Christian Unitarianism vs. Trinitarianism

In response to my post discussing whether God the Father left God the Son when He was on the cross, Adam Pastor posted a comment suggesting to watch the video The Human Jesus, which promotes Christian Unitarianism. I thought that rather than derailing that discussion too much, I would make a separate post to discuss this issue. Admittedly, the topic does fall outside of my own guidelines, as outlined in the “Baseline” section of the introductory post, but I think it is important to weigh up any belief against the scriptures.

I have copied my comments from the other post below.

A couple of thoughts about the video:

A major difficultly, is seems, for unitarians is understanding how Jesus can be both fully God and fully human (see video at 25 minutes 30). It is hard for some modern rationalists to understand, I suppose, but the limits of human understanding doesn't limit God. If that were the case, then God is our creation (or at least our servant) — we are God's god.

An interesting point mentioned in the video (23 minutes 50) is that there are verses that seem to promote the deity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, in apparent conflict with Deuteronomy 6:4. Trinitarians, according to the interviewee (Dan Mages), have tried to come up with a theology that solves this apparent conflict. My question about this is, isn't that what we're meant to do? If there are some apparently conflicting verses, shouldn't we try to work out how to interpret them so there is no contradiction? Otherwise we just have to accept that some of the verses are simply wrong.

It would have saved my time if the weak arguments (e.g., post-biblical era tradition and culture) for both sides of the discussion were omitted and just the solid arguments (that is, basically, just the exegesis of the scriptures) were presented.

About the humanity of Christ: He chose not to exercise His divine privileges while He was on Earth. He chose to subject Himself to the temptations that face mankind.

What I'd find useful, is a table listing all the scripture used to support trinitarianism in one column, and the unitarian rebuttals in another column. Then, a similar table listing all the scripture used to support unitarianism in one column, and the trinitarian rebuttals in another column.

One Jehovah — Did the Father Leave the Son on the Cross?

Deuteronomy 6:4 (Young's Literal Translation)
⁴Hear, O Israel, Jehovah our God [is] one Jehovah;

God cannot look upon sin, and that is why He turned his face away from Christ when He took our sins upon Himself on the cross. Right? That it what I have always been taught.

Come on all you teachers! Do we believe in one God, or not? Do we believe in the Trinity—one God expressed as three Persons? Do we belive in the Incarnation? Because, if we do, we cannot assert that God the Father forsook God the Son, at any time. Below is a short essay on this subject by Bob Passantino.

Did the Father Leave the Son on the Cross?
By Bob Passantino, © 1991

On the cross Jesus said, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" (Matthew 27:46). Many Christians believe this signifies the one and only time that there was a split between the first two persons of the Trinity, that is, between the Father and the Son. The argument asserts that when Jesus "became sin," the Father was unable to look upon him, hence he "forsook" Jesus. This argument seeks to emphasize the great cost to Christ on our behalf. He was even willing to endure separation from the Father to accomplish our salvation. However, I believe such an interpretation, while well intentioned, has heretical implications.^[1] It is a denial of belief in one eternal, indivisible God.

First, if the Father cannot look upon sin, meaning that he had to turn away from the Son on the cross (and I have found no verse which says that), then what does that say about the character and deity of Jesus? Is Jesus somehow less than God, so that he can "look upon" the sin that was laid on him on the cross? Or does he simply have a stronger stomach for sin than the Father? Or perhaps Jesus is more merciful than the Father, able to suffer what the Father cannot even face? It is interesting that in Genesis 6:5, God looked upon the sin of mankind. When scripture says that God cannot "look" upon sin, contextually it means he cannot look with approval upon sin. His consistent reaction to sin is just judgment - against the unrepentant sinner, or through the atonement of Jesus Christ, the one who died in our place and on our behalf.

Second, Jesus quoted the beginning of Psalm 22 when he stated "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" The Psalm is referred to previously in the same passage. The common Jewish way of designating an entire psalm was to refer to the opening lines, since the psalms were not numbered at that time. Jesus did not believe God had forsaken him: this would be lack of faith, which is sin (Romans 14:23), and Jesus never sinned (Hebrews 4:15). He was himself God and always in perfect obedience to the Father. Instead, he referred to the psalm in its entirety as a messianic psalm. That he knew God had not actually forsaken him is clear from the same psalm, which says, "He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted; nor has He hidden His face from Him; But when He cried to Him, He heard" (verse 24). In fact, Jesus was declaring to his accusers that they were in the midst of fulfilling this psalm, which was commonly understood in His day to refer to the coming Messiah, the Suffering Servant. The psalmist himself understood that the "forsaking" of God was not abandonment, but a lifting of His Sovereign protection according to His divine plan so that the threats of his enemies could be carried out in fulfillment of prophecy. In fact, there were many times during Jesus' public ministry when His enemies sought to kill him (John 5:16; 8:59, for examples). They were not able to because, as He said, His "hour" was not yet come (John 12:23-28). He declared to Pilate, "You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin" (John 19:11). On the day of Pentecost Peter declared that no one could have crucified Christ in defiance of God's power: "Him, being delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it" (Acts 2:23-24).

Third, when 2 Corinthians 5:21 says that God made Jesus "to be sin," it means that God made the penalty for all sin to fall upon Jesus, not that Jesus himself could become sin, e.g., sinful. As perfect God and perfect man, he could not sin. 1 Peter 1:19 calls Jesus "a lamb without blemish and without spot."

Fourth, is it reasonable to assume that the Father would desert the Son who was acting in obedience to him through every moment of existence, "obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross" (Philippians 2:8)? Is it consistent with the character of God for the Father to reward Christ's obedience with rejection? On the contrary, Ephesians 5:2 says Christ's sacrifice was "an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma."

Fifth, it is actually or ontologically impossible for there to be a "split" between any persons of the eternal Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity, simply defined, is that within the nature of the one true God there are three eternal, distinct Persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons are the One God. (We do not believe in a rationally contradictory God of one God in three gods or one Person in three Persons, but one God in three Persons.) While others exist in generic or species identity (such as three humans sharing in humanness), God exists in numeric identity, such that each person is the one God. If all humans but three died, there would not be a trinity of humans, and the nature of humanity itself would not be diminished by the absence of one of the remaining humans. But in the nature of God, His eternal triunity indivisible. Any "split" in the Trinity would result in the destruction of the very being of God.

In conclusion, it is fallible humans who think the Father would reject the Son on the cross. The bond between the Father and the Son is inseparable, not only because of their deity, but because of the complete agreement between their wills, desires, mercy, justice, and love for mankind, exemplified in Christ's great sacrifice on the cross. Isaiah 53:4, a prophetic utterance concerning Jesus Christ, records the erroneous reaction of men to Christ's humiliating death: "Surely He has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed Him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted." Christ's declaration on the cross, far from being a admission of separation or abandonment, is a powerful affirmation of God's essential unity, perfect justice, sovereign power, and matchless grace.

For further information on this problem, I recommend James Oliver Buswell's Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1962, Vol. Two, pp. 66-69).

This view and my view are not the only possible interpretations of this passage, and there are interpretations other than mine that do not have implicatory problems. However, it is beyond the scope of this essay to address those alternate interpretations.

Answers In Action
P.O. Box 2067
Costa Mesa
California 92628
(949) 646-9042
aia@answers.org
(copied with permission)

This does raise the question of how to interpret “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil”:

Habakkuk 1:13 (New International Version - UK)
¹³ Your eyes are too pure to look on evil; you cannot tolerate wrong. Why then do you tolerate the treacherous? Why are you silent while the wicked swallow up those more righteous than themselves?

I think we should read this as, “Your eyes are too pure to look on evil and approve of it,” or, as the footnotes in the Spirit-Filled Life Bible say, “God’s very nature cannot allow Him to behold evil without punishing the guilty ones.”

About this Forum

This is an on-line bible study group. Invited members comment on their interpretation of the scriptures, either with regards to a particular topic or question, or as part of an in-depth analysis of a passage or book. The purpose of this group is to help the members to develop a deeper insight into the Word of God by discussing and critiquing one another's ideas.

Motivation

I realised that I am in the fortunate position to have Christian friends who, between them, cover almost the whole spectrum of beliefs that are generally considered acceptable within mainstream Christianity. This forum is to pull together some of those people, and their views, in a constructively critical, but not antagonistic, environment. Because this goal demands a manageable number of people, and a good balance of the varying views, I have decided to keep it as an invitation-only forum. It is my hope that it will be interesting enough for the members to be motivated to contribute to most of the discussions.

What this is Not

This is not intended to be a home group (cell group) or a prayer group. Of course, if a member has some specific prayer request, I am sure the others would be happy to assist in prayer, but the group's primary function is to help each other learn more from the scriptures. This is not a philosophy group, per se — we are not so interested in human wisdom as we are in garnering the wisdom revealed in the bible. Nor is this forum a place for throwing dogmata at one another — there is little point arguing about doctrine that you dogmatically adhere to, because you are not likely to be open to learning and growing in those areas. Having said that, to have a meaningful discussion, we need to have a common baseline, a set of doctrine that all the members agree with. In the next section I list some beliefs that I think are necessary for all the members to agree with for this forum to work effectively.

The Baseline

Here are some beliefs that I stipulate as required doctrine for members of this discussion, in order to limit the scope of the discussions and provide a common baseline for the members. I may add one or two more as they come to mind.

• Absolute Truth: There is an absolute truth. Two contridictory beliefs cannot both be true.
• The Trinity: There is one God who exists as three persons — God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit.
• The Bible: The bible is the authoritative and infallible (except possibly for small errors in translation) Word of God, although it is open to a wide range of interpretation. No other writing has greater, or equal, authority than the Bible.

Usage Suggestions

Any member can start a new discussion by issuing a new post (click on the "New Post" link at the top right of the screen). Others should add to the discussion by commenting on the post. I suggest that we try to not have more than three or four discussions active at one time.

Also see the usage tips post.