Friday, December 27, 2013

Giving the devil his due


Dale Tuggy:

Ye olde qua-move. Sigh. Just pushes the bump (contradiction) under the carpet. It would seem that what can die as/because it is X, can die (full stop). So, he can and he can't. :-( 


Tuggy's committing the fallacy of the complex question. 

We should be afraid to foist that kind of view onto Mark.

To the contrary, I'm just letting Mark speak for himself. He depicts Jesus as both human and divine.

Right. So, one and the same Jesus has divinity, and properties incompatible with divinity. (Ditto with humanity.) D'oh!


It's not inherently contradictory to say the same thing can and can't be. Black can't be white, or vice versa. But black and white can inhere in the same subject, viz. a black cat with white spots or a white at with black spots. It's contradictory to ascribe the property of blackness to the property of whiteness, and vice versa, but not contradictory to ascribe both properties to a common property-bearer.

You might try positing two different subjects in Christ, one which, e.g. is omniscient, the other not. But that seems a disastrous read of the gospels, I think you'll agree. Another option would be to say the features are, respectively, omniscient-as-divine and omniscient-as-human - Jesus has the first, lacks the second. Such features, one may think, are not obviously contrary. But those are wierd features, and besides, why don't they entail plain old omniscience and non-omniscience (in this one subject who's both divine and human)?
Unless you can spell out how it helps, I'm afraid the qua-dodge is just a dodge. 


Notice that Dale oscillates between two opposing criteria. On the one hand he says we should just read Mark on his own terms. On the other hand, he says we must be able to philosophically harmonize Mark's complex representations of Jesus. 

The Incarnation is unique. As far as philosophy goes, we may be able to gain some insight through analogies. Of course, analogies are only partial models. 

As far as analogies available to Mark, you have the category of Spirit-possession, where (in the case of OT prophets) the Spirit takes psychological control of a human host. Consider visionary revelation, like an inspired dream, where the seer or dreamer's mind is the vehicle, yet he's processing information from another mind. In that altered state of consciousness, the visionary is both aware and self-aware, his own (human) mind is operative, yet another (divine) mind is accessing his mind, and vice versa. 

On a related note is the phenomenon of telepathy or mind-reading, where you have the mingling of two minds. In principle, this can either be unilateral (where one mind accesses another without tipping off the subject who's mind is being monitored) or bilateral. That, too, has biblical precedents, including the Gospels.

These are analogies or partial models which would be available to Mark and his readers. The Markan Jesus exceeds those paradigms. But it's a bridge. 

If you're going to say it's a holy mystery, just go straight for that - bite the bullet without delay. 

A mystery is not synonymous with a contradiction. 

Problem is, though, you now have to insist that what seems a self-contradictory reading of Mark is overall the best one. 

That begs the question. 

Mark is just a reporter. He's reporting what Jesus said and did. 

I'd also add that if Tuggy demands a reductive harmonization, that doesn't single out a unitarian harmonization. As far as reductionism goes, it could just as well be a Docetic harmonization, viz. Jesus as a divine epiphany. That would be familiar to Mark's gentile audience.   

Is Jesus just a man with godlike traits? Or is Jesus just a God slumming as a man, like a king who plays a peasant to catch his subjects off-guard? There's OT precedent for that "entertaining angels unawares" motif (e.g. Gen 18; Judg 13). And that has counterparts in Greco-Roman mythology (e.g. Baucis and Philemon), which would be recognizable to Mark's Hellenistic audience. 

Do I think that's correct? No. I'm just responding to Tuggy on his own grounds. 

Yes, in your view, Chalcedonian language "summarizes" points not grapsed for hundreds of years by mainstream Christians. Looks anachronistic. 


It's no more anachronistic to speak of a divine nature and a human nature than to speak of divine omniscience or divine omnipotence. So, no, I didn't read the Chalcedonian formulation (which is fairly extensive) back into Mark. 

As a Protestant, you would be more wary of such errors.

As a philosopher, Dale should be more wary of his semantic fallacies.

Thanks - I see you concede my point that the reader of Mark reasonably assumes that Satan is tempting Jesus to sin, as in the other gospels. 


You don't get belated credit for my distinction. I drew a distinction you failed to draw. I'm hardly conceding your point when you adopt my point after the fact. Nice try. Try again.

Now, is Satan that dumb - to try to tempt a being to sin, who he ought to know, can't possibly have a motive to sin? That'd be like trying to find the corner of a perfect sphere, or trying to find the fourth side of a triangle. It's conceivable, to be sure, but strange to think about a foe who is supposed to be a fearsome adversary. In your view, does Satan somehow fail to see that Jesus is God (making his temping activity pointless), or does he fail to know that God can't sin (making Satan an idiot)?


Well, I realize that as a hellbound Christ-denier, Dale naturally takes umbrage at aspersions cast on the wisdom of his infernal Master. That said:

i) Smart people can believe dumb things. The list is long. Paul Krugman comes to mind. 

ii) Brilliant individuals, even geniuses, can suffer from mental illness, viz.  Swedenborg, Kurt Gödel, Georg Cantor, Virginia Woolf, Bobby Fischer, Ted Kaczynski.

Satan is a good candidate for criminal insanity. 

iii) Brilliant minds are susceptible to certain intellectual obsessions. Conspiracy theories are a snare for smart guys, viz. Ray Griffin is a 9/11 Truther. Likewise, numerology or gematria is a snare for great minds. For instance, Isaac Newton was obsessed with Biblical numerology. The quest to crack a hidden Bible code. 

iv) Revenge is often taken to irrational lengths, where the obsessed avenger is prepared to destroy himself in hope's of destroying the object of his vengeance in the process. Satan is a good candidate for a crazed avenger.

v) You also have twisted idealists who find something noble about fighting for lost causes. It's very futility is heroic. They think that has a supreme purity of motives because their supererogatory efforts will go unrewarded.

vi) Tuggy's objection doesn't even make sense on unitarian grounds. Even if Jesus were merely human, he's a proxy for God. Satan's guerrilla warfare against God is doomed to fail.

vii) And there's a fatalistic quality to Satan's opposition. The means by which he labors to scuttle God's plan is the divinely-appointed means by which God's plan is realized. Divine irony. Poetic justice. 

17 comments:

  1. Steve said... Mark is just a reporter. He's reporting what Jesus said and did.

    I think it's also possible that the author of Mark didn't have a fully developed Christology. The church's doctrinal understanding of the specifics of the gospel grew. Or Mark may have had a more full orbed Christology but decided to minimally include it in his gospel precisely because he wanted to report the events objectively and succinctly based on Peter's recollections and sermons.

    Dale said... In your view, does Satan somehow fail to see that Jesus is God (making his temping activity pointless), or does he fail to know that God can't sin (making Satan an idiot)?

    Pride can also lead to irrationality and we know that one of Satan's greatest vices is pride. Satan might actually have thought (and thinks) he could outsmart God. He may even have doubted (and doubts) God possessed all the attributes that He claims to have. Before the eschaton God may be providentially working both in the natural and supernatural world in such a way that demons can draw the wrong inference that God isn't all powerful or all wise. Or even that they were (or are) actually winning the cosmic war. At the very least Satan probably thought so when he was successful in influencing (via temptation) Judas, the Jewish leaders and the Roman leaders in getting Messiah executed.

    Dale's question can be asked with greater force with regard to Satan's initial rebellion.

    "In your (Dale's) view, does Satan somehow fail to see that God is omnipotent and that rebellion against The Omnipotent Being is irrational, or does he fail to know that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnisapient?"

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve, this is mostly shoot from the hip stuff, and your usual lashing out, trying to make this an ego contest. Just one point, re: "oscillates between two opposing criteria". There are no two criteria - it is all about consistency, i.e. reading Mark as self-consistent. This is something you choose not to do, standing by your catholic speculations. It's telling how quick you are to resort to abuse. That shifts attention from your shaky claims. You decree that any seemingly coherent reading will be "reductive harmonization". Well, it is comforting to suppose that clear, central difficulties for your theory are inevitable for any honest reader - that gets you off the hook. You refuse to consider the possibility that some of those the apparent contradictions are theory-generated.

    Annoyed - some good points. Sin is always irrational, and so Satan must be somewhat irrational. Note what I initially said - that it would be strange if Satan were *that* irrational. That's as far as I'll go - sometimes strange things happen! It is an interesting question how any angel could convince himself that any rebellion was going to somehow be worth it or end well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sin is always irrational, and so Satan must be somewhat irrational.

      Agreed.

      Note what I initially said - that it would be strange if Satan were *that* irrational.

      But which is more irrational? Opposing an omnipotent being who hasn't been incarnated? Or opposing an omnipotent being who has been incarnated and therefore has the natural desires and pulls of human nature which can go beyond proper restraints? Clearly, it would be more irrational for Lucifer to rebel against God non-incarnate than for Satan to try to tempt God incarnate to sin if he knew God incarnate had a human nature. For example, there's the logical possibility of the sin of gluttony which would exist were God incarnate than if God were not incarnate. Therefore, your argument that Satan isn't *that* irrational fails.

      There are no two criteria - it is all about consistency, i.e. reading Mark as self-consistent.

      A single book of the Bible (e.g. Mark) can be self-consistent while at the same time revealing mysteries that are seemingly paradoxical. Since paradoxes need not be contradictions.

      You refuse to consider the possibility that some of those the apparent contradictions are theory-generated.

      If anyone is interested, I posted some evidences for Jesus' divinity in the gospel of Mark in the comments of a previous blog Steve posted HERE [God Came Down]. Many of the arguments I made there can be made to a greater degree by appealing to Matthew and Luke, but I limited myself with the evidence I could find in Mark since it's considered the gospel with the lowest Christology. The implied point was to make an a fortiori argument. Namely, if Jesus' divinity is hinted at or can be shown to be supported by the gospel of Mark, how much more must it be true in the other Gospels and the rest of the New Testament.

      Delete
    2. I don't think I need to state the obvious, but I will anyway. Jesus was tempted with the sin of gluttony when Satan tempted Him to turn stones into bread while Jesus was famished from fasting. The sin of gluttony of course is a form of idolatry in that it's a form of worshipping pleasure (Phil. 3:19) and the creature/creation more than the Creator (Rom. 1:25) in that it is the disobedient act of giving priority to food/pleasure over doing the will of God.

      A Unitarian might argue that since Jesus is supposed to be God, he wouldn't be doing anything contrary to the will of God since HE (as God) WANTS to turn the stones into bread. But that doesn't take into account Trinitarianism's affirmation of functional subordination within the Trinity (not to be confused with ontological subordinationISM).

      Besides, even in a modalist perspective, there's still the logical possibility of extreme actions which may contradict divine goodness and rectitude. For example, righteous anger could turn into unjust wrath (partly) due to natural biological and neurological functions of a human nature.

      Delete
    3. "Steve, this is mostly shoot from the hip stuff…"

      Actually, it's a point-by-point rebuttal.

      "…and your usual lashing out, trying to make this an ego contest."

      For a hellbound Christ-denier, you sunburn way too easily. Better get used to it. It's going to get a lot hotter for you.

      "There are no two criteria - it is all about consistency, i.e. reading Mark as self-consistent."

      No, it's all about you careening back and forth between (supposedly) reading Mark on his own terms and your actual philosophical filter.

      "This is something you choose not to do, standing by your catholic speculations."

      I haven't offered any "catholic speculations."

      "It's telling how quick you are to resort to abuse."

      Your own comments are laced with ad hominem.

      "That shifts attention from your shaky claims."

      An assertion in search of an argument.

      "You decree that any seemingly coherent reading will be 'reductive harmonization."

      That follows from your own a priori insistence that Jesus can't be both human and divine, the witness of Mark notwithstanding.

      "Well, it is comforting to suppose that clear, central difficulties for your theory are inevitable for any honest reader - that gets you off the hook"

      I haven't presented a theory. For instance, I didn't begin with a theory of the hypostatic union. Rather, I simply documented the fact that Mark represents Christ as divine as well as human. What we have in Mark are two raw data-sets. Markan Christology is largely pretheoretical. But the makings are there. Not to mention other NT contributions (and even OT contributions).

      "You refuse to consider the possibility that some of those the apparent contradictions are theory-generated."

      i) You're not presenting a counterargument.

      ii) You're the one who's imputing contradictions to Mark's depiction of Jesus as God Incarnate. That's generated by your gratuitous stipulation that it's logically and/or metaphysically impossible for Jesus to be both human and divine.

      iii) And, as I pointed out, even if we grant your contention for the sake of argument, that doesn't select for a unitarian reading over against a Docetic reading.

      Delete
    4. I'm curious, Steve, why you refer to Dale as "a hellbound Christ-denier." Clearly, he denies the Trinity. Just as clearly, he affirms Jesus as Lord and Savior. Is salvation found in Nicaea alone?

      Delete
    5. Dale pays lip-service to Christ. He may continue to use the titles, but he repudiates NT Christology.

      Delete
  3. If anyone is interested.....

    Deity of the Messiah Debate between Unitarians Buzzard & Goode vs. Trinitarians White & Brown
    PART 1 http://youtu.be/Yn-grOfPDi0
    PART 2 http://youtu.be/M38rQXLq29g

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More James White debates against Unitarians

      James White vs. Patrick Navas
      Part 1
      Part 2


      James White vs. Anthony Buzzard on Unbelieveable radio
      Can We Trust the Trinity?

      Delete
    2. Phil Fernandes vs. David Barron
      Does the Bible Teach Jesus is Almighty God?
      (This debate has MANY technical difficulties. Don't listen to this if you don't have a lot of patience!)

      James White responds to David Barron and Patrick Navas on the Dividing Line
      part 1
      part 2

      Delete
    3. The Great Trinity Debate Rob Bowman vs. David Burke (with commentary by Nick Norelli)
      http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/2010/05/25/the-great-trinity-debate-index/

      A Reply to Anthony Buzzard by James White
      http://youtu.be/b0MDoaza3IE

      Delete
  4. "has been incarnated and therefore has the natural desires and pulls of human nature which can go beyond proper restraints"

    Annoyed, do you grant that Jesus could have sinned? That is what you seem to say here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For years I haven't been dogmatic on the doctrine of the Impeccability of Christ. But I suspect it's true because it makes a lot of sense. So, go with that assumption. The point is that Satan probably wasn't certain whether Jesus could have sinned or not (even assuming the Trinitarian, or Binitarian, or Sabellian/Modalist belief that Jesus is God in the flesh). Since Satan wasn't sure, he might as well at least TRY to tempt Jesus to sin. Whereas God non-incarnate wouldn't have natural human desires which Satan could exploit. That's why it's more irrational for Lucifer (conventionally named) to rebel against God non-incarnate than for Satan to try to tempt God incarnate.

      In a previous blog comment I explained in brief what the doctrine of the Impeccability of Christ entails.

      Delete
    2. typo correction:

      "So, [ *I* ] go with that assumption."

      Delete
  5. The White-Brown vs. Buzzard-Goode debate is not a good one, on multiple counts. Evidently, Buzzard and Goode were paired together by the other side, and the show is inappropriately partisan in how they present the debate. Buzzard does OK, and shows some Christlikeness in absorbing abuse without returning it, but things get sidetracked into minutia, and Brown is embarrassingly condescending. Goode is inept. Messy all around.

    Here's a better debate: http://trinities.org/blog/?s=finnegan+bosserman

    Navas is informed, humble, and clear. Not easy to get a word in with White, who is a skilled debater.

    Bowman vs. Burke is a good and revealing debate.
    http://trinities.org/blog/?s=Bowman+Burke

    ReplyDelete
  6. Not that anyone should care about my personal beliefs or history, I nevertheless want to confess something that might be of help to some people.

    For the first few years of being a believer in the Bible I was anti-Trinitarian (c. 1988-1993). So, I can understand and sympathize with Unitarians and Semi-Arians (and to a lesser degree with Arians). Honestly, I sometimes have my Trinitarian doubts. Especially since the arguments that various anti-Trinitarians are using nowadays are much better than in the past. Whenever I do experience doubt, I do two things:

    1. I re-examine the Biblical evidence for plurality in the Godhead along with

    2. re-examining the evidence for Jesus being identified as YHWH in ways which cannot be accommodated or explained away by a representational or agentival understanding of Jesus' "godhood."

    After doing both of those things, the standard evidence and arguments for the doctrine of the Trinity and for the personality and full deity of the Holy Spirit seem once again to make A LOT of sense. The doctrine of the Trinity really does seem to have the greatest explanatory power and scope. It can explain and accommodate all of the data (rather than just "some" or "most") in a way that's mutually supportive and consistent rather than contradictory.

    So, with respect to #1, one of the resources I repeatedly return to is John Gill's book, "The Doctrine Of The Trinity Stated And Vindicated." Especially chapter 2 titled, "2. Proving That There Is A Plurality In The Godhead" ( and to a lesser degree chapter 3).

    Gill has a similar chapter in his book "A Body of Doctrinal Divinity"

    Book 1—Chapter 27 is titled, "Of A Plurality In The Godhead. All of chapter 26-31 are helpful. The main weaknesses of Gill's book is that he sometimes appeals to textual variants which modern conservative scholars wouldn't (e.g. the Comma Johanneum etc.). However, even if you discount those passages and some of his weaker arguments, Gill nevertheless makes an overall strong case for the doctrine of the Trinity. The same pros and cons can be said of John Owen's classic "A Brief Declaration and Vindication of The Doctrine of the Trinity"

    With respect to #2, I re-read/browse books like Putting Jesus in His Place by Bowman & Komoszewski (et al.)

    Here's a link to my blog:
    Resources in Defense of Trinitarianism
    http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/resources-in-defense-of-trinitarianism.html

    ReplyDelete