Darrell George on Genesis 1:26-27
I met Darrell George at the Unitarian Christian Alliance conference in October in Springfield, Ohio. We are in agreement on the doctrine of God and His Son, (even though we might disagree on the interpretation of a few Scriptures). This video is an excellent presentation of the concept of “agency” and how that applies to the Genesis creation account. Darrell’s YouTube channel is: TrinityExamined.com – YouTube
7 thoughts on “Darrell George on Genesis 1:26-27”
Tim,
Do you have any information on how the Trinity idea was formed by the early church? My understanding is that it was a three-headed god pagan concept that was held by some church fathers, superimposed onto Scripture.
Doug,
I did years of original research on that topic from primary sources. I wrote a series of articles called “The Evolution of God” which can be found on the “Pristine Apostolic Monotheism” page on this site. No, it had nothing to do with the three-headed pagan deities.
Thanks Tim! I’ll check it out.
Reading thru his why I am no longer a trinitarian it it quite clear that he believes Jesus was created by God the Father and not begotten so when you state you are in complete agreement with Mr. George how should this comment be understood by your readers?
My understanding is that Darrell uses the term “created” and “begotten” interchangeably, as do many Arians also. By “created” they mean “produced,” that God gave existence to His Son, caused Him to originate, and had total control over what He was to be in His pre-human state as Logos, Wisdom, and the Messenger of Yahweh. However, in this ministry, I have made a point to distinguish between “created” and “begotten.” It is important to define the Son’s pre-human ontological nature as being of God’s “kind” while all other “created” things are of a different “kind” from God and His Son. (Of course, this is before He “emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant and becoming in the likeness of men”), after which He had a completely different ontological nature.
There are others who hold the same basic theology as this ministry, sometimes called “Semi-Arians” and/or “Subordinate Unitarians,” but who do not always interpret every Scripture as we do, or define every term as we do. Some tend to be rather vague about WHAT the preexisting Son was exactly (while we try to be very precise), and this vagueness is often exploited by Biblical Unitarians.
Hi Tim,
Did you feel at home at the conference as one who believes in the pre-existence of the Son? Did you find others who believe it as well?
What are your thoughts on fellowshipping with Unitarians as a whole? Do you find them more open to truth than Trinitarian churches?
Brian
Brian,
“At home?” Not really … more like the ugly step-child, or a Catholic at a bar-mitzva. The people were certainly polite. There were a few of us who believe in preexistence. All are welcomed as part of the “Unitarian Christian Alliance” who acknowledge that the Father alone is the eternal God, and that Jesus was fully human. So they will include a few Arians, Semi-Arians, any form of Subordinationist Unitarianism. However, as far as I can tell a platform is only given to “Biblical Unitarians” who deny preexistence. (Of course, to be fair, this was only their 3rd annual conference, so perhaps that will change in the future, or perhaps no one who believes in preexistence submitted papers for consideration).
The sessions were primarily presentations of semi-scholarly research papers, with a very short Q&A after each. Virtually all were geared towards presenting elaborate schemes to get around “difficult passages” and arguments used by Trinitarians, especially those related to preexistence, and to discredit the Early Christian writings which teach preexistence (Ignatius, John’s disciple, was the target in one of the presentations). My impression of pretty much all of the sessions was a glaring lack of objectivity. A very serious shortcoming (IMO) of the whole process is that there is no peer review or critical analysis of the presentations, so the papers are allowed to stand without being held to an objective standard, such as screening for logical fallacies, and exegesis of passages that defy the norms of Greek grammar and syntax.
As far as Biblical Unitarians being more open than Trinitarians, not in my experience so far. Those I have directly engaged are just as dug-in to their position and their “proof-texts” as are Trinitarians I have engaged with. I have had some personal interactions with a couple of those considered leaders of the movement. But so far they have not seriously engaged my objections, especially regarding the grammar and syntax of specific passages like Gen. 1:26-27, Micah 5:2, John 1, Col. 1, Phil. 2, & Heb. 1.
As far as “fellowship,” I would take that on a case-by-case basis (as I would also with Trinitarians). IMO, Christian conduct and evidence of the fruit of the Spirit is more important that agreement on these theological details. There are also other doctrines that need to be considered, which for me, could potentially be obstacles to fellowship, such as Calvinism, Eternal Security, Immortality of the soul, Amillennialism, Dispensationalism, and Pentecostalism (all of which you can find among “Biblical Unitarians,” and which were represented by the various groups attending the UCA conference, even certain groups sponsoring the event). Genuine “fellowship” requires the following: “Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you are standing firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel,” (Phil. 1:27 ESV) But unfortunately, the state of Christianity today makes this virtually impossible.