Mr. Armstrong,
You commented on the language he used to describe your argument. Putting that aside, what do you have to say about his response to your argument? (He said that you took one possible meaning of "vicar" and read that into his statements--a meaning which is subordinationist and thus heretical--but that subordination is not inherent in the term "vicar", and was not part of his usage.)
If he responds to MY argument (as opposed to simply issuing further statements, while ignoring my critique), I will be happy to respond to his. I get tired of the one-way discussion mentality. That gets boring real quick.
In any event, he simply has not responded to the straightforward question of the meaning of the word "vicar". It's not a matter of how I define it, but how the standard dictionaries do. Since it is not a biblical word, all we can go by is dictionary definitions. Or does White wish to argue that dictionaries are irrelevant to define words? That would be fun . . .
I'm confused. I said, "(He said that you took one possible meaning of "vicar" and read that into his statements--a meaning which is subordinationist and thus heretical--but that subordination is not inherent in the term "vicar", and was not part of his usage.)"
That response is what I referred to. I didn't see anything in your post addressing it--hence my question. (Though after I commented I looked at the combox for the other post, and noticed that Jordan Potter addressed Dr. White's response. I'm contemplating his comment. The paragraph that starts with "Again, you have failed to address the objection we have raised" may be a good point.)
Now, in your second paragraph, you seem to be saying that his non-subordinate use of "vicar" isn't part of the dictionary definition of "vicar". OK, that would answer my question. (Though I don't know that it's a correct answer; "agent" and "deputy" seem to be subordinate, but "substitute" is also part of the dictionary definitions you posted. I don't see anything subordinate in that meaning. If the "specifically" part of the MW definition is correct, then you're probably right--subordination would be inherent. But the Dictionary.com definition seems to allow for simply "substitute".)
On "substitute", both you and Mr. Prejean raised another point involving the co-working of the three divine Persons. Prejean said, "All three Persons are still present in all Trinitarian acts. The Son hasn't "gone" anywhere in the sense of not being fully present in all Trinitarian acts". But in some sense the Son went away and the Helper came (John 16:7), and Jesus spoke of what the Spirit would do. I can't make out what it is in the word "substitute" that makes you think it can't apply to the sense that Jesus stated.
Tim,
I humbly suggest that you answer your own question. The point made, which you reference, is that since the Trinity acts in unity, in cooperation, and together; the "substitute" definition cannot apply. If White is asserting (as you suggest) that he indended this "substitute" definition, then all he is doing is reasserting his original. He is not interacting with the point made that the definition does not and cannot fit here.
Saying that the Son has gone in "some" sense is vague and does not answer the objection which Dave and Jonathan raise. Additionally, without further clarification, you are in danger of asserting not "three persons in one triune God," but separate gods who are closely aligned.
I doubt this is what you truly mean, but I hope you can see how imprecision leads to faulty conclusions. That is the point which Dave is making. In fact, he went to lengths to show that White's understanding of the Trinity is most likely orthodox. It is this one description which leads down the wrong path.
In His Name,
If James White didn't use "Vicar of Christ" in the same sense that Catholics use it, then why does he continue to object to calling the Pope "Vicar of Christ"? He says the Holy Spirit, not the Pope, is the Vicar of Christ. Well, the Holy Spirit isn't the Vicar of Christ, but anyway his assertion only makes sense if he used "vicar" in the same sense that most everyone else uses it.
Sorry, Mr. White, it's time to eat the humble pie. Might as well get it over with.
But in some sense the Son went away and the Helper came (John 16:7), and Jesus spoke of what the Spirit would do.
Two points:
(1) The sense in which Jesus left is very clear; His Body left the earth.
(2) The doctrine of appropriation is that we speak of certain activities more characteristically of one or another person while recognizing that all three divine Persons are acting. Thus, the fact that the Spirit is doing some act in no way means that Jesus is not also doing that act. Thinking otherwise is a serious (although common) error in Triadology. For that reason, the term "vicar" could never be justified, because the Holy Spirit never acts in place of the Son.
Good comment, Tim, and food for thought. I would continue to object to "substitute" as well. Let's look at Merriam-Webster online for that word:
Main Entry:
1sub·sti·tute Listen to the pronunciation of 1substitute
Pronunciation:
ˈsəb-stə-ˌtüt, -ˌtyüt
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French substitut, from Latin substitutus, past participle of substituere to put in place of, from sub- + statuere to set up, place — more at statute
Date:
15th century
: a person or thing that takes the place or function of another
http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/d...nary/
substitute
I agree, that is not as obviously subordinate as "deputy" etc., but does it really fit the Holy Trinity? I don't think so, because no Divine Person is really "taking the place" of another, since each one does what He does because of the very nature of God; thus to speak of One "substituting" for another seems to me to trivialize the very essence of the Triune God, as if, e.g., a substitute teacher in eighth grade were entirely equal to the regular teacher. I don't think so.
Nor does one Person of the Holy Trinity fulfill the "function" of another, since they each have Their own function. Hence, the Son has the function of becoming Incarnate. The Father and the Holy Spirit do not do that; in fact, They have no physical bodies at all. The Father has the function of sending the Son into the world (Jn 15:21; 1 Jn 4:14), etc. The Son can't send himself! That would be the heresy of Sabellianism or modal monarchianism, held by the "Jesus Only" pentecostals; particularly the United Pentecostal Church today.
Furthermore, White wrote in his paper:
"The serious reader knows that my objection to the term "Vicar of Christ" is based upon the fact that it is the Spirit who is sent by the Father and the Son into the world so that believer are not "left alone," as Jesus promised in John 15-16. To give that role and title to a man is blasphemous"
This is asinine, because who is saying that the Catholic Church teaches that the pope is sent by the Father and the Son to indwell believers (which is precisely the context of John 15-16, that White appeals to)? I guess White likes to throw out Scripture references, hoping that his fan club won't ever check them for content and context. So yes, Jesus "sends" the Spirit (Jn 15:26, 16:7): no question about it, but He also indwells us Himself. I understood this fully in 1982 when I did a great deal of biblical research concerning trinitarianism. But White seems to not understand it even now. How odd.
See, e.g., Jn 15:4: "Abide in me, and I in you." (cf. 15:5)
What pope ever claimed to "abide" in any believer in this sense? Also, note that this is Jesus abiding in us (as well as the Holy Spirit).
White acts as if only the Holy Spirit indwells Christian believers. This is how he comes up with his "vicar of Christ" description for the Holy Spirit, as if the Holy Spirit substitutes for Jesus Christ. But this is unbiblical, and easily shown to be so (from my very own 1982 research). The Holy Spirit cannot substitute for Jesus if Jesus is there too! Someone else has already pointed this out, and now I'll back it up from Scripture (KJV):
1) Jesus and the Father indwell Christian believers:
JOHN 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
2) Jesus indwells Christian believers:
JOHN 14:18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. {cf. Jn 14:16-17}
JOHN 14:20 At that day ye shall know that I {am} in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.
JOHN 15:4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
JOHN 17:23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; . . .
3) God the Holy Spirit indwells Christian believers:
1 CORINTHIANS 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and {that} the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? (17) If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which {temple} ye are.
JOHN 14:16-17 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; (17) {Even} the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. {cf. Jn 14:18 below}
ROMANS 8:9,11 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his . . . (11) But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. {cf. Rom 8:10 below}
1 CORINTHIANS 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1 CORINTHIANS 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost {which is} in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? {cf. to 1 Cor 3:16}
GALATIANS 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
4) "God" (Divine Person not specified) indwells Christian believers:
2 CORINTHIANS 6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in {them}; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. {cf. Ex 29:45, Jer 31:33, Ezek 37:27}
5) God the Father and God the Holy Spirit indwell Christian believers:
1 JOHN 3:24 . . . And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
1 JOHN 4:12-16 . . . If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. (13) Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. (14) And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son {to be} the Saviour of the world. (15) Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. (16) And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
{cf. Neh 9:20, Jn 14:26, 15:26, 16:7-8,13-15, Rom 8:14, 2 Cor 13:14}
6) God the Holy Spirit, and God the Son, Jesus, indwell Christian believers:
ROMANS 8:10 And if Christ {be} in you, the body {is} dead because of sin; but the Spirit {is} life because of righteousness. {cf. Rom 8:9}
7) God the Father indwells Christian believers:
1 JOHN 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him . . .
How's that for some good old-fashioned biblical theology? Let's see White war against Scripture and deny all this. It annihilates his position about the Holy Spirit being the "vicar of Christ" because He indwells believers (but so do the Father and the Son, etc.) even more thoroughly than the linguistic considerations. But I am only a biblical ignoramus and dolt. What do I know, anyway? White has the degrees and the alleged "dissertation" on the Trinity, and so has no time for a dumb, blind amateur exegete like me.
Lastly, White, amidst his avalanche of personal insults, lies, and slanders, gloated:
especially coming from a man who has never, to my knowledge, stood before an audience in defense of the Trinity against those who would deny it,
As a matter of fact, I have, in the Pontiac Silverdome (where the Detroit Lions used to play). A friend of mine and I attended a Jehovah's Witness convention, and witnessed to some 20 elders, standing around us in intimidating fashion, defending the Holy Trinity in particular. We were rushed out of the stadium as soon as they discovered that they couldn't reply to our biblical reasoning.
I have attended a Kingdom Hallo for the express purpose of evangelization maybe half a dozen times.
I also defended the Trinity and other Christian doctrines in a radio talk on Jehovah's Witnesses, on the largest Protestant radio station in Detroit: WMUZ, on a show associated with the ministry of George Bogle: an immensely respected Detroit minister and tremendous prayer warrior who is still active today. That was on 3 November 1989, when I was a Protestant. One can hear that talk online:
http://www.esnips.com/doc/0076c4...g-%2811-3-89%
29
And, of course, I have defended trinitarianism at great length (pp. 71-163) in my book, Mere Christian Apologetics, and have in lengthy online debates with a Mormon elder, a Jehovah's Witness elder, a Muslim (Shabir Ally), and others. And I have done this for twenty-five years. If White wishes to despise that, let him. It is only one more instance where he won't acknowledge any thing that I do, even if he completely agrees with it. In his mentality, a person whom he considers unregenerate can even defend the Holy Trinity against heretics, but it has to somehow be wicked and evil, because of his belief in Total Depravity. It's insane . . .
I wanted to also point out that -- going by all my Scripture references above -- we see that these passages refer to the different Persons of the Godhead indwelling Christians the following number of times:
Holy Spirit: 9 times
Jesus: 6 times
The Father: 4 times
"God" (unclear as to Person): 1 time.
So sure, the Holy Spirit is mentioned in this respect more than the Father and the Son, but yet (somewhat curiously) if you add the times that the Father and the Son are written of in this way, those instances are numerically more: 10 to 9. And if you include the "God" passage, then it is either 11 to 9 or 10 to 10 (depending how one interprets it). In any event, that is highly significant biblical data that White cannot dismiss, as if only the Holy Spirit has this function of indwelling.
Since the Father and Son do the same thing (according to ten explicit biblical evidences), it is ludicrous to speak of the Holy Spirit "substituting" or being a "vicar" of the Father or the Son.
White wants to argue according to whim and illogic. I use solid Scriptural reasoning, that is perfectly self-consistent and quite strong evidence. Take your pick.
Hi all,
I'm afraid I can't really write much today, though I am reading your comments. (I may not respond at all; I'm preparing for a couple job interviews next week.) However, my RSS reader also alerted me to a new post at James Swan's blog that turned out to be relevant, so I wanted to direct you to it. It's quote from Tertullian in which he calls the Holy Spirit the Vicar of Christ.
It's not surprising to find Tertullian or some other early Father using ambiguous or faulty or incorrect language about the Godhead. This is the same Tertullian, after all, who spoke of Christ in such a way as to unintentionally pave the way for Arius.
This work was before Tertullian's Montanist period, but you can see the sort of confusion that led him to take a heretical view of the Holy Spirit in his Montanist period. It's more straightforward to simply point out that a number of ante-Nicene Fathers appear to be moderately subordinationist on account of the doctrine of the Trinity not having been fully formulated and that the doctrine of appropriation was more or less unknown until Augustine. If that is the best example for such usage, then it looks more like an admission than a defense. There's likely some orthodox interpretation that could be given (viz., the Holy Spirit is replacing Christ as the primary focus for purposes of appropriation), but given his later beliefs on the Holy Spirit, I suspect that Tertullian simply succumbed to the confusion of his time.
The problem is that White doesn't even have that justification. While Tertullian asserts a kind of replacement in the economic teaching function (confusingly, but in a way that could be interpreted in terms of appropriation), Tertullian does not interpret "left alone" to imply Christ's absence as White does. White explicitly ties his use of the term to this exegesis of the passage when he says "The serious reader knows that my objection to the term 'Vicar of Christ' is based upon the fact that it is the Spirit who is sent by the Father and the Son into the world so that believer are not 'left alone,' as Jesus promised in John 15-16." Thus, White is establishing his use of "Vicar" in the sense of replacement of the state of being "left alone" by Christ, and that is clearly the sort of separation that forbids an interpretation in terms of appropriation. The orthodox interpretation is that the Christian is not left alone because the entire Trinity returns, not just the Holy Spirit, and that is the teaching of the numerous passages that Dave cited above. In the sense that White is asserting the term, it could ONLY be coherently applied to a person who is NOT one of the Trinity, and indeed, that is exactly the sense in which Catholics use it. Ironically, White has proved that the Catholic use of the term as applied to a person is correct and that his own is in error.
Yet what is the chance he will admit he was in error and retract? One in a million?
Commenting by HaloScan
