HEREHEREComments by Perkins in orange followed by Krause comments in blue.
While I certainly don't have the time to scurry behind every latest on-line trinitarian "Apologist" who levels charges against me, I came across a recent article of outright erroneous attacks from one "Jeffrey Krause" that I decided to briefly address below. My responses appear beneath his remarks in the ensuing article that I have broken up into pieces in order to dissect his accusations. I would like to thank James Anderson and Manuel Culwell for giving me this venue of response. They are fine gentlemen and I greatly value their friendship.
Firstly, it is immediately clear that perhaps Mr. Krause needs a few lessons in grammatical application. He begins his tirade with, "The DISHONESTLY of Oneness Advocate Roger Perkins". Indeed, it is hard to attend to anything one has to offer regarding ancient languages if they cannot even adequately handle their own native tongue...but we shall try!
I’m not quite sure how to state this gently, but, Oneness Pentecostal Debater Roger Perkins is either, (1) a very poor student of Scripture and Scriptural aids, or, (2) is completely dishonest.
Ahhh yes....The ol' familiar "dishonesty" charge from the "Reform" camp. Not a few have noted the odd tendency among reform scholars to quickly label anyone who disagrees with them as "dishonest" [in this case "dishonestLy"], which is itself a deceptive and dishonest tactic. Perhaps we should stick to the issues and leave the muddied perceptions out of the loop, since they are entirely irrelevant to the topics under consideration.
In his recent debate with Dr. James R. White on the doctrine of the Trinity, Mr. Perkins repeatedly referred to Col. 1:15 and stated that “Bauer’s” (as he calls it) Lexicon described the word “image” (εἰκών) as “a human figure.” However, this is simply not the case regarding “Bauer’s” and the use of “image” in Col. 1:15. The Lexicon that Perkins is referring to is “A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature,” more popularly known as the BDAG.
Actually, I wasn't even referring to "BDAG," or I would have stated such! I was referring to the 2nd edition, which is commonly referred to as simply "Bauer's," just as I stated! Perhaps trinitarians would do well to attend to detail before launching into unwarranted attacks. I wasn't even referencing the lexicon Krause charges me with quoting. I was quoting the one I said I was quoting! Concerning my misquote of BAGD, I was going off memory in a fast-paced cross-exam & did not have the actual lexicon in front of me, hence the acknowledged misapplication [albeit not "dishonestLy"]. However, here is the actual quote from BAGD that I was referring to w/ regard to Col. 1:15:
εἰκών, όνος, ἡ (Aeschyl., Hdt.+; inscr., pap., LXX, En., Ep. Arist. 135; Philo; Jos., Ant. 15, 277; Test. 12 Patr.; Sib. Or. 3, 8; loanw. in rabb.).
1. image, likeness—
a. lit. of the emperor’s head on a coin (so Artem. 4, 31; of the emperor’s image Jos., Bell. 2, 169; 194, Ant. 19, 185) Mt 22:20; Mk 12:16; Lk 20:24. Of an image of a god (Diod. S. 2, 8, 7 [Zeus]; Appian, Mithrid. 117 §575 θεῶν εἰκόνες; Lucian, Sacr. 11; 2 Ch 33:7; Is 40:19) Rv 13:14f; 14:9, 11; 15:2; 16:2; 19:20; 20:4.
b. fig. εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ of a man (cf. Wilcken, Chrest. 109, 11 [III BC] Philopator as εἰκὼν τοῦ Διός; Rosetta Stone=Dit., Or. 90, 3 [196 BC] Ptolemy V as εἰκὼν ζῶσα τοῦ Διός, cf. APF 1, ’01, 483, 11; Plut., Themist. 27, 4; Lucian, Pro Imag. 28 εἰκόνα θεοῦ τ. ἄνθρωπον εἶναι; Diog. L. 6, 51 τ. ἀγαθοὺς ἄνδρας θεῶν εἰκόνας εἶναι; Sextus 190; Herm. Wr. 1, 12 al.; Apuleius as image of God, Rtzst., Mysterienrel.3 43; JHehn, Zum Terminus ‘Bild Gottes’: ESachau-Festschr. ’15, 36-52) 1 Cor 11:7 (on the gradation here cf. Herm. Wr. 11, 15a); OF CHRIST (Helios as εἰκών of deity: Pla., Rep. 6 p. 509; Proclus, Hymni 1, 33f [Orphica p. 277 Abel]; Herm. Wr. 11, 15; Stob. I 293, 21=454, 1ff Sc.; Hierocles 1 p. 418: the rest of the gods are εἰκόνες of the primeval god.--The Logos: Philo, Conf. Ling. 97; 147. Wisdom: Wsd 7:26) 2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15 (EPreuschen, ZNW 18, ’18, 243).—εἰ. τοῦ χοϊκοῦ, τοῦ ἐπουρανίου image of the earthly, heavenly (man) 1 Cor 15:49. (S. SVMcCasland, The Image of God Acc. to Paul: JBL 69, ’50, 85-100). The image corresponds to its original (cf. ὁμοίωμα 2 and 3; Doxopatres [XI AD]: Rhet. Gr. II 160, 1 εἰ. καὶ ὁμοίωμα διαφέρει).
Note the enlarged/bolded above & the category that BAGD places Col. 1:15 under: "Fig...of a man". They then specifically place Col. 1:15 under the subcategory "of Christ"....a clear reference to the historical Messiah (as opposed to a "2nd of 3 divine individuals") both biblically & definitionally, which was my overriding point. Indeed, the Logos who "was God" became flesh & thus, was and presently is the visible image of the invisible God [See The Amplified Bible]...which was my point all along! The general force of the term denotes that which is tangible or corporeal in contrast to that which is intangible. That is, the physical or visible realm, as opposed to the invisible, is inherent w/in this term. Again, this all points us to the visible Messiah who walked this Earth as God enfleshed & was received up into glory. Vs. 16 then introduces a conjunction, which is a dependent causal clause "hotee," further expounding upon the premise of vs. 15, to which all of the 3rd person pronouns relate [See GGBB, pg.460 for the function of this particular form of conjunction (Hotee)]. Thus, my original point remains.
If you notice, the BDAG correlates its second definition with Col. 1:15 which reads, “that which has the form of something else…living image” and not with its third usage of “a human figure.” Point-in-fact, the only Biblical uses of the third category of “a human figure” are Rom. 1:23, 8:29, 2 Cor. 3:18, Heb. 10:1 and Col. 3:10. Col. 1:15 is never used under the third definition. This is (I believe) simply a cheap debate trick which speaks volumes about the man, Roger Perkins, if he purposely misrepresented the BDAG, as it seems he did.
In the first place I wasn't even referring to "BDAG"....I was referencing the lexicon I said I was referencing and not the lexicon Krause says I was referencing. Hence, Krause attacks off of a false premise & then takes it upon himself to question my character altogether...par for the course in the trinitarian world, as is well noted. Would it not be more proper to enquire of me personally before assuming the posture of attack? Concerning the misquote, I have provided the reasons above & demonstrated that my original point remains in-tact...all based upon the same grammar that Krause appeals to!
Interestingly, in this same cross-ex., White charges me w/ claiming that the first portion of Col. 1:16 contains the preposition dia "in the dative." Problem is, I never made such a claim & the case for dia in the latter section of vs. 16 appears in the genitive...not the "dative" as White charges, and yet we're to "listen and learn" from the trinitarians?? As expected, Krause omits all of this from his audiences consideration. Apparently White just gets a free-pass all the while we Oneness folks are held to the line & charged w/ "dishonestLy" when a few simple misquotes occur {even when not "quoting" the source it's claimed we're quoting!?}.
On many occasions throughout the debate, Perkins “ducked” Dr. White’s questions, not willing to state his own view on the subject matter. He instead turned to the Lexicon’s to create a false impression that the Greek grammar was supportive of his Modalism, all the while dishonestly using them (the Lexicon’s) to advance his heretical position.
Let's see, I spent almost 3 hrs. delineating my position in contrast to the trinitarian position, dealt w/ virtually every passage White raised, and referenced numerous grammatical points [other than BAGD]...yet, somehow this constitutes "ducking"?? Interestingly, White barely touched the masculine singular heis as applied to God [See Mk. 12:29], started talking about "chickens" when asked about the normative implications of the anthropomorphisms applied to God, & on more than one occasion referred to Australian movie lines in order to elicit laughs from the audience...and I'm the one "ducking"?? Moreover, apparently Mr. Krause wasn't listening closely enough since I explicitly stated that everyone of the lexicographers I quoted were trinitarians [save Thayer], but that it was their based upon their theological preferences and not the actual grammar of the these texts...which was the reason I quoted them in the first place as opposed to attempting to "create a false impression". Hence, another character attack based upon Krause's blatantly bias perceptions. At this point, one has to begin questioning Krause's own motivations & intents.
It always amazes me how trinitarians label those who find their position explicitly stated on the very pages of Scripture, yet one searches in vain to do the same w/ the stated trinitarian position. That is, we can turn straight to the pages of the Bible & read: "God is one person [Gal. 3:20, Amplified]," "the Lord is the Spirit {2 Cor. 3:17}," "God was manifest in the flesh [I Tim. 3:16]," "He that has seen me has seen the Father...for the Father who dwells in me, he does the works [Jn. 14:9-10]," "For in him [Christ] dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and you are complete in him... [Col. 2:9-10]," "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself [2 Cor. 5:19]." Yet, the trinitarians world confesses, & astoundingly claims that one is lost if they deny, "3-separate-divine-co-equal-co-eternal-persons in the Godhead," which we can read in the following book of the Bible:_________? And we're the "heretics"?? Not one Jewish writer in over 1500 yrs. of covenant relationship expressed such an existence...though they knew God on the most personal [note the singular usage!] terms possible for mankind. "Heretical" indeed!
Please notice usage 2 and 3 in the data below and pay special attention to the red font. After doing so, CLICK HERE and listen to the 2nd Cross Examination between Dr. White and Mr. Perkins (please know, it is painful to listen to). I pray that the Lord grants Mr. Perkins true faith and repentance and I pray that Mr. Perkins represents the Lexicon’s in an honest fashion in future debates.
Krause's reference below is not even from the lexicon I referenced [I have bolded & enlarged his reference at the bottom of his quote], but the one he THOUGHT I was referencing...which I have cleared up above. I can only hope Mr. Krause will represent me "in an honest fashion" in the future, or, at least give me the opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings before taking it upon himself to write on-line ad hom articles attacking my character {which is quite telling about Mr. Krause himself now isn't it?}.
And while you are listening to this particular cross exam, notice how Mr. White erroneously charges me w/ claiming that dia appears in "the dative" in Col. 1:16. In the beginning of this cross-ex. I thought White was still leading into another question [as is his habit], as well as trying to ascertain where he was going, which is why I do not immediately respond. When I realized that WAS his question, I asked him to restate it. After you listen to this, you can click HERE, at the 16:42 section to hear White unashamedly claim he worships a God who exists as "3-divine-individuals, each with their own separate center of consciousness." Tell us Mr. Krause, do you worship this same God as stated by White here?
Regarding "true faith," I sincerely hope & pray you repent of your unbiblical "reform" doctrines [trinity, baptism for babies, unconditional eternal security, etc. ad nauseum] prior to your departure from this life...and will be here to help you in whatever way you need. Exchange your seminary ideas for the NT biblical plan of salvation as demonstrated in Acts 2:38 [the way the first sinners entered into the NT church], receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit just as they did in the Bible by speaking in other tongues, walk in the beauty of holiness & you will be in the same NT church seen in Scripture. Until then, I am sincerely praying for a great revival among trinitarians. May God speed!
A new response to Jeffery Krause has been added post script as of February 5, 2015 because of the request of a reader who appealed to Roger Perkins to do so who had found another response other than the one above to whom this blog writer was not even made aware of the article. You can see krauses' original article here:
aomin new link
Categorical responses below:
JK:
My aim here is not to explain so much the
significance of his fallacies, since Dr. White bring that out in the
debate. Instead, I will list the fallacies themselves.
Error #1
Perkins claims that in the original language of the Bible there are no terms that distinguishes “being” and “person.”
Contra, Paul makes this distinction, “For in him (
autos, denoting a
person all the fullness of deity (theotēs, “
being God” lives in bodily form,” (Col 2:9 NET)
RP:
*First, the author actually makes my point about the tag of a single-person-pronoun in Col. 2.9. The pronoun translated "him" (autos) denotes
one-single-person - not 3. It's astounding how on earth Trinitarians
stubbornly refuse to concede the natural usage of a
single-person-pronoun....until they get to John 17.5 where they make a
big fuss over it. Such double standards reveal a theological agenda.
*Next, here is actual translation of Wallace in the NET, without Kurshner's interpolations above: For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form. Here is the actual Greek text, along with parsing & morphology: http://biblehub.com/text/colossians/2-9.htm
*As anyone can see, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the meaning of the Greek noun translated "deity" (Θεότητος)
that even mentions "being" in distinction from "person"...or else
Kurshner has a non-personal "diety!" As usual, we have a case of
another Trinitarian attempting to pawn off his theology as supposed
"exegesis."
*Also, I would
think the Trinitarians would sprint from Col. 2.9 inasmuch as it affirms
that "all the fulness" of "the" (note the definite article preceding
the noun "deity" indicating specivity) divinity dwells in Christ. How
anyone can allow this "text to speak for itself" & arrive at the
Trinitarian position is beyond me?
JK:
Error #2
Perkins claims a particular distinction between the meaning of two Greek words for “to know,”
oida and
ginosko.
His first problem is that he cites for his authority Vines Dictionary, a
source that is deficient for lexical information because of its
shallowness in treating lexical analysis.
RP:
*Says
whom? Kurshner? While I am well aware of the papyri findings of the
late 1800's (& actually prefer that line of MSS), still, Vine's
differs little from many lexical sources today? This is merely
Kurshner's notion of "deficience." I well understand there are vetter
sources than Vine's, but still, Dr. Vine was a fine grammarian & the
quote stands. Indeed, the fact there there are two different Greek
words indicates that there are two different hues in view...of course,
always according to context.
JK:
Second, Perkins, citing Vines,
says that
ginosko frequently means “progress in knowledge” and
oida
suggest “fullness of knowledge.” These general definitions are patently
fallacious and every scholarly Greek lexicon refutes such as notion.
BDAG, the most scholarly Greek lexicon, lists their semantic range
showing that the two terms overlap in meaning, and that context must
determine the specific meaning:
RP:
*Umm,
no, these definitions are not "patently fallacious" - & his very
own excellent source (BDAG) demonstrates that they are not below! I
have embolden the differences which demonstrate precisely what I pointed
out in the debate:
JK:
ginosko
1.
to arrive at a knowledge of someone or someth., know, know about, make acquaintance of
2.
to acquire information through some means, learn (of),
ascertain, find out
3. to grasp the significance or meaning of someth., understand, comprehend
4. to be aware of someth., perceive, notice,
realize
5. to have sexual intercourse with, have sex/marital relations with,
6.
to have come to the knowledge of, have come to know, know
7. to indicate that one does know, acknowledge, recognize
oida
1.
to have information about, know
2.
be intimately acquainted with or stand in a close relation to, know
3.
to know/understand how, can, be able
4. to grasp the meaning of someth., understand, recognize, come to know, experience
5. to remember, recollect, recall, be aware of
6.
to recognize merit, respect, honor
RP:
*Seeing a trend there? In BDAG's definition of ginosko we
see terms such as "to arrive at, to acquire, to have come to the
knowledge of" - all of which indicates a "progressive knowledge."
Conversely, with oida, BDAG does not use such language but once
(i.e., "come to know"), indicating that while these terms *can* have
some small overlap - that is not the normal tag of these terms....and
this is demonstrated in Kurshner's very own source! Amazing.
JK:
Error #3
Perkins claims that the Greek word
heis rendered “one” requires
unitarianism when it is applied to God. But he failed in providing a
single biblical example of the being of God being shared only by one
person.
Rp:
*Fist, Kurshner is
correct - I did not give a "single" biblical example...I gave a couple!
I explicitly referenced Mark 12.29 & Galatians 3.20...then stated
that the masc. sing. "heis" appears ca. 100 times in the NT & never
means more than "one person" (Gal. 3.28 actually proves the opposite of
Kurshner's assertions below)! Apparently Kurshner was not listening
very well.
*Second, Kurshner
is merely assuming his conclusion above by stating that there is a
difference between a "being" & "person"....& there there is a
"sharing" of divinity within God (what kind of language are we speaking
here??).
JK:
Further, the Greek term
heis has a semantic range and context can only determine the meaning. BDAG says:
1. a single pers. or thing, with focus on quantitative aspect, one
2. a single entity, with focus on uniformity or quality, one
3. an unspecified entity, some/one=τὶς,
4. marker of someth. that is first, the first
RP:
*Apparently
Kurshner is the one who needs a few lessons on how to use a
lexicon...did he overlook the very initial definition provided by BDAG
(demonstrating primacy) of "a single person...with focus on [the]
quantitative aspect" (i.e., quantity)? Again, his own excellent source
proves my point (not mention how this does not interact with Wuest,
Thayer, Robertson, Zodhiates, etc.)! I would say he needs to take his own advice below, "This does not mean that if someone knows Greek they will not commit
lexical fallacies." Very good!
JK:
I found it ironic that the one verse that Perkins cites for
heis actually demonstrates a multiplicity within
heis. He cites, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female–for all of you (
multiplicity) are one
heis
in Christ Jesus.” (Gal 3:28; cf. John 10:30). Perkins want to focus on
the fact that only the person of Christ is mentioned here. But the point
is that in this case
heis contains a multiplicity, in this case, persons.
RP:
*First,
the point in Galatians 3.28 is that within the one person of Christ we
are NOT "individuals," but rather, as the NEB states, "one person in
Christ" (there are also other translations which adopt this rendering)!
Why did these linguists translate the masc. sing. heis as "one person" here if the masc. sing does not naturally denote a "single person"?
*Second, Kurshner states in this case heis "contains a multiplicity [of] persons," being human person...all of which are equally human BEINGS!
Hence, Kurshner unwittingly makes my point that there is absolutely no
difference between a "person" & a "being"....Indeed, every "person" I
have ever met is equally a human "being," but not the same human
"being," nor "person" as I am! Once again, Kurshner makes my point.
JK:
So this refutes Perkin’s claim that
heis cannot contain multiplicity of persons.
RP:
*No,
it actually makes the point & refutes the "multiple persons" theory
(since the context & point was just the opposite of what Kurshner
claims)!
JK:
In addition, Perkins is making a category error. He is confusing
being with person because of his presupposition of unitarianism. It is a
non sequitur to state that because
heis can refer to God it must mean “one person.”
RP:
*It's not that heis "can refer to God" - it's that it DOES
refer to God approximately 100 times in the NT alone (not even
including the LXX). It is Kurshner who is making the "category error"
by offering the fanciful notion that there's some sort of a difference
between a "person" & a "being"....still waiting on biblical - or
even practical - evidence of this hypothesis:_______________?
JK:
Perkins cannot prove that
heis contains the meaning of “personhood.”
RP:
*Already
did - even from his own source which explicitly states such (as well as
Zodhiates, BAGD, Robertson, Thayer, Vincent, Wuest, etc.)! He simply
refuses to accept the lexical data in order to protect a religious
tradition.
JK:
In conclusion, Roger Perkins is blusterous in his use of Greek
sources. He cannot read Greek, for he would not be using “English-help”
Greek sources and very dated Greek sources from a hundred years ago.
This does not mean that if someone knows Greek they will not commit
lexical fallacies. And it does not mean that if someone who does not
know Greek cannot perform competent word studies. But Perkins should not
be so confident in his lexical claims because of his lack of Greek
knowledge and his dependence on secondary English sources. He may fool
those who do not know Greek, but he cannot fool those who do know Greek.
RP:
*First,
Kurshner appealed to a "English-help" in BDAG above three separate
times! Using his own criteria here, he "cannot read Greek" inasmuch as
he is apparently "dependent on secondary English sources" such as BDAG. As Dr. Mounce has pointed out, EVERYONE uses some tools or another at some point - even himself (i.e., Dr. Mounce). Has Kurshner never read through Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics
- Wallace's grammar is replete with English sources...& Wallace is
likely one of the most competent Koine' grammarians alive today! Silly
assertion.
*Next,
though it is slow going sometimes (when I've been away from it for
awhile), I read Greek just fine, can translate whole passages without
anything but myself & the NA28 Greek text, understand parsing, many
declension-case endings, etc. So, no, Kurshner is absolutely wrong
about this assertion - as he is at virtually every other "point" in the
article.
Perkins
