DALE SAID:
If you would read by ONE serious unitarian source, you just wouldn't raise this objection. All unitarians identify the one God with the Father, on the basis of numerous NT passages. Yep - I'm too lazy, or rather, busy, to list them for you. Again, read a book, any decent unitarian book.
i) Asking me to read one decent unitarian book is like asking me to find a married bachelor.
ii) Bracketing the oxymoron, I’ve been reading a lot of Dale Tuggy’s stuff. But I guess that doesn’t count as “serious” or “decent.”
iii) Tuggy is also confused–as usual. Did I say I was classifying actual unitarian positions? No. I prefaced my illustrations with the following qualification: “In principle"... a unitarian could believe…
So, as I made clear at the outset, I’m discussing hypothetical unitarian positions. Considering the fact that Tuggy is a philosophy prof., his reaction is odd. After all, philosophers routinely explore the logically possible permutations of certain positions, whether or not those permutations have an actual sponsor.
iv) But Tuggy’s defensiveness is unintentionally revealing. He acts like a high churchman who distinguishes between reputable, “orthodox” unitarianism, and disreputable, “heterodox” unitarianism. The self-anointed Photius of the one true unitarianism.
All the “real” unitarians identify the Father as the one true God. Not to be confounded with those , damnable, schismatical, anathematical versions of unitarianism!
But his indignant reaction seems more political than principial. A marketing ploy.
>>i) Asking me to read one decent unitarian book is like asking me to find a married bachelor.>>
ReplyDeleteSome seriously flawed thought for sure: human males are either married or single (i.e. a bachelor); books on unitarianism cannot be placed in an either/or category, each book can be, and needs to be, compared and judged with those of the same genre. I have read numerous books from a unitarian perspective, and there certainly exists varying degrees of quality, scholarship, et al. among them—to place ALL books on unitarianism into an either/or category is ludicrous.
>>ii) Bracketing the oxymoron, I’ve been reading a lot of Dale Tuggy’s stuff. But I guess that doesn’t count as “serious” or “decent.”>>
Non sequitur: Tuggy has not written a book on unitarianism, and Tuggy in the case in question was specifically referring to "a book", not articles, essays, blogs, et al.
David, could you be so kind as to present a list of what you consider to be scholarly works produced by unitarians using the Holy Bible to disprove Trinitarianism and prove humanitarian unitarianism? I would greatly appreciate that.
ReplyDeleteDavid coming to Tuggy's defense. What a surprise. David used to be a unitarian Jehovah's Witness who has since become a unitarian Bahaist. Took a long route to come full circle.
ReplyDeleteAh yes, I'm the sole arbiter of what counts as good unitarian works. I'm glad you so well understood me.
ReplyDeleteThank God for the internet! Before it, where else could uninformed people go to publicly trash things they've never bothered to read a book on?
Well, I'm off to write a post trashing Infralapsarianism. I'm not quite sure what it is, and can't take any time to read up on it, but boy, I can't stand those guys. The very nerve!!!
Since I'm supralapsarian, you're welcome to trash the godless infralapsarians.
ReplyDeleteOK, here I go:
ReplyDeleteTHEY SUUUUUUUCK!!!
And they're not Christians.
There, I feel better.
;-)
David Waltz,
ReplyDeleteI saw your rant at Tuggy's site. It is clear that you have personal problems with Hays and that you're using this as a chance to "pile on," the problem is that it's affecting your thinking.
Steve said: "Asking me to read one decent unitarian book is like asking me to find a married bachelor."
David wrote: "Some seriously flawed thought for sure: human males are either married or single (i.e. a bachelor); books on unitarianism cannot be placed in an either/or category."
My reply: Your emotions cloud your thinking my young Padawan. Clearly, the relevant point of the analogy was *existence.* Hays was saying, just as married bachelors don't exist (which entails one wouldn't find one) so don't "decent unitarian books." Suppose we think of this in terms of sets. Call the set of married bachelors B and the set of decent unitarian books U. Hays is claiming that these sets have identical members, namely, none. Hence B = ø and U = ø. So, we know that {B} = {U}. That's the relevant analogy. Now, you go on to claim that Hays is *wrong* in his claim, and maybe so, that's a debate to have. Thus you'd want to say that U has elements. But the *reason* you claim his thinking is flawed simply exhibits your own flawed thinking, unfortunately.
Steve wrote: ii) Bracketing the oxymoron, I’ve been reading a lot of Dale Tuggy’s stuff. But I guess that doesn’t count as “serious” or “decent.”>>
You said: Non sequitur: Tuggy has not written a book on unitarianism, and Tuggy in the case in question was specifically referring to "a book", not articles, essays, blogs, et al.
I respond: This is simply pedantic. Surely the point to read "the best" arguments for Unitarianism. Apparently Tuggy believes those are located in the "books" he referred to. Steve then said that the set of books is actually empty, in which case the best place to find those arguments are in some of Tuggy's articles and blogs. However, if it'd fulfill your hankering for pedantry, I'm sure Steve can print those articles off and glue them together and call it a "book." Surely that wouldn't be too hard. Since one can print a "book" in about a day now, surely what was meant was "go read the best arguments for universalism." Now, again, we can debate whether Tuggy's articles are good ones for his case, and I suspect they are, but clearly you missed the point of the exercise, and rather badly I might add.
Lesson: Don't "rebut" people when your only motivation for doing so is emotional payback.
Paul - ouch! You're getting a bit nasty with the ad hominem attacks.
ReplyDeleteDavid was in fact right. There are low-brow, polemical unitarian books, rants in book form, and then there are those by serious, thoughtful people, often the product of many, many years study of the Bible. Many of these are strikingly non-polemical.
The reason I didn't count reading my stuff as reading enough, is that I was referring to books which provide precisely what Steve are others are hopping up and down and demanding here - an overview of all the scriptures, or at least, all of the NT as relates to Jesus and God, with consideration of competing readings, and critical comparison of them. I have not tried to do this for many reasons, but the main one is, because it's already been done several times.
Dale, I was responding to David, and if you've seen his blog or references to Hays and this blog, you'd note his comments were personal. I also notice he got personal with Steve at your own blog, yet there was no correction given to him. I answered him on his own terms.
ReplyDeleteI didn't deny that David was right about there existing descent unitarian books, and I didn't affirm it; I simply pointed out that his response to Steve failed on its own terms. Given that Steve doesn't think such a book exists, then the sets of things "to find" have identical members.
On the second point, I took it that your basic point was for Steve to read the best arguments, whether those are found in books, online, etc. Surely if the best exegetical argument for unitarianism was at www.Unities.blogspot.com, you'd refer Steve there. Hence I thought his point was pedantic.
Hi Sam,
ReplyDeleteForgive my delay in responding to your request, but just minutes after I posted my above comment, I lost my dsl internet service. (In fact, all CenturyLink dsl customers in Washington and Oregon lost their dsl internet service for nearly 10 hours!)
Anyway, as for your request, the vast majority of the books written from a unitarian perspective that I have read are not by authors who hold to "humanitarian unitarianism" (also termed Socinianism).
And, for the record, I do not believe that ANY book (and/or books, articles, essays, et al.) can "prove" any theological viewpoint; support and defend with varying degrees of competence, yes; but prove, no.
Grace and peace,
David
>>David coming to Tuggy's defense. What a surprise. David used to be a unitarian Jehovah's Witness who has since become a unitarian Bahaist.>>
ReplyDeleteMe: False, please try to refrain from lying.
>>Took a long route to come full circle.>>
Me: Seems that Steve knows very little about Bahai theology, for it IS NOT Arian, which IS the theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses.
>>I saw your rant at Tuggy's site.>>
ReplyDeleteMe: Here is what I posted -
"Reformed epologists like Mr. Hays are in the unenvious position of having to defend a ‘half-way house’ theology—and this is especially so, concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. John Henry Newman dealt a mortal blow to the consensus theory among Trinitarians that the doctrine was not only a clear, explicit teaching of the Bible, but was also clear, explicit teaching of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers—both are inaccurate. Honest scholars now admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is a development, with many also acknowledging that it is but one of the possible developments from the material presented in the Bible, and early Church history.
So, Hays is stuck between the Catholic/EO position which insists that the Bible, and the doctrine of God, needs an infallible teaching magisterium, and that of the ‘true’ sola scripturians who draw their conclusions about the Christian doctrine of God from the ‘Bible alone’."
You and I have differing definitions for the term "rant"...
>>It is clear that you have personal problems with Hays and that you're using this as a chance to "pile on," the problem is that it's affecting your thinking.>>
Me: Please define what you mean by "personal problems", and supply, let's say, the top 5 examples that cohere with your definition.
As for the "pile on" charge, that is what a number of Reformed gents posting here practice; my goodness, 23 "personal" threads devoted to Dr. Tuggy (plus dozens of comments)...hmmmmm...seems we also disagree on the phrase "pile on".
>>Your emotions cloud your thinking my young Padawan. Clearly, the relevant point of the analogy was *existence.* Hays was saying, just as married bachelors don't exist (which entails one wouldn't find one) so don't "decent unitarian books." Suppose we think of this in terms of sets. Call the set of married bachelors B and the set of decent unitarian books U. Hays is claiming that these sets have identical members, namely, none. Hence B = ø and U = ø. So, we know that {B} = {U}. That's the relevant analogy. Now, you go on to claim that Hays is *wrong* in his claim, and maybe so, that's a debate to have. Thus you'd want to say that U has elements. But the *reason* you claim his thinking is flawed simply exhibits your own flawed thinking, unfortunately.>>
Me: The analogy given above is not relevant, for set B is clear-cut falsehood that no sane person would acknowledge, while set U is subjective in nature, with a number of sane scholars disagreeing with Steve's subjective view.
David,
ReplyDelete"You and I have differing definitions for the term "rant"..."
How so? "Mortal blow," "Reformed epologist," "honest scholars," etc. The post was pompous, bombastic, and declamatory. In other words, a rant—albeit a short one.
"So, Hays is stuck between the Catholic/EO position which insists that the Bible, and the doctrine of God, needs an infallible teaching magisterium, and that of the ‘true’ sola scripturians who draw their conclusions about the Christian doctrine of God from the ‘Bible alone’."
Of course, Hays needs no such "infallible teaching magisterium," though a healthy and reverent respect for tradition and the findings of the spirit-led Christians are something that should be afforded a certain respect. Moreover, Hays does provide the exegesis for his claims—have you been under a rock?—though sola Scriptura should not be confused with solO Scriptura, as if the Bible is read from a perspectiveless, creedless, confessionless, presuppositionaless, community-less stance.
"Me: Please define what you mean by "personal problems", and supply, let's say, the top 5 examples that cohere with your definition."
I'd say referring to this site as "the black hole of Christian blogs" suffices to provide a porn-ish definition; i.e., I know someone who has 'personal problems' when I see it. Then add to that your history.
"As for the "pile on" charge, that is what a number of Reformed gents posting here practice; my goodness, 23 "personal" threads devoted to Dr. Tuggy (plus dozens of comments)...hmmmmm...seems we also disagree on the phrase "pile on".
And that somehow, by magic, means you weren't doing a pile-on of your own? Anyway, Tuggy had a lot to comment on, he should appreciate the interaction, though I know he had issues with tone etc.
"The analogy given above is not relevant, for set B is clear-cut falsehood that no sane person would acknowledge, while set U is subjective in nature, with a number of sane scholars disagreeing with Steve's subjective view."
You need to pay attention to your own argument. First, let's put aside the OBVIOUS fact of Steve's sarcasm (look, up in the sky, it's a bird, it's a plane, no, it's Superobtuse man). Second, *the reasoning* was fine, you complained about the *reasoning*, David. You didn't just say, "Oh, that premise is false, here's x, y, and z decent books." The *analogy* was about *existence*, and my set theoretical argument demonstrated the consistency of the *reasoning*. I thus interacted with your argument on it's own terms, showing that *given Steve's premises*, there was no flawed thinking in saying that "finding a decent unitarian book is like finding a married bachelor." Why? 'cause the obvious analogy was that Steve was saying that both are = ø.
>>How so? "Mortal blow," "Reformed epologist," "honest scholars," etc. The post was pompous, bombastic, and declamatory. In other words, a rant—albeit a short one.>>
ReplyDeleteMe: Let’s start with the phrase "Reformed epologist", I am amazed that anyone familiar with Triablogue would categorize the phrase as you have; I learned about the use of the term “epologist” from Steve Hays. The following are but a few of the more recent examples of the use of the term on this blog:
Steve Hays: “Catholic epologists are fond of quoting John Gerstner’s adage, popularized by his famous protégé, R. C. Sproul, that the Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books. Catholic epologists then contrast this with the alleged Catholic alternative…”
Steve Hays: “Atheist epologists are fond of touting a sociological correlation between education and atheism: as a rule, those with more education are less religious while those with less education are more religious.”
Steve Hays: “Catholic epologists spooftext Marian dogma from the ark of the covenant.”
Steve Hays: “Roman Catholic epologists have a bad habit of making a straight-line correlation from Biblical categories to Roman Catholic church orders. This highlights a tempting anachronism that evangelicals need to resist.”
Steve Hays: “9. Catholic epologetics
Modern Catholic epologetics is generally driven by converts and reverts. A rearguard action that’s to the right of the Catholic establishment. It recycles obsolete arguments.
Becoming conversant with mainstream Catholic scholarship provides a necessary corrective to the quaint, Hallmark card depiction of Catholicism peddled by the self-anointed lay Catholic guardians of neverland.”
Steve Hays: “Some Catholic epologists have a rather counterintuitive way of making their case for the One True Church. It's like a guy who wants to sell you his boat, but when you go to the marina to scope out the vessel, you can't help but notice a pump in back that's siphoning water out of the leaky stern.”
Me: Now, I don’t know how Steve categorizes the term, but I use the term as a ‘popular’ description of one engages in online apologetics for a specific worldview.
Next, the phrase “mortal blow”, there is a very strong consensus among Trinitarian scholars who specialize in historical theology (especially concerning doctrinal development) that the doctrine of the Trinity is not an explicit teaching, but rather, is a doctrinal development that took nearly 300 years to crystallize/form. These same scholars point to Newman’s work on development and patristics as the turning point (i.e “mortal blow”) to the older theories (e.g. the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly taught in the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity is clearly taught in the majority of the pre-Nicene CFs, etc.). That you categorize the phrase in such a negative way is bit troubling to me.
And now, the phrase “honest scholars”, I think it was interactions John Bugay that introduced the phrase to me. You (and others, of course) may disagree with me on which scholars are truly being honest with current scholarship, but the phrase, IMO, has legitimate applications.
>>I'd say referring to this site as "the black hole of Christian blogs" suffices to provide a porn-ish definition; i.e., I know someone who has 'personal problems' when I see it. Then add to that your history.>>
ReplyDeleteMe: The reference to “black hole” is an astronomical/astrophysics reference; I specifically had/have in mind two attributes of black holes: no light, and an intense gravitational pull. That you would suggest the phrase is “a porn-ish definition” is quite disturbing to me, and strongly suggests that it is YOU “who has 'personal problems'”.
[FYI: Every other person who has commented to me on my application of “black hole” to describe Triablogue understood the phrase as an astronomical/astrophysics reference.]
"I learned about the use of the term “epologist” from Steve Hays."
ReplyDeleteExactly, so you now admit you were mocking him. Keep making my point, tiny dancer,
And now, the phrase “honest scholars”, I think it was interactions John Bugay that introduced the phrase to me.
And again, I say, again.
"The reference to “black hole” is an astronomical/astrophysics reference;
And my point made again.
Claiming a place has "no light" is an obvious slam, and everyone knows this. Your word games aren't funny because you're not the wordsmith you think you are. Sheesh, this is like having a debate with my three year old. What's next, the ole "Nee ner nee ner nee ner, you don't have a weener" comeback?
"That you would suggest the phrase is “a porn-ish definition”
I didn't suggest the phrase is a pornish-definition. You asked me to define "personal problems." Rather than do that and play your pedantic games, I gave the Potter Stewart defeater-deflector, viz., the "I know it when I see it" comeback.
To David,
ReplyDeleteAnyway, as for your request, the vast majority of the books written from a unitarian perspective that I have read are not by authors who hold to "humanitarian unitarianism" (also termed Socinianism).
Well, then, could you be so kind as to refer me to the books you think make the most persuasive case for their unitarian perspective?
DAVID WALTZ SAID:
ReplyDelete"Seems that Steve knows very little about Bahai theology, for it IS NOT Arian, which IS the theology of the Jehovah's Witnesses."
I didn't say it was "Arian"–I said it was "unitarian." Are you using "Arian" as a rough synonym for "unitarian"?
Hello again Sam,
ReplyDeleteI would start with the following:
The Doctrine of the Trinity, Founded Neither on Scripture, nor on Reason and Common Sense, but on Tradition and The Infallible Church, by William Hamilton Drummond, D.D.:
http://www.archive.org/details/doctrinetrinity00drumgoog
Next, Dr. Samuel Clarke's, The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity:
http://books.google.com/books?id=2UUVAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Scripture-Doctrine+of+the+Trinity+Clarke&hl=en&ei=vj4XToriM-LkiALto4zSBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
And then, William Whiston's 4 volume work, Primitive Christianity Revived:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=Primitive%20Christianity%20Whiston%20AND%20mediatype%3Atexts
For a more modern treatment, Greg Stafford's, Jehovah Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics (3 editions; Stafford is no longer a JW, but is still Arianian in his doctrine of God):
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Jehovah+Witnesses+Defended+Stafford&btnG=Search+Books#hl=en&sa=G&tbo=1&tbm=bks&q=editions:aSYuAAAACAAJ&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=fafbfd32d06c2b93&biw=1610&bih=885
http://www.elihubooks.com/content/books_media.php
Grace and peace,
David
Steve,
ReplyDeleteIn your last post you said:
>>I didn't say it was "Arian"–I said it was "unitarian." Are you using "Arian" as a rough synonym for "unitarian"?>>
Me: No, I am denying that the Bahai doctrine of God is even close to the JW doctrine of God; and further, even if I was Bahai, for me to have "to have come full circle", as you stated above, the doctrine of God of the two above groups would have to be at the very least similar, which, as I said, they are not.
Question: Why did you title the thread wherein you critique the views of Tuggy and Clarke as, "Arianism Redux", when neither are Arian?
Paul,
ReplyDeleteYou posted:
>>"I learned about the use of the term “epologist” from Steve Hays."
Exactly, so you now admit you were mocking him. Keep making my point, tiny dancer,>>
Me: Please explain how it is mocking to describe Steve as a "Reformed epologist". Are you denying that Steve is Reformed? Are you denying that Steve is an apologist? Are you denying that the primary venue for Steve's apologetic writings is not via the internet?
>>"The reference to “black hole” is an astronomical/astrophysics reference;
And my point made again.
Claiming a place has "no light" is an obvious slam, and everyone knows this. Your word games aren't funny because you're not the wordsmith you think you are.>>
Me: I did not say that Triablogue has "no light", I use the phrase "black hole" as a metaphor, and if you know anything about metaphors, the parallels drawn are never absolute.
It is my personal opinion that the majority of posts (but not ALL) here at Triablogue do not bear much light, but rather, are rather dark in nature. To take this opinion of mine, and then extrapolate from it that I have "personal problems", is just plain silly.
>>Sheesh, this is like having a debate with my three year old. What's next, the ole "Nee ner nee ner nee ner, you don't have a weener" comeback?>>
Me: No, I shall leave the "porn-ish" and private parts comments in your capable hands.