As far as theological journals go, Ecclesia
Militans is a unique contribution since anyone
who holds evangelical convictions is able to submit an article or book review. Additionally, we're accepting submissions on biblical and theological studies, counseling, ministerial studies, and Christian philosophy. We are also accepting formal disputations between two or three parties aimed at
a formal thesis. Let me invite you to consider a submission! You may find the submission guidelines here.
Sleight
of Mind: The Myth of the Christian Trinity, Vol. 1 is an anti-Trinity polemic written by Steven
Blake. Whereas I have read and responded to what are likely the best
non-trinitarian polemics (e.g., Buzzard; Stafford), "Sleight of Mind" is a
popular-level volume that conveys a significant number of common arguments
against orthodoxy. For that reason, a critical review may be helpful for those
interested in typical popular subordinationist argumentation.
The foreword includes Blake’s claim
that he feels as though he has been called by God to “correct one of the most
egregious distortions of biblical fact” (i.e., the doctrine of the Trinity).[1] Blake claims no relevant formal
training, whether in biblical studies, languages, or theology. Only, he cites thirty
years of “intensive study.”[2] Regularly, however, Blake
makes substantial claims regarding Bible translation, Greek and Hebrew
definitions (while never properly citing any source) and syntax. For example,
he spent several pages unpacking why “Godhead is a pagan concept.”[3] He waxed long as to why “theoin”
does not actually mean “Godhead.” Likely due to his unfamiliarity with biblical
Greek, Blake confuses the accusative form of θεότης with its lexical form. He
similarly demonstrates his ignorance regarding the archaism “Godhead” since the
suffix -head has largely been supplanted by the suffix -hood in modern English.
Hence, expertise is not among the fruit of his thirty years of “intensive study.”
It is difficult to imagine a text
with more unsubstantiated invective than what is presented in "Sleight of Mind." Blake is an adept ‘proof-texter,’ predicating much of his conclusions on Scripture
quotation with erroneous and shallow commentary. Quaint arguments such as “the word
Trinity” is not found in the Bible and the Trinity is “irrational” make up the
bulk of this volume.[4] The surface level argumentation
is often so incoherent that is presents as sacrilegious satire. By way of
example, Blake criticizes Christians for the ease at which they have been “beguiled”
by such an obvious false teaching and then cites several arguments to
demonstrate his point: “The Bible says that ‘no man has seen God at any time’
(Joh 1:18), and yet it states that Jesus was seen by ‘multitudes’ (Mt 8:1).”[5] Not only has Blake ignored
the multitudinous occasions in the OT wherein God is explicitly seen (e.g., Gen.
32:30; Exod. 24:10; Isa. 6:5), he has neglected John 1:18 wherein John claimed
that no one has seen the Father but the “one and only God” has revealed him.[6] Thus John’s resolution of
the apparent contradiction between the many accounts wherein God has explicitly
been seen and the prohibitions of seeing God (e.g., Exod. 33:20) is that when
people have seen Yahweh, they saw the Son (cf. John 12:41; Isa. 6:1-5).
Within the same pericope, Blake
made this claim:
The
Bible makes clear that the Father alone is God. It portrays Jesus as
representing God’s mind, personality and character. He is said to be “the exact
likeness of God”- 2Co 4:4, NIV, “the exact representation of His (God’s)
being”- Heb 1:3, NLT and “the visible image of the invisible God” - Col 1:15,
NLT. The common denominator is that in thought, word, and action, Jesus looked
like God - not that he was God.[7]
Blake has made the astounding claim
that when the writer of Hebrews says that the Son possesses the exactness of
God’s being, this means that Jesus acted like God. Not only is the claim completely
unsubstantiated, it defies the natural reading of Hebrews 1:2. The relevant
noun (ὑπόστασις) is defined as “the essential or basic structure/nature of an
entity, substantial nature…”[8] and thus the author of
Hebrews has made the claim that the Son of God possesses ontological equality with
God not merely in terms of his human actions, words, and thoughts, but in his
divine essence.
Blake presents the usual litany of quotations
from theologically liberal sources which claim that the Trinity is a
post-biblical construct.[9] He neither interacts with
these quotes or substantiates the claims within them. What these many
quotations amount to is a fallacious appeal to authorities that does little to add
credibility to his case.
Blake presents a variety of peculiar biblical claims that are obviously erroneous. This claims are apparently designed to
discredit trinitarianism but they rely upon fictitious premises. For example, he
wrote, “1 John 5:7 and Matthew 28:19 are the only verses in the Bible in which
the titles ‘Father’, ‘Son’ (or ‘Word’) and ‘Holy Spirit’ appear together in the
same sentence.”[10]
Moving past the arbitrary presupposition (i.e., these titles must necessarily
occur frequently in a single sentence for the Trinity to have legitimacy),
Blake’s claim is obviously wrong (cf. 2 Cor. 13:14). Whereas much critique could
be levelled at his surface-level method, errors such as this run deep in “Sleight
of Mind.”
As for his Christological
argumentation, Blake’s tack is to identify things attributed to Christ which he
believes preclude trinitarian Christology. For instance, he points out that
Acts 10:38 states that Jesus was anointed.[11] He then scoffs: “This
being the case, if each of the members of the Trinity were God, Ac 10:38 would
be telling us that 'God anointed God with God'. But would such an idea make
even the slightest bit of sense?”[12] Similar argumentation
appears with regard to the accounts wherein Jesus is said to have a God (i.e.,
the Father). These sorts of arguments presuppose a non-incarnational
Christology from the outset and thus engage in fallacious question begging. If
Jesus is the incarnate Son, he has taken upon himself the limitations of human
existence and has endured a great humiliation. On incarnational Christology, descriptions
of subordination (e.g., Christ’s anointing; prayers to God; etc.) are due to
the fact that he exists as a human being and thus endured a functional
subordination in order to redeem his people. Much the same ought to be said with
regard to the exaltation accounts.[13]
The fallacy of petitio principii
(i.e., question begging) occurs when one presents an argument where the
conclusion is assumed in a premises.”[14] This fallacy is indelibly
weaved into most of “Sleight of Hand.” Blake assumes unitarianism when
he approaches the biblical text and then presents proof-texts which, having
assumed his conclusion, demonstrate his conclusion. There are so many instances
of this that providing one or two exemplars seems to do injustice to a fair
review. However, for the sake of brevity I will provide two:
Scripture tells us that Jesus was a
“man” (1Ti 2:5) and “without sin” (Heb 4:15). Being neither God nor a member of
sinning mankind, he was qualified to mediate between them - to pay the ransom
for sin and redeem mankind from its penalty. God cannot, by definition, be
mediator in a conflict between Himself and sinning mankind. Hence, as the
mediator in that conflict, Jesus cannot be God.[15]
The
same is true for the phrase: “the Son of God”. I believe that this title
intends to mean what it appears to mean: that Jesus is God's offspring, not God
Himself. I don't think we require a theologian to give us a convoluted
explanation of why it “really” means that Jesus is God - instead of what it
appears to mean.[16]
In both of these quotations, Blake
assumes unitarianism and thus reads that conclusion into the relevant texts or
phrases. This tactic is incoherent and is about as far from actual biblical
exegesis than is imaginable.
Blake affirms a rudimentary Arian Christology that posits Christ as the personal agent through which God created.[17] He never provides a
consideration of the relevant Christological texts which would, on their
natural reading, provide some question regarding his position (e.g., Heb. 1:10-12).
His Christology is also in keeping with some modern expressions of Arianism
(e.g., the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society). He defines the Holy Spirit as
an impersonal force and yet never deals with the litany of biblical texts which
contradict his claim. Evidently, Blake believes on can have intimate fellowship
with an impersonal force (2 Cor. 13:14) and that God’s impersonal force is set
on a par with personal subjects (Matt. 28:19). He also, believes by implication that an impersonal force intercedes to God on behalf of the elect
(Rom. 8:27-28). When Jesus said he would send “another helper” (John 14:16), on
Blake's view, he apparently did not really mean a Helper akin to Jesus Christ
despite the fact that this Helper teaches God’s people (John 15:26; cf. Acts
5:32; Rom. 8:16). In short, there is overwhelming evidence for the personhood
of the Holy Spirit and Blake never interacts with any of it.[18]
Blake demonstrates consistent
unfamiliarity with orthodox trinitarianism. At times, he confuses
trinitarianism with modalism and at other times he engages in mischaracterization.
An example of this occurs in his discussion of Hebrews 1:2 where Blake notes
that Jesus is at the right hand of God and then concludes, “Thus we are given
evidence that Jesus did not - as Trinitarianism alleges - resume his identity
as God, but took a position near God.”[19] This claim is a bald
mischaracterization as orthodoxy has always affirmed that Jesus is still fully
human and is seated at God’s right hand.
In chapter six, Blake claims to
address “Trinitarian arguments.” Here, I thought, this must be where he actually
interacts with the other side and provides substantiation of his position. Hardly.
Blake only continued to provide proof-text citations and unsupported claims.
Chapter seven fairs much the same. There, Blake engages a number of topics
(e.g., “Jesus is created by God”). He spent several pages seeking to demonstrate
that Psalm 2:7 and its NT quotations mean that Jesus was created by God.[20] Whereas he admits that
the Psalm’s original application doesn’t refer to the Davidic king’s creation,[21] he insists that the
application of this text in the NT does. The manner in which he has sought to
demonstrate this is a few lexical entries from unscholarly sources (e.g., a few
Bible websites) which attest that יְלִדְתִּֽי means “begotten.” Blake wrongly
assumes the lexical definition of “begotten” is in dispute and he neglects to
recognize that Psalm 2 is a coronation hymn and is applied in the NT to the
final Davidic King in terms of his coronation and not his birth (e.g., Acts
13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5). Moreover, Blake ignores the fact that orthodoxy affirms
that Jesus became a human being and was, therefore, conventionally begotten.
In what is perhaps the most
surface-level treatment of the term “firstborn” as it appears in Colossians
1:15, Blake appeals to a number of English dictionaries as well as a number of
unscholarly sources (e.g., Strong’s Concordance) to demonstrate that “firstborn”
means the one born first. Of course, in order to make these claims Blake isolated
Colossians 1:15 from v. 16—a specious attempt at disregarding Paul’s claim that
Jesus is the Creator of all things who is “before all things” (v. 17). Blake is
either ignorant or ignores the fact πρωτότοκος can have a figurative meaning
that refers “to having special status associated with a firstborn.”[22] Thus when Yahweh said
“Israel is my firstborn son” (Exod. 4:22), the Septuagint translates the Hebrew
בְכֹרִ֖ with πρωτότοκος. Figuratively, Israel receives all of the preeminence
and favor from God as if it was his firstborn son. This figurative use occurs
again in the Septuagint’s rendering of Jeremiah 31:9, where Jehovah calls
Ephraim (Joseph’s biologically firstborn was Manasseh) his “firstborn.” Jehovah
said of king David, “And I will make him the firstborn, the highest of the
kings of the earth” (Psalm 89:27). Thus Jesus, the Son of David and the King of kings is
identified as “the firstborn of all creation” so as to identify his utter
preeminence.[23]
Much the same can be said regarding Blake’s appeal to Revelation 3:14.[24]
In closing, Blake’s contribution
articulates a variety of folk-level subordinationist arguments but rarely
demonstrates a rudimentary grasp of theological concepts and relevant
methodological considerations. This work is completely devoid of actual
biblical exegesis. His argumentation is often incoherent and his vilification divulges
misplaced arrogance. Since this is Blake’s for installment, I will seek to
review the second when it is released, Lord willing.
[1] Steven Blake, “Sleight of Mind”:
The Myth of the Christian Trinity, Vol. 1 (n.p., 2018), Kindle Ed., 8.
[2] Ibid., 12.
[3] Ibid., 27-9.
[4] Ibid., 64 and 68 resp.
[5] Ibid., 72.
[6] There is a significant variant at
John 1:18. Due to its robust external evidence, the critical editions have θεὸς,
as the reading is found in two 2nd century papyri, 𝔓66 and 𝔓75, as well as several important
uncials (א ,B, C, and L). The second reading, υἱός, occurs in codex A, a ninth
century correction of C, and in codices K, Γ, Δ, Θ, and Ψ. A, which aside from
having a Byzantine reading of the gospels, comes at least 200 years after the
papyri. Regarding patristic attestation, both μονογενὴς θεὸς and μονογενὴς
υἱός find broad support. However, since μονογενὴς υἱός occurs elsewhere
within the Johannine corpus (John 3:16, v. 18; 1 John 4:9), one would expect
patristic writers to affirm both readings if θεὸς is authentic (as in Origen,
Clement of Theodotus, Cyril, Basil). Given the difficulty of μονογενὴς θεὸς and
the harmonizing tendency of the Byzantine text, especially in the gospels, and
given that John already applied θεὸς to the same subject in the prologue (v.
14), there remains no substantive textual critical reason to object to the
earliest attested reading.
[7] Blake, “Sleight of Mind,” 72.
[8] BDAG, 1040.
[9] E.g., Blake, “Sleight of Mind,”
74-6.
[10] Ibid., 85.
[11] Ibid., 87.
[12] Ibid.
[13] For a in-depth consideration of
the humiliation and exaltation of Christ in light of subordinationist claims,
see Michael R. Burgos ed., Our God is Triune: Essays in Biblical Theology
(Torrington, CT: Church Militant Pub., 2018), 164-75.
[14] Douglas N. Walton, Begging the
Question: Circular Reasoning as a Tactic of Argumentation (Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press, 1991), 11.
[15] Blake, “Sleight of Hand,”
96.
[16] Ibid., 99.
[17] Ibid., 101-2.
[18] For a thorough analysis in light
of JW claims, see Michael R. Burgos, Counterfeit Religion: A Biblical
Analysis of Cults, Sects, & False Religious Movements (Torrington, CT:
Church Militant Pub., 2019), 63-9.
[19] Ibid., 110.
[20] Ibid., 244-54.
[21]
Ibid., 245.
[22] BDAG, 894.
[23] Melick observed that of the eight
times πρωτότοκος occurs in the NT, “It is clearly used literally of
primogeniture only once [i.e., Luke 2:7]. The rest of the occurrences are
figurative, and they are far removed from any idea of birth.” Richard R. Melick
Jr., The New American Commentary: Philippians, Colossians, Philemon (Nashville,
TN: Broadman, 1991), 216.
[24] See Burgos, Counterfeit Religion,
58-60.
The Christian Counselor’s New Testament and Proverbs, 4th Rev. Ed. Translated by Jay E. Adams. Cordova, TN: Institute of Nouthetic Studies, 2019.
Jay Edward Adams (1929-2020) is best known for his work in biblical counseling.[1] Drawing upon his Reformed and presuppositional commitments, Adams wrote the first thoroughgoing polemic against clinical psychology and psychiatry and the integrationist movement. Simultaneously, Adams sought to establish reformation among evangelicals calling them back to a robust biblical psychology and the sufficiency of Scripture for the cure of souls. By any account, the movement and institutions started by Adams are both successful and thriving.
Adams was a prodigious author,
writing mainly on issues related to practical theology but also homiletics, eschatology,
ecclesiology, and the like. His formal training, however, focused mainly on
theology, biblical studies, and homiletics. In 1969, Adams completed his Ph.D.
at the University of Missouri in speech having produced a dissertation entitled
The Homiletical Innovations of Andrew W. Blackwood. Earlier, he had
earned two undergraduate degrees, namely, a Bachelor of Divinity from Reformed
Episcopal Seminary and a Bachelor of Arts in biblical Greek from Johns Hopkins University.
Training in biblical Greek afforded Adams a love of the language and appreciation
for the ancient commonality of New Testament Greek. The latter of which
motivated Adams to produce his essentially literal translation of the New
Testament into accessible English.
The Christian Counselor’s New Testament
and Proverbs (CCNTP)
is a unique and worthwhile contribution to an already crowded market. It
features an excellent verse by verse format with healthy margins and handsome
font with quotations of the Old Testament rendered in caps. Dotting the margins
are short notations that identify the general topic of the pericope. These
marginal notations are indexed in the back of the volume and serve as a useful
topical guide. Adams has also provided his footnoted commentary throughout the translation.
While not as extensive as a full-on study Bible, his comments are to the point
and generally very helpful to both the biblical counselor and the student of
Scripture. They contain both textual information, Scripture commentary, and
occasional cross-references.
The translation work in the CCNTP
is thoughtful and accurate. For example, Adams intuitively renders דּוֹר in
Proverbs 30;11-14 as “one age.” Whereas “generation” or perhaps “period” would
render the noun most literally, “age” makes better sense in modern English and communicates
the transient nature of those who transgress the commandments of God. When we
think of “generations” we tend to think of individuals who were born around the
same period and live contemporaneously, whereas “age” goes a step further not
merely connoting contemporaneous existence but mutuality in the relevant sin.
The modern translations render μονογενὴς
at John 1:18; 3:16; 3:18; and 1 John 4:9 “only” (ESV; NRSV), “one and only” (CSB;
NIV), and “only begotten” (NASB; NKJV). The CCNTP stands out, rendering μονογενὴς
“unique.”[2] This is perhaps the best translation of the
term in print since it is evident that throughout the canon that God has other
sons (e.g., Gen. 6:2; Luke 3:38), albeit quite unlike the Μονογενὴς Θεὸς.
The adage “No translation is
perfect” is true of the CCNTP. Whereas Adams translates Jesus’ ἐγὼ εἰμί
statement in John 8:58 as “I AM” he neglects to employ that rendering
consistently. For example, he supplied the predicate in John 18:6: “He said to
them, ‘I am He…’” On rare occasions, Adams’ translation is unnecessarily wordy.
One example is found in 1 Corinthians 8:6. Adams renders the phrase ἐξ οὗ τὰ
πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν as “from Whom all things have come, including us who
ourselves have been made for Him.” The introduction of the reflexive pronoun is
redundant and when joined with the relative pronoun, it makes for a clumsy
clause. A more succinct translation would render ἡμεῖς conventionally: “from
whom all things come, including we for him.”
On the whole, the CCNTP is a very
good translation that ought to find traction among Bible students of all backgrounds.
His commentary, particularly in Proverbs, is worth the price of the volume
alone. Adams has brought fresh consideration to both translational and textual
issues and his insights are both valuable and faithful.
[1] Originally called “nouthetic
counseling” drawing upon the verb νουθετέω (to admonish; exhort; counsel),
biblical counseling and nouthetic counseling now refer to the same general theological
commitments (e.g., the sufficiency of Scripture; the supremacy of the local
church; the utilization of the Scriptures for soul care) and are essentially synonymous.
Although, it has been argued that the phrase “nouthetic counseling” refers to
those whose sympathies lie with the distinctives of Adams and the first
generation of the biblical counseling movement.
[2] Notably, only the NET renders μονογενὴς
as a substantive (i.e., “only one”) as in John 1:14.