Anti-Trinitrian apostate Dale Tuggy left a number of comments on my Rom 9:5 post. Most of his remarks were directed at someone other than me. In some cases I'd frame the issue differently. But I'll comment on some of his remarks, even if they weren't in response to me.
i) I'd note in passing that even liberal scholars can take the position that Rom 9:5 refers to Jesus as God. Joseph Fitzmyer argues for that identification in his commentary on Romans, even though the modern church of Rome doesn't require its Bible scholars to defend the traditional interpretation of stock prooftexts.
And for interested parties, here's an exhaustive analysis of the text, defending Jesus as the referent:
ii) If someone is going to reject orthodox Christology, then critical Christology is a more logical alternative than unitarian Christology. Liberal critics take the position that the NT reflects theological diversity. Low Christology and high Christology. Supposedly, Mark has low Christology, Matthew and Luke have a higher Christology than Mark, while John has a higher Christology than Matthew and Luke. Likewise, the so-called Deutero-Paulines supposedly have a higher Christology than James. That sort of thing.
I don't agree. But a liberal doesn't have to explain away high Christological texts the way Dale must. In that respect it's more consistent.
Taking Steve as your authority in matters of logic and philosophy is a huge mistake.
I never offer myself as an authority figure.
Do you think a guy who had a handle on those things would so consistently feel the need to abuse rather than argue? You will notice that people trained in philosophy generally don't get aggressive like he does. This is because they know how to argue, and how to understand their opponent. Steve, as soon as he doesn't understand something I'm saying, resorts to abuse.
i) Dale makes no attempt to show that I failed understood his position.
ii) As a philosophy prof., Dale ought to know what a false dichotomy is. I don't "abuse rather than argue." I've presented copious counterarguments to Dale's positions.
iii) A friend of mine shared an anecdote about the late Dallas Willard. He was a presenter at a UCLA conference on "the Bible and Philosophy," organized by Robert Adams. But as my friend observed:
Dallas Willard was the first example to me of an academic who was willing to go against majority opinion in a public context for the sake of Christian truth. Incredibly, none of the presenters at a UCLA conference was willing to defend the proposition that Christ is central to Christianity, except Dallas Willard.
Many "Christian philosophers" have no commitment to the Christian faith, or to Jesus in particular. For them, it's just intellectual play with religious ideas. That's why they don't "get aggressive."
iv) Dale is a very unethical disputant. For instance, I've repeatedly corrected Dale on his bad arguments, but his response is to recycle the same bad arguments. He just hopes readers will forget that his argument was debunked. That's not the practice of an honest philosopher. An honest philosopher doesn't keep repeating the same refuted arguments.
Likewise, an honest philosopher will assume the opposing viewpoint for the sake of argument. By contrast, Dale acts as if certain Biblical phenomena are inconsistent with Trinitarian, Incarnational theology, when he knows perfectly well that the phenomena in question are perfectly consistent with the theological paradigm. His behavior is a breach of personal and professional ethics alike, and it gets in the way of honest debate. I'll give specific examples as well proceed.
[quoting Porter] "functions as one with God, and is, in fact, the God"Cooperates with God (so not identical, but rather someone else) but is God (so is identical, God himself). At least, that's how many will read this. Sad that standards of clarity are so low. A good editor should have hammered that sentence.
This passage deserves a full arguing through, but here's a quick way to rule out that Paul is in 9:5 identifying Jesus with his God: note that all through ch. 8 he distinguishes between them. Same in 1:1-7. Charity prevents us from attributing this contradiction to Paul.
Whether Jesus is in some lesser way "divine" is another issue, of course.
I realized that you're perennially intellectually challenged, but Porter isn't substituting philosophical jargon to draw theological distinctions. Rather, he's simply reusing the language that's used in the text, where "God" is generally a synonym for the "Father" in Romans. A way of naming a referent. Goes back to your persistent inability to distinguish between proper nouns and common nouns.
In Rom 9:5, however, Paul breaks with customary usage to apply that preeminent designation to Jesus. And that's all the more dramatic, given the backdrop of his customary usage.
Paul isn't saying Jesus is divine in some lesser sense. To the contrary, he's saying Jesus is divine in the same way as the Father, given the precedential terminology of the descriptors.
In Rom 9:5, however, Paul breaks with customary usage to apply that preeminent designation to Jesus. And that's all the more dramatic, given the backdrop of his customary usage.
Paul isn't saying Jesus is divine in some lesser sense. To the contrary, he's saying Jesus is divine in the same way as the Father, given the precedential terminology of the descriptors.
"Many, many unitarian scholars have dealt with this too."
You mean, like the "scholars" at the Watch Tower?
"Is Paul (RSV) just piously punctuating an aside here, praising God? Or is he (NRSV) dropping a theological bomb, asserting that the human Messiah is as divine as God, aka the Father, is? And then he just says 'Amen' and moves on??! This would be a big deal in the 1st c. I know which I think is more likely."
There are many occasions when Paul affirms the deity of the Messiah.
Yes, it's a big deal–and as Porter explains, this is not just a parenthetical aside, but the climactic point of his argument (in this section).
"Also, notice that on the RSV reading…"
Yes, Dale, I'm aware of the fact that different versions give different renderings. That's why we need to sift the arguments. That's why I began by noting Metzger's classic article. And that's why I quoted Porter's exegetical argument.
"But if 'all' is unrestricted here, we recall that Paul says that God is over Christ. http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/11-3.htm Compare also with http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/15-24.htm."
In that context, Paul is framing the issue in terms of his ideal Adam typology/Christology. That's discussed by Greg Beale in his A New Testament Biblical Theology.
"But hey, if you want to stake your christology on some fine and disputed points of grammar instead of explicit NT teaching, you're free to do that."
The deity of Christ is explicit NT teaching.
And in the immediate context, he distinguishes them - God raised Jesus from the dead, but not vice-versa.
Notice that Dale acts as if distinguishing them is inconsistent with Trinitarian theology. But not only is that distinction consistent with Trinitarian theology, Trinitarian theology requires that distinction. Trinitarian theology wouldn't be Trinitarian in the first place absent personal distinctions between the Father and the Son.
Dale is operating at the level of little old ladies who stand on the street corner passing out copies of Awake! magazine. These are village unitarian objections to Trinitarian, Incarnational theology.
You can find a million passages that associate the two, e.g. assigning some of the same roles, titles, actions, properties. But then people infer, mistakenly, that the two are being identified as one, the opposite of being distinguished. But of course, they're constantly distinguished. That's why they are given different names and titles: God vs. Son of God, God vs. Jesus, the one God vs. the one Lord, the Father vs. the Son, the Almighty vs the Messiah, etc.
See the same tactic? He pretends that distinctions between Father and Son are inconsistent with Trinitarian theology. Yet Trinitarian theology necessarily distinguishes the person of the Father from the person of the Son (or the person of the Spirit). Not only is that not at odds with Trinitarian theology, but that's an implication of Trinitarian theology.
Although Dale rejects the Trinitarian paradigm, he has an intellectual duty to adopt that perspective for the sake of argument when testing the consistency of the paradigm with the Biblical data. But because he's an apparatchik for the cause of unitarianism, Dale is routinely derelict in his philosophical responsibilities.
I don't know what to say to someone who is willing to ignore the indiscernibility of identicals, to to state if differently, the non-identity of differents. Once you have this in mind, and that Father / Yahweh and Son qualitatively differ in the NT, in many ways, then in every case, you're going to settle on an interpretation where the writer doesn't *identify* the two, as that writer is always thinking differently about them, and it's uncharitable to read him as saying something obviously impossible, confusing together as one two whom he also knows to differ. It's as if you have a giant list of passages showing that 2 + 2 = 5. But that's plainly impossible, so (given that those passages are asserting only truths), you must be misreading them. We can't read authors we respect as if they're idiots, or royally confused about the central subject-matter.
In Revelation, Jesus *has a god* over him, God, the same one who is over you and me. (Rev 1:6, 3:12) http://trinities.org/blog/in-the-new-testament-jesus-has-a-god-same-as-ours/ Yes, both are called Alpha and Omega - the origin and the destination in some sense(s), but the book throughout distinguishes between Jesus and his God. If you try to read this author is implying that they're the same, you're being uncharitable to him, reading him as confused about his central subject-matter. You ought to have more respect for him. It's a perverse interpretive tradition that foists contradictions on an author and then congratulates him for being so profound as to express mysteries. On any other topic, we weed out the contradictions as we settle upon an overall good interpretation. But here, catholic tradition misleads us.
i) Two of Dale's oft-refuted arguments. Take his "charitable reading" schtick. As I've often pointed out, the nature of God is independent of NT writers. Bible writers aren't fiction writers. Fiction writers have nearly absolute control over the subject matter. They can invent a character and make him like whatever they want him to be.
By contrast, Bible writers are biographers, historians, and interpreters. They lack a fiction writer's creative control over the subject matter. God is whatever he is like irrespective of NT writers. They are receptive, not creative. Their job is to report the truth, interpret events.
ii) Likewise, As I've often documented, Dale doesn't operate with strict identity. His theory of numerical identity makes allowance for non-identity when it comes to counterfactual identity and diachronic identity.
The NT perspective is that God is working through Jesus; thus, prophecies about what YHWH will do can be fulfilled by things Jesus does. It's just a fallacy to infer that if Y fulfills a prophecy about what X will do, then X = Y.
i) But what if Yahweh did intend to become incarnate in the 1C, and inspired OT prophets to forecast the literal coming of Yahweh in the flesh? Dale propounds an unfalsifiable hermeneutic by which a prophet can never be taken predict the Incarnation even if, in fact, that is the fulfillment.
ii) By Dale's logic, the coming of Yahweh is really the coming of Yahweh's agent. But if Yahweh is functionally equivalent to an agent of Yahweh, then Yahweh already came in the person of a past or present-day agent of Yahweh. There is no future coming of Yahweh, for Yahweh came whenever an agent of Yahweh arrives on the scene. It's just another king, priest, or prophet.
The material is there, waiting for you to read it. You can of course choose to see only what fits with the catholic narrative that it was always part of Christian belief that Jesus had the same ousia as the Father - it was just the terminology that needed a little developing. This is not true, and anyone who honestly digs into the history will see this. And it makes you realize that the NT simply doesn't clearly assert the "fully deity" of Jesus. If it did, then early Christians c. 100-300 would have understood and believed that.
You place a lot of weight on divine providence. In short, my view is better off there. Your view seems to require the gospel to be lost c. 100 - 381. In my view, based on the NT, the essence of the message is very simple, and has always been preserved, even through the clogging of our theological arteries with various speculations.
It's crucial for Dale to endorse a conspiratorial theory according to which Christians were originally unitarians until the the big shift came with Nicea. The Dan Brown/Bart Ehrman theory of church history.
i) By contrast, I, as an evangelical Trinitarian, don't need to resort to Dale's all-or-nothing argument. To begin with, notice how he skews the evidence by framing the issue in terms of whether ante-Nicene theologians assert the "full deity" of Christ, rather than whether they assert that Jesus was merely human (or just a creature).
ii) Likewise, I don't consider Nicene theology to be the gold standard of Christology or Trinitarian theology. Ante-Nicene, Nicene, and post-Nicene theologians continued to struggle with formulating the Incarnation and the Trinity. Indeed, that continues into the 21C.
Dale would say that's because it's contradictory, but no. It's a challenge for formulate philosophically, because God is so much greater than the human mind.
This isn't confined to the Trinity or the Incarnation. Philosophical theologians continue to wrestle with how to conceptualize divine omnipotence, or God's relation to time and space.
John has always been beloved by various unitarians. Granted, they've disagreed about whether John teaches a literal, personal pre-existence for Jesus as "the Logos". But the book is crystal clear that the one God is the Father, and that Jesus is a real man, who depended on the Father for all he did and taught.
Notice the deceptive contrast. That Jesus is a "real man" is a presupposition of Incarnational theology. That's hardly at variance with Trinitarian, Incarnational theology.
The NT clearly and repeatedly says that the Father is the god of / over Jesus. (Of course, as the one true God, he's over all others.) It won't do to make a gesture at traditional two-natures speculations. How could those help?
Of course the two-natures of Christ are relevant. God is "over" human creatures in a way that God is not over God.
In brief, John never says that the eternal Logos is Jesus, and 1:14 doesn't say or imply that they are the same person. The Word is something like God's plan or wisdom, by which, the OT says in a couple of places, God created. It was "with" him then.
In Jn 1, the Logos is a personal agent, not a plan. And it says the same Logos in 1:1-4 becomes flesh in 1:14. That refers to Jesus. It doesn't merely say the Logos was "with" God. It goes onto say the Logos was God (not to mention the Son's preexistence in 17:5). And this line of argument is capped in 1:18, where there are two divine subjects: Father and Son. And the Son reveals the Father because like reveals like. They are two of a kind.
You also have Dale Tuggy's repeated reference to Jesus as an "exalted man." Both the OT and NT arose in a world that promoted "exalted men." Kings and mythological heroes who were said to be sons of a god or goddess. Kings and mythological heroes who were elevated to the pantheon upon death.
Scripture takes a very dim view of "exalted men." That's the kind of idolatry that Scripture opposes. Scripture frequently talks about the downfall of exalted men.
We're at an impasse, with this inconsistent triad
Only God can rightly be called X.
Jesus is rightly called X.
Jesus and God are non-identical.
This is Dale's perpetual shell game, based on his equivocations. Father, Son, and Spirit can be one in one respect, but different in a different respect. Dale disregards elementary qualifications.
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteYou're raised your slandering to new heights here, sadly, accusing me of lying. You don't seem to really follow my reasoning, hence the flailing charges. For the sake of others, I'll explain some points that you're not getting. Let me also clarify that despite your childish mocking, I don't, and never had any real dealings with the JWs, nor have they significantly influenced my theology or exegesis.
"I'd note in passing that even liberal scholars can take the position that Rom 9:5 refers to Jesus as God."
Sure. And let me note in passing that it's fine for my theology if Paul calls Jesus "God" in Romans 9:5, as the author of Hebrews indisputably does in 1:8. That anything especially trinitarian follows requires the false assumption that in calling someone "God" a biblical author must either be identifying the recipient as God or asserting the recipient to have a divine nature. Still, it's worth pointing out that it would be odd for Paul to say that.
"I've repeatedly corrected Dale on his bad arguments, but his response is to recycle the same bad arguments. He just hopes readers will forget that his argument was debunked."
Steve, the pattern is that I analyze an argument for discussion and then you switch the topic to some other argument, making some general comment about how I'm obviously misunderstanding something or other or am lying, etc. There's not a single case where I've offered an argument as valid and you've shown it to be invalid, or where I've offered an argument as sound, and you've shown it to be unsound. Our interactions usually end by my deciding its not worth it to try to correct all the mistakes you're making. Perhaps this leaves you feeling triumphant.
"Dale acts as if certain Biblical phenomena are inconsistent with Trinitarian, Incarnational theology, when he knows perfectly well that the phenomena in question are perfectly consistent with the theological paradigm."
Steve, you're uncharitably concluding that I'm arguing in bad faith because you don't seem to understand my reasoning. The inconsistency I see is concisely explained here: http://trinities.org/blog/how-trinity-theories-conflict-with-the-new-testament/ and more depth here: http://trinities.org/blog/god-and-his-son-the-logic-of-the-new-testament/
"Notice that Dale acts as if distinguishing them is inconsistent with Trinitarian theology. But not only is that distinction consistent with Trinitarian theology, Trinitarian theology requires that distinction. Trinitarian theology wouldn't be Trinitarian in the first place absent personal distinctions between the Father and the Son."
Steve, there are two issues here: the "deity of Christ" and the Trinity. Our friend Annoyed Pinnoy was focusing on the former, and like many evangelical apologists nowadays, seems to take that to mean that Jesus just is God, and vice-versa, that they are numerically identical. Thus, my pointing out that Paul is clearly assuming that they are two, and not one, throughout.
Yes, of course catholic Trinity theories require that Father and Son and in some way distinct. But distinct whats? "Persons" is the official language. But what are those? Trinitarians disagree strongly about that. Some bigshots like Barth and Rahner actually hold that there is one self/person/thinker in the Trinity, with different aspects, modes, or ways of living. So in a sense, they too will agree that the Father just is the Son and vice versa - there's one being and one self there, but two ways he is. In contrast, "social" trinitarians, at least the philosophical ones who are clear enough to argue with, and others like Rea, will simply agree that Father and Son are non-identical. It's enough for them that they share a nature in some sense (and there's disagreement about that too).
"I don't, and never had any real dealings with the JWs, nor have they significantly influenced my theology or exegesis."
DeleteI never suggested you had. Rather, you operate at the same level.
"Sure. And let me note in passing that it's fine for my theology if Paul calls Jesus 'God' in Romans 9:5, as the author of Hebrews indisputably does in 1:8. That anything especially trinitarian follows requires the false assumption that in calling someone 'God' a biblical author must either be identifying the recipient as God or asserting the recipient to have a divine nature."
That's hardly a "false assumption" when the context concerns the one true God–in contrast to idols or pagan deities.
"Yes, of course catholic Trinity theories require that Father and Son and in some way distinct. But distinct whats? 'Persons' is the official language. But what are those?"
That's explicated by the properties which Scripture ascribes to deity in general, or to the Father, Son, and Spirit in particular.
"He pretends that distinctions between Father and Son are inconsistent with Trinitarian theology. Yet Trinitarian theology necessarily distinguishes the person of the Father from the person of the Son (or the person of the Spirit). Not only is that not at odds with Trinitarian theology, but that's an implication of Trinitarian theology."
ReplyDeleteYeah, no pretending here. I simply note that you're badly mistaken in assuming there is one trinitarian theology. What there is, is standard language. But many theories, mostly mutually incompatible, are offered as interpretations of it.
" As I've often documented, Dale doesn't operate with strict identity. His theory of numerical identity makes allowance for non-identity when it comes to personal and diachronic identity."
This is simply a confusion. Against my better judgement, I'll take another crack at explaining it. The indiscernibility of identicals, or the non-identity of differents, is self-evident, and is employed in many contexts, notably in philosophy of mind by people like Swinburne and Plantinga. It's based on the intuition that nothing, at any one time, can be and not be some way - that's a contradiction. Steve thinks I'm somehow substituting in some other concept of identity when I allow that a thing can be different at different times. But it is obvious that some things change. (And the concept of change, in contrast to the idea of replacement, assumes identity - it's some one thing which is one way before and a different way after.) I know by memory that before reading Steve's post, I wasn't annoyed. But then I soon changed to being annoyed. I know by memory not merely that something was non-annoyed at t1 and another thing annoyed at t2, but rather: I know by memory that I (who am now remembering) wasn't annoyed at t1, and was then annoyed at t2. The identity of me with those guys is part of the content of the memory. But this is all perfectly consistent with the foundational intuition, that it is impossible for something to be and not be some way at a single time. It's strict identity, all right, in this sense: http://trinities.org/blog/identity/ Is all of this common sense? Yes! That's the point! Are there philosophers who disagree? Of course; many, for instance, simply don't believe in change; they analyze away apparent change as an array of eternally laid out temporal parts of me (etc.) that are similar to one another, arrayed in time conceived of as a fourth dimension. This is called "four dimensionalism".
Dale Tuggy
Delete"it is impossible for something to be and not be some way at a single time."
Sorry, I haven't followed this debate, and I'm no philosopher, so forgive me if I'm missing something obvious:
1. What you say doesn't seem to be the case if we consider the weird and wonderful world of quantum mechanics. Take Schrodinger's cat which is both dead and alive at a single time.
Or take Young's double slit experiment which demonstrates a single photon in multiple (different) positions at a single time.
Or take various particles which can be in a superposition of multiple states at a single time (e.g. an unobserved or unmeasured qubit which can be in multiple states at a single time).
2. Or, short of this, even if it's true "it is impossible for something to be and not be some way at a single time," it's possible we may not always be able to tell if this is or is not the case.
Take identical particles like electrons which have the same mass, charge, spin, etc. What's more, if we had the means to do so, we could substitute an electron with another electron such that the exchange wouldn't result in a new physical state. In this respect, one electron is indistinguishable from another.
So how can we differentiate one electron from another electron? We could measure their positions and velocities along their trajectories. However, one problem is to do so would violate the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, which is about as mathematically well-established a physical principle as, say, E=mc^2.
As I've alluded to, this may be a technical problem in figuring out how to distinguish electrons rather than an ontological statement about the nature of the universe. After all, there are many different electrons in existence even if we can't tell them apart from one another. Yet the fact remains: if we can't tell them apart from one another, then one electron is indistinguishable from another to us.
3. In any case, though I don't quite have the time to argue the case, I think there are better analogies available for the Trinity:
a. For starters, perhaps the Trinity could be analogous to chirality. Mirror images which are non-superimposable on one another. There are plenty of examples of chirality in the world: our hands, our feet, DNA, A-DNA, B-DNA, Z-DNA, other organic as well as inorganic molecules, etc. Similarly, the Father, Son, and Spirit may in this respect be non-superimposable mirror images, each God, and without the need for strict numerical identity to one another.
b. As I believe Steve has brought up in the past, we could likewise consider the Trinity in terms of the Mandelbrot set with its self-similarity as well as its simplicity/complexity and identity/non-identity relations. For example, take the border of a Mandelbrot set. The border should be one dimensional because it's essentially a line. However, the border or "line" is infinitely convoluted, for the convolution remains no matter how much one magnifies a specific region. As such, though it cannot be greater than two dimensions, the Mandelbrot set's border is not necessarily limited to one dimension. It can have a fractional dimension. The Trinity may be analogously simple as well as complex, bounded as well as unbounded or infinite, identical in some respects as well as non-identical in other respects.
"But it is obvious that some things change."
DeleteYes, that's obvious. Problem is, that's not obviously consistent with the indiscernibility of identicals, which is why metaphysicians struggle with how to define or ground identity over time as well as personal identity.
To assert that change is obvious does absolutely nothing to show how change is compatible with, much less derivatives from, the law of identity. That's an ancient perennial philosophical debate, which you constantly gloss over.
Hi rockingwithhawking,
DeleteIn brief, we should not allow those experiments from physics or the outlandish cat theory to convince us that contradictions can be true. But that's what'd be the case if an electron was here in one place at time t and also not in that same place at t.
" if we can't tell them apart from one another, then one electron is indistinguishable from another to us."
Right, and as you point out, that's consistent with their actually being two, not one. But all I've insisted on here is the principle that if some A and B differ, we can infer that they are truly two, not numerically identical.
It's unclear how your suggested analogies would help with apparent inconsistencies in Trinity theories. For instance, why wouldn't a "mirror image" Father and Son be two gods, just as my left hand and my right hand are two hands?
"which you constantly gloss over"
DeleteSteve, if you had a decent grasp of the debates you'd see that I haven't avoided them but rather taken a stand in them, one based on the reality of persons and change, and grounded in common sense. There are good reasons why most Christian philosophers avoid the four dimensional ontologies. Moreover, I've cited my grounds for my position, that it is self-evident that nothing can be and not be a certain way at one time. It is not similarly self-evident, to put it mildly, that nothing can be one way at a time and then not be that way at a later time. And you've not given us even the smallest semblance of a reason to think that this is true. And we all seem to believe it is false, you included. Do you deny my principle? And do you affirm the second? I don't see that you've actually objected to my claims above; you're merely gone back to your habitual aggression.
Dale
Delete"In brief, we should not allow those experiments from physics or the outlandish cat theory to convince us that contradictions can be true. But that's what'd be the case if an electron was here in one place at time t and also not in that same place at t."
1. Sorry, it's difficult to take you seriously when you say this kind of stuff:
a. Schrodinger's cat is hardly an "outlandish cat theory." Among other things, it helps illustrate the apparent paradox of quantum superposition.
b. Also, the "experiments from physics" I cited are very well attested phenomena. Physicists around the world at many different times have performed and validated these experiments countless times.
c. These aren't fringe experiments performed in a mad scientist's secret underground lair, but very much in the mainstream. Sure, just because something is mainstream doesn't mean it can't be wrong, but then we'd need to demonstrate it.
2. More to the point, I'm not denying a logical contradiction is false. Instead, my point is it's possible to have apparent contradictions which appear to be contradictions but may instead be unresolved, viz., a true paradox. If all the evidence points to a paradox, we don't simply ignore the evidence. If we're honest, we affirm the evidence indicates a paradox, thereby maintaining the tension, and work to relieve the tension. If it's impossible to resolve, then we still have to affirm the paradox if that's where the evidence leads us, which is what seems to be the case in QM.
3. The fact that paradoxes appear to exist in QM should be entirely relevant when discussing concepts of identity.
"Right, and as you point out, that's consistent with their actually being two, not one. But all I've insisted on here is the principle that if some A and B differ, we can infer that they are truly two, not numerically identical."
Actually, my point in using the electrons example is, even if (arguendo) it's true "some A and B differ," we can't necessarily "infer" this is the case. We may not able to know if it's true "some A and B differ" even if (arguendo) it is true. We may be limited in our perspective to distinguish A from B or B from A. (Of course, like many examples, my example has its limitations, but I was merely using it to illustrate the idea, whereas the idea itself isn't dependent on a single example.)
"It's unclear how your suggested analogies would help with apparent inconsistencies in Trinity theories. For instance, why wouldn't a 'mirror image' Father and Son be two gods, just as my left hand and my right hand are two hands?"
Delete1. For starters, I'm not using my analogies to "help with apparent inconsistencies in Trinity theories." That's putting words in my mouth, which I'm afraid has more similarity with low debate tactics than with arguing in good faith. Rather, I said "I think there are better analogies available for the Trinity."
2. I can grant it's true analogies have their limitations. But my immediate point is these analogies need not be perfect. They simply need to be "better" than the alternative which in our case would be your own proposal.
3. Of course, "mirror image" trades on the idea of geometrical reflection as well as transformation by which I mean a way of moving an object. Moreover, if an object appears the same after its transformation, then the transformation indicates symmetry. That's the broader idea.
4. Take another example. Most scientists consider the laws of physics to be symmetrical inasmuch as physical laws should be the same in all places and at all times - i.e. physical laws should be symmetrical in space and time. We know of a number of different physical laws, but the number of physical laws doesn't have any bearing on the fact that these are or are not in the category of "physical laws," just as the number of hands doesn't have any bearing on the fact that they are or are not in the category of "hands." Similarly, the number of persons in the Godhead (i.e. Father, Son, and Spirit) doesn't have any bearing on the fact that they are or are not in the category of "God" or the "Godhead." It's not an argument over quantity but quality.
Dale
Delete"it is self-evident that nothing can be and not be a certain way at one time. It is not similarly self-evident, to put it mildly, that nothing can be one way at a time and then not be that way at a later time. And you've not given us even the smallest semblance of a reason to think that this is true."
1. As I've mentioned as well as shown above, the quantum world is a weird world. Paradoxes abound.
2. Self-evidency doesn't necessarily have any correspondence to truth. Something could be self-evident, but false. Something could not be self-evident, but true.
Take Einstein's theories of relativity. They're not self-evident, yet they're true.
Sometimes there's more than meets the eye.
Dale "Steve, if you had a decent grasp of the debates you'd see that I haven't avoided them but rather taken a stand in them, one based on the reality of persons and change, and grounded in common sense."
DeleteDale, you're hopelessly dense. As I've repeatedly explained to you, the question at issue isn't common sense, but your starting point. There's nothing in Leibniz's law that allows for change. You must assert diachronic identity or counterfactual identity in spite of Leibniz's law.
In practice, your theory of identity allows for significant differentia. Yet when it comes to the Trinity, you refuse to make the accommodations to Leibniz's law which you routinely make in reference to diachronic identity and counterfactual identity.
"nothing can be and not be a certain way at one time."
Simplistic, because the persons of the Trinity can be the same in one respect, but different in another.
" It's crucial for Dale to endorse a conspiratorial theory according to which Christians were originally unitarians until the the big shift came with Nicea."
ReplyDeleteNope! Constantinople. I analyze what we should think they meant at the 325 council here and in the previous post: http://trinities.org/blog/10-steps-towards-getting-less-confused-about-the-trinity-6-same-ousia-part-2/ Not a conspiracy theory, of course. Just pointing out the obvious difference between the "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty" and the creed of 381, or more clearly, someone like Augustine, who asserts the one God to be the Trinity, and not the Father alone.
"notice how he skews the evidence by framing the issue in terms of whether ante-Nicene theologians assert the "full deity" of Christ, rather than whether they assert that Jesus was merely human (or just a creature)."
Goodness - another flailing charge. False dichotomy, obviously. The pre-Nicenes held to many views about Christ that were inconsistent with his "full deity", such as that he came into existence a finite time ago, that he knew less than the Father, that he had only a portion of the divine substance, or that his goodnes was derivative and not original. But they didn't, at least by the 200s go for what they pilloried as "mere man" views. They thought that his miracles and teaching and atonement showed that surely (?!) he had a divine nature too, and not merely a human one. But this all while asserting the one God to be the Father. When challenged on how this could be monotheism, they emphasized that the Father was divine in a unique sense, but never argued that the Trinity was God or that the Son was absolutely equal to or divine in the same way as the Father. This is all well documented in people like Justin, Tertullian, and Origen, ancient catholic stalwarts who I've done a lot of work on. Contrary to the catholic narrative, of course. But facts must trump even beloved narratives.
It's like pulling teeth to finally get you to admit theological diversity among ante-nicene fathers.
Delete"Notice the deceptive contrast. That Jesus is a "real man" is a presupposition of Incarnational theology. That's hardly at variance with Trinitarian, Incarnational theology. "
ReplyDeleteSteve, this is a mistake I see over and over. You need to study the ancient catholic sources. In brief, the view that prevailed was that the incarnate Logos was "man" but NOT "a man." In other words, that because of the mysterious union of the Logos with the "complete human nature" it call be CALLED "man". That word can be predicated of him. But there is not "a man" there, because a man is a human self, constituted, they thought, by body and a rational soul. But there can be, they held, no such being in the incarnate Logos, because they eternal Logos is already the one self/person there. To add a man, a human self into it would be Nestorianism, with two selves contained in one body. They thought that uniquely in this case, the body and soul didn't constitute a man, because of the union with the Logos. So the incarnate Logos has somehow all the parts or components of a typical human, but he is not a man. This is a bizarre view, and it is not accurately captured by saying that for the trinitarian, Jesus is a real man. Granted, many evangelicals have forgotten this aspect of catholic tradition, and genuinely suppose that this is what they were saying. And the reason is that the NT plainly assumes and asserts that Jesus was and is a real anthropos, a man, a human being, a human self.
"Steve, this is a mistake I see over and over. You need to study the ancient catholic sources."
DeleteDale, I'm not summarizing ancient catholic sources. One of your tactics is to shoehorn al Trinitarians, whether Orthodox, Catholic, or evangelical, into a Nicene paradigm.
Steve, the charge is laughable. I've done quite a bit, in peer-reviewed, published work, to carefully sort and categorize competing Trinity theories. It hardly comes down to asserting them all Nicene! Of course, there is quite a lot of partisan Nicene fervor among professors at evangelical seminaries. You're unlike many of them, in your willingness to jettison parts of it. That makes you just a bit less catholic than they are.
Delete"In Jn 1, the Logos is a personal agent, not a plan. And it says the same Logos in 1:1-4 becomes flesh in 1:14. That refers to Jesus. It doesn't merely say the Logos was "with" God. It goes onto say the Logos was God"
ReplyDeleteTotal question-begging, unfortunately, and a failure to appreciate the biblical reasons which motivate the view. Some of it expounded here: http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-71-proverbs-8-jesus-part-1/
"Scripture takes a very dim view of "exalted men." That's the kind of idolatry that Scripture opposes. Scripture frequently talks about the downfall of exalted men."
Steve, so in *your* view (if not catholic tradition) Jesus is a real man. And surely you must agree that the NT teaches that God exalted Jesus after his resurrection, because of his obedience. (Phil 2, Rev 5, Ps 110:1 as read in Acts, etc.) So... why do you think scripture is against the idea that God would exalt his servant to a high position? To you take that view that an omnipotent and perfectly good being couldn't exalt his human Son to his right hand, to a position of authority which implies that he should receive religious worship? If so, why?
There's no reason to think Prov 8 has any bearing on Jn 1. See Bruce Waltke's commentary, for starters. Some scholars try to filter John through a dubious "Wisdom Christology," but that's misguided. For instance, see corrective remarks by Michaels in his commentary (pp66-67).
Delete"Steve, so in *your* view (if not catholic tradition) Jesus is a real man."
DeleteTrue, but a half-truth. Notice how Dale builds on his equivocation. It's a classic case of his deceptive tactics:
"And surely you must agree that the NT teaches that God exalted Jesus after his resurrection, because of his obedience. (Phil 2, Rev 5, Ps 110:1 as read in Acts, etc.)."
Phil 2 teaches the deity of Christ.
"So... why do you think scripture is against the idea that God would exalt his servant to a high position?"
The Father exalted the God-man to heaven. The divine Son Incarnate returns to heaven.
"To you take that view that an omnipotent and perfectly good being couldn't exalt his human Son to his right hand, to a position of authority which implies that he should receive religious worship? If so, why?"
Because that's idolatrous.
Right, so in your view, it is obviously idolatry to worship a man exalted by God, but it is not idolatry to worship a "God-man". Problem is, there is no justification from reason or from the NT for your first claim; this is just evangelical tradition, handed down from catholic forebears. And there's also, I think, a problem with the definition of "idolatry" you're assuming. http://trinities.org/blog/who-should-christians-worship/
Deleteand exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.- Rom. 1:23
DeleteUnitarians are so committed to their presuppositions that they're willing to deny the core Jewish and Christian ethic against creature worship based on the 1st & 2nd Commandments. Jews and the early Christians condemned 1. the Pagan use of idols along with the Pagan principle that they weren't worshipping the idols themselves but the gods they image/represent. 2. rejected Pagan Kings claiming to be gods (e.g. the latter Caesars). 3. rejected worship of humans exalted via apotheosis. The Jews & Christians understanding that to promote those would fall into the very lie of the serpent of Genesis that it's possible, regarding humans, that "ye shall be as gods/God/elohim."
The Jews complained to God that they didn't have a human king from among their people like the surrounding nations. God told Samuel, "...'Obey the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them' " (1 Sam. 8:7). In many (not all) forms of Unitarianism Jesus is neither fully God nor fully man (or remains a man). Whereas in the Trinitarian incarnation both are fulfilled in that 1. the Jews do have a Jewish human Messiah as their King, and 2. God himself (the second person of the Trinity) rules over them (and the rest of the world) in a direct theocracy at the eschaton.
In fact, God literally walks among them (via the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and Christ in the flesh) as Paul quotes the OT in 2 Cor. 6:16, "I will make my dwelling among them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Similar to how Jehovah/Yahweh was wont to walk with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day (Gen. 3:8), or as He talked with Abraham in bodiy form (Gen. 18:22-33). Solomon said, "But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!" (1 King. 8:27). Yet we know that God's presence entered that temple. Christ the New Temple of the New Covenant is greater than the old temple (Matt. 12:6) because God Himself literally dwells in the body of Christ (Col. 1:19; 2:9).
Rev. 21:3 states, "Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God." Notice that the dwelling place of God is a HE. Who else can that "HE" be but Christ who is "God with us" (Matt. 1:23). The Divine Logos Himself become flesh and taburnacling as God among us (John 1:14). According to 2. Thess. 2:3-4, Satan, wanting to mimic Jesus, attempts to set up a lawless man who proclaims himself to be Almighty God in God's temple (whatever that temple might be, whether a building or within the Church). If the man of lawless is mimicking Jesus by claiming to be Almighty God, then Jesus must be Almighty God. This might be further corroborated if the man of lawless is an or (even THE) anti-Christ. Since, "anti" here most likely means "in the place/stead of" rather than "against" the true Christ.
I mentioned three basic types of pagan idolatries. Most versions of Unitarianism commit one or more of those errors but instead of a pagan God with a pagan image, they attempt to worship the Christian God with Christ as the image. The problem is, unless Jesus is truly God, he would be a false image of God rather than the VERY image of God. Only God can truly and perfectly reflect and reveal God. The whole purpose of the prohibition of creating physical images of Yahweh is that they don't adequately convey the glory, majesty and transcendence of God. This isn't the case under Trinitarian incarnation.
Delete15 "Therefore watch yourselves very carefully. Since you saw no form on the day that the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire,16 beware lest you act corruptly by making a carved image for yourselves, in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female,17 the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the air,18 the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water under the earth.19 And beware lest you raise your eyes to heaven, and when you see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, you be drawn away and bow down to them and serve them....- Deut. 4:15-19a
In Romans 1 Paul says,
Delete"they exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator"
This is not what Christians are doing in worshipping the man Jesus. They honor God *by* honoring this man, and *because* God has raised him to that position. Obeying God in this, they don't commit any sin of idolatry. If you want to know what I think a biblical definition of the sin of idolatry is: http://eherald.kentross.org/media/jbu/jbu_2014_01.pdf
Yes, the 10 commandments forbid worshipping anyone other than Yahweh, which is to say, the Father. But as Paul teaches, we are not under the law. From the very beginning, Christians put aside the commandment to keep Saturday as holy. And so too, because God had raised and exalted the Lord Jesus, Christians put aside the command to worship only God. This was not to accept idolatry to polytheism in the pagan sense, but simply made room for also worshipping Jesus, where the glory goes ultimately to his God. (Philippians 2:11) Of course, elements of the law which forbid something intrinsically wrong, e.g. adultery, murder, can never be changed. But it is not intrinsically wrong to worship a creature. So, God is free to command this. And he effective has, in exalting the man Jesus.
The moral aspects and principles of the law still apply because they are intrinsic, being grounded in God's moral nature itself. The law against idolatry still applies precisely because the relationship between Creator and creature remains the same and can never change. Paul's statement in Rom. 1 is a reiteration of the law against idolatry not a modification. You're introducing a theological novum by saying that what was universally considered idolatry in the OT is now okay in the NT even though so much of the OT was in condemnation of idolatry. Verse after verse, chapter after chapter, book after book. That was the constant theme in the torah, the historical books, the prophets (both major and minor). Decades ago I was a sabbatarian, so I understand your appeal to the Sabbath. However, we have explicit NT teaching that the sabbath (as originally given) is no longer binding (Col. 2:16; Rom. 14:5; Gal. 4:10 etc.). That's not the case in regard to the 1st and 2nd commandments. The NT everywhere presupposes their continuing validity. Whenever Jesus is worshipped in the NT it's not as an exalted man, but as virtually (or actually) Yahweh. That's true of Phil. 2 (the passage you cited). In context, everyone bowing to Jesus as "Lord" is connected to Isa. 45:23. Just one verse previously (v 22.), Yahweh says, "For I am God, and there is no other." Your interpretation of Phil. 2 would teach the opposite in saying there is another. Your interpretation also misses the point that the Septuagint translates the the tetragrammaton as "kurios," the very word used to describe Jesus as "Lord." Hence, it's the natural reading of the passage to mean that Jesus is Yahweh (just as in many other passages in the NT like Rom. 10:13ff). You keep repeating how the NT teaches Jesus represents God, yet that's usually in connection to Jesus as being the human messiah. But where is all this "representing" stuff in those passages where Jesus is identified with Yahweh Himself? It's not there nor is there any explanation in those passage saying/teaching, "Jesus isn't really Yahweh." On the contrary, they often seem to teach or imply Jesus is Yahweh (e.g. Heb. 1:10ff).
Delete...but simply made room for also worshipping Jesus, where the glory goes ultimately to his God. (Philippians 2:11)
Yet, there are various apparent doxologies to Christ in the NT. For example, 2 Pet. 3:18. There is no mention of the Father as the ultimate recipient of worship.
But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.- 2 Pet. 3:18
And there are OT statements regarding worship which were originally aimed at Yahweh but are applied to Christ (Heb. 1:6 alluding to Ps. 97:7; Deut. 32:43). Jesus Himself saying we are to honor the Son even as we honor the Father (John 5:23), not merely the Father through the Son.
that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.- John 5:23
This is my last comment in this thread and blogpost. Thanks for the discussion Dale. :-)
"Right, so in your view, it is obviously idolatry to worship a man exalted by God…"
DeleteBy Biblical criteria, that's idolatrous.
"but it is not idolatry to worship a "God-man". Problem is, there is no justification from reason or from the NT for your first claim; this is just evangelical tradition, handed down from catholic forebears."
i) There's a fundamental difference between worshipping a man and worshipping God Incarnate.
ii) And the justification comes from the NT itself.
[Dale] " We're at an impasse, with this inconsistent triad
ReplyDeleteOnly God can rightly be called X.
Jesus is rightly called X.
Jesus and God are non-identical."
[Steve] "This is Dale's perpetual shell game, based on his equivocations. Father, Son, and Spirit can be one in one respect, but different in a different respect. Dale disregards elementary qualifications."
So, I presented was is obviously an inconsistent triad - a group of three claims such that if you accept any two, you must deny the third. Why? To focus the issue. I deny the first, based on the biblical usages of the terms in question (e.g. "Lord," "Savior," "Alpha and Omega") whereas my friend Annoyed Pinnoy seems to deny the third. We must weigh our reasons then, to find the weakest link.
To criticize this procedure, you'd need to show that the claims are indeed consistent after all. But that can't be done here. The form of the claims, to make it a little more explicit, is
For anything whatever, if it's rightly called X, then it just is God (i.e. is numerically identical to God).
Jesus is called X.
It is not the case that Jesus is numerically identical to God.
*Any* claims with this structure are an inconsistent triad. We could do a formal proof of it.
Instead up stepping up and saying which he thinks should be denied, Steve chooses to accuse me of being stupid and changes the subject to the very basic trinitarian distinction. http://trinities.org/blog/the-standard-opening-move/ But it's not the Trinity which is in view here, but rather "the deity of Christ," again, understood as many evangelical apologists understand it.
So Steve, which do you deny, and why?
Another example of Dale's devious modus operandi. He poses an ambush question, based on his equivocation formulation ("God"), then dares a Christian to walk into his ambush.
DeleteI don't use categories of identity and nonidentity, but symmetry. A symmetry involves one-to-one correspondence, yet can be nonsuperimposable.
Steve, you're all verbal aggression. You neither deny one of the three nor deny that the three are an inconsistent triad. What do you do? You laughably call the whole thing an "ambush," and claim falsely that there's an equivocation on "God" in the statements. No, they're my statements, and I'm telling you that in those three statements "God" is a singular referring term for Yahweh, the one true God.
DeleteClear reasoning, you consider deceptive and devilish. Sad! You need to learn the meaning of James 1:19-21.
And by the way, you do use the concept of identity, all the time. You believe things like: the Steve who heroically defeated Dale in theological combat say, last month, is one and the same as the one who's vanquishing him today. Identity. Not two victorious Steves. No getting away from it. Kindly look up the standard analyses of statements involving the existential quantifier and the universal quantifier in any logic textbook, and not the crucial use of = in the analyses. It's a delusion that = is an odd, metaphysical idea which can be dispensed with. You're in serious denial, I'm afraid. See the comments by Hawthorne here: http://trinities.org/blog/on-numerical-sameness-identity-absolute-identity/
You also employ the indiscernibility of identicals too. e.g. Is this the guy I met last year? No - he said he lived in Georgia for all of 2000, but this guy lived in New York for all of 2000.
It's wholly unclear just what you mean by "symmetry" or how this helps with trinitarian theology. Perhaps you'll grace us with these insights in a future post. I'm all ears.
i) You just don't get it, do you? Your triad is not an accurate representation of the issue.
Deleteii) If we stick with ordinary Biblical usage, you could easily generate an inconsistent triad since the Bible says the Father and Son are both God, the Bible says there is only one God, yet the Bible differentiates the Father from the Son.
So that either proves too much or too little.
iii) Or we could use more nuanced language. We could say the Trinity is the one God. The Father is divine, the Son is divine, and the Spirit is divine (defining "divine" as possession of the divine attributes).
iv) The question at issue is not whether I use the concept of identity, but your shifting definition of identity, where you employ a strict definition in reference to the Trinity, but a loose definition in reference to personal identity (i.e. transworld identity and diachronic identity).
v) I've explained to you for the past 4 years what symmetry means. It involves one-to-one mapping. And that dovetails with standard explications of Leibniz's law.
Yet, and here's the catch, some symmetry relations are nonsuperimposable. Even though they satisfy the condition of identity (a la Leibniz's law), they are not indistinguishable.
vi) Apropos (v), we can map the Father onto the Son, the Son onto the Spirit, the Spirit onto the Father, &c., in one to one correspondence, yet they can still be distinguishable.
Our friend Annoyed Pinnoy was focusing on the former, and like many evangelical apologists nowadays, seems to take that to mean that Jesus just is God, and vice-versa, that they are numerically identical.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to get in the way of any discussion between Steve and Dale. But for the sake of clarification, I disagree with the "vice-versa" part. I believe Jesus is God, but I don't believe God is Jesus. I equivocate on the word "God." If I used the word God univocally then Dale's syllogism would work and his criticisms would be true. I believe that since Jesus equally and fully (as opposed to partially or dividedly) shares the same divine essence with the Father and the Holy Spirit, that Jesus is and can truly be called "God." The term "God" can refer to either one of the three divine persons, OR to all three persons at once (i.e. the Trinity).
I don't like using analogies to illustrate the Trinity because all analogies break down. Nevertheless the Trinity is analogous to a single human being with multiple personality disorder (AKA Dissociative Identity Disorder). There are three centers of consciousness that share the one human being/substance. God is one WHAT and three WHOS.
Steve wrote:
DeleteDale would say that's because it's contradictory, but no. It's a challenge for formulate philosophically, because God is so much greater than the human mind.
I do think that Unitarians have a very underdeveloped doctrine of God's incomprehensibility, majesty and transcendence. Their conception of God is too creaturely. Any conception of God that can be fully grasped by the finite mind of man isn't the God of the Bible or the Creator of this vast and mysterious universe.
Ps. 50:21 states, "These things you have done, and I have been silent; you thought that I was one like yourself. But now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you.
Steve wrote:
And this line of argument is capped in 1:18, where there are two divine subjects: Father and Son. And the Son reveals the Father because like reveals like. They are two of a kind.
I do think that John 1:18 tells us something about the eternal relationship of the Father and Son. John 1:18 says that Jesus is in the "bosom" (κολπον) of the Father. That term bosom clearly connotes a PERSONAL relationship just as the beloved disciple leaned in/on Jesus's "bosom" (κολπω).
Joh 13:23 ASV There was at the table reclining in Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Joh 13:23 KJV Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Joh 13:23 ESV One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at table at Jesus' side,
Dale wrote:
Only God can rightly be called X.
Jesus is rightly called X.
Jesus and God are non-identical.
A syllogism could be written in the following
According to Scripture only X can be predicated of God
Scripture predicates X to Jesus
Therefore Jesus is God
X could be that Yahweh created the universe ALONE (Isa. 44:24; Ps. 102:25ff. cf. John 1:1-3; 1 Cor. 8:6; Col. 1:16-17; Heb. 1:10ff).
Or X could be that Yahweh ALONE is "the first and the last" (Isa. 44:6-7; 41:4; 48:12 cf. Rev. 1:17; 2:8 and PROBABLY Rev. 22:12-13).
Or X could be Yahweh ALONE "knows every human heart." (1 Kings 8:39; 2 Chron. 6:30; Jer. 17:10; Ps.62:12 cf. Rev. 2:23)
"According to Scripture only X can be predicated of God
DeleteScripture predicates X to Jesus
Therefore Jesus is God"
The argument as it stands is invalid - the conclusion doesn't follow. But I think you meant:
According to Scripture X can be predicated only of God
Scripture predicates X to Jesus
Therefore Jesus is God
This argument is valid. The problem is that the first premise and the conclusion make identity claims, and you just said above that you don't identify Jesus and God. So perhaps you meant,
According to Scripture X can be predicated only of a divine being.
Scripture predicates X to Jesus
Therefore Jesus is a divine being.
This argument will raise the question what's meant by divine. But your three ALONE statements above show that you meant the previous analysis. So, we're back to:
According to Scripture X can be predicated only of God
Scripture predicates X to Jesus
Therefore Jesus is God.
Again, I ask, is this really what you want to say? Here's your conclusion is in the teeth of the indiscernibility of identicals, together the the differences that any Christian will hold there to be between Jesus and God (whether "God" here is the Trinity or the Father).
The argument as it stands is invalid - the conclusion doesn't follow. But I think you meant:
DeleteAccording to Scripture X can be predicated only of God
Scripture predicates X to Jesus
Therefore Jesus is God
Yes, you're right. I didn't mean to say that only X can be predicated by God, since Y, Z and a whole host of other things can be as well. Thanks for fixing my syllogism.
Here's your conclusion is in the teeth of the indiscernibility of identicals, together the the differences that any Christian will hold there to be between Jesus and God (whether "God" here is the Trinity or the Father).
Because of the typos I'm not sure what you saying. I suspect you're making a good point, but the sentence is unintelligible to me.
Sorry - let me rephrase.
Delete1. In the NT some things are true of Jesus that are not true of God, and vice-versa.
2. the indiscernibility of identicals
We are forced to infer, then, that
3. Jesus and God are not numerically one.
But here you appear to be arguing that they are numerically one.
The problem is that we have more reason to agree with 1 and 2 above, and that 3 follows, than we do that your interpretation of the various "Jesus is God/divine" texts is correct. Multiplying them doesn't seem to help, either. So any Christian should agree that the weight of evidence is on the side of their not being identical.
The problem is that we have more reason to agree with 1 and 2 above, and that 3 follows, than we do that your interpretation of the various "Jesus is God/divine" texts is correct.
DeleteI would agree except for the OT and NT passages that suggest a plurality in the "Godhead." Of course the word "godhead" doesn't exist in either the Hebrew/Aramaic or Greek, just in the KJV translation. But you know what I mean by the post-Biblical theological term.
As I've documented in my blogposts the OT presents multiple Yahwehs even though Yahweh is said to be "one." Even the Shema has a triple reference to God. So does the Aaronic Blessing. So does the Trihagion (i.e. the triple pronouncement of "holy" in reference to God in Isa. 6:3; Rev. 4:8.).
See also:
O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive. O Lord, pay attention and act. Delay not, for your own sake, O my God, because your city and your people are called by your name."- Dan. 9:19
For the LORD is our judge; the LORD is our lawgiver; the LORD is our king; he will save us.- Isa. 33:22
For more triadic passages both in the OT and NT people can checkout my blogpost titled:
All Three Persons of the Trinity Mentioned In Scripture (Directly or Indirectly)
"I would agree except for the OT and NT passages that suggest a plurality in the "Godhead.""
DeleteAnnoyed, take care. What you mean is: OT and NT passages *as I read them* suggest a plurality in God or in the divine nature.
Are you really more sure of your interpretations that you are of 1 and 2 above? Really? Have you heard out the alternate readings, motivated by considerations of context, language, etc. which, if correct, simply remove the "hints" you're putting some much trust in?
In your view, you're taking the humble road... but I'm not so sure. I am NOT more sure of most of my interpretations of somewhat obscure passages than 1 and 2 above. I urge you to just open, say, the New Jerusalem Study Bible, and see how often those scholars go for your "plurality in the Godhead hint" readings. Disagreement by experts, generally, should reduce our confidence. But then, it'll fall below the confidence we should put in 1 and 2 (and so, 3).
Of course it's my fallible interpretation. That's understood. Just as your fallible interpretation is *your*.
DeleteHave you heard out the alternate readings, motivated by considerations of context, language, etc. which, if correct, simply remove the "hints" you're putting some much trust in?
Yes, I have heard many (not all).
In your view, you're taking the humble road... but I'm not so sure.
I am by not presuming to flip the prohibition against idolatry on its head. The Trinitarian interpretation is safer and more conservative in that sense. The Trinitarian interpretation doesn't require a theological novelty that flip flops previous revelation/commands. Rather it's in keeping with them and consistent with the previous teaching on the mystery of God, which includes apparent plurality. Whereas Unitarianism does introduce both moral and ontological novelties.
Disagreement by experts, generally, should reduce our confidence.
True. But some "experts" are unbelieving and liberal scholars.
This is my last comment in this thread.
Hi Annoyed,
ReplyDeleteYou can't *identify* Jesus with God but not God with Jesus, as identity is *defined* as being symmetrical, as explained here. http://trinities.org/blog/identity/
So to be clear, you should deny that Jesus just is God, and just say, as a Nicene should, that Jesus and the Father share a divine nature/essence. Then one can discuss how this can possibly avoid implying their strict identity (because it's a singular essence) or that there are two gods (because it's a universal essence).
As to your last comment, it sounds to me like you are pretty clearly a one-self trinitarian. You say three "WHOS" which sounds like three selves, but you seem rather to be thinking of modes of one self. I'm inclined to think that this runs into some pretty severe bliblical problems, though. http://trinities.org/blog/if-modalism-about-the-son-were-true-then/
So to be clear, you should deny that Jesus just is God, and just say, as a Nicene should, that Jesus and the Father share a divine nature/essence.
DeleteThe problem is Jesus seems to be called "God" in the absolute sense in John 20:28, Rom. 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Pet. 1:1 etc. Though, I am familiar with the grammatical reasons against those interpretations.
I ask myself, which is more likely, that in EVERY case they don't refer to Jesus as the absolute God, OR in at least one or multiple (or even all) cases Jesus is being called God in the absolute sense (in light of all the other multitudinous additional evidences in the NT that Jesus appears to be being taught as absolute God, even Yahweh/Jehovah)? IMHO, the probabilities side on the latter.
When calculating the probabilities, you must take into to account the stated and assumed differences between them, together with the indiscernibility of identicals, and the great number of times the authors contrast the two, deliberately distinguishing between them. Not doing this is a major lapse in critical thinking.
DeleteThat's why the OT passages that teach a plurality in God is essential for my accepting Trinitarianism. Without them, I'd tend toward something like Nicene Monarchism or Social Trinitarianism.
DeleteIf anyone is interested, my blogposts that deal with the plurality of God in the OT include the ones HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE
Though, I think there are hints of a plurality in the godhead in the NT too (e.g. Matt. 28:19, 1 Cor. 8:6; 1 Cor. 12:4; 2 Cor. 13:14 to cite a few). I say "hints" because I always want to make my claims and arguments in a modest way without claiming more than whatever the evidence I present actually suggests. I like cumulative abductive arguments in general, but especially when dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity. Though, there are times when deductive arguments are useful too.
Also my blogpost:
Regarding Jewish Professor Dr. Sommer's Comments About the Trinity
Here's an interesting book by Christian William Henry Pauli with an interesting thesis.
I could say more, but I don't want to take away from whatever potential interaction you and Steve might have.
"my point is it's possible to have apparent contradictions which appear to be contradictions but may instead be unresolved, viz., a true paradox. If all the evidence points to a paradox, we don't simply ignore the evidence. If we're honest, we affirm the evidence indicates a paradox, thereby maintaining the tension, and work to relieve the tension. If it's impossible to resolve, then we still have to affirm the paradox if that's where the evidence leads us"
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I have written about this more than once. There is a problem, though, putting these ideas into practice, when it comes to theological paradoxes. Too much to explain in a combox, though, so http://trinities.org/dale/On%20Positive%20Mysterianism.pdf
For the sake of contrast, readers should likewise know about "Positive Mysterianism Undefeated" by Prof. James Anderson.
Delete" For starters, I'm not using my analogies to "help with apparent inconsistencies in Trinity theories." That's putting words in my mouth, which I'm afraid has more similarity with low debate tactics than with arguing in good faith. Rather, I said "I think there are better analogies available for the Trinity.""
ReplyDeleteBro - relax. My statement was an invitation to spell out how those analogies might help to resolve any problems. If you suggest that an analogy is good, somewhat helpful, it's a perfectly fair question: how so? If you're not sure, that's fine - I'm wrapping up my participation in this thread.
Dale
Delete"Bro - relax."
Sorry, bro, I didn't realize you were stressed out.
"My statement was an invitation to spell out how those analogies might help to resolve any problems."
I think it'd be prudent for people to be at least somewhat circumspect in dialoguing with you since, for better or for worse, your reputation precedes you.
"If you suggest that an analogy is good, somewhat helpful, it's a perfectly fair question: how so? If you're not sure, that's fine - I'm wrapping up my participation in this thread."
1. To be fair, I never said the question itself was unfair. The "unfair" bit came in your "unfair" assumptions.
2. As for the question, I have offered a brief sketch or two for you. Please see my previous comments to you.
3. What's more, as I hope someone with a doctorate would know, to do real justice to such analogies would require a fuller length treatment. At least a blog post. Perhaps an academic paper. I'd like to do that someday, but (as I mentioned in my very first comment here) it'd take more time than I currently have to argue the case.