I think you make a fundamantal mistake Jaco, the concerns that I and others have and the reason for our involvement in this issue are not to do with ‘is the Trinity biblical’ or something like that. You are described as an ‘outsider’ not because of bodily or doctinal odour! I is because you are not ‘Evangelical’. Any of the contributors here if we were discussing on say a ‘monotheist’ blog or whatever would probably hardly mention ‘orthodoxy’ or ‘Nicea’ or statements of faith, there wouldnt be any point in doing so. ON THIS page and site it is of concern to us that Andrew is working within hte Evangelical world and seems to be espousing anti trinitarian views or at least failing to affirm them.
These discussions have gone beyond merely categorisation. And where categorisation is concerned, what ultimate authorite decides on whether someone is Evangelical or not? Before the Reformation, the Catholic Church decided on who may or may not be regarded as “Christian,” since up until then the only acceptible Christianity was Roman Christianity. Did that stop the Reformers from identifying themselves as Christians? NO! Neither should anyone else do it who want to identify themselves as Evangelical. You folks fail to see this time and time again. And seeing that you claim that your tradition is biblical, then let’s put it to the test. Up until now, you folks have shown a Bible-replacing allegiance to tradition and I’m glad that this could be conclusively shown.
The Trinity ‘explains’ things …it is the things themselves that are the non negotiables…deity of Christ etc.
There are certain precursors, certain preexisting (pun not intended) cultural, theological, philosophical and linguistic assumptions that need to be in place before the trinity can be arrived at. These precursors are misfits compared to the cultural, theological, philosophical and lingistic Umwelt the ancient bible writers composed the NT. Precisely since those “non-negotiables” are at odds with the Bible, and nevertheless preferred by the prima traditione loyalists, for that reason neither the assumptions, nor its intended product (the Nicean/Chalcedonian Trinity doctrine) can be regarded as Biblical.
My observation of the monotheist scene (kermit zarley/ Buzzard et al ) is that it is very vocal but very very small. Hardly anyone I know, know that it exists and its most vocal representative Anthony Buzzard has been given a clear hiding by White and Michael Brown and to my mind the whole movement has lost some credibilty in my eyes.
So what? Biblical scholars who have contributed greatly to the Biblical unitarian cause do not identify themselves as such. That does not mean that the message is not proclaimed. YOu folks only have fallacy upon which you build your salvation. Since when are ad populum arguments to be taken seriously? Jesus and his apostles were 13. So what? Church ministers in the Reformed tradition I know personally do not identify themselves as Biblical unitarians, but reject the Nicean/Chalcedonian trinity nevertheless. In my opinion the above debate was very one-sided and the host was at fault there. A follow-up discussion on these issues were had here: http://lhim.org/blog/2011/09/15/countering-the-counter-to-adoni-in-psalm-1101/ .
Remember though that the ‘debate’ is really over ANdrews claimed evangelicalis not yours. You couldnt be in an Evangelical Church as ou know. That isn’t meant as a nasty comment of any kind just an obvous observation!!!
Well, I am. And that’s your problem…