when they read this!
To read a case for Latter-day Saint Christology, be sure to check out Latter-day Saints have Chosen the True, Biblical Jesus
