Dixon Olson Debate on the Trinity

8/3/2019 Dixon Olson Debate on the Trinity

1/96

Dixon-Lloyd Debate on the TrinityPage 1 of 96

Dixon-Olson Debate on the Doctrine of the Trinity

Resolved: The mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three

persons in one essence is biblically incorrect since Jesus is 100% man and 0% God and "Holy

Spirit" is another name for God the Father.

Conducted online at the Yahoo Group RelgiousDebates

Between

Danny Andr Dixon, M.A.

and

Dr. L. Olson


2/96


November 5, 2007 to January 18, 2008


3/96


Table of Contents

Mr. Dixons First Affirmative .. 3

Dr. Olsons First Negative .. 9

Mr. Dixons Second Affirmative .... 16 Dr. Olsons Second Negative .. 32

Mr. Dixons Third Affirmative ... 50

Dr. Olsons Third Negative 68

__________________________________________

Dr. Olson s First Affirmative 80


4/96


This is part one of a debate on the Trinity between Danny Dixon and Dr. L. Olson. This debate is

NOT complete inasmuch as it was originally intended to switch after what you will read to

another debate of equal length that would have Dr. Olson taking the affirmative side. I withdrew

from the debate after the first part was finished because I felt that there were ungentlemanly

tactics used by Dr. Olson, not the least of which was the fact that Olson brought up many new

arguments in his last presentation of Part One. Dr Olson does make his first affirmative in

discussing the topic from the other point of view to which, to date, I have not responded.

Mr. Dixons First Affirmative

Greetings, Moderator, distinguished list subscribers, and polemical opponent brother Larry

Bunch. My name is Danny Andr Dixon, I am a 1981 and 1984 graduate of Abilene Christian

University. I spent about 10 years in various ministries in different congregations from Virginia

to California working as a youth minister, college minister, or pulpit minister. I am presently a

schoolteacher of English Language Arts and English as a Second Language in southwest Texas.

My present views regarding the Trinity began probably around 2001 and have developed to their

present expression. I am happy to debate the following topic with Lloyd Olson: Resolved: The

mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three persons in one

essence is biblically incorrect since Jesus is 100% man and 0% God and "Holy Spirit" is another

name for God the Father.Authority

I accept as final authority in this debate the Christian Scriptures which are what we know

as the Old Testament 39 books and the New Testament 27 books. I observe, in saying this, that

these Scriptures are true in their original manuscripts and that we have every good reason to

accept the progress of modern scholarship to provide significant developments in ascertaining

what that text was and ought to be from the Septuagint and Masoretic text of Hebrew and

Aramaic portions for the Old Testament. I accept the New Testament text as represented in the

4th edition of the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament. I believe that some passages and

words are legitimately debatable, and due consideration should be given to scholarly discussion

of what we read in the Bible as regards texts, exegesis, and hermeneutics (interpretation).

Definitions


5/96


While many perspectives regarding the nature of God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

and the Holy Spirit have developed over the ages, it is the typical view held in most churches

that God is a trinity one God in three persons, or as stated in our resolution, three persons in

one essence. These are philosophically "loaded" terms and do not necessarily mean what onewould expect them to based on a casual consideration of the words. I would not limit my

opponent Larry to thinking that "person" means a separate individual, which could lead to the

idea that there are three different fellows who are all three God (three Gods). Nor is it important

to me that we quibble much over the word "trinity." Given the brevity of space and speeches

we have been allowed, I think it would be fair to say that the primary consideration in the

discussion has to do with Jesus and whether he is equal in essence or "God-ness" with the Father.

In saying that Jesus is 100% man and 0% God, I am denying that Jesus has a dual nature

and is a God-man.

Furthermore, I do not believe that Jesus is a Jekyll-Hyde schizophrenic who is sometimes is

this and sometimes that. Essentially I am affirming that Jesus had his beginning as a person like

you and me when he was miraculously brought into being in the womb of Mary; that he had no

existence as an indiviual prior to that time; and that he is a literal descendent of David, king of

Israel, through his lineage in Mary as his mother. I also maintain that his miraculous coming-

into-being is not explained in Scripture except inasmuch as we read in Luke 1:35 that God's Holy

Spirit (or holy spirit) caused Jesus to be conceived in the womb of his virgin motherAdditionally, there is one individual who is God. He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

He is the one and only one person described as Israel's Lord. He is the one Jesus spoke of in

Mark 12:28ff, when he was asked by a scribe to identify the greatest commandment. He is

Jehovah (or Yahweh), the one Lord (Adonai), who requires the love's fullness from our hearts,

souls, minds, and strength. He is identified by Jesus honestly, who affirmed the Father's oneness

without his fingers crossed behind his back in some sort of trick affirmation.

Regarding what we would observe from Scripture about the Father, he is identified as

follows:

1.The only God , according to Jesus in John 5:44

2.The only true God , according to Jesus in John 17:3

3.The one God who is the Father, says Paul in distinguishing the Father as one God from the

one who is the one Lord, Jesus the Messiah in 1 Corinthians 8:6


6/96


4.The one God who, after Jesus is subjected to him after Christ's last enemy Death is

destroyed, will be "all in all," says Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:25-28.

5.The one God and Father who, in distinction from the one Lord Jesus, is the one God and

Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all, according to Paul in Ephesians4:5.

6.The one God who is above mankind who have a mediator between them and God one of

their own kind, the man Jesus, says Paul in 1 Timothy 2:5.

The Son of God

We ought very carefully to consider what it means to say that Jesus is the "Son of God."

The biblical evidence will demonstrate that, "Son of God" often significantly means that Jesus is

God's Ultimate Messianic King. And while it means other things as well, it does NOT mean that

he is God the Son. On one occasion, king David told Nathan the prophet that he wanted to build

God a permanent temple to replace the movable tabernacle. Nathan explains to him that this is

not God's will for him, but that God would establish an eternal kingly dynasty from among

David's descendants:

The Lord declares to you that the Lord himself will establish a house for you: When your

days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you,

who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who

will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. Iwill be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the

rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from

him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your

kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever

(2 Samuel 7:11b-16, emphasis added).

The Eternal Dynasty Explained

We see here that God purposed to establish a human dynasty, and that, while David had

wanted to build a temple for God, the Lord had decided that not David, but David's son would do

this (2 Chronicles 17:4ff). Second, notice that a succession of kings in Israel would begin with

David's family. It would be an eternal dynasty of David's descendants, and whoever was the

sitting king in this dynasty would be called, God said, "my son." This began with Solomon and

was preserved in the kingly lineage of David's descendants right down to the last King in the


7/96


dynasty, God's final Son, Jesus the Christ (or Messiah). As the writer of Hebrews pointed out,

although in former days he had spoken in the world giving his word to the various prophets,

"in these last days he has spoken to us in a son, whom he appointed heir of all things and through

whom he made the ages" (Hebrews 1:2).Beginning with David and continuing on, particularly down through time with the good

kings that he blessed and even in the evil kings in David's dynasty whom he preserved, God

showed his willingness to carry out his will through his appointed and anointed leaders in Israel,

those who sat as his kings. It is through these kings that many statements that we have come to

identify as messianic prophecies are applied in a fuller and final sense to the last Anointed One

Jesus of Nazareth. Sometimes the most amazing things are said about those human kings.

Sometimes some of the most amazing biblical designations are given to those kings.

Sometimes the most amazing deference is shown toward those kings. And while there is no

direct biblical reference comparing Joseph to those kings and to Jesus, one cannot help but notice

that the language is significant and may accurately be used to describe the prerogatives that God

assigned to his Anointed One. As Pharaoh says to Joseph after the son of Jacob correctly

interpreted his dreams predicting the next 14 years of Egypt's history: "Since God has shown you

all this, there is none so discerning and wise as you are. You shall be over my house, and all my

people shall order themselves as you command. Only as regards the throne will I be greater

than you." And Pharaoh said to Joseph, "See, I have set you over all the land of Egypt" (Genesis41:39-41).

So Jesus is God's appointed agent, who is like Joseph who ruled in

every way except with regard to the final authority of the throne that

Pharaoh reserved for himself. How is this so?

A. As did Israel's royalty of old, Jesus accepted the prostration of men before him

( proskuneo , 1 Chronicles 29:20, see the Septuagint, hereinafter LXX).

B. As was said of kings in the Davidic dynasty, appellations of absolute deity are ascribed

to God's Anointed:

1. The human king, called God by Jehovah, is said to have an eternal throne as is

Jesus (Psalm 45:6; Hebrews 1:8).

2. The human king, called Lord by Jehovah, is said to have established the

foundations of the earth as is Jesus (Psalm 102:25; Hebrews 1:10-12).


8/96


3. Just as the Father was honored, so should honor be laid before the Son (John

5:23).

4. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to the Son (Matthew

28:18). Nothing needs to be given to God (Psalm 50:10ff).5. God has made Jesus both Lord and Messiah."(Acts 2:36)

6. Again, God has GIVEN the authority of divine prerogatives including the

ability to forgive sins (Matthew 9:2-8); to receive prayer (John 14:13-14); to be

worshipped ( latreuo , Revelation 22:3).

7. Even so, according to plan, all that authority that the Son, a man, received as an

honor from the Father, will be relinquished back to the Father, after Death, the

Messiah's last enemy, is destroyed (cf. John 5:22-23; 1 Corinthians 15:25-28).

Bottom line, Jesus has great power because he is God's appointed representative, given

even miraculous prerogatives and authority simply because he is God's Anointed "Son," a

designation that had a beginning ("You are my Son; today I have become your Father," Psalm

2:7; Acts 13:33), and that will have an end when God the Father will be all in all with Christ

Jesus subjected to him (1 Corinthians 15:27-28). For now, The Almighty Lord Jehovah (ASV)

has had the lesser one known as "my Lord" sit at his right hand until all this is accomplished

(Psalm 110:1). Jesus did sit down at God's right hand (Mark 16:19; Acts 2:34-35), and as Lord

and Christ he rules the present expression of the kingdom of God into which the saved have beentransferred (Colossians 1:13).

Jesus Has A God

Finally, for this presentation, I would affirm that Jesus is not God because he has a God,

something that is not true of the Father. In John 17:3, Jesus refers to the Father as "the only true

God." This should clearly set out for a careful observer that such makes perfect sense since with

other passages which speak of Jesus as having a God, with no suggestion that the Father has a

God. Romans 15:6 speaks of "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" (cf. 2 Corinthians

1:3; Ephesians 1:3). The Father of glory is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ (Ephesians 1:17; cf.

Colossians 1:3). It is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has caused us to be

begotten again, or born again (1 Peter 1:3). There is no way to avoid the distinguishing of one

from another as two separate beings.


9/96


Additionally, consider Jesus' announcement to Mary Magdalene: that he will ascend to the

Father: "'I ascend [not "return" as mistranslated in the NIV] to My Father and your Father, and

My God and your God" (John 20:17). To the extent that Mary had a God, the resurrected Jesus

had a God.I look forward to Lloyd's First Negative presentation.

Respectfully,

Danny Andr Dixon


10/96


Dr. Olson's First Negative

Greetings to the forum members, the moderators, and Mr. Dixon.

I am a very conservative evangelical who believes in the total sufficiency of Jesus Christ.I've debated on this forum several times against those who would deny the total sufficiency of

Jesus Christ in favor of human-centered water baptism and self-righteous obedience schemes. I

hold a Ph.D. from Trinity College & Seminary. My book on Eternal Security will be offered to

the public November 20th this year. I am a cost analyst with the Department of the Army,

Program Executive Office for Space and Missiles. I'm happily married w 5 children and 7

grands. I hope to retire in 4 years.

Mr. Dixon proposed the following:

The mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three persons

in one essence is biblically incorrect since Jesus is 100% man and 0% God and "Holy

Spirit" is another name for God the Father.

However, he failed to address the aspect of the Holy Spirit as another name for God the

Father. This unaddressed phrase should be deleted from the proposition unless he wishes to

resign now for failure to support the original proposition.

NEW PROPOSAL:

The mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three personsin one essence is biblically incorrect since Jesus is 100% man and 0% God.

Outline of Dr. Olson's first negative:

I. Methodology

II. Son of God

III. Jehovah

IV. The One True God.

V. Mediator

VI. Jesus and the Jews

VII. Nica: Jesus and Redemption

VIII. Conclusion

I. Methodology


11/96


Mr. Dixon made a catastrophic mistake in his first affirmative. Given that orthodoxy

holds that Jesus is both human and divine, much of Mr.Dixon's first affirmative was wasted in

affirming the orthodox position of Jesus' humanity. However, affirming that Jesus is human

is no proof that Jesus is not Himself true God. Mr. Dixon says that Jesus is God's chosenrepresentative. This is a worthless proof for it is affirmed by every mainline denomination. It

is no proof that Jesus is not Himself true God.

That Mr. Dixon can find passages where Jesus claims God as His Father only shows Jesus

as a fully functioning representative of humanity. This is yet another invalid argument. It is no

proof that Jesus is not Himself true God.

Mr. Dixon can find many passages where fully human Jesus talks as a human, is described

as human, and acts as a human. None of these are legitimate proofs that Jesus is not Himself true

God.

Mr. Dixon wasted much of his first affirmative with statements affirming the orthodox

position of Jesus' humanity. Affirmations of Jesus' humanity are not compelling proofs that Jesus

is not Himself true God.

Mr. Dixon has failed to provide biblical statements showing that Jesus is not true God.

Proving Jesus is fully human is not a defensible proof that Jesus is not God.

II. Son of God.

That Mr. Dixon can show that the title "Son of God" is related to the Messianic Jesus isaffirmed by every mainline denomination. It is no proof that Jesus is not Himself true God.

Furthermore, Mr. Dixon's comments only show his deplorable lack of understanding of this key

phrase.

The Psalmist (Ps 2:7) points to the legitimate Davidic king who would one day be the

Messiah. Thus the words "Today I have begotten You" speak of the day of coronation of King

Jesus. It has nothing to do with the temporal begetting of procreation. Jesus is not a created

being. The NT refers to Christ's exaltation via the resurrection to show that He truly was the

"Son of God" (our Lord) as Paul declares in Romans 1:4.

In addition, Mr. Dixon apparently does not understand that the phrase "son of" also carries

the meaning "of the order of." Thus, "sons of the prophets" is a reference to the order of prophets

(I Kings 20:35) and "sons of singers" means the order of the singers (Neh 12:28). The "Son of

God" when used of Jesus refers to the order of God and is a strong clear claim to full deity.


12/96


[Bible.org]

III. JEHOVAH

Mr. Dixon is confused about the identity of JEHOVAH. The title JEHOVAH (Yahweh) is

translated as "LORD" (all caps) in most English Bibles. It is quite different from Adonai whichis translated as "Lord" (lower case). Mr. Dixon's case is destroyed if we find any one passage

where the title JEHOVAH is applied to Jesus Christ

Application #1.

Thus saith JEHOVAH the King of Israel, and his redeemer JEHOVAH of hosts; I am the

first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. Isa 44:6 How can there be two

JEHOVAH'S??

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which

was, and which is to come, the Almighty. . . .

I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. Rev 1:8,11 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. . . . I am the root

and offspring of David. Rev 22:13,16

Application #2.

JEHOVAH is my shepherd. Ps 23:1

Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that greatshepherd of the sheep. Heb 13:20

I am the good shepherd. John 10:11 And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not

away. I Pet 5:4

Application #3.

Isaiah was in distress for his eyes saw "the King, JEHOVAH of hosts." Isa 6:5. Yet John,

referring to this very passage, writes of Jesus: "These things said Esaias, when he saw His glory,and spake of Him." (John 12:41, cf Isa 6:9-10).

Application #4.

Jeremiah introduces a new name for God: "JEHOVAH our righteousness." (Jer 23:6) Context

shows that this is a Messianic prophecy. God will raise up for David a righteous Branch, a King

over Israel. Clearly, Jesus is this human King who is none other than JEHOVAH.


13/96


Application #5.

"I, even I, am JEHOVAH; and beside me there is no Savior." Isa 43:11 Paul applies the name

God and Savior both to Jesus Christ. "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing

of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ." Titus 2:13. In Greek grammar, this verse is a rareapplication of the Granville Sharp rule [Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, 272].

There is no doubt that both "God" and "Savior" are applied to Jesus Christ. This is not a double

reference: one to God and a second to Jesus.

Application #6

For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his

shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The mighty God, THE

EVERLASTING FATHER, The Prince of Peace. Isa 9:6

Although this is not technically related to JEHOVAH, it is a most amazing prophecy. The

child can be none other than Jesus for the very next verse speaks of His earthly father David. Yet

look at the names and titles ascribed to this child! Note especially that He is called "the

everlasting Father!" Certainly the phrase "the everlasting Father" is far stronger than a reference

to JEHOVAH. This is one of the strongest passages affirming Christ's full equality with the

Father.

Conclusion:

Any one of these applications of JEHOVAH in the OT to Jesus in the NT is sufficient todemolish Mr. Dixon's heresy. I've presented six such passages and there are many more such

applications. Clearly, Mr. Dixon does not know Who JEHOVAH is. As a result he has violated

these passages by redefining terms to support his heresy.

IV. Declarations of the One True God.

Mr. Dixon claims to accept the Christian Scriptures. Why does he not

accept the biblical declarations that Jesus is the One True God?

1. John's epistle:

And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an

understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him

that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and

eternal life. (I John 5:20)


14/96


2. Thomas' declaration:

My Lord and my God. (John 20:28)

If Jesus were but a human representative, He should have chastised Thomas for this. But as

fully God, Jesus accepted Thomas' worship.3. Jesus' declaration to Satan:

Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. Matt 4:7

4. Jesus' declaration to Philip:

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast

thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father;

and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? John 14:9

5. Stephen's declaration:

And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus,

receive my spirit. Acts 7:59

6. Peter's preaching:

The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace

by Jesus Christ: He is Lord of all. Act 10:36

7. The angel's:

Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. (Rev 4:8)

Refer also to Rev 1:8 where the Almighty is also called the Alpha andOmega and it turns out to be none other than Jesus Christ!

V. Mediator

Mr. Dixon claims that Jesus, our mediator, is "the man Jesus" pointing to 1 Tim 2:5. In this

he is again but half right. It is orthodoxy's proud declaration that Jesus is 100% human and fully

qualified to represent us before God in mediation. There is no dispute here. But that Jesus is a

human representative in the mediation process is no proof that He is not God.

Furthermore, Mr. Dixon has confused what a mediator really is. "The perfection of a

mediator is measured by his influence with the parties he has to reconcile, and this power flows

from his connection with both" [Catholic Encyclopedia]. Thus, Mr. Dixon has failed to see

that as Mediator, Christ must also be fully divine in order to represent God in the process of

mediation.


15/96


While a human can represent other humans, no human can represent God in mediation.

Please don't confuse a mediator with a prophet. A prophet can only speak for God. A prophet can

never mediate with God on behalf of humans. The only person qualified to mediate with God

must be fully God Himself.Mr. Dixon only sees in scripture the parts that seem to support his heresy. He is blind to the

parts that support orthodoxy.

VI. Jesus and the Jews.

Jesus declared that He and His Father "are one" (John 10:30). The Jews around Jesus fully

understood that to which Mr. Dixon is blind. They knew that His amazing claim made Him fully

equal to God and thus made Himself God. They took up stones to kill Him for this apparent

blasphemy (v31).

For Jesus to say, "I am the Son of God" (John 10:36) was understood by the Jews of His

day as His claim to equality with the Father, in an unqualified sense. Every doctrine supports

every other doctrine in theology. When the phrase "Son of God" is perverted then other

perversions necessarily arise.

VII. Nica: Jesus and Redemption.

Mr. Dixon's position is not new to Church history. His position is a repeat of the heresy

proposed by Arius (250-336) where he claimed that Jesus was the Father's first fiat. This heresy

was denounced by the Council of Nica (325). The outstanding spokesperson against Arius wasAthanasius who showed that the real issue was redemption in Christ; i.e. salvation. Since only a

divine mediator could reestablish fellowship with God, the rescue from sin could only be

done by God Himself. The council's statement read as follows:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible;

And in one Lord, Jesus Christ the Son of God, the only-begotten Son, first-born of all

creatures, begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousias) of the Father, God from

God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten (gennthenta), not made

(oupoiggenta), of one substance (homoousion) with the Father, through whom also all

things came to be, those things that are in heaven and those things that are on earth, who

for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh and was made man,

suffered, rose the third day, ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the

living and the dead.


16/96


Note how the creed denounced Arius' and Dixon's heresy. First, the creed inserted the

phrase "Son of God" to show that Jesus was "of the order" of God not that He was a created

being. Second, the creed used "ousias" to show that Jesus was of the same substance of the

Father. Third, the creed used "homoousion" (same substance) not "homoeousion" (similarsubstance) to show absolute equality with the Father. The two words "ousias" and "homoousion"

covered every conceivable way to visualize the relationship. Fourth, the creed contrasted

"begotten" with "made" to denounce any attempt to make Jesus a created being. Fifth, the creed

showed that our salvation depends on a fully divine Jesus who will come to judge the living and

the dead.

VIII. Conclusion:

Negatively, Mr. Dixon has embarked upon an insufficient method of proof. Since he agrees

with orthodoxy about the humanity of Jesus, any references to Jesus as human are invalid

arguments for this proposition.

Positively, the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is the True God. He is to be worshipped as

God, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last, the Jehovah of the OT and the everlasting

Father. The NT clearly declares Jesus to be fully God and fully equal to God the Father. He is the

only qualified mediator between God and humanity because He is both God and humanity. No

mere human can mediate with God.

The Council of Nica condemned Arius, burned his books, banned him from his positionof authority, and banned his supporters from their positions. We, today, should do no less to this

well-known heresy!

Thus, the mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a Trinity of three

persons in one essence is biblically CORRECT since Jesus is 100% man and 100% God.

May Jesus be the totality, center and sufficiency of our worship and theology!

Dr. Olson


17/96


Mr. Dixons Second Affirmative

Fraternal regards to the forum members, moderators, and Dr. Olson.

I respectfully decline Dr. Olson's suggestion that we adopt a new proposal. I am confidentof his ability to respond to my choice to develop my affirmative case as I wish, particularly as

regards the Holy Spirit. Markedly, as Christendom developed the doctrine of the Trinity over

time, post New Testament church fathers fail to say anything about the Spirit being an individual

within the godhead. Even the last paragraph of the Nicene Creed, which says, "I believe . . . in

the Holy spirit, the Lord and giver of life; who proceeds from the Father; who with the father and

the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets" did not have these

words until 381 A.D., some 56 years after the original creed. Note some interesting facts:

1.The Scriptures do not speak of the Holy Spirit, as a separate entity as being pTrayed to or

worshipped.

2.The Scriptures do not speak of the Holy Spirit being praised in songs.

3.The Scriptures do not have the Holy Spirit send his personal greetings with those of the

Father and the Lord Jesus Christ to the churches when the apostles write their letters.

4.The Scriptures do not give the Holy Spirit a personal name.

5.The last book of Bible, Revelation does not give the Holy Spirit a seat of authority on the

final throne, notwithstanding "the seven Spirits who are before His throne" (Rev. 1:4),

which can easily be seen metaphorically as "seven lamps of fire burning before the

throne" (Rev. 4:5), to the seven horns and seven eyes of the Lamb who had been slain

(Rev. 5:6). There is Hebrew background to demonstrate that Jesus is the Spirit-anointed

Messiah who was spoken of in the Old Testament. Isaiah prophesies that the Messiah

would have a seven-fold anointing when the Spirit of Jehovah rests on him, producing

(1) wisdom, (2) understanding, (3) counsel, (4) strength, (5) knowledge, (6) righteousness

and (7) the fear of the Jehovah (Isa. 11:2).Disappointingly, Dr. Olson seems to accept creedal authority to decide right doctrine.

Readers here should be impressed that Trinitarian doctrine has no unbroken history from the time

of the apostles, down through history. And Dr. Olson assumes too much when he describes my

position as "a repeat of the heresy proposed by Arius (250-336 [A.D.]) where he claimed

that Jesus was the Father's first fiat" and that "this heresy was denounced by the Council of Nicea


18/96


(325)." Christians are not bound by the prerogative of church councils, where there was anything

but consistency to the doctrines decided especially with regard to the Trinity. Note the following

events:

1.328 Constantine recalled Arius from exile in Illyria.2.335 Constantine sides with Arius and exiles Athanasius (Dr. Olson's "outstanding

spokesperson against Arius") to Trier.

3.336 The eastern bishops met at Constantinople with the emperor present in a fourth

council since Arius returned from exile to declare his theology orthodox.

4.337 The new Emperor Constantius orders the return of Athanasius to Alexandria where

he had been bishop.

5.339 Athanasius flees Alexandria having learned his is about to

be expelled as a heretic.

6.341 In two councils held in Antioch at that time, the First, Second and Third Arian

Confessions are written attempting to create a formal doctrine of faith to oppose the

Nicene Creed.

7.343 At the Council of Sardica, eastern bishops demand the removal of Athanasius

8.346 Athanasius is restored to Alexandria.

9.351 A council is held at Aries during autumn that is directed against Athanasius.

10. 355 A council is held in Milan which again condemns Athanasius.11. 356 Athanasius is deposed on February 8 and begins his third exile.

12. 357 The Third Council of Sirmium is convened where it is agreed that the Father is

greater than His subordinate son.

13. 359 The council of Seleucia affirms that Christ is like the father without specifying how

the Son is like the Father.

14. 361 A council is held in Antioch to affirm Arius' position.

15. 380 Emperor Theodosius the Great declares Christianity the official state religion of the

Empire.

16. 381 The First Council of Constantinople reviews the controversy since Nicea, re-

evaluates and accepts the Nicene Creed adding clauses on the Holy Spirit and other

matters.


19/96


Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire records the confused, but honest, statement

by Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, who wrote:

Every year, nay, every moon we make new creeds to describe invisible mysteries. We repent

of what we have done, we defend those who repent, we anathematize those whom wedefended. We condemn either the doctrine of others in ourselves, or our own in that of

others; and reciprocally tearing one another to pieces, we have been the cause of each other's

ruin.[1]

Church history on demonstrates that the Trinitarian side won at the end of the day, not

because they were right, but because, in due time, they were able to punish dissenters with the

secular sword which enforced ecclesiastical prerogatives. As in a school yard brawl, the bigger

theological boy won, got to root out and destroy any influences to the contrary, and on the basis

of fear, down through history truth was suppressed on pain of being roasted at the stake.

The Holy Spirit

The Old Testament makes it difficult to hold up the idea of God's Spirit being a distinct

member of a godhead. We can see that it is God's power or his active force that proceeds from

him and gives life to the physical world (Genesis 2:7). When, for instance, we read that "the

Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul" (1 Sam. 16:14), we can understand that "the Lord" had

departed from Saul (1 Sam. 18:12). Also in Isaiah 30:1 and 40:13 "My Spirit" and "the

Spirit of the Lord" equate with "I" the Lord. "The Spirit = "the hand of the Lord" in Ezekiel3:14; 8:1-3; 37:1.

Certainly it is easy enough to see passages like this, and other places (Gen. 1:2 where "the

Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters" or " or "a wind [breath] from God

swept over the face of the waters"), and assume, based on centuries of preconditioning, that such

passages are talking about the Spirit as an individual apart from the Father. But such passages do

not have to bee seen that way, and make equal or better sense not to do so. The parallelism in

Psalm 139:7 is telling and defining: Where can I go from Your Spirit? / Or where can I flee from

Your presence?" The writer understands the Spirit to be the presence of the God, not another

person who is a member of a divine godhead. Such a thought was foreign to the Jews.

Additionally, consider how carefully Luke chooses his words in three significant passages

that show how spirit and power are interchangeable terms: First, John the Baptist will go as a

forerunner before the Messiah "in the spirit and power of Elijah" (Luke 1:17). Second, when the


20/96


Son of God is conceived the angel tells Mary that "holy spirit [there is no article in the Greek

before the word "holy"] and the power of the Most High will over shadow you" (Luke 1:35).

And third, when Jesus announces the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost he says that he

intends to send forth the promise of my Father upon you; but you are to stay in the city until youare clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49). "Spirit of God," in one passage, is replaced

by "the finger of God" in the synoptic parallel passage (Matt. 12:28; Luke 11:20). Is the "finger

of God" adequate to describe a person?

There's no need to consider the Spirit as a distinct and separate person. The simpler

description or explanation that Paul gives is sufficient; he compares God's Spirit or the Spirit of

God with the spirit of man. In 1 Corinthians 2:10, 11 he compares the activity of this with the

way a man considers his inner thoughts and awareness:"The Spirit searches all things, even the

depths of God," and "Who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of a man

which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God". If the

spirit of man is to his own thoughts as the Spirit of God is to his own thoughts, there is no need

to see any separation of persons. Holy Spirit is God's own thoughts and intelligence in a passage

like this.

Even John's gospel speaking of the Holy Spirit as another "comforter" does not

automatically suggest the presence or existence of another person. While the Greek word in John

14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7 uses the Greek parakletos a masculine word in Greek, there is no necessityof making the assumption that it should be translated as he, especially given the fact that the

Spirit is given the neuter term auto (John 14: 17: "It" [The world, masc. kosmos] does not see it

(him)"; "You know it(him) because it(he) remains with you." In John 15:26 we find that the

Helper (Greek masculine, parakletos) is identified as "the Spirit [Greek neuter, to pneuma] "of

truth which [ASV and Greek neuter, ho] proceeds from the Father, that one [Greek masc.,

ekeinos] shall bear witness of me," Jesus says.[2]. Although the Greek in the passage does not,

textually speaking, require a view of the Spirit as a "person , there is also no reason to think of

the Spirit as some sort of non-personal Star Wars type "Force" because there is sufficient reason

to see that the Spirit belongs to a personal being, and it is an extension of the inward and

personal heart of God. As one writer has put it:

Knowing nothing of later dogma, Paul freely interchanges "spirit" and "mind," thus giving

us an apostolic definition of the Holy Spirit. "Who has known the mind [Greek, nous]


21/96


of the Lord, or who became His counselor?" (Rom. 11:34). The Hebrew text Paul is

quoting reads "Who has directed the spirit [Heb. ruah] of the Lord?" (Isa. 40:13) . . .[3]

The Spirit of God is God's Spirit. It is thusly God himself, just a man's spirit is the man

himself.Dr. Olson's Verses

Dr. Olson seems to think I have erred catastrophically since I have gone contrary to the so-

called orthodoxy that Jesus is both human and divine. He repeats the phrase "the orthodox

position of Jesus' humanity" as if it were some unbroken thread understood in Christendom from

New Testament times onward. The only evidence that he seems to have suggested exists outside

the New Testament is that the Council of Nicea declared Arius a heretic. It will be interesting to

see how he will define what makes a council's decrees authoritative. Next he will have to explain

why the authoritative councils that determined what was orthodox were inconsistent. What made

the decisions laid down in the council of 325, and the amended council of 381 any more correct

than those decisions made by councils at Constantinople in 336, in Antioch in 341 and 361, at

Sardica in 343, in Sirmium in 351 and 357, at Aries in 353, at Milan in 355, or at Seleucia in

359? Bottom line, the councils, particularly the final ones, had behind them the authority of the

club or the sword, not the authority of God. And the ecclesiastical bodies, wielding human

authority could bully anyone they wanted.

I was not affirming the human-decided position of Jesus' humanity. I was affirming whatthe Scriptures teach. And while I am grateful that Dr. Olson agrees with Scripture on these

points, he, in ignoring the exclusivity of the wording of the passages I have presented, has failed

to explain away the force of them in support of the concept. Jesus uses unequivocal language to

express the unique position of God. In John 5:44, Jesus acknowledges the Father as "the only

God" or as the NRSV renders it, "the one who alone is God." The language is very clear also in

John 17:3. Paul doesn't use any language that is questionable when he says, with respect to God's

dispensation of things spiritually, that there is one God and one Lord in 1 Corinthians 8:6;

Ephesians 4:5; that Jesus will be ultimately subordinated to God when Death is destroyed; and

that it is the man not the God-man Jesus the Messiah who is the mediator between God and

man in 1 Timothy 2:5. Again, Dr. Olson does not challenge the truth of these passages. He just

would prefer to assume that they mean more than they say. And how does he prove this? Does he

exegete these texts and demonstrate that there is more in them than there appears to be? No? He


22/96


says, simply, that I have failed to show "that Jesus is not true God." On the contrary, it is most

compelling when the testimony of Scripture is, in clear and uncontested texts, that there is only

one God, one true God, and that Jesus is a man who stands between God and man. With respect

to wording that is similar to that which I used, he would have us believe that there are variouspassages that prove that Jesus is the One True God.

1 John 5:20

Dr. Olson's 1 John 5:20 fails. First, while Dr. Olson joins many Trinitarians who claim

that the final sentence in the verse, "This is the true God," refers to Jesus Christ, there are a

number of scholars who do not. I am not sure why he believes that it cannot be seen any other

way. Perhaps it is because of the proximity of the pronoun "this" to the closest noun "Jesus

Christ." But if we let that determine our meaning we could find ourselves in a questionable

theological position given a passage like Acts 4:10-11, which is similarly structured:

Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of

Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man

stand here before you whole. This [houtos] is the stone which was set at nought of you

builders, which is become the head of the corner" (KJV).

If "This" in the last sentence refers to the closest noun or pronoun, then the man who was

healed is actually the stone rejected by the builders that has become the head of the corner, i.e.,

the Christ. But that isn't true. A similar problem exists in 2 John 1:7. Remoter context can makethe truth more clear. The phrase "true God," for example is used four times in the Bible other

than in 1 John 5:20. 2 Chron. 15:3; Jer. 10:10; John 17:3 and 1 Thess. 1:9, and in each case the

"true God" refers to the Father and not the Son. Especially consider John 17:3 where Jesus

himself refers to the Father as "the only true God." There is no precedent for thinking that the

wording of 1 John 5:20 should refer to the Son. Dr. Olson tries to prove his case on an

ambiguous passage.

John 20:28

Dr. Olson citation of Thomas' reference to Jesus as "My Lord and my God" fails. Again,

the designation is not an unequivocal reference to Jesus as Almighty God. Biblically speaking

human beings are not biblically precluded from appropriately being called "gods." Moses is

called elohim (Exodus 7:1) and even Jesus once responded to a charge that he was making


23/96


himself equal to God by pointing out that since the judges of Israel can be called elohim "gods"

(quoting Psalm 82:6), he certainly was not out of line to call himself God's Son.

So when Thomas' calls Jesus "My Lord and my God" we do not have to think that he was

calling Jesus Almighty God any more than Jesus would call the wicked judges of IsraelAlmighty God." Thomas appellation was appropriate for the ultimate human leader of Israel,

who correctly should be called his lord and his god. Dr. Olson calls this is "worship"? but on

what authority. The text certainly doesn't say it. And even if it is the Father's pleasure to give all

authority in heaven and on earth the Jesus (Matthew 28:18), it is derived glory, not inherent.

Even when Jesus healed the paralytic, Matthew notes that the people marvel that God had given

to men such authority over illness, and presumably even the authority on earth to forgive sins.

(Matt. 9:5-8).

Agency

Dr. Olson tries to soften the significance of the principle of agency in the Scriptures as

regards Jesus. He fails to understand that it is precisely because he had been given authority that

he can be treated with such high regard. But this dispensed authority no more makes Jesus equal

to the Father than the authority given to Joseph to be over the house of Pharaoh and all Egypt

would made him equal with regard to the throne (Genesis 41:39-41). As we have seen, Jesus

promptly corrected such a notion in John 10:30ff by citing Psalm 82:6. Additionally, he made

clear, even in his prayer to the Father that his desire was that the disciples should be one (Greek hen) in the same way that he was one with the Father. John 17:21 and 23 do not teach that this

oneness is a oneness of substance. Rather it is a oneness of unity of thought and mind with God.

Oneness in the sense that one is made of the same stuff as God is foreign to the Scripture both in

reference to Christ or his disciples.

Dr. Olson says, unwittingly that for Jesus to say, "I am the Son of God" in this context

(John 10:36) "was understood by the Jews of His day as His claim to equality with the Father in

an unqualified sense." He is mistaken. Whereas Jesus' accusers would have stoned him for

blasphemy (John 10:31-33) based on their misunderstanding of who he claimed to be, there is no

more mention of wanting to stone him in the context. Darrell L. Bock has shown in his recent

work Blasphemy and Exaltaion in Judaism: The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65 that

there were a number of reasons one could be stoned for blasphemy. While claiming to be God

was one of them, claiming to be the Messiah was another; claiming to be associated with great


24/96


men of old like Abraham was another. Even by the time the Jews get Jesus to trial, he is not

accused of the blasphemy of claiming to be equal with God, but of claiming to be the Messiah

(Mark 14:53-65).[4]

Matthew 4:7 fails to show that Jesus was God. Nothing here event remotely suggests thatSatan was doing anything other than testing or tempting a man. When Jesus says that Satan

should not tempt the Lord his God, he is not claiming to be God in correcting the devil. First of

all, it is impossible for God to be tempted anyway (James 1:13). Second, Jesus wanted Satan to

know that he, Jesus, would honor the biblical command not to test God. Jesus would not attempt

to put the Lord to the test, or tempt Him, by agreeing to cast himself from the temple. After all,

Jesus was not a God-man with some sort of dual nature. It was necessary that he be "made like

his brothers in every way" (Hebrews 2:17). This was necessary so that as a high priest, Jesus

could "make atonement for the sins of the people," the writer of Hebrews says (Hebrews 2:17).

The sacrificial lamb proved himself worthy of the position by pioneering a life of faith (Hebrews

12:2). What the First Adam destroyed in Eden, the Second Adam restored at Calvary. Jesus

would not have been a proper sacrifice had he had any advantage that Adam did not. Adam was

created as a perfect man, and as such he had the perfect right to choose sin if that was his will.

Jesus was created in the womb of Mary (Luke 1:35), and had the same prerogative to sin as had

Adam. However, when tempted he chose not to sin, thus qualifying as the unblemished

sacrificial lamb of God, who purchased the church with the blood of his own Son (Acts 20:28).John 14:9 fails to prove Jesus is God. While Jesus is the spitting image of the Father,

when he tells Philip that if the disciples had seem him Jesus they had seen the Father, he

wants them to understand that if they had observed his life and ministry, they would see how the

Father would have been had he lived life as a human. John had already written in the first chapter

of his gospel that "no man has seen God at any time" (John 1:18). The passage teaches however

that Jesus as the "only-begotten/unique god [Greek: monogenes theos )" has made the invisible

God known. We have already seen how the use of the term "god" fits in the context of Jewish

understanding. As Messiah, Jesus is rightly a "god" among the other "gods" and leaders of Israel.

There had been bad ones (Psalm 82:6). Even the king of Israel in Psalm 45:6 is called "god" by

God Almighty, and this harmonizes with what John says in the same book when Jesus says,

"Everyone who listens to my Father and learns from him comes to me. Not that anyone has seen

the Father except the one who is from God; he has seen the Father" (John 6:45, 46). Jesus is the


25/96


image or eikon of the invisible God. (Col. 1:15), which should establish by definition that he is

not himself the invisible God. An eikon is a representation of something, as Jesus himself made

crystal clear when he asked for a Roman coin and asked whose eikon "image" or "picture"

was on it (Matthew 22:20). It was Caesar's likeness, not Caesar himself. Jesus looks like theFather in all he says and does, but he is not God himself.

Acts 7:59 where Stephen refers to Jesus fails to prove him to be God. Dr. Olson fails to

understand that the word "God" is not in the Greek text. The New Revised Standard catches the

sense of the Greek word epikaloumenon and translates it, "While they were stoning Stephen, he

prayed, `Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.'" (Also the RSV). The New American Standard Bible is

truer to context when it renders the verse: " . . . as he called on the Lord and said, `Lord Jesus,

receive my spirit!'" (also the ASV). The English Standard Version translates, ". . . he called out,

`Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.'"

Acts 10:36 fails to prove Jesus God. While Peter preaches that Jesus "is Lord of all"

again we must recall that Jesus has no inherent authority since, as he said just before his

ascension, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. To reiterate, Dr. Olson

has a poor understanding of the significance of Agency as it relates to all of the verses he might

choose to present indicating that Jesus has authority. That God has placed Jesus at his right hand

is of great biblical significance. Mark writes that after Jesus' ascension, he "sat down at the right

hand of God" (Mark 16:19). Luke writes, "There for let all Israel know for certain that God hasmade this Jesus whom you crucified both Lord and Messiah" (Acts 2:36). If Jesus were God, he

would have always been Lord. There is no passage of Scripture that suggests that God would be

Messiah. Jesus has been given authority as a man to do mighty works and even to forgive sins

(Matthew 9:1-8); and his seat at the right hand of God is temporary according to 1 Corinthians

15:25-28.

Revelation 1:8 and 4:8

Very clearly the Lord God identifies himself as "the Alpha and the Omega" and the

"Almighty." But it is by no means clear that at Revelation 4:8 is a reference to Jesus. That the

same appellation is ascribed to Jesus in Revelation 22:12-13, 15 (and cf. Rev. 1:17) and that we

should consequently infer that this means that Jesus is the Lord God Almighty, does not

necessarily follow. As an example and in the context in which the statement is made,

Nebuchadnezzar was the "king of kings" (Daniel 2:37; Ezekiel 26:7). But so is Jesus!


26/96


(Revelation 17:14; 19: 12-13, 16); and so is God! (1 Timothy 6:15-16). Does this mean that

because they all have the same name that Jesus or God are Nebuchadnezzar? No. Not to mention

that because Jesus is God's representative Agent he can go by God's names and act with God's

authority just as enthroned kings in the Davidic dynasty could. "Your throne, O God, is eternal,"God tells the king in Psalm 45:6 and the writer of Hebrews applies it in the same sense to Jesus

in Hebrews 1:8. Even Israel, as God's representative people could be called by Jehovah's name

(Deut. 28:10), but this does not make them God.

I am aware that Jesus' "son-ship" is affirmed in different ways in Scripture. That it can

mean "order of" or that it can represent likeness to its object is conceded (Christians, for

example, "are sons of light and sons of the day," 1 Thess. 5:5). But is this the best sense in which

to read the phrase as it refers to Jesus primarily? To be sure, Jesus is Son of God because God is

the cause of his procreation by the power of God's holy spirit (Luke 1:35). As Gabriel explained

in Luke 1:35, it is precisely for this reason (Greek dio ) namely the impregnating of Mary

miraculously by the power and overshadowing of God's holy spirit that we know Jesus to be the

offspring of the Father-God. Or, as the passage literally words it, Jesus is "therefore" (Again,

dio ) to be called "Son of God." This is a passage regarding his beginning existence. He is

acknowledged as being God's Son after his baptism, which is easily seen as a prophetic statement

of his son-ship in the sense of being God's prophet-king who must be listened to and obeyed.

Compare this with Moses' prophecy in Deuteronomy 18:18-19; the affirmation of his son-ship athis baptism in Mark 1:11; and the confirmation of this son-ship at his transfiguration in Mark

9:7.

The Primacy of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 as it Relates to Son-ship/Messiahship

But the messianic primacy of 2 Samuel 7:12-16 carries special significance in referring to

the Davidic dynasty and how this is connected to Jesus' son-ship (Hebrews 1:5 connects 2

Samuel 7:12-16 with Psalm 2:7), so "son-ship" has to do with Jesus position as Messianic king

which began at a point in time, "Today" an emphasized by his resurrection (Psalm 2:7 is

connected with Jesus resurrection in Acts 13:33-34; cf. Romans 1:4 where Jesus is the is the

Son-of-God-in-Power because of the resurrection). While this certainly has to do with his

prophetic enthronement and installation as the final messianic king, if he were God, his kingship

would not be something that God could give him because he would already be the ultimate king

from eternity. Such passages when applied to Jesus only make sense if the honor had a literal


27/96


beginning point. Jesus becomes the Son of God when he is enthroned. Dr. Olson's discussion

about "Son of God" meaning the order or essence of a thing is arbitrary and ad hoc. Certainly

"son of God" has various senses in Scripture. Thus his Son-ship has to do with his coronation as

God's Messianic king after his resurrection. Additionally there is theological significance toJesus being the son of God in the same sense that Adam was the son of God (Luke 3:38). Jesus is

the second Adam who successful redeems what Adam lost in the Garden of Eden (Romans 5:12-

14; 1 Corinthians 15:45).

"Orthodoxy's Proud Declaration" and 1 Timothy 2:5

By mere declaration alone, he ignores the simple testimony of Scripture that says he is the

Christ and that he is human. Then, against Paul's clear statement of fact, Dr. Olson declares that

Jesus would not be able to mediate between God and man. Even his authoritative quotation from

the Catholic Encyclopedia only implies that the mediator must have influence with the Father.

Dr. Olson does not acknowledge the glory that God has been pleased to place in his human Son

and Second Adam. For his own unexplained reasons, God has been pleased to share glory with

the Son. Dr. Carl Conrad of the B-Greek forum indicates in his comments the force of the Greek

term kathos when he writes,"Insofar as they show honor to the Father, they should also show

honor to the Son" (i.e. that honoring the Son is appropriate or obligatory behavior just as much as

is honoring the Father).[5]

Jehovah PassagesIs Jesus Adonai in Psalm 110:1? No! Dr. Olson is very confused in his reasoning about

Jesus Christ being Jehovah. We stipulate that in English translations "`Lord' (lower case letters

following the "L")," is the Hebrew Adonai often. But what does this have to do with Psalm

110:1? That passage concludes unequivocally that Jesus the Messiah, could not be the Lord

Adonai (who is Jehovah). In Acts 2:34-35, Peter quotes Psalm 110:1 where Jehovah speaks to

the Messiah inviting him to sit at his right hand. But Jehovah addresses the Messiah as the

Hebrew Adoni in Psalm 110:1. Adoni , not Adonai , is uniformly used to refer to one who is a

human or angelic messenger of God, but never as God/Jehovah himself. What is Dr. Olson's

response to this?

Are there Two Jehovahs in Isaiah 44:6? No! Dr. Olson mistakenly wants us

to see that this verse speaks of two Jehovah's: Jehovah the King of Israel, and "his" [Jehovah's ?]

redeemer who is called "Jehovah of hosts." His question is "How can there be two Jehovah's?"


28/96


Dr. Olson misuses the text to imply that "his" in the passage is Jehovah. Most careful readers

would understand that the "his" that appears there is Israel, not Jehovah God.

While my first thought would have been that Dr. Olson would use this verse to demonstrate

some sort of argument that because God is considered first and last, that there should be aconnection to Jesus. He does this later, but not at first. He wants the reader to think the

passage's wording implies the existence of two Jehovahs. But notice how the NASB uses

capitalization for pronouns that refer to God, e.g. "Me" in this passage. But here the "his," in the

phrase "his Redeemer," is not capitalized, making it a reference to Israel in context. This is true

with the English Standard Version as well. The NIV brings out the meaning clearly with

modernized punctuation: "This is what the LORD says Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD

Almighty . . ." even the The New English Translation at bible.org, which Dr. Olson quotes,

renders the meaning of the passage very clearly: "This is what the LORD, Israel's king, says,

their protector, the LORD who leads armies. . ."

Dr. Olson then proceeds to use the "first and the last" language to demonstrate in

Revelation 1:8, 11; 22:13, 16, that because Jesus is called "first and last" as well as Alpha and

Omega (first and last letters of the Greek alphabet, and which would have no direct

counterpart in any Hebrew text). Please refer back to my comments on Dr. Olson's use of

Revelation 1:8 and 4:8. His reasoning goes something like this: "If all have the same names and

titles, they are one and the same. God and Jesus have the same names and titles. Therefore theyare one and the same. It is not true, as we have seen above, that the first premise of his reasoning

is true. Indeed, there are alternate explanations as to why the names and titles are the same. First,

there is the principle of agency, which we have already discussed, but which Dr. Olson hopes

you will not give much consideration (since it hurts his case). Second there is a sense in which

Jesus can be first and last in some senses, but not necessarily identically with the Father. He is

first as Pioneer or Captain (the man at the head) of our faith (Hebrews 12:2); He is the first of the

children of the new humanity.

Passages like Psalm 23:1//John 10:11 or Isaiah 6:5//John 12:41 or even a Messianic

application of Jeremiah 23:6 does not prove that Jesus is Jehovah. Jerusalem is called "Jehovah

our Righteousness" ten chapters later (Jeremiah 33:16). By Dr. Olson's logic, Jerusalem is

Jehovah. This does not follow.


29/96


Does the Glory of Isaiah 6:5 that John says was in Jesus (John 12:41ff) prove that Jesus

was Jehovah? No. We have already seen that insofar as God is honored he desires that his Son be

honored as well. All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Jesus. Whatever power,

prerogatives, honor, or glory he has received will be relinquished to the Father ultimately (1Corinthians 15:27-28).

Does Isaiah 9:6 prove that Jesus is Almighty God? No! Isaiah 9:6 is an example of

hyperbole where the ideal Davidic king is given the title Mighty God. Like Psalm 45:6, Isaiah

9:6 probably envisions a similar kind of response when friends and foes alike look at the Davidic

king (Hezekiah in context) in full battle regalia. When the king's enemies oppose him on the

battlefield, they are, as it were, fighting against God himself. Note, as well, that Isaiah 9:6 is

never quoted in the New Testament. Keep in mind as well that the name "Mighty God" (Hebrew

el gibbor ) carries the definition "divine hero, reflecting the divine majesty," and refer so "men of

might and rank, as well as to angels."[6] Strong's Hebrew Dictionary , reminds us that it refers to

"men of might and rank, as well as to angels" and Jewish experts who translated the Septuagint

rendered it, as the "messenger of great counsel."[7] Dr. Olson should have kept with his

admission that the passage "is not technically related to JEHOVAH." While he concludes that it

is "none other than Jesus for the very next verse speaks of his earthly father David." That

Hezekiah is equally a son of David and rightly carries all the names, amazing and hyperbolic as

they are, is recognized, by a number of even Trinitarian scholars.[8]Granville-Sharp Rule at Titus 2:13?

The scholarly world has not uniformly acknowledged the force of the so-called Granville-

Sharp Rule, which basically says that when the Greek word kai (which is usually translated by

the word "and") brings together two nouns in the same grammatical form or case, and if the

first noun has the definite article ho ("the") and second noun does not, the two nouns give

reference to the same subject. The Trinitarian scholar and editor of the volume entitle Syntax in

the four-volume Moulton-Howard- Turner Greek Grammar writes: Unfortunately, at this period

of Greek we cannot be sure that such a rule is really decisive. Sometimes the definite article is

not repeated even when there is a clear separation in idea. [9]

And once again Dr. Olson's penchant for proving a point with an obscure or ambiguous

reference comes to the fore. That Titus 2:13 is seen as ambiguous can be demonstrated in the fact

that the scholars behind many major translations compiled after the "rule" was established are yet


30/96


resistant to the idea as solid in various passages used to illustrate the Trinitarian point that Jesus

is Almighty God. The American Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, New Revised

Standard Version, New American Standard [1995] all place alternate (equal) translations either

in the text or in the notes.Even if we should translate the phrase as "our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," the

argument still stands as stated above that it is well within the purview of biblical understanding

that calling Jesus "God," "Great God," "Mighty God," etc., are not the same as "Almighty God,"

a phrase never given to Jesus or to anyone else for that matter. (See comments on John 20:28).

Substance

Dr. Olson will never find the pagan philosophical language imposed upon the church over

time that Jesus is of the same substance (Greek, homoousion) as the Father. Dr. Olson's only

proof for this is the statement of the Nicean creed, which ultimately was imposed on Christians

by the force of the swords and Inquisitional pyres of the European kings and judicial power

granted to the Church leaders by them. Dr. Olson has rejected clear statements of scripture that

God the Father is the one true God. He has appealed to ambiguous passages to establish his point

that the appellation theos when applied to Jesus is, as Jesus explained himself, is an appropriate

title for men who are leaders in Israel, as the Messiah undoubtedly was and is. He has tried to

pass off the significant principle of biblical Agency, in which God gives authority to the Son, as

something less than significant in this discussion. He cannot demonstrate from Scripture thatJesus ever existed as a person prior to his human begettal by the Father (If he and all who are

interested had only listened to the simple words of Gabriel in Luke 1:35: God's holy spirit

miraculously caused Jesus begettal.

Additional Affirmative Arguments

That Jesus had a beginning or genesis is affirmed by Matthew (1:18). That God is with us in his Son (Matthew 1:23) is evident in the same way that God

signified his presence with Israel in the birth of a young boy in the context of Isaiah 7:14.

Jesus did not try to deceive the friendly scribe in Mark 12:28ff, affirming that God was to

be understood as one. Or else we should understand that he had his fingers crossed

behind his back when he appeared to agree with this one who was so close to the

kingdom.


31/96


Jesus was made like his brothers in every way and that none of his brothers are God-men

(Hebrews 2:13-17).

There is a clear distinction between Jehovah and Adoni in Psalm 110:1. It will be

interesting to see how Dr. Olson handles this. None of his treatment covers the fact that while Jesus has a God, the Father is never said to

have a God. This is so because there is no one above Almighty God.

____________________

Notes

[1] This and some other historical material cited in G.S. Deuble, They Never Told me This

in Church (2006) Atlanta, GA: Restoration Fellowship, pp. 31-33.

[2] Those not familiar with Greek might consider the grammatical markings for this

passage in The English-Greek Reverse Interlinear New Testament, English Standard Version .

(2006). Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, pp. 566, 573.

[3] Anthony Buzzard, The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity's Self-Inflicted Wound

(1998). Oxford: International Scholars Publications, p. 239.

[4] (1998). Grand Rapids: Baker Book House. See the chapter entitled "Blasphemy in

Judaism," pp. 30-109 for the full discussion tracing the idea of blasphemy through Scripture, the

Qumran documents, the Septuaging and Pseudepigrapha, Josephus, Philo, Mishnah and Tosefta

tractates, the Jewish Targums, Midrash, the Palestinian and Babylonian Talmuds and Aboth deRabbi Nathan. Also see the section entitled "Exalted Figures in Judaism," pp. 113-180.

[5] Carl Conrad, " TIMWSI TON HUION KAQWS TIMWSI TON PATERA "They

should honor the Son just as they honor the Father.""

Retrieved November 18,

2007.

[6] Driver and Briggs, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament (1995) Oxford at

the Clarendon Press, p. 42. See note 22 at N.E.T. Bible . See sn to Psalm 45:6

Retrieved November 18, 2007.

[7] See the translation by Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton, The Septuagint with Apocrypha:

Greek and English (1851) London: Samuel Baster and Sons, p. 844.

[8] See notes at < http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Isaiah&chapter=9 > Retrieved

November 18, 2007. Also see John T. Willis, who writes, "Isaiah is stressing the quality of
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-June/038742.html.http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Psa&chapter=45http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Isaiah&chapter=9http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Isaiah&chapter=9http://net.bible.org/bible.php?book=Psa&chapter=45http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-greek/2006-June/038742.html.


32/96


Hezekiah's rule, and not his official functions as ruler of the people. Whereas Ahaz was a weak

counselor, Hezekiah will be a wonderful counselor. Whereas Ahaz was a warrior who depended

on human strength and strategy, Hezekiah will be a warrior who depends wholly on God's

strength." Isaiah. The Living Word Commentary on the Old Testament

(1980) Abilene, TX:Abilene Christian University Press, p. 185.

[9] Nigel Turner, Syntax (1963) volume 3 in A Grammar of New Testament

Greek Edinburgh, Scotland: T. & T. Clark, p. 181.


33/96


Dr. Olsons Second Negative

Mr. Dixon proposed the following:

The mainline view developed in historic Christianity that there is a

Trinity of three persons in one essence is biblically incorrect since

Jesus is 100% man and 0% God and "Holy Spirit" is another name for

God the Father.

Outline of Dr. Olson's 2nd Negative

I. Hermeneutics

II. Holy Spirit

III. Jesus Christ

IV. Forgiveness of Sins.

I. Hermeneutics.

Dixon's first affirmative employed the hermeneutic of negativity. He used verses that

proved Jesus' humanity as proof that Jesus wasn't divine. I pointed out that these negative proofs

were proofs of nothing. They are mutually exclusive. He needed to show how Jesus wasn't

divine.

Dixon second affirmative is yet another round of negativity with variations of corrupted

hermeneutics (tangents, semantic domain confusion, EZ Greek grammar mistakes, and violationsof basic linguistics) for variety. He claims to use context, but only so far as it gives him a

springboard to violations of linguistics, valueless words on meaningless tangents, and

contraventions of semantics. He denies EZ common sense verses that declare Jesus to be the

True God by making basic first semester Greek grammar errors. As we proceed through Dixon's

responses, I call the reader to his regular appeal to one of these four errant tactics.

II. Holy Spirit

II.A. Negativity

Mr. Dixon's proposition regarding the Holy Spirit is a repeat of his deplorable negative

proofs of his first affirmative. A proper biblical hermeneutic uses ALL of scripture not just the

few aspects that seem to support one's personal opinion. Mr. Dixon so-called proofs that the

Holy Spirit is not a person are worthless straw men built entirely upon negatives. He thinks by


34/96


noting 5 ways in which the Holy Spirit is not a Person that this is a positive proof that the Holy

Spirit is an impersonal force. Wrong Big Wrong!

It is standard common sense knowledge that one does not properly define anything by its

negatives. Mr. Dixon's case must be rejected because he never used the entire Bible. Henever builds a valid positive statement.

A proper study of the personality of the Holy Spirit should have integrated the following

positive points.

II.B.

article (ho). Later, in the

POSITIVELY

II.B.1

John 15:26, Jesus tells us that He will send "The Helper" ( hoparaklntos ) using the

masculine definite same verse, Jesus says: "He will testify of Me" using the masculine pronoun

for "He" (ekeinos a masculine pronoun). If the Holy Spirit were some impersonal force, there

would be no reason to use masculine definite articles and masculine pronouns. The Holy Spirit

must be personal.

II.B.2

The Holy Spirit is personal because He can commune with the Father. The Father knows

the Spirit (Rom 8:27) and the Spirit is able to search the infinite mind of God (I Cor 2:10). Noforce can commune with the Father.

II.B.3.

The Spirit can be grieved by our sins (Eph 4:30). No impersonal force can be grieved. The

Holy Spirit can also be personally blasphemed (Matt 12:32). No impersonal force or inanimate

object can be so maligned.

II.B.4.

The Spirit is "Another Helper (allon paraklnton)" just like Jesus (John 14:16). The easy

conclusion is that the Holy Spirit is personal just like Jesus our "Helper." Our spiritual Helpers

are personal just like us!

II.B.5.

The Spirit is a mediator with God (Rom 8:26), just like Jesus (I Tim 2:5). The definition of

a mediator is as follows:


35/96


. . . The perfection of a mediator is measured by his influence. . . with the parties he has to

reconcile, and this power flows. . . from his connection with both: the highest possible

perfection. . . would be reached if the mediator were substantially one with. . . both parties.

[1]Therefore, the Holy Spirit is a fully divine Person able to mediate with God (a Person) on

our behalf (persons). As the Spirit Who indwells all those who believe in Jesus, He is able to

mediate with each believer regarding spiritual things. A Mediator must be personal and able to

represent both sides in the mediation.

II.B.6.

The Holy Spirit has a will. He creates humans after His own free will image and likeness

and gives unto them gifts as He wills (I Cor 12:11). Just as God the Father has a will, and just as

God the Son has a will, so also God the Spirit has a will. The Spirit directed Philip to the

Ethiopian Eunuch's chariot (Acts 8:29). The Spirit's will separated Paul and Barnabas from the

rest of the group (Acts 13:2) and sent them out for missionary work (Acts 13:4). Paul took

guidance from the Spirit's will as he was redirected from Asia to Europe (Acts 16:6). A force

does not have a personal will.

II.B.7.

Finally, the fruit of the Spirit (Gal 5:22) has the personal qualities of love, joy, peace,

longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. Only a personalbeing can produce personal qualities.

II.B Conclusion.

The Holy Spirit is personal because His attributes, works, and personal pronouns used of

Him are similar to that of the personal Father and the personal Son. Mr. Dixon's negative

hermeneutic can only see a few negatives and fails to see the positives.

III. Jesus Christ

The critical question is: What positive has Mr. Dixon ever presented? He didn't do it in his

first affirmative. His first affirmative was merely the affirmation of half of the biblical teaching

about Jesus; namely, that He is 100% human. But this is a NEGATIVE tactic. Mr. Dixon never

had one POSITIVE statement that related to Jesus' deity. As I repeatedly showed Mr. Dixon,

negative statements never format a positive proof.


36/96


So how did Mr. Dixon respond to the positive points of Jesus' deity as I presented in my

first negative? Sadly, in his second affirmative, Dixon repeated the negativity of round 1. As we

review his negativity, keep remembering the opening section on hermeneutics and the ways that

Dixon uses to avoid a direct confrontation with the truth.III.A. Creeds.

Incredibly, Mr. Dixon is so stuck on negativity that instead of addressing the facts that led

to the formation of the Nicene or Chalcedon Creeds, he went into a negative tangent about lesser

synods, politics and the personal misfortunes of Athanasius none of which are pertinent to the

formation of the Nicene Creed. No statement from a synod unverified by an ecumenical council

is the orthodox position on Jesus Christ. We aren't concerned with any of the political maneuvers

of East versus West. We aren't concerned with Athanasius' personal life we are concerned with

his astute use of Bible to prove that Jesus is divine. Mr. Dixon's sideshows are only impressive

with the illiterate or others in Mr. Dixon's same Christ- denying ditch.

Once Mr. Dixon chose this negative hermeneutic, the die was cast. He must now swallow

the ramifications of his manipulative twistings of scripture. I must stop here to grin. It isn't often

that my opponents work so hard to prove my point. Rather than find something of substance

upon which he can build his doctrine, Dixon digs even further into his negativity and claims that

I'm "ignoring the EXCLUSIVITY of the wording of the passages" presented.

With joyful glee I ask wonder what is there about MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVITY that Mr.Dixon cannot grasp? Proofs about Jesus' humanity are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE from Jesus'

divinity. Thank you for your self-destructing witless honesty. Dixon fails to understand how

completely worthless his negative hermeneutic is. No statement about Jesus' humanity is a

sufficient as a refutation of Jesus' divinity. In so admitting that his statements are exclusive, Mr.

Dixon's failure to comprehend that the invalidity of negative arguments as the basis of a debate

proposition that he mindlessly shoots of his own foot.

III.B. Son of God

For example, Jesus is commonly addressed as both human and divine. Yet Dixon is so

focused on his negative human hermeneutic that he simply refuses to affirm the easy to see

divine aspects of Jesus. In my first negative, we clearly linked Jesus to the OT Jehovah. It is

just as easy to link Christ to divinity.


37/96


Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (Matt 26:63). Recall how we showed that "son of"

means "of the order of." Christ is divine! Dixon responded with another negative proof. He

appealed to Luke 1:35, the birth of the human Jesus to show that the eternal Son of God was

procreated. In fact, Dixon appeals to this verse five times in his negativity. Yes! The humanJesus had a birthday. No! The Son of God was pre-existent with the Father and the Spirit. Let's

embark on a few lines of proof: Savior, Lord, Christ, and Logos.

III.B.1. Savior

Jesus is the Christ our Savior the Lord! (Luke 2:11).

III.B.2 Lord

The title Lord with Jesus is used 180 times in the KJV.

. . . Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that

. . . God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified,

. . . both Lord and Christ. (Acts 2:36)

. . . The word which God sent unto the children of Israel,

. . . preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all)

. . . Acts 10:36.

Chafer writes:

. . . A distinct and extensive proof that Christ is Jehovah is to be

. . . seen in the New Testament title of Lord which is applied to

. . . Him upwards of a thousand times. Jehovah is a Hebrew term

. . . which is not brought forward into the New Testament. Its

. . . equivalent is kurios , which title is also applied to the Father

. . . and the Spirit. It is a justifiable procedure to treat the name

. . . Jehovah of the Old Testament as continued in its specific

. . . meaning into the New Testament by the name Lord. Such

. . . would be the natural meaning of many exalted declarations:

. . . "Lord of all" (Acts 10:36), "Lord over all" (Rom 10:12),

. . . "Lord of glory" (I Cor 2:8), and "King of kings and Lord of

. . . lords" (Rev 17:14; 19:16)." [2]


38/96


III.B.3. Christ

The title "Lord Jesus Christ" is used 82 times in the KJV and 106

times in any order. Christ is the equivalent to Messiah which we have

already shown is God Himself.

III.B.4. Logos.

John's prologue proves total equality of the Word ( Logos ) with God

the Father.

. . . In the beginning was the Word ( Logos ),

. . . and the Word was with God,

. . . and the Word was God. John 1:1-3

. . . John 1:14 The Word was made flesh, dwelt among us.

The Word was God!

This is really very EZ. The only thing that makes it hard is tracking the variations of errant

hermeneutics that Dixon uses in an attempt to fool the reader.

It is my hope that the reader has been keeping track of the number of references that Dr.

Olson uses to prove the deity of Jesus Christ and how many Bible references Dixon uses to show

that Jesus is not divine. If they were doing this, then the score would be somewhere around 300for Jesus' divinity to 0 against His divinity. And there is more to come!

Negatively, Dixon's dismal debate hinges in part on five appeals to Luke 1:35. I have

constantly upbraided Dixon for his negativity. Proofs of Jesus' humanity are invalid as arguments

against His divinity.

III.C. I John 5:20

. . . And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given

. . . us an understanding, that we may know him that is true,

. . . and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ

. . . ( Insou ). This (houtos) is the true God, and eternal life.

Mr. Dixon failed to address the verse. Oh he started, but he only got as far as the pronoun

(houtos ). Then he went on a wild tangent to Acts 4:10-11 and likened his defense to a stone.

Where did Mr. Dixon learn his Greek? There is nothing complicated about I John 5:20. The


39/96


noun for which a pronoun stands is called its antecedent. A pronoun agrees with it antecedent in

gender and number and has little to do with Dixon's appeal to proximity. I expect any of my first

semester students to be able to note that the demonstrative pronoun ( houto s=masculine singular)

agrees in gender and number with JesusChrist ( Insou =masculine singular).

Dixon's tangent is what we expect from cults. Rather than simply acknowledge the

obvious, Dixon runs to another verse with an argument that relates to nothing. He botches a

subject so easy that it is the fifth topic in Machen's beginners grammar.

I can understand why he stoops to such tactics. This is a verse that very pointedly declares

Jesus to be the TRUE GOD. Rather than use Holy Writ as the basis for his arguments, he uses

Holy Writ to prove his heresy. The only way this can happen is by using something

deceptive.

III.D. John 20:28

Here, Dixon chooses another deceptive hermeneutic. Common sense dictates that Thomas

affirms Jesus as both Lord and God. Here, Dixon decides to throw the basic laws of linguistics

down the toilet. Dixon wants us to believe in strict mathematical transitivity: A=B and B=C

implies A=C. So he finds a place in scripture where Moses is called " elohim " and where the

judges of Israel are called "gods."

Dixon has violated two basic rules of semantics.First, Dixon ignores that a word has meaning only in its context. Dixon wants to define

"gods" by any context that he can find. Second, Dixon ignores the semantic domain of the

words. " Elohim " and "gods" form a proper synonymy whereas Dixon wants to make them an

undifferentiated synonymy uh at least as far as this bit of exegesis is concerned.

Dixon Olson Debate on the Trinity

Documents

Transcript of Dixon Olson Debate on the Trinity