***QUOTE***
He's basically arguing here that the orthodox concept of "person" is inherently modalistic, which is insane; it would leave the Trinity as an incoherent antinomy between modalism and tri-theism. But the reason they can't get their heads around the concept of "person" (which is what this would require) is that they can't conceive of "person" except in anthropomorphic terms, even though equating divine personhood with human personhood generates an absurd tri-theism.
http://p090.ezboard.com/fgregsdiscussionboardgodtalk.showMessage?topicID=4147.topic&index=40
***END-QUOTE***
Because Prejean just isn’t up to the task of answering the real arguments, he is now taking refuge in straw man arguments.
No one is equating divine personhood with human personhood. A person of the Godhead differs in fundamental respects from a human person, just as a theanthropic consciousness is not the same as a merely human or merely divine mind.
On the one hand, revelation assigns personal traits to divine subjects (Christ, the Trinity)—traits we designate as personal precisely because they are analogous with human experience.
On the other hand, revelation also assigns to divine subjects certain attributes which are disanalogous with human experience, viz. omnipotence, omniscience, eternality, triunity.
In framing our doctrine of God and Christ, we make full allowance for the revealed discontinuities as well as the revealed continuities.
The same interpretive methods disclose both the analogous and disanalogous attributions. No arbitrary gear-shifting to the silly putty exegesis of the allegorical method is required.
All this is quite different from Prejean’s merely made-up distinctions and fictitious definitions—superimposed upon the inkblot of a selective and opportunistic allegorism.
"He's either unwilling or unable to engage in serious exegesis or conceptual analysis, so he traffics in vagaries and unexplicated isms."
ReplyDeleteOne could make easily apply the same description to Hays's series on hesychasm, on free will, and on Orthodoxy, none of which engage in "serious exegesis or conceptual analysis." But regarding my own case, I don't think anyone who follows the discussions on Pontifications or Energetic Procession thinks so. Either I have multiple personalities, or there is a reason for being dismissive in these instances when I am not otherwise. You can make your own judgments on that matter, and I don't particularly care what your opinion ends up being, since I have no particular reason to care what you think about me.
"He has a penchant for overstating a case he hasn't made, and he does so (as is now becoming evident), for the sole purpose of vilifying and marginalizing the opposition."
No. It's actually the reverse. I didn't (and still don't) see where the "opposition," as you call it, has made a sufficient case for being anything other than marginal, although that hasn't stopped them from attempting to dishonestly score rhetorical points at my expense. Other than having become personally irritated at such tactics, which was the reason (at least later) for vilification, I don't see any use in attempting to convince them or anyone who adopts their reasoning. People believe all sorts of silly things, but not all of them are worth attempting to engage in reasonable discussion to resolve them. The fact that you are willing to accept the same thing from Hays without drawing the same conclusions about his competence gives me a rather dim view of how reasonable you are about the subject.
"But clearly this is too strong given that a natural prima facie argument can be provided in support of that suspicion."
It's obviously a question of taste as to how "natural" that argument is. I, for one, think anyone who can't see that subordination deals with nature and not person simply doesn't understand patristic Christology well enough to discuss the subject in the first place. The fact that you've couched them in terms like "most naturally" and "intuitively great-making" does nothing to assuage my concerns in that regard. Indeed, this seems to be the same silly and thoughtless rhetoric used by Hays and Engwer.
"Since both the sovereignty-aseity intuitions that motivate the inference, and the inference itself are plausible and valid, it will not do to simply dismiss this piece of reasoning with an auto-epithet."
I think you've simply used the word "intuitions" to count your opinion, which I have no reason to think of as coherent and good reason to think of as incoherent, as arguments. You haven't actually presented an argument for your understanding being "plausible," and if one considers your allegedly self-evident propositions ridiculous, as I do (viz., God as a collection of "great-making" properties strikes me as nonsensical on its face), then the "sober" thing to do would be to either explain your intuition or to leave off the discussion. Surely, you can't think that your opinion that something is "intuitive" is reason for me to take it seriously.
"The responsible and competent defender of nicean dogma will (a) tackle the argument head-on by explicitly denying one or more its premises, (b) provide an exegetical or philosophical justification for the denial, and (c) express that denial without a retreat into early medieval soup-'n-sludge theological prose."
What "argument?" The fact that this is simply an argument from premises that you consider intuitive doesn't make it so. Maybe I'll choose to present my own argument for why your position is incoherent on its face, but I certainly don't see anything that would trigger an obligation from an "honest and competent defender" to answer they argument with anything other than a gratuitous denial of the gratuitous assertion. And regarding the rest, patristic theology isn't medieval, and many people consider it normatively binding, so what you've said here is no better (and no more accurate) than an unbeliever's dismissal of Christians relying on Scriptural evidence. Come to think of it, your entire line of reasoning sounds like a fundamentalist demanding to be taken seriously for simply presenting an opinion.
"As for certain individuals not being able to get their heads around concepts like personhood; there are lots of reasons one might not be able to get their head around a concept, and not all of them are due to a cognitive deficiency of the one unable to do so."
Of course, one wonders how qualified one is to express an opinion about someone else without even being able to understand that person's opinion. If you can't understand science, you oughtn't express opinions on a quantum physicist's opinion about superstrings. Similarly, if you don't understand Christian philosophy or patristic Christology well enough to get your head around the concepts, the prudent course of action would be to listen and learn before speaking.
"The inability could arise as easily from the vapid semantic contributions of one's interlocutor (nudge, nudge) as it could from a lack of intellectual acuity or historical erudition."
Oddly, I don't have any problem communicating with people who are sincere about listening. Perhaps this has something to do with thinking some people are not honestly interested in listening anyway.
"Prejean can turn from the choir and advance the discussion only when he comes out of his bunker and into the light, rolls up his sleeves, and puts his theological cards on the table."
I have no desire to engage in a discussion of any kind with dishonest people. In places where there are honest dialogue partners, my discussions are just fine, even with those who disagree with me. As I said before, if you actually care about honest discussion, you would locate places where honest discussion takes place. The fact that you have been willing to give a pass to Hays only strengthens my conclusion that you aren't. Which means I can conveniently note for the record that you aren't worth my time either.
For the record, I believe that when the backwater biblicist speaks of great-making properties and the sovereignty-aseity intuitions, he is alluding to Plantinga's discussion of such things as the modal version of the ontological argument and his Does God Have a Nature? This takes for granted the supporting arguments in the course of Plantinga's exposition and evaluation.
ReplyDeleteI'd also add, as I've said before, that vague references to "discussions on Pontifications or Energetic Procession" hardly fills the bill. If Prejean has specific arguments on record, he can hyperlink the specific URLs for his arguments.
ReplyDelete"I [Prejean], for one, think anyone who can't see that subordination deals with nature and not person simply doesn't understand patristic Christology well enough to discuss the subject in the first place."
ReplyDeleteSeveral unresolved problems:
i)How does he know for a fact that subordination applies to the nature rather than the person? What is his source of information? Is this a deliverance of revelation? Where is it found?
ii)How does that distinction rescue his position from modalism? Insert argument here_____.
iii)Since he is confident of his own understanding of patristic Christology, why doesn't he deploy his understanding to prove his point?
iv)To have a right understanding of the church fathers doesn't mean that the church fathers were right. Where is the next step of the argument?