Tuggy v. Date: Jesus is not divine

1. Last night I watched the debate between Chris Date and Dale Tuggy about the deity of Christ:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c35_uFjEbx8

In general, I thought Date won by a wide margin. I don't say that because we're friends–since we're not friends. We're not even on friendly terms with each other. Because I'm a long-standing critic of annihilationism, I'm highly unpopular with the Rethinking Hell coterie.

A unitarian might say my assessment of the debate is skewed by my Trinitarian bias. However, I'm quite capable of saying that somebody on my own side of an issue dropped the ball. 

In terms of style, Tuggy has a better speaking voice. Mellow and resonant. But he has a flat, droning delivery. Date has a thin speaking voice, but he's a livelier speaker. Dale read from a piece of paper while Date was freer and made better use of the technology.

I admit that after listening to a few minutes of Tuggy's opening speech, I skipped to Date's opening speech. That's because it sounded like Tuggy's usual stump speech. I'm quite familiar with that, whereas this is the first time I've heard Date on this issue, so I was more interested in what Date had to say as well as the rebuttals and cross-examinations. As such, it's possible that Tuggy said something new in his opening statement that I missed, but I doubt it. Throughout the debate he fell back on his well-worn tropes.

2. The cross-examination period was striking. Tuggy focused on philosophical theology while Date focused on exegetical theology. Under Tuggy's questioning, things sometimes got a bit murky. Date's explanations may not have been entirely clear at points. If Tuggy was more persistent and single-minded in pursuing a particular line of thought, he might have succeeded in tripping up his opponent, but Tuggy has the odd habit of raising a line of thought, then dropping it before extracting a conclusive, damaging concession. Because he failed to go in for the kill, he did no real damage to Date's position. And even if he had drawn blood, that would be on philosophical theology, whereas the fundamental issue is the witness of Scripture.

By contrast, Date was more relentless and systematic in questioning Tuggy on exegetical side of the proposition, and Tuggy's response was to deflect, bob, feint, and weave because he was unable to engage and refute Date's directly evidence. Date shot Tuggy's position full of holes. That phase of the debate was devastating to Tuggy's position. 

3. Date appealed to divine timeliness as one way to show that orthodox Christology isn't contradictory. Tuggy responded by saying most philosophers interpret timelessness as existing at all times. But that's a dubious response. While that may be the position of philosophers like Kretzmann and Stump, it's not the position of someone like Paul Helm, who defends a strictly timeless God. Anyway, it's irrelevant what most philosophers of religion think since the question at issue isn't a survey of philosophers but the particular model Date is offering. Date is free to pick a particular model, which may or may not be the majority view. 

4. Tuggy repeatedly accuses Trinitarians of reading between the lines rather than accepting the text as it stands, but Date turned tables on his opponent by citing many examples in which Tuggy reads between the lines rather than accepting the text as it stands.

5. There was an interesting exchange on the church fathers. I'm not a patrologist, but on the face of it, Date countered Tuggy's interpretation. 

And in any case, this is Tuggy's bait-n-switch tactic. Even if some early church fathers fail to affirm the full deity of Christ, none of them defends the unitarian position. None of them says Jesus is just a man. So Tuggy can't conscript them to the service of unitarianism.

6. Tuggy tries to reinterpret Heb 1 in new creation terms:

i) Date raised a number of objections to that, which Tuggy didn't even attempt to refute directly. In addition to Date's counterarguments:

ii) Hebrews isn't Paul.

iii) Paul explicitly uses new creation terminology. Hebrews doesn't.

iv) Paul explicitly draws a comparison, so we know he's uses creation in figurative terms. In Hebrews, the reader lacks the same clues to see a new creation metaphor.

7. In reference to Phil 2, Date pointed out that when a superior assumes an inferior position, that defines humility, whereas, on the unitarian interpretation, Jesus was never in any position to do anything humble in that sense. There was no self-demotion. 

8. Date pointed out that on the unitarian position, God punishes an innocent third party, which is intuitively unjust. On the Trinitarian position, God himself absorbs the punishment by undertaking the role of a vicarious mediator, as God Incarnate.

9. Tuggy said that on the Trinitarian view, Jesus is not a good example for Christians. God Incarnate has no need for faith in God. He's immune to temptation. He doesn't know what it's like to go through what garden-variety Christians may face. 

That's an interesting objection. However, the argument either proves too much or too little. While the unitarian Jesus is just a man, he's not a normal man. He's more like a superhero with fantastic abilities. That gives him many advantages that garden-variety Christians lack. Imagine what it would be like to be a Christian with the supernatural abilities of the unitarian Jesus. You wouldn't have the same vulnerabilities that ordinary humans experience. As a result, you wouldn't suffer from the same anxieties. That's every adolescent boy's private fantasy. That's why superhero movies are so popular. We vicariously identify with the protagonist because we envy his superhuman abilities. 

So Tuggy's objection cuts against his own unitarian alternative. At best, the logic of his objection only goes through if Jesus had the same limitations as the rest of us.

10. In reference to Mk 13:32, Tuggy said that if orthodox Christology is true, that makes Jesus a liar, since he does know the date of the Parousia. But there are some basic problems with Tuggy's allegation:

i) Suppose the two-natures doctrine is true. Then there's is no one right answer to the question. On that view, if Jesus is a liar for denying that he knows the date of the second coming, he'd equally be a liar for affirming that he knows the date of the second coming. The orthodox position is not that he really knows the future, but denies it; rather, the orthodox position is that in one respect he knows it but in another respect he's in the dark. Each answer is true in reference to one nature but false in reference to the other. 

ii) So on the orthodox view, Christ's statement isn't a "lie", but incomplete. Yet even in mundane human affairs, it's often necessary to give incomplete answers. We usually offer the simplest explanation necessary because a heavily-qualified explanation is tedious. 

iii) In addition, Tuggy is an open theist, so on that view, Jesus could be fully divine but ignorant of the future. 

11. Regarding the prologue to John, Tuggy said it's a commentary on Gen 1 using Prov 8 (Lady Wisdom). There's precedent in Jewish literature for something heavenly like God's Torah coming down and living among us. 

A basic problem with Tuggy's explanation is that in the Prologue, it's not an attribute of God that comes in the flesh; rather, the narrator identifies the Logos as the Creator God of the Genesis account. It's the Creator God who comes in the flesh.

12. I thought Date gave one bad answer in the debate. He was asked which person or self is the Creator in Isa 44:24. He said he thought OT authors had the Father in mind. Several issues:

i) Although authorial intent is often a necessary consideration in exegesis, Isaiah is not assuming the role of narrator in this passage. He's not making a statement about Yahweh. Rather, this is a direct statement by Yahweh. Isaiah is quoting Yahweh. So it's irrelevant what the prophet Isaiah might have in mind. Isaiah is not the speaker–Yahweh is the speaker. 

ii) So it's a question of what Yahweh had in mind. Who does Yahweh think he is? If Yahweh is the Trinity, then the Trinity is the Creator in Isa 44:24. 

Of course, the passage doesn't say that, but by the same token, the passage doesn't deny it. So the answer must sought in what is true, using a larger frame of reference. 

iii) Moreover, to suggest that Isaiah had the Father in mind implies a point of contrast in Isaiah's mind between the Father and…who else? That distinction only makes sense if Isaiah is operating with a Trinitarian or proto-Trinitarian paradigm, which Date denies. But if, according to Date, it's anachronistic to interpret the passage in Trinitarian terms, then it's anachronistic to suppose Isaiah had the Father in mind, in contrast to the Son and Spirit. 

iv) But even from an OT perspective, Isaiah might at least have a binitarian view. Why would Isaiah exclude the Spirit from the purview of creation? (Not to mention the status of the divine messiah in Isaiah).

v) Finally, to say Isaiah wasn't thinking about the Trinity doesn't mean Isaiah thought Yahweh wasn't the Trinity. Rather, it means Isaiah wasn't thinking about it one way or the other. Again, though, (iii-v) are beside the point, given (i). Of course, unlike Date, I didn't have to give an instant answer on the spot. I have the luxury of giving a considered answer, on my own schedule.