Steve, as you want to read those chapters, the prophet's points are about *divinity* (godhood, deity) - the property of being a god. He is, I think, making a point about true godhood (vs. the old, polytheistic conception), but as you summarize things, he's left the door wide open to others also being divine - so long as they have the sort of deity he spells out. (all provident creator, able to predict future, etc.) But this is an odd reading, for he roundly insists that Yahweh is the only deity, so defined! So, the reader infers, no one other than YHWH is also a deity. You can call that a facile appeal, and you'd like to think there's some undue philosophizing going on there, but that's just common sense. You just refuse to yield, because you're wedded to a theory with three deities - and of course, logically, none of them can be the only true God.
Tuggy fancies himself a logician, but he keeps fudging on the logic. One of his problems is that Tuggy has a bad habit of bundling two objections into one. From my exchanges, he’s really raising two different objections to the Trinity, but he conflates them.
Objection #1
Isaian monotheism contradicts the Trinity
Objection #2
The Trinity is self-contradictory.
#1 posits a logical contradiction between the Trinity and Isaian monotheism.
#2 posits an internal contradiction involving traditional (e.g. credal) theological and/or philosophical formulations of the Trinity.
From a Protestant standpoint, #1 is the primary issue. The duty of a theological formulation is not to be internally consistent, but to be consistent with revealed truth. Of course, it’s preferable to have a theological formulation that is, or appears to be, internally consistent, but that’s secondary. The ultimate duty of a theological formulation is to faithfully summarize revealed truth.
To make good on #1, Tuggy needs to demonstrate that Isaiah’s terms and comparisons entail the falsity of the Trinity. If he’s going to insist that the Trinity violates the law of identity in reference to his unitarian prooftexts, then he has to show how that’s a necessary implication of his unitarian prooftexts. Does that follow by strict implication?
Notice that in his response to me, he doesn’t do that. He doesn’t even come close. This is all he says: “Yahweh is the only deity, so defined! So, the reader infers, no one other than YHWH is also a deity.”
How does that contradict the Trinity? Do Trinitarians claim someone other than Yahweh is the only deity? Do Trinitarians deny that Jesus is Yahweh?
When is Tuggy going to stop issuing promissory notes and begin to pay the overdue bills? Unfortunately, Tuggy doesn’t even seem to be aware of the issue. He subconsciously reads his position back into Isaiah.
Maybe it's because my reading skills aren't that good, or because I'm just not familiar with philosophical language...But after reading many of the exchanges between Steve and Tuggy, I'm wondering if I'm the only one who gets the impression that Tuggy either confuses Trinitarianism and Modalism; AND/OR that Tuggy can't seem to step into the theological shoes of his opponent and see things from within that worldview/perspective?
ReplyDeleteIt's almost as if Tuggy doesn't know the difference between 1. an *external* critique of a worldview, and 2. an *internal* critique of worldview.
ReplyDeleteTuggy, you're a philosopher, so you obviously understand the difference. I just wish you'd be willing to hypothetically step into the Trinitarian position to do a more thorough and fair internal critique of Trinitarianism.
ReplyDeletefancies himself a logician
ReplyDeleteNo, I know enough about logicians to know that I'm not one. Just a philosopher of religion, and, I hope, a careful user of logics.
To make good on #1, Tuggy needs to demonstrate that Isaiah’s terms and comparisons entail the falsity of the Trinity.
There are one-self, three-self, and no-self conceptions of the Trinity. Isaiah's concept of the one true god implies being a self. If you look back, you can see how I've argued this. So, his position rules out the second and third sorts of theories. (I take it yours is a three-self view.)
Isaiah’s terms and comparisons entail the falsity of the Trinity
If "the Trinity" here means Steve's "social" view, then yes. I have argued that, I think well enough; readers can judge. (See here and misc. triablogue comments.
The Trinity is self-contradictory.
Repeatedly, Steve, I have pointed out that I do not make this claim. This is part of a common narrative out there about unitarians, but you won't find me saying this, either in print or online, ever. The reason is that it is unclear what the catholic/orthodox formulas amount to. So, I always ask people what *they* think they mean; I can help them explore the options, which are several. Then, once we have a theory clear enough to be reasoned about, we can go from there. What we ought to think, in my view, differs considerably from case to case.
How does that contradict the Trinity?
In your view, Steve, the one true God is a compound entity consisting of f, s, and h. Consequently, it seems that this compound thing itself, is not a self! And you wouldn't want to say it is, otherwise you'd be up to four divine persons. (f, s, h, plus t)
Do Trinitarians claim someone other than Yahweh is the only deity?
If YHWH refers to the one true God, which I take it you think is = to the Trinity, then you've said that each of f, s, and h are fully divine, each a deity. So yes, you have gods in addition to YHWH, even though they bear *something like* a part-whole relation to YHWH. Evidently, you think that one god can be composed in some sense of three others.
Do Trinitarians deny that Jesus is Yahweh?
I think you want to use the word YHWH of Jesus, but you don't think s = t. And you do think that y = t. So yes, I think you implicitly deny that s = y (that Jesus is (= to) YHWH). Not all trinitarians do that, of course.
So is "the Trinity" contradictory? Bad question. Is Steve Hays's theory contradictory? Arguably, yes. He asserts monotheism. Then, he claims there are three such that each is fully divine - each is a god. They in some sense compose a fourth thing, but that doesn't somehow undo the polytheism.
hypothetically step into the Trinitarian position
ReplyDeleteYou are indeed correct, Annoyed, that a non-question-begging objection should move from premises the opponent accepts (and one can add in other self-evident claims). This is what I've just done with Steve's view.
Many prominent trinitarian theologians, indeed the most lauded of the 20th c. (Barth, Rahner) are indeed modalists. But of course, no social theorist is a modalist. Nor are any of the others I describe, except Leftow, in the main page of this. Of course, the hard thing is avoiding both modalism and tritheism at the same time, whilst maintaining monotheism.
"So is "the Trinity" contradictory? Bad question. Is Steve Hays's theory contradictory? Arguably, yes. He asserts monotheism. Then, he claims there are three such that each is fully divine - each is a god. They in some sense compose a fourth thing, but that doesn't somehow undo the polytheism."
ReplyDeleteWhere do you arrive at such conclusions Mr. Tuggy?
Do assert monthesim is to assert that each claims to be God. A mystery that we are given some substantial clues to but still a mystery.
How you can make such claims about a monotheist who asserts the Trinity in the face of the Biblical material I find fascinating.
From John's gospel -- glorify me Father with the glory I shared with you. God shares the glory of God with none other but God. The book of Isaiah makes this clear.
So; do you actually believe and take the Biblical evidence seriously? If not, there is not much of a discussion to be had.
A discussion of the Trinity must be had from the self disclosure of God in the Scripture. Not from our attempts to logically reason God.
We must use our minds but we cannot reason completely in ourselves about that, God which is beyond us and not us.
"Consequently, it seems that this compound thing itself, is not a self! And you wouldn't want to say it is, otherwise you'd be up to four divine persons. (f, s, h, plus t)"
ReplyDeleteWhy does Dale persist in building that straw man?
"If YHWH refers to the one true God..."
Is Dale now chasing bugs and punnies?
YHWH is a word that refers to His nature- not His name, silly wabbit!
Similar to "riding over hill and dale". Does this mean that Dale has been ridden over?
For more info on this paronomasia see here- http://net.bible.org/#!bible/Exodus+3:14
Is Jason Engwer alright? He hasn't posted in a long while.
ReplyDeleteAlso, how is Gene Bridges? Wasn't he having some health issues?
ReplyDeleteDALE SAID:
ReplyDelete“There are one-self, three-self, and no-self conceptions of the Trinity. Isaiah's concept of the one true god implies being a self. If you look back, you can see how I've argued this. So, his position rules out the second and third sorts of theories. (I take it yours is a three-self view.)”
You haven’t attempted to derive that claim from any Isaiah text. To begin with, you haven’t even engaged any specific passages in Isaiah, much less shown how they single out your position by strict implication.
You can’t begin with your generic category of “selfhood,” then superimpose that on Isaiah. Rather, you need to begin with Isaiah’s categories and comparisons.
“If ‘the Trinity’ here means Steve's ‘social’ view, then yes.”
I realize it’s polemically convenient for you to try and pigeon-hole my position in reference to some off-the-shelf theory like social Trinitarianism, then dust off your stock objections to social Trinitarianism, but my position doesn’t coincide with the off-the-self theories.
“Repeatedly, Steve, I have pointed out that I do not make this claim. This is part of a common narrative out there about unitarians, but you won't find me saying this, either in print or online, ever.”
If the Trinity isn’t self-contradictory, then you can’t say the Trinity violates the law of identity.
“In your view, Steve, the one true God is a compound entity consisting of f, s, and h. Consequently, it seems that this compound thing itself, is not a self! And you wouldn't want to say it is, otherwise you'd be up to four divine persons. (f, s, h, plus t)”
I already explained to you why that’s a misrepresentation of my position.
“If YHWH refers to the one true God, which I take it you think is = to the Trinity, then you've said that each of f, s, and h are fully divine, each a deity. So yes, you have gods in addition to YHWH, even though they bear *something like* a part-whole relation to YHWH. Evidently, you think that one god can be composed in some sense of three others.”
No, they wouldn’t be “additional” to Yahweh. And I’ve already corrected you on the part/whole, composition rubric you tried to impose on my position.
What’s your problem, Dale? Is it just to hard for you to think outside the box?
“I think you want to use the word YHWH of Jesus, but you don't think s = t. And you do think that y = t. So yes, I think you implicitly deny that s = y (that Jesus is (= to) YHWH).”
I use both the word and concept of Yahweh for Jesus because that’s what the NT does. Not to mention some OT texts.
It does the same thing for the Father. And I could make a case for the Holy Spirit as well, but let’s nail down one shingle before we proceed to any others.
“Then, he claims there are three such that each is fully divine - each is a god. They in some sense compose a fourth thing, but that doesn't somehow undo the polytheism.”
That’s another misrepresentation of my position. But since unitarianism is indefensible by honest means, I understand why you resort to guile.