Unitarians who believe that the Son of God is not coequal and coeternal with the Father will use many arguments against the deity of the Son. The fundamental fallback argument will be that the Son as a creature Who had a beginning is the “agent” of God. Logically, according to this argument, any proof of the Son’s deity can be dismissed as the authority and power of God being granted to the agent. In this video we will ask some questions and look at Scriptures to see if the “agentival argument” stands up to scrutiny.
Related Posts
Daniel interviews his brother John Mynyk about an unexpected visit from two Jehovah’s Witnesses. In part 2 of the interview, a more experienced Jehovah’s witness joined the conversation. We cover topics such as the 1914 prophecy, John 1:1, defining the Trinity, “the Father is greater than I,” Philippians chapter 2 and Jesus being “equal with God,” comparing Jehovah in Psalm 102:24-27 with the Son in Hebrews 1:8-12, and refuting the “agentival argument.”
When a Oneness advocate on a Facebook group asked for trinitarians to explain how Jesus could be truly God, but be distinct from His Father, I replied with an exegesis of John 17:5. This verse clearly distinguishes the Son from the Father in Person but shows that they are coequal and coeternal. Here is my explanation of the verse: And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. — John 17:5 “O Father” – This is in the vocative case, grammatically signifying that one person is addressing another person. In the Koine period the vocative case was passing from common use and you see nominatives in
Daniel interviews his brother John Mynyk about an unexpected visit from two Jehovah’s Witnesses. In part 1 of the interview we cover topics such as the name of Jehovah, John 1:1 and Jesus being “a god,” Jesus being impaled on a “torture stake” rather than a cross, and Jesus being recreated as a spirit being rather than resurrected in His original body.
Having answered all Mr. Burch’s “difficult questions,” we will now turn outside the Scriptures to the understanding of the early church to see how they understood what the Scriptures taught. These were the ones who could read the Scriptures in their original languages and access what the apostles taught outside the inspired writings. By observing the history of the early church, I am in no wise appealing to it as an authority on doctrine. Like Mr. Burch I believe in sola scriptura and tota scriptura, and I stand by my original statement that the Scriptures “ooze and bleed” the doctrine of the Trinity. The Scriptures alone are sufficient to prove their own teachings, and only prooftexts without context resulting in