1) We must ask ourselves if the doctrine in question is fully supported by scripture. Does scripture support all of the main points of the doctrine? Or are there significant gaps which the proponents of the doctrine must fill in? Does scripture provide comprehensive support for the doctrine in question?
2) Another quality we must look for in our examination of the given doctrine is clarity. Is the scriptural support claimed for the doctrine clear and unambiguous? Or are there other possible interpretations of the passages marshaled on behalf of the doctrine in question.
3) A third criteria by which we should judge a specific doctrine is the directness of the scriptural support. Are the passages quoted to sustain the theory addressing the issue in a direct and straightforward manner? Or is the scripture discussing another issue altogether.
4) Finally we must ask if the scriptural support for the doctrine is consistent. After evaluating the doctrine for comprehensiveness, for clarity and for the direct nature of the support – we must then ask if scripture ever provides a conflicting teaching that is as comprehensive, clear and direct as are the passages cited in support of the doctrine in question."
Blumenthal applies this 4-Step approach to evaluate the Doctrine of the Trinity:
“In order to establish His relationship with the Jewish people God introduced Himself to the nation as a whole with the words “I am the Lord your God” (Exodus 20:2). This revelation gave the people to understand that there is no power aside from God (Deuteronomy 4:35). This revelation was God’s way of teaching us whom to worship, and through the process of elimination – who we cannot worship.
If the being in question was not present at Sinai, then it does not deserve our devotion (Exodus 20:19, Deuteronomy 4:15). Scripture consistently warns against worshipping - “gods that neither you nor your fathers have known” (Deuteronomy 11:28, 13:3,7,14, 28:65, 29:25, 32:17, Jeremiah 7:9, 19:4) – or “that which I have not commanded” (Deuteronomy 17:3).
The clear message of scripture precludes worship of a being that was not revealed to us at Sinai. It is on this basis that the Jewish people cannot accept a teaching which deifies a human being.
These passages provide full support for the Jewish doctrine. The entirety of the Jewish doctrine as it relates to this issue is contained in Deuteronomy chapter 4. The Sinai revelation defined for the nation who it is that they are and who it is that they are not to worship – and that is all there is to it – we worship the God who revealed Himself to our ancestors - as our ancestors preserved that revelation.
These passages are clear. It occurred to no-one to dispute the obvious fact that this passage speaks of the issue of idolatry.
These passages are direct. In these passages God directly commands His people who it is that they are to worship and who it is that they are not to worship.
And these passages are consistent. There are no other passages in scripture which are as direct, as clear and as comprehensive as these, that would give us a conflicting view. The Jew can be satisfied that the doctrines of Judaism are indeed scriptural.”
These comments are part of an article by Rabbi Blumenthal addressing the apologetics of the Trinitarian, Dr Michael L Brown . Blumenthal then goes on to say:
"The verses that Dr. Brown mustered in support of (the Trinity) do not meet any of these criteria.
In order to support the Christian doctrine which attributes deity to and encourages worship of Jesus, Brown quotes Psalm 110:1, Daniel 7:13, Psalm 45:18, Isaiah 52:13, Isaiah 9:6-7, Exodus 24:9-10, and Genesis 18. Even if we were to grant that Brown’s interpretation of these verses is correct (and we shall shortly demonstrate that this is not the case), still, all of these verses together only provide fractional support for the doctrines of (the Trinity).
According to Brown, these verses teach that a person can be God. These verses do not tell us if this is limited to one person or if many persons can be God. These verses do not tell us if this representation of God is co-equal to God or if he is subservient to God. These verses could be used to support the Hindu and Buddhist doctrines of the incarnation of the divine as easily as they could be used in support of the Trinitarian doctrine. And most importantly, these verses do not teach us to worship this representation of God as a deity.
The scriptural support that Brown presented for the Christian doctrine is fragmentary and incomplete.
These passages that Brown presented in support of (the Trinity) are not clear. Each of these verses can be understood without reference to the Christian doctrine of incarnation.
The scriptural support presented … is vague and ambiguous. None of these passages directly address the issue at hand. Not one of these passages is placed in a context which would give us to understand that this is God’s teaching on the correct method of worship or to help us understand His nature. The scriptural support is circuitous and oblique.
In light of the limited nature of the (Trinity) proof-texts, and in light of the vague and indirect quality of the support that these passages provide for this Christian doctrine, we recognize that the … usage of these passages is inconsistent. The scriptures declare openly and unequivocally that God has no form (Isaiah 40:17, 25) and that no representation of Him is to be worshiped (Deuteronomy 4:15).”
Based on this 4-Step approach, there is no way that one can say that the Trinity is a consistent Scriptural theme.
- for more see
No comments:
Post a Comment