Do Trinitarians really know their foundational core doctrines and their impact on their beliefs and others?

[mikesw]

It is 5% or a bit less, not 20%.
Are you willing to deny the 95% just to accomodate the denial of your pastors of the truth of God?

what pastors? You seem to want to accommodate false teachers. The Trinitarian understanding of God is well established. If someone has basis to replace that doctrine, they will have their work cut out for them. I have not seen you or Peterlag providing that comprehensive evaluation of scripture to overcome the Trinitarian conception of God. Peterlag comes out with half-witted alternatives that fall short of anything reasonable.

The understanding of the Trinity is not just taking the scriptures that speak of Christ in his humanity. Those have to be resolved with the passages that speak of his divinity. You don't just throw those away.

It would be acceptable even if an atheist could make a good argument from scripture that addresses all the ideas of the Trinitarian doctrine. But no one has really stepped up to the challenging process of doing that. Even someone who might call himself a Christian, such as Peterlag, has come far short of a sound argument.

 

[mikesw]

It is 5% or a bit less, not 20%.
Are you willing to deny the 95% just to accomodate the denial of your pastors of the truth of God?

Ok. to be fair, you have used "pastors" as a term to reflect writings perhaps of the New Testament. So you are saying that the topic and approach they use when writing to solve a problem among their recipients should be the overwhelming testimony about the nature of Christ -- when its speaks of his humanity and his deity. That means that you suggest it is a numbers game, a game of percentages, rather than hearing the full testimony of scripture. We have to be more studious than that when looking at scriptures.

 

[Peterlag]

Detailed data on Philippians 2:6-8

“though being.” Although many translations translate this present participle huparchō (#5225 ὑπάρχω) as “though he was,” it is preferable to keep the present, continuous aspect of the participle. The simple past tense, “though he was in the form of God” could be taken to mean that he ceased to be in the form of God at some later point which the present participle does not communicate.

“appearance of God.” This entry really concerns the entire passage of Phil. 2:6-8. One of the great purposes of Philippians is to encourage the Church to unity and humility, and in fact, unity can only be achieved through humility. (We see Paul’s plea for unity in Phil. 1:27 and 2:2, and see his plea for humility in Phil. 2:3). After telling people to be humble and to look out for other people’s interests, he gives the example of Jesus, saying, “Have this mindset in you that was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). Jesus was in the form of God, that is, as God’s Son he had divine position and authority, but he humbled himself and became a servant to others. Similarly, no matter what your position is in the Church, whether you are an apostle or have a leadership ministry, you are called to humble yourself and serve, not be served.

These verses have been used to support the Trinity, but they do not. Actually, they have caused division among Trinitarians. There are several arguments wrapped into these two verses, and we will deal with them point by point.

First, many Trinitarians assert that the word “form” which is the Greek word morphē, refers to Christ’s inner nature as God. This is so strongly asserted that in Phil. 2:6 the NIV has “being in very nature God.” The evidence does not support that morphē refers to an “inner essential nature” and we will give evidence that it refers to an outer form. Different lexicons have opposing viewpoints about the definition of morphē to such a degree that we can think of no other word defined by the lexicons in such contradictory ways. We will give definitions from lexicons that take both positions to show the differences between them.

Vine’s Lexicon has under “form” “properly the nature or essence, not in the abstract, but as actually subsisting in the individual… it does not include in itself anything ‘accidental’ or separable, such as particular modes of manifestation.” Using lexicons like Vine’s, Trinitarians boldly make the case that the “nature” underlying Jesus’ human body was God. Trinitarian scholars like Vine contrast morphē, which they assert refers to an “inner, essential nature,” with schema, (in Phil. 2:8, and translated “fashion”) which they assert refers to the outward appearance. We admit that there are many Trinitarian scholars who have written lexical entries or articles on the Greek word morphē and concluded that Christ must be God. A Trinitarian wanting to prove his point can quote from a number of them. However, we assert that these definitions are biased and erroneous. In addition, we could not find any non-Trinitarian scholars who agreed with the conclusion of the Trinitarian scholars, while many Trinitarian sources agree that morphē refers to the outward appearance and not an inner nature.

A study of other lexicons (many of them Trinitarian) gives a totally different picture than does Vine’s Lexicon. E. W. Bullinger gives morphē a one-word definition, “form.” The scholarly lexicon by Walter Bauer, translated and revised by Arndt and Gingrich, has under morphē, “form, outward appearance, shape.” Gerard Kittel, TDNT, has “form, external appearance.” Kittel also notes that morphē and schema are often interchangeable. Robert Thayer, in his well-respected lexicon, has under morphē, “the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; the external appearance.” Thayer says that the Greeks said that children reflect the appearance (morphē) of their parents, something easily noticed in every culture. Thayer also notes that some scholars try to make morphē refer to that which is intrinsic and essential, in contrast to that which is outward and accidental, but says, “the distinction is rejected by many.”

The above evidence shows that scholars disagree about the use of the word morphē in Philippians. When scholars disagree, and especially when it is believed that the reason for the disagreement is due to bias over a doctrinal issue, it is absolutely essential to do as much original research as possible. The real definition of morphē should become apparent as we check the sources available at the time of the New Testament. After all, the word was a common one in the Greek world. We assert that a study of the actual evidence clearly reveals that morphē does not refer to Christ’s inner essential being, but rather to an outward appearance.

From secular writings, we learn that the Greeks used morphē to describe when the gods changed their appearance. Kittel points out that in pagan mythology, the gods change their forms (morphē), and especially notes Aphrodite, Demeter, and Dionysus as three who did. This is clearly a change of appearance, not nature. Josephus, a contemporary of the apostles, used morphē to describe the shape of statues.

Other uses of morphē in the Bible support the position that morphē refers to outward appearance. The Gospel of Mark has a short reference to the well-known story in Luke 24:13-33 about Jesus appearing to the two men on the road to Emmaus. Mark tells us that Jesus appeared “in a different form (morphē)” to these two men so that they did not recognize him (Mark 16:12). Although that section of Mark was likely not original, it shows that the people of the time used the word morphē to refer to a person’s outward appearance. It is clear that Jesus did not have a different “essential nature” when he appeared to the two disciples, he simply had a different outward appearance.

More evidence for the word morphē referring to the outward appearance can be gleaned from the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament from about 250 BC. It was written because of the large number of Greek-speaking Jews in Israel and the surrounding countries (a result of Alexander the Great’s conquest of Egypt in 332 BC and his gaining control over the territory of Israel). By around 250 BC, so many Jews spoke Greek that a Greek translation of the Old Testament was made, which today is called the Septuagint. The Septuagint greatly influenced the Jews during the New Testament times. Some of the quotations from the Old Testament that appear in the New Testament are actually from the Septuagint, not the Hebrew text. Furthermore, there were many Greek-speaking Jews in the first-century Church. In fact, the first recorded congregational conflict occurred when Hebrew-speaking Jews showed prejudice against the Greek-speaking Jews (Acts 6:1).

The Jews translating the Septuagint used morphē several times, and it always referred to the outward appearance. Job says, “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A form (morphē) stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice” (Job 4:15-16). There is no question here that morphē refers to the outward appearance. Isaiah has the word morphē in reference to man-made idols: “The carpenter measures with a line and makes an outline with a marker; he roughs it out with chisels and marks it with compasses. He shapes it in the form (morphē) of man, of man in all his glory, that it may dwell in a shrine” (Isa. 44:13). It would be absurd to assert that morphē referred to “the essential nature” in this verse, as if a wooden carving could have the “essential nature” of man. The verse is clear: the idol has the “outward appearance” of a man. According to Daniel 3:19, after Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to bow down to Nebuchadnezzar’s image, he became enraged and “the form (morphē) of his countenance” changed. The NASB says, “his facial expression” changed. Nothing in his nature changed, but the people watching could see that his outward appearance changed.

For still more documentation that the Jews used morphē to refer to the outward appearance, we turn to what is known as the “Apocrypha” books written between the time of Malachi and Matthew. “Apocrypha” literally means “obscure” or “hidden away” and these books are rightly not accepted by most Protestants as being part of the true canon, but are accepted by Roman Catholics and printed in Catholic Bibles. Our interest in them is due to the fact that they were written near the time of the writing of the New Testament, were known to the Jews at that time, and contain the word morphē. In the Apocrypha, morphē is used in the same way that the Septuagint translators use it, i.e., as outward appearance. For example, in “The Wisdom of Solomon” is the following: “Their enemies heard their voices, but did not see their forms” (18:1). A study of morphē in the Apocrypha will show that it always referred to the outer form.

There is still more evidence. Morphē is the root word of some other New Testament words and is also used in compound words. These add further support to the idea that morphē refers to an appearance or outward manifestation. The Bible speaks of evil men who have a “form” (morphosis) of godliness (2 Tim. 3:5). Their inner nature was evil, but they had an outward appearance of being godly. On the Mount of Transfiguration, Christ was “transformed” (metamorphoomai) before the apostles (Matt. 17:2; Mark 9:2). They did not see Christ get a new nature, rather they saw his outward form profoundly change.

Another reason that morphē does not refer to the essential nature of Christ in this context is that if the point of the verse is to say that Jesus is God, then why not just say that? If Jesus is God, say that, don’t say he has the “essential nature of God.” Of course God has the “essential nature” of God, so why would anyone make that point? This verse does not say, “Jesus, being God” but rather, “being in the form of God.” Paul is reminding the Philippians that Jesus represented the Father in every possible way.

So what can we conclude about morphē? The Philippian church consisted of Jews and converted Greeks. From the Septuagint and their other writings, the Jews were familiar with morphē referring to the outward appearance, including the form of men and idols. To the Greeks, it also referred to the outward appearance, including the changing outward appearance of their gods and the form of statues. The only other New Testament use of morphē outside Philippians is in Mark, and there it refers to the outward appearance. Also, the words related to morphē clearly refer to an outward manifestation or appearance. We assert the actual evidence is clear: the word morphē refers to an outward appearance or manifestation. Jesus Christ was in the outward appearance of God, so much so that he said, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Christ always did the Father’s will, and perfectly represented his Father in every way.

Schema, as Kittel points out, can be synonymous with morphē, but it has more of an emphasis on outward trappings rather than outward appearance, and often points to that which is more transitory in nature, like the clothing we wear or an appearance we have for just a short time. As human beings, we always have the outward form (morphē) of human beings. Yet there is a sense in which our schema, our appearance, is always changing. We start as babies, and grow and develop, then we mature and age. This is so much the case that a person’s outward appearance is one of the most common topics of conversation between people when they meet. We say, “Wow, you’ve lost weight,” or “You have changed your hairstyle,” and point out even minor changes in appearance.

Like the rest of us, Christ was fully human and had the outward form (morphē) of a human. However, because he always did the Father’s will and demonstrated godly behavior and obedience, he therefore had the outward “appearance” (morphē) of God also. Also, like the rest of us, his appearance (schema) regularly changed. Thus, in Philippians 2:6-8, schema can be synonymous with morphē, or it can place an emphasis on the fact that the appearance Christ had as a human being was transitory in nature. The wording of Philippians 2:6-8 does not present us with a God-man, with whom none of us can identify. Rather, it presents us with a man just like we are, who grew and aged, yet who was so focused on God in every thought and deed that he perfectly represented the Father.

Another point we should make is that it has been suggested that since the phrase morphē theou (μορφῇ θεοῦ), traditionally “form of God” is parallel with the phrase in Phil. 2:7, morphēdoulou (μορφὴν δούλου), “form of a slave” that the translation “form of a god” is better than “form of God.” However, it seems more likely that “form of God” is correct since that phrase is governed by the preposition en (“in”) which means the noun Theos does not need to have a definite article before it to be “God” and that is especially true in light of the fact that the second Theos in Phil. 2:6 clearly refers to God and not “a god.” We would say “a servant” because the noun is singular, but “God” is singular by nature whereas saying “a God” or “a god” actually confuses the translation. Also, saying “the form of a god” would miss the point of the verse, because it is not saying that Jesus was “a god” so he did not grasp at equality with God, rather it is saying that he was in outward form God (his actions, his authority, as explained above), yet he did not grasp at equality with God, his Father.

“considered equality with God not something to be grasped at.” After saying that Christ was in the form of God, Philippians 2:6 goes on to say that Christ “considered being equal with God not something to be grasped at.” Translated that way, the phrase is a powerful argument against the Trinity. If Jesus were God, then it would make no sense at all to say that he did not “grasp” at equality with God because no one grasps at equality with himself. It only makes sense to compliment someone for not seeking equality when he is not equal. Some Trinitarians say, “Well, he was not grasping for equality with the Father.” That is not what the verse says. It says Christ did not grasp at equality with God, which makes the verse nonsense if he were God.

Because harpagmos does not have a clear meaning from the Greek sources, people define it according to their theology. So, for example, Hawthorne and Martin give some examples of how theologians have thought about harpagmos. Some theologians believe it means something that is “not yet possessed but desirable, a thing to be snatched at, grasped after, as Adam or Satan, each in his own way, grasped after being equal with God.” We agree with that position, but it presupposes that Jesus was not God. Trinitarian theologians are more apt to think harpagmos means something that is already attained and to be held on to. Thus, if Jesus was God, he would naturally want to hold on to that position, but instead, he gave it up and mysteriously became a God-man. Other Trinitarian theologians think it refers to a “windfall” “piece of good fortune” or “lucky find.” In that case, Jesus did not think that being equal with God was something to be exploited or taken advantage of. Other theologians take the meaning from the verb which is found in 1 Thess. 4:17 and means “suddenly caught up” referring to the “Rapture” of the Church. That makes for a very obscure point in Philippians 2:6, the essence of which is that Jesus was in the form of God but did not think being with God was a “rapture” something that could be done for him because it was his nature to begin with. No spirit could bring him to that state.

The point of showing the above interpretations is to show that the meaning of the noun harpagmos is not clear. Instead, theologians bring their theology to the text and explain harpagmos in terms of what makes sense to them in view of what they believe fits with the scope of Scripture.

However, the most frequent way to translate this phrase by Trinitarians is something close to, “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped” (ESV, NASB, NAB, NET). Although this is not a bad translation, the term “grasped” is ambiguous enough that one of the clear aspects of the word in question, harpagmos (#725 ἁρπαγμός), might be missed. Although a precise meaning of harpagmos is not evident because it is a hapax legomenon, that is, it only occurs here in the New Testament, and it is fairly rare in Greek secular literature, there is an aspect of the word that is clear in every use. It denotes something that one does not currently have. When observing its uses in extra-biblical Greek, a pattern emerges. It refers to “a seizure of property” in Plutarch, and a “prize to be grasped” referring to how Peter viewed his impending death on the cross (quoted in Eusebius) and it is extremely close semantically to the meaning of harpagma which is used 18 times in the Septuagint and means “booty” or “spoil.” Additionally, the verb with essentially the same root harpagē (# 724 ἁρπαγή) means “robbery” or “plunder.” In all of these uses harpagmos and its close semantic neighbors refer to something that one does not already own or possess, rather, it refers to something that is taken, stolen, or acquired. Thus, when Trinitarian translators just simply use the phrase, “something to be grasped” one could understand this to mean that Jesus already possessed it, but simply let go of his equality with God when he “emptied himself.” However, this misses the meaning of the word. It refers to something one does not currently possess, thus, it is best to translate the idea as “considered equality with God not something to be grasped at” which clarifies that Jesus did not possess equality with God.

There is another aspect of this verse that solidifies the Biblical Unitarian understanding even more. Recently, Skip Moen, a Trinitarian, has pointed out that the “not” in Philippians 2:6 does not go with the verb hēgeomai (#2233 ἡγέομαι; “think, consider, deem, reckon”) even though almost all English versions have it that way, but rather it goes with the noun harpagmos. That means the verse does not read, “did not consider equality with God something to be grasped at” (NIV84), but rather should read, “considered equality with God not something to be grasped at.” Translated that way, it clarifies that it is not as if Jesus simply did not consider equality with God, but that he considered it and thought that it was not something to be grasped at. In that light, as Moen writes “the implication is that Yeshua saw equality with God as something unattainable.” Moen goes on: “It means that this verse does not say that Yeshua gave up equality with God voluntarily because it did not serve the purposes of the Messiah. It says that Yeshua never aspired to be equal with God because equality with God is not possible.” In that light, we can clearly see the contrast between Satan and Christ (or Adam and Christ) because while Satan and Adam were blinded by pride and desire and wanted to be like God, Christ remained humble and retained the clear knowledge that being equal with God was completely unattainable, and was content to fulfill the purpose that God had for him, and joyfully did the will of God.

 

[Peterlag]

The supposed “dual nature” of Christ is never stated in the Bible and contradicts the Bible and the laws of nature that God set up. Nothing can be 100% of two different things. Jesus cannot be 100% God and 100% man, and that is not a “mystery” but it's a contradiction and a talk of nonsense. A fatal flaw in the “dual nature” theory is that both natures in Jesus would have had to have known about each other. The Jesus God nature would have known about his human nature, and (according to what the Trinitarians teach) his human nature knew he was God, which explains why Trinitarians say Jesus taught that he was God.

For example, in his God nature he would not have been tempted by anything (James 1:13), and his human part would not have been tempted either since his human nature had access to that same knowledge and assurance. It is written he was tempted in every way like we all are (Hebrews 4:15). Furthermore, God does not have the problems, uncertainty, and anxieties that humans do, and Jesus would not have had those either if he knew he was God. Also, Luke 2:52 says Jesus grew in wisdom, but his human part would have had access to his God part, which would have given him infinite and inherent wisdom. Hebrews says Jesus “learned obedience” by the things that he suffered, but again, the human part of Jesus would have accessed the God part of him and he would not have needed to learn anything.

Kenotic Trinitarians claim that Jesus put off or limited His God nature, but that theology only developed to try to reconcile some of the verses about what Christ experienced on the earth. The idea that God can limit what He knows or experiences as God is not taught or explained in Scripture, and Kenotic Trinitarianism has been rejected by orthodox Trinitarians for exactly that reason. The very simple way to explain the “difficult verses” that Kenotic Trinitarians are trying to explain about Christ’s human experiences is to realize that Jesus was a fully human being, and not both God and man at the same time. Some assert we have to take the Trinity “by faith” but that is not biblical either.