STEFFORD VS BOWMAN PART ONE

8/12/2019 STEFFORD VS BOWMAN PART ONE

1/66

Online Debate between Greg Stafford and Rob Bowman (Part 1):

The following discussion too !lace online" through mediums for both Greg Stafford and

Robert Bowman" during the month of #!ril" 1$$%&

The medium for Greg Stafford" 'ar Ross" was not able to cut and !aste Gregs re!l"

and resorted to t!ing in the re!l directl from a !rinted hardco!& #s a result" the actual

!osted re!l contained se*eral s!elling errors" and a few missing words& These ha*e

been corrected b u!loading Gregs own co! to this !age&

#s a result of this debate" se*eral other indi*iduals +oined in the discussion" and *arious

!oints were clarified and considered in greater detail" and these ha*e been wored into

the discussion so as to gi*e as com!lete an understanding of the issues in*ol*ed as

!ossible&

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

'ar Ross -one of .eho*ahs /itnesses0 wrote:

'atthew" worshi! (Gr latreuw) includes honor" but honor does not necessaril include

worshi!& .esus is gi*en the authorit to +udge b his ather" and the ather 2343R gets

authorit from anone& 5 dont understand what the big deal is& BT/" -.ohn 60 4erse 78

sas that while the ather has life in himself he is !leased to G543 to 9hrist to ha*e life

in himself& ow is it that the ather has this b nature and the Son does not if the Son is

e;ual and co,eternal with the ather < 5 ha*e 2343R had a trinitarian successfull

address this one& Perha!s ou will be the first ? God can do&

(@) Therefore" .esus is God&

Greg Stafford:

irst" Bowman again assumes that which he has et to !ro*e" and ignores the conce!t

of imitation&

5 recogniAe the *alid structure of Bowmans argument and the deducti*e inter!retation if

one assumes the !remises are true& or" if 5 said:

1) /hoe*er does what onl dogs can do" is a dog&

7) ' cat does onl what dogs can do&

@) Therefore" m cat is a dog&

then this" too" would be *alid structurall&

2ow" this is onl a sound argument if the !remises (s 1 and 7) are assumed true" for

then the conclusion (@) must be true& owe*er" this argument contains a false !remise:


4/66

5 ha*e not gi*en an !roof that m cat does what onl dogs can do" and" franl" that

would be tough to doC Thus" the abo*e argument is unsound" and the conclusion is false&

5 call on Bowman to !ro*e his !remises" for he assumes in them a truth *alue that is

unscri!tural& e also mis;uoted .ohn 6:1$ in an attem!t to su!!ort his argument& That is

wh 5 sa he has assumed that which he has et to !ro*e" namel" !remise 7&

Bowman fails to !ro*ide !recise eam!les so we can e*aluate his conclusion" and

determine if .esus imitation of the ather (note his im!ro!er use of =God= as a !ersonal

reference" againEsee below) is contingent u!on anthing&

Bowman also uses God in an e;uati*e sense which e*en he does not acce!t& #gain"when a trinitarian sas" =.esus is God"= the mean =.esus is God the Son" second

!erson of a consubstantial Triad&= But the do not !ut it that wa" because the Bible

ne*er !uts it that waC Thus" his conclusion is im!ro!er from a trinitarian !oint of *iew"

without the !ro!er ;ualification" and it does not follow from his !remises&

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Rob Bowman:

The !arallel sllogism is also logicall *alid:

(F) /hoe*er has characteristics that O2>? God has" is God&


5/66

(6) .esus has characteristics that O2>? God has&

(8) Therefore" .esus is God&

Greg Stafford:

Bowman fails once again to !ro*e his !oint& /hat if 5 said" =#ngels ha*e characteristicsthat onl God has& or eam!le" the are s!irit beings" and onl God is a s!irit being&=

/ell" then" for me to sa" =The angels ha*e something onl God has" namel" s!irit

nature"= would be to assume that a s!irit nature is something onl God has (the Bible

ne*er sas this)" and that anone else who is said to ha*e a s!irit nature must therefore

be God& This is similar to what Bowman is arguing& e assumes that .esus does what

onl God can do" when in fact the Bible ne*er sas onl God can do the things that e

allows is Son to do in is name&

Rob Bowman:

2ow" m !oint was that these two !arallel sllogisms are both *alid regardless of how

.esus came to do what onl God can do" or to !ossess characteristics that onl God

has&

Greg Stafford:


6/66

#nd our conclusion is incorrect for it is 1) based on fault e*idence 7) couched in

ambiguous terms @) does not necessaril follow from the !remises laid" unless ou

further clarif our meaning of =God= as used in our conclusion&

Rob Bowman:

5f .esus does e*en O23 T52G that Scri!ture sas O2>? God can do" or he has e*en

O23 characteristic that Scri!ture sas O2>? God has" then .esus is God" regardless ofhow that state of affairs came about&

Greg Stafford:

This is a non se;uitur" !ure and sim!le& Bowman also assumes that which he has et to

!ro*e& The Bible does not sa =5f .esus does e*en O23 T52G that Scri!ture sas

O2>? God can do" or he has e*en O23 characteristic that Scri!ture sas O2>? God

has" then .esus is God" regardless of how that state of affairs came about&= # little !roof

from the Bible might be in order& The *er fact that .esus is gi*en (es" G5432) certain

!rerogati*es that !re*iousl were eercised onl b God" sim!l means that God is now

allowing another" is Son" to act in a certain ca!acit& #nd his acting in that ca!acit is

not due to his own authorit" but because it was gi*en to him& e is not e;ual to the

ather in his di*ine authorit& Thus" it is clear that" if .esus is doing something that was

!re*iousl done onl b God" then it is now no longer something onl God can doC

Rob Bowman


7/66

Thus" to dis!ro*e the conclusion of either of these two sllogisms (that .esus is God)"

Stafford will ha*e to dis!ute one or more of their !remises (i&e&" statements -10" -70" -F0"

and -60)& #dmitting that statements (7) and (6) are true but ob+ecting that the arguments

ignore O/ the came to be true fails to show the arguments to be unsound&

Greg Stafford

/ho admitted to 7 and 6 being true< /hen ou offer !roof then we will e*aluate it&Second" our entire argument is fault on a number of fronts" se*eral of which 5 ha*e

outlined abo*e&

Rob Bowman:

b& 5t is true" of course" that how .esus came to !ossess di*ine nature and !rerogati*es

has a bearing on our understanding of his relation to the ather&

Greg Stafford:

5f it has a bearing then wh do ou sa" =5f .esus does e*en O23 T52G that Scri!ture

sas O2>? God can do" or he has e*en O23 characteristic that Scri!ture sas O2>?

God has" then .esus is God" R3G#RD>3SS -em!hasis added0 of how that state of

affairs came about=< Does it matter or not


8/66

Rob Bowman:

But it does 2OT ha*e a bearing on the *alidit of the abo*e arguments&

Greg Stafford:

5f our argument is in relation to .esus !rerogati*es and whether ha*ing these

!rerogati*es maes him God" then how he came to !ossess these !rerogati*es most

certainl has a bearing on the #99HR#9? of our argument& /hether our argument is

=*alid= from a logicians !oint of *iew is not the e issue 5 am e*aluating the accurac of

our conclusion& ?our argument ma be *alid structurall" but the !remises are incorrect"

and so is our conclusion&

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Rob Bowman:

/e trinitarians do not ignore the matter of how .esus came to be God but we insist that

the =how= cannot be used to negate the =that&=


9/66

Greg Stafford:

Of course" ou do& ?ou ha*e to" for the =how= does negate the =that&= 5f he came to ha*e

a di*ine nature" then he was not eternall grounded in the nature of God" and therefore

is not eternal God&

Rob Bowman:

?our difficult in understanding =how= .esus could be God and recei*e hisnature andIor

authorit from another is +ust that , it is our difficult& 5t is not a logical or biblical dis!roof

of his being God&

Greg Stafford:

' difficult lies in harmoniAing unbiblical teachings with clear statements of faith& 5t is" in

fact" our difficult" for the Bibles =how= cannot be made to agree with our =that&=

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


10/66

Rob Bowman:

c& Stafford erroneousl attributes to me a belief that 5 do not hold and a meaning that 5did not intend when he asserts that 5 use the term =God= to mean =the Godhead

Beingness that is allegedl shared b three !ersons&= 5 will come bac to this !oint

further below where Staffords misconstrual of the trinitarian !osition is further

elaborated& ere let me tr to e!lain that 5 am not at all e;ui*ocating& To clarif" an of

the following forms of the first !remise in the first sllogism will wor for m !osition to be

sustained:

Greg Stafford:

Rob" ou ha*e got to be idding& 5 now that ou ma not ha*e intended to use the term

=God= as a reference to the di*ine essence" but 5 am !ointing out that ou" as a

trinitarian" cannot legitimatel use the term in an other wa than of one who shares the

di*ine essence& Thus" to sa" =maes him God"= without ;ualifing what ou as a

trinitarian mean b that" is misleading& Of course" ou missed this !oint&

-BR3#J , or more on Bowmans failure to a!!reciate the !oint made b Stafford" see

the res!onse b #l Jidd to Rob Bowman" to which Bowman ne*er re!lied&0

Rob Bowman:

(1a) /hoe*er does what onl deit can do" is deit&


11/66

Greg Stafford:

Premise 1: assumed and un!ro*en& B this 5 mean ou ha*e assumed a relationshi!

between our !remise and the !resention of .esus in the Bible& 2ow" a deit can allow

another to !erform certain functions that heIshe !re*iousl !erformed" without raising

that !erson to the le*el of deit& /e are taling about actions" and if a deit is trul a

deit" then allowing another who is not a deit to imitate what that deit does" is not hard

to imagine& This a!!lies e;uall for all the !remises listed below&

Rob Bowman:

(1b) /hoe*er does what onl #lmight God can do" is #lmight God&

Greg Stafford:

Premise 7: assumed and un!ro*en& #gain" ou ha*e not shown a relationshi! between

our !remise and the !resentation of .esus in the Bible&

Rob Bowman:


12/66

(1c) /hoe*er does what onl .eho*ah can do" is .eho*ah&

Greg Stafford:

Premise @: assumed and un!ro*en& #gain" our !oint in relation to .esus has not been

established&

Rob Bowman:

(1d) /hoe*er does what onl the 9reator can do" is the 9reator&

Greg Stafford:

Premise F: assumed and un!ro*en& #gain" ou ha*e assumed that this a!!lies to

.esus" when such language is nowhere used of him in the Bible&

Rob Bowman:


13/66

(1e) /hoe*er does what onl a member of the Trinit can do" is a member of the Trinit&

Greg Stafford:

Premise 6: ere ou ha*e assumed a trinitarian relationshi! between .esus and the

ather that is nowhere articulated in Scri!ture&

Rob Bowman:

These are eam!les" not an ehausti*e list the illustrate the !oint that no e;ui*ocation

is at wor in the !remise& #nd the same would a!!l to !remise (F) in the second

sllogism&

Greg Stafford:

Rob" ou are e;ui*ocating b using the term =God= in two different and misleading

senses& ?ou said" =5f .esus has the nature and !rerogati*es of the onl true God" that

maes him God" howe*er he got that nature and those !rerogati*es&= 5s not the =onltrue God"= according to classical trinitarianism" a consubstantial Triad< That is" three

!ersons who share the di*ine essence< /hen ou sa" =maes him God"= do ou not

mean =maes him one who shares the di*ine essence=< ?et ou use the term =God= in

the second instance in an e;uati*e sense as a noun of !ersonal descri!tion& ?ou are

using the word in a sentence that is ambiguous and which does not state the full truth of

our !osition&


14/66

Rob Bowman:

2ow" Stafford is on to something& 5t is true that in the e!ression =what God can do= the

term =God= 9OH>D be understood to be referring to God as the triune Being !er se& On

the other hand" in the conclusion =is God"= the term =God= ob*iousl 9#22OT refer to

God as the triune Being !er se (or it would im!l that .esus is the triune Being rather

than the Son alone)& On this basis" Stafford thins he has caught me in an e;ui*ocation&

But there are at least two !roblems with this argument&

irst" it reall amounts to begging the ;uestion& or at e*er turn Stafford can (and

!robabl doesC) use the same ob+ection to rule out a !riori the trinitarian belief& 5n other

words" saing that =God= cannot be used with these two different connotations (God as

triune" one of the three !ersons as God) reall amounts to saing that the Trinit cannot

be true&KK

Greg Stafford:

ThatLs rightC 5 am arguing that the onl !ro!er use of the term =God"= b a trinitarian" is in

reference to the !ersons of the Godhead as sharers of the same Beingness& # trinitarian

cannot sim!l sa" =.esus is God&= The mean" =.esus shares the nature of God&= Of

course" ou ha*e to use it as a noun of !ersonal descri!tion" for that is the onl sense in

which the Bible uses it& But ou do not reall belie*e that an of the members of the

Trinit are God" ou belie*e the share the essence of God& So ou ha*e to e!lain whatou mean e*er time ou mae such a confession" otherwise ou will mislead those who

recogniAe the !ro!er use of the word =God= in the Bible" namel" as a noun of !ersonal

descri!tion& 5t is a title denoting ones !osition" not the substance of being in which e is

grounded&


15/66

Rob Bowman:

Second" it is not at all necessar for these two different connotations to be em!loed in

the sllogisms 5 !resented abo*e& 5n saing" =/hoe*er does what O2>? God can do" is

God"= the term =God= ma in both instances be used with the same connotation& The fi*e

e!anded forms of !remise (1) detailed abo*e illustrate the !oint& or eam!le" we might

tae the term =God= in both instances to connote =9reator= (1d)& Or we might understand

the term in both instances to connote sim!l =.eho*ah= (1c)& Or" alternati*el" we might

understand the term in both instances to connote =a member of the Trinit= (1e)& Thus"

Stafford has fallaciousl mo*ed from the correct understanding that the term =God= in

trinitarian usage 9#2 ha*e two distinct connotations to the erroneous conclusion that

two such distinct connotations 'HST be !resent in the two hal*es of the !remise to m

argument&

Greg Stafford:

5t a!!ears ;uite clear that ou did not understand m !oint& #gain" 5 am arguing that our

use of =God"= as referring to anthing but the consubstantial Triad" in our statement" is

incorrect" misleading" and a tetboo eam!le of e;ui*ocation&

Rob Bowman:

d& 5m not sure what Stafford means when he sas that the Bible uses the word =God=

onl as a =noun of !ersonal descri!tion&= /hate*er !recisel he means" though" 5 do not

see how it in*alidates m argument" as e!ounded abo*e& But 5ll let Stafford e!lain

himself& (' guess is that this is a statement he will later want to retract&)


16/66

Greg Stafford:

?ou guess wrong& /hat is unclear about m statement< 5 ha*e articulated m !oint

enough" and 5 will not go on and on about a matter that has alread been discussed&

Rob Bowman:

5n .ohn 6:1$" .esus sas that he does MonlM what God does" that he does Me*erthingM

that God does" and that he does it +ust lie God does it& 5d sa that maes .esus GodC

Greg Stafford:

Bowman e;ui*ocates et again& 5f =God"= according to trinitarians" means a substance of

being shared b three !ersons" then =God= cannot do anthingC Bowman here attributes

!ersonalit to an im!ersonal substance that he belie*es is shared b three !ersons&

#gain" the word =God= can onl !ro!erl be em!loed b trinitarians as referring to the

Godhead Beingness" which is im!ersonal& Otherwise the com!romise their *iew of

monotheism& Bowman uses =God= where .ohn 6:1$ uses =ather&= So Bowman iscarelessl using =God= as a snonm here for the ather& #lso" since God sent is Son

into the world to gi*e his life in our behalf" according to Bowmans reasoning" .esus

would ha*e to ha*e liewise sent his Son (who might that be" Rob


17/66

raising the dead" both of which are mentioned in the contet of .ohn 6:1$&

Rob Bowman:

e& Stafford again insinuates into m argument an understanding of the Trinit that 5 do

not hold and for which he has !ro*ided no documentation that it is held b trinitarians& 5

do 2OT belie*e that there is an =im!ersonal= substance =shared= b three !ersons& The

triune God is one infinite,!ersonal Being" not an im!ersonal abstract beingness

subdi*ided into three !ersonal entities&

Greg Stafford:

/ho said anthing about =subdi*ided=< owe*er" the Trinit most certainl does teach a

consubstantial Triad& 5s the =substance= shared b the three !ersons =!ersonal=ord and m

God" in the ;ualified sense in which the Bible !resents him as a di*ine being& But

Thomas ma not ha*e addressed .esus as such (see m boo for details)& ?ou are the

one who has the !roblem" for neither Thomas nor an other Bible !ersonage uses the

term =God= in a manner consistent with trinitarianism& ?et" ou and others a!!eal to

these *erses as if the su!!ort our theologC

Rob Bowman:

The !erson who will be maing the life and death decisions for e*er human being for all

eternit will be , .esusC

Greg Stafford:

?esC #nd that is because the ather ga*e him that authorit this authorit is not original


27/66

to him& /e are" of course" grateful to ha*e such a merciful and glorious +udge" who will

mae decisions and act in such a wa as to bring glor to his God and ather&

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Rob Bowman:

5n .ohn 18:1@ .esus said something about the ol S!irit *er similar to what he said

about himself in .ohn 6:1$& =e will not s!ea on his own" but whate*er he hears he will

s!ea&= Ob*iousl" this has nothing to do with the ol S!irit being in a human state"

since the ol S!irit did not become flesh& 5t has to do" rather" with the ol S!irit not

acting inde!endentl of the ather (or of the Son" in the immediate contet) but s!eaing

on behalf of the ather (andIor the Son)& But now we encounter what a!!ears to me to

be some serious difficulties for the /atchtower *iew& KK

Greg Stafford:

2ot so fast" Rob& The hol s!irit does not sa" ='ost trul 5 sa to ou" -50 cannot do a

single thing of -m0 own initiati*e&= (.ohn 6:1$) #gain" is this related to .esus human or

di*ine =state=< The hol s!irit is not said to ha*e been gi*en the authorit to +udge&


28/66

Rob Bowman:

(i) Since in .ohn 6:1$ the one who does not act on his own is ob*iousl a !erson" one

would e!ect that the same language used in .ohn 18:1@ would also a!!l to a !erson&

(The im!ression is reinforced and confirmed b se*eral other features of the tet: the

term !neuma in the 2T customaril refers to !ersons" the S!irit here is said to =hear= and

=s!ea"= and so forth&) But the /atchtower teaches that the ol S!irit is an im!ersonal

force&

Greg Stafford:

5 am more than ha!! to discuss our misunderstanding of this matter" but 5 !refer to

finish the discussion at hand& 5 can understand our desire to do so" but 5 do not care

much for Bible ho!scotch& /e are discussing the Sons relationshi! with the ather *is,

,*is the Godhead Beingness the allegedl share" and how this relationshi! is

harmoniAed with statements such as those found in .ohn 6:78& Please tr to sta

focused on the sub+ect under discussion& #gain" well get to our *iew of the hol s!irit

soon enough&

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Bowman:

7& The doctrine of the Trinit teaches that the Son was =eternall begotten= b the ather"

that is" that the Son is in some (admittedl unfathomable) wa dnamicall related to the


29/66

ather as his Son& This doctrine is based on the 2T teaching that .esus 9hrist has

alwas been the Son (e&g&" .ohn 1:1,7" 1F" 1% 9ol& 1:1@,1 eb& 1:7)&

Greg Stafford:

5n the abo*e tets" or anwhere else in the Bible for that matter" one will search in *ain

for the words" =.esus 9hrist has alwas been the Son&= #lso" ou will ne*er encounter

the words or the conce!t of =eternal generation= in the Bible& ere we ha*e an eam!le

of a later doctrinal de*elo!ment read bac into the tet of the Bible" in order to su!!ort a

doctrinal !resu!!osition& The Bible fre;uentl uses terms that denote a distinction interms of age" such as =ather= and =Son"= but ne*er do we find the Bible writers

articulating an understanding of these and other terms that would cause us to thin the

are using them in a sense different from that of the e*erda meaning associated with

these terms in Bible times" in terms of tem!oral !riorit" and certain filial associations&

Rob Bowman:

There are se*eral reasons wh we would" in fact" conclude that .esus is called Gods

=Son= in a wa that *aries from that terms =e*erda meaning"= and s!ecificall that it

does not im!l that .esuss sonshi! was a tem!oral" created sonshi!& 5 ha*e detailed

se*en such reasons in m boo /h ?ou Should Belie*e in the Trinit: #n #nswer to

.eho*ahs /itnesses (Grand Ra!ids: Baer" 1$%$)" %6,%8&

5n .ohn 1:1,@" the a!ostle tells us that the /ord eisted in the beginning and that all

tem!oral things owe their eistence to him& See m boo .eho*ahs /itnesses" .esus

9hrist" and the Gos!el of .ohn (Grand Ra!ids: Baer" 1$%$)" 7N,7F" for a defense of the

eternit of the /ord in .ohn 1:1&


30/66

Greg Stafford:

?ou are wrong" and 5 !ro*ide reasons for *iewing our argument as incorrect in m boo"

.eho*ahLs /itnesses Defended: #n #nswer to Scholars and 9ritics& See 9ha!ter for

details&

Bowman:

5n .ohn 1:@" .ohn sas e!licitl that e*erthing that =came to be= (that is" all tem!oral

things) did so through the creati*e agenc of the /ord&

Greg Stafford:

Once again ou assume that which ou ha*e et to !ro*e& 5s this going to be a

reoccurring theme in our writings< Please show us" from the Bible" that !anta refers to

=all tem!oral things&=

Bowman:

Therefore" once again" the /ord is eternal&


31/66

Greg Stafford:

rom false !remises will come false conclusions& .ohn 1:1 sas nothing about the /ord

being eternal" but that he eisted with God (not the ather" mind ou) in the beginning"

that is" the beginning of Genesis 1:1" where the creation of all tem!oral !hsical things

came into being& 5 belie*e the o!ening words of .ohn 1:1 are !ur!osefull the !recise

words used in the >QQ of Genesis 1:1& Genesis 1" of course" articulates the creation of

the !hsical uni*erse&

Rob Bowman:

Then" *erses 1F and 1% mae it clear that this /ord was the Son before he became

human (a fact with which the .eho*ahs /itnesses agree) and that the /ord,Son is the

same !erson who we now now as .esus (again" the .eho*ahs /itnesses agree)& Thus"5 assert that .ohn 1:1,@" 1F teaches that .esus has alwas been the Son&

Greg Stafford:

?es" we now that is what ou assert" Rob" but the Bible maes no such assertion&


32/66

Rob Bowman:

9olossians 1:1@,1 s!eas s!ecificall of Gods belo*ed =Son= (*& 1@b)& 5t sas of him

that all things were created in" through" and for him (*& 18)" that he is before all things (*&

1a)" and that all things cohere or consist" are held together or sustained" in him (*& 1b)&

'uch the same things are said about the Son in ebrews 1:7,@& Thus" these tets also

su!!ort the assertion that .esus has alwas been Gods Son&

Greg Stafford:

5 belie*e ou left out the *er tem!oral designation =irstborn= from 9ol& 1:16" and the

also tem!oral descri!tion of the Son as the charater tes hu!ostaseos autou& (eb& 1:@)

This maes it e*er so clear that the Son is not as old as the One of whom he is a

charater& #nd" of course" this is referring to his !rehuman state" the one through whom

God made the ages& #n !articular reason ou neglected to highlight these as!ects of

the *erses to which ou referred" Robot& Second" it is not clear that Thomas

intended for .esus to be called =God= in this *erse" but e*en if he did it would be in the

;ualified sense in which the Bible refers to .esus as theos: There is one who is God to

him&,,.ohn 7N:1&

Rob Bowman:

9olossians 7:$" about which Stafford said nothing here" e!licitl sas that .esus 9hrist


42/66

has the fulness of deit dwelling in him bodil& 5 thin Stafford is o*erl dismissi*e here&

On Phili!!ians 7:@,6" see /h ?ou Should Belie*e in the Trinit" 1N1,@&

Greg Stafford:

#nd if anone has an ;uestions about !ages 1N1,1N@ in /h ?ou Should" +ust as& #s

for 9ol& 7:$" Bowman fails to recogniAe that 9hrists own fullness is contingent u!on the

athers willC (9ol& 1:1$) Thus" once again we see that 9hrist is not eternal" for he has

not alwas had the *er fullness that constitutes him a godC Of course" anointed

9hristians will also !ossess this fullness" according to 9ol& 7:1N& or more on 9ol& 7:$"see m boo" !ages 7F,7&

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Rob Bowman:

#s such" .esus in his incarnate state had =life in himself&= Since the Son was sent to be

our redeemer b the ather" .esus in .ohn 6:78 might ha*e been saing that the ather

had willed that .esus" the MincarnateM Son" should embod self,eistent life in himself&

Greg Stafford:


43/66

H!on rereading the tet" we find no such teaching in .ohn 6:78& .esus maes no such

;ualification of the life he was gi*en& e sim!l sas that as the ather has life" so e

has gi*en life to the Son&

Rob Bowman:

2ot +ust life" but =life in himself&= #gain" what is said here needs to be correlated with

.ohn 1:1,F" among other !assages in .ohn&

Greg Stafford:

2o !roblem& But the conclusion is the same: .esus was gi*en life in himself& 5n whatother wa could he be gi*en life than for that life to dwell in him< 5t is not some tangible"

eternal !roduct&

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Rob Bowman:


44/66

5n an case" =life in himself= is a descri!tion of the Sons nature& That is what he is& .ohn

tells us that =in him was life= (.ohn 1:F)" that is" e*en before he became incarnate&

Greg Stafford:

?es" in him was life& But the !oint we are maing is he was gi*en that life& .ohn 6:78

does not sa when he was gi*en that life& #gain" the sim!le truth is that the life .esus

has in himself was gi*en to him b the ather& Thus" he did not alwas !ossess that life&

Rob Bowman:

#gain" Stafford is assuming what he needs to !ro*e , that the athers =gi*ing= life to the

Son im!lies that the Son recei*ed it tem!orall&

Greg Stafford:

There is no other meaning one can deri*e from a sim!l reading and a!!reciation of the

term =gi*e&= Hnless the Bible articulates the word =gi*e= in such a wa as to restrict itsmeaning and !lace in some non,tem!oral categor" we are not at libert to dissociate its

inherentl tem!oral connotationsC Of course" ou ha*e to" for otherwise our theolog

crumbles& But" it is ou who ha*e once again assumed that which ou ha*e et to !ro*e&

5 assume that the word is used with its normal meaning (for 5 ha*e no reason to belie*e it

is not)" while ou assume that it is used in a sense that is nowhere articulated or

demonstrated in Scri!ture&


45/66

Rob Bowman:

Po! ;uiA: 5f a tem!oral father gi*es tem!oral life to his son" what ind of life does an

eternal ather gi*e to his one true SonQQ in the two

references in Psalms and the reference ou ga*e from 1 9hronicles does not refer to

=the 43R? S#'3 T52GS=C The references in Psalms use doa and time (=honor=)" but

1 9hronicles uses doa and ischus (=strength=)& Perha!s ou should read our >QQ a bit

more carefull&

Rob Bowman:

5ll mae it eas for ou: in all three !assages it is Gods strength" not ours" that is to be

=gi*en= or =ascribed= to him (note 1 9hron& 18:%,$" 11,17" 7Fb" 7b Ps& 7$:F,%" 11

$8:@b" 6,8)&

Greg Stafford:

?ou are illing me" Rob& ?ou are also wrong again& /hen we declare his deeds among

the nations" we ascribe glor and strength to .ah" and it is also while we declare such

things that we gi*e im glor and our strength& #lso" sto! misleading others into thining

that the same words are used in these !assages&


61/66

Rob Bowman:

>iewise it is Gods glor that is being s!oen of" not us gi*ing God something he

doesnt ha*e (5m sure ou*e alread seen that if ou looed u! the *erses +ust cited)&

Greg Stafford:

/ell" it a!!ears ou are the one who has not looed u! these *erses" or" if ou did" ou

did not do so *er carefull&

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Rob Bowman:

These !oints" taen together" seem to me to be an ade;uate answer from an orthodo

trinitarian !ers!ecti*e to the ob+ection that .esus could not be #lmight God if he was

gi*en di*ine nature or authorit&

Greg Stafford:


62/66

Trinitarians are in a difficult !osition& The Bible fre;uentl and consistentl uses

unambiguous language that argues against their *iew of God" and so the" as we ha*e

seen from the abo*e" must read certain tets in light of theolog that came into being

hundreds of ears after the closing of the Bible canon& /e can onl ho!e that" gi*enenough time" and with Gods hel!" those who embrace the Trinit doctrine will come to

see it for what it trul is" and come to now God" not as a substance of being shared b

three !ersons" but as the !erson of the ather" who lo*ingl ga*e life to is Son" that

other might li*e b means of him&,,.oh 8:6 1 9or& %:8&

Rob Bowman:

Some closing comments of m own&

1& The Bible" correctl translated" unambiguousl calls .esus =God= (5s& $:8 .ohn 1:1

7N:7% Rom& $:6 Tit& 7:1@ 7 Pet& 1:1 eb& 1:% 1 .ohn 6:7N) and =>ord"= i&e&" the >ord

?/ (e&g&" Rom& 1N:$,1@ Phil& 7:$,11 1 Pet& 7:@ @:16)& 2ot once does the Bible" in

an translation" not e*en the 2/T" sa that .esus is =not God&=

Greg Stafford:

The Bible ne*er sas 'ichael is =not God"= eitherC #lso" ou again fail to !ro!erl e!lain

what ou mean b God" for it surel" ha*ing trinitarian connotations" does not coincide

with the Bibles use of theos for .esus& #dditionall" when ou show ou ha*e a gras! of

the issues in*ol*ed in the !ro!er translation of these *erses" feel free to begin the

discussion& Hntil then" ou are sim!l s!inning our wheels&


63/66

Rob Bowman:

7& /atchtower theolog came into being 1$ centuries after the close of the 2T canon& 5f

we o!en the discussion beond the narrow confines of the doctrine of the nature of God

and the deit of .esus 9hrist" we find that the whole theological structure of the

.eho*ahs /itnesses doctrinal sstem is a late 1$th and earl 7Nth centur

de*elo!ment& So" if late de*elo!ment is an issue" the .eho*ahs /itnesses are in a far

worse situation than trinitarians&

Greg Stafford:

#nd" of course" ou !ro*ide not one eam!le& ?our =eternal generation= certainl

;ualifies as later theolog" and most certainl is unbiblical" as we ha*e seen& But that is

hardl the etent of the theological in*entions trinitarians use to tr and legitimiAe their

!referred theolog&

Rob Bowman:

@& 5t is not we who are reading our theolog into the Bible& /e de*elo!ed our theolog as

faithful 9hristians in the church seeing to understand Scri!ture& /e did not de*elo! our

theolog as disaffected !ersons who had left the church because we did not lie the

doctrines of Scri!ture" onl to decide that we could be 9hristians if we could mae it

agreeable to our notions&


64/66

Greg Stafford:

Sure ou did" Rob& 3ternal generation" two natures in one !erson" a Godhead Beingnessshared b three !ersons2eed 5 sa more< The Bible does awa with all these

teachings: .esus is a s!irit !erson (1 9or& 16:F6)" he has a God o*er him (Re*& @:17)"

and he is not eternal (.ohn 6:78 8:6)& #lso" the Bible ne*er articulates the term =God=

as a reference to a consubstantial Triad&

Rob Bowman:

F& 5n Staffords closing comments he again shows that he does not understand the

doctrine of the Trinit& /e do not belie*e in an im!ersonal essence shared b three

di*ine entities (which is what Stafford clearl understands =!ersons= to mean)&

Greg Stafford:

#re ou saing that the essence of the ather and Son is itself =!ersonal=

Documents

STEFFORD VS BOWMAN PART ONE