I’ve only watched the first hour, but so far I don’t think White is doing a very good job.
The Mormon is using a Walton like comparative ANE argument regarding polytheism and James White either doesn’t get it or totally botches the response by talking about liberal readings of the Bible.
I actually made a similar argument several years ago, but I was using it to show why one might want to be careful in uncritically adopting Walton’s scheme. It didn’t occur to me at the time that Mormons would actually employ it.
Apologists can’t get comfortable thinking they’ve heard it all before. We also saw this with Frank Turek last year or the year before. They need to take their opponents seriously and adapt as their opposition adapts.
From what I’ve seen so far, it’s only when the Mormon tries to argue that the Father and Jesus can’t be eternal spirits because then there’s no distinction that he falls apart, and not because of anything James White said, but because his argument is just so confused.
How would you respond to a Mormon using a Walton/Heiser styled argument? I think it's probably popular among their more clever apologist. A Mormon used the same argument on Matt Slick and he didn't handle it Well either:
I wasn't saying that I have an answer to the argument, only that a Christian apologist should have one and I don't think James White gave a very good one.
Having said that I would go about building a response in the following way:
1. Look at the individual passages the Mormon cites to see if they are equivalent to the biblical passages.
I went back and listened to this section again (starting 17:09) and Kwaku cites two: "the Tale of Sinuhe ... 'He is a god without equal, with none in existence preceding him' and the great Cairo Hymn to Amen Ra 'Unique one, like whom among the gods (literally like whom of the gods)? you are the sole one who made all that exists. One alone, who made that which is. Single, unique, without second.'
There can be a difference between saying that being 'x' is unique or without equal or the first and saying that being 'x' is 'y' and there is no other 'y' (Isaiah 45:5)
2. Look at the overall picture of the texts or religious cannon (if there is one). For instance, the Bible says God is unique but it also says (and frequently within the immediate context of saying) other gods are idols, frequently described as worthless, man-made, lifeless (Lev. 26:7) etc. The texts cited by Kwaku may just have one part of that equation: a certain god is unique, but explicit affirmation is given to other gods. Take, for example, Greek religion. Zeus is presented as unique and the first son of Chronos, but explicit affirmation is given to the existence of other gods.
3. Suppose the biblical language is underdetermined. Certain arguments for classical theism entail one God (Ontological, Moral).
I couldn't make it all the way through. There were too many assertions without any deep dive into the justification, or lack thereof, of those assertions. It was very much all over the place. I share Jonathan's sentiment about White discussing liberal readings; it doesn't seem to help White's position by labeling some of the views as liberal if one is willing to embrace those views. At one point Durbin tries to get the Mormon to start backing up the points by going deep into the Biblical text, but that is cut off by White coming in to say he has to object to something else. And so the debate is very much surface level with a description of views and names of views and less about their justification (which is not the same as asserting their being justified).
It's me Sam Shamoun using the ben malik moniker. I am listening to it now and I'm at the 104 minute mark. I can say that the young man being interviewed has yet to turn to the Bible because White hasn't allowed him to by constantly interjecting. It's not a bad thing, but I still wanted to hear the man's biblical case. Moreover, this young man is quite articular and well read, and very sharp, since he was able to address and correct many of Jeff Durbin's false assumptions and misinterpretations of what the young man was saying.
White's exegesis of Philippians 2:5-11 is clearly wanting since he assumes that his view of the text is the contextual one, or the only plausible interpretation of the passage. In reality, both Daniel Wallace and Denny Burk have argued that Philippians 2:6 actually teaches that the Son is not functionally equal to the Father and didn't try to be. They base this on their extensive examination of the use of the articular infinitive, i.e. to einai("the being")which both men claim can only mean within this particular context that Jesus did not grasp at being equal with God. Here is a link to Burke's thorough discussion of this point for those interested in reading his arguments for themselves: http://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/on-the-articular-infinitive-in-philippians-2-6-a-grammatical-note-with-christological-implications
White's definition of humility is also lacking, since one can be humble by not seeking after something that doesn't rightly belong to them. In other words, knowing one's station in life and not seeking to attain a status that s/he doesn't deserve is a sign of humility.
Besides, even the argument White uses to show that Jesus and the Father are two equals, with Christ voluntarily setting aside that equality, doesn't work either. The gist of White's argument is that the context of Philippians 2 is an exhortation to fellow believers to treat others as better than themselves. White argues that just as all believers are equal to one another in the sight of God, so are Christ and God. And just as Christ did not cling to, or exploit his equality with God, but voluntarily humbled himself before the Father, believers are too do likewise and set aside their equality in humble service to each other.
The problem with this claim is that, though we are all equal in one sense, there is another sense in which believers are not equal, namely, in terms of positions of authority. After all, the same Paul talks about levels of authority within the body (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28-31), and the NT even tells us to submit to those who are in leadership over us, i.e. the bishops etc. As such, this actually comports with the view of Wallace and Burk, namely, there is a sense in which Christ and the Father are not equal, since the Son by virtue of being the Son is subject to the Father in terms of authority, though being equal to him in essence, power, honor and glory.
Final point. White made a blunder around the one hour, four minute mark when he said, "Isaiah 6, when Isaiah saw Jehovah sitting on the throne, that was Jesus! That was the One WHO WOULD BECOME THE SON in the incarnation."
I’ve only watched the first hour, but so far I don’t think White is doing a very good job.
ReplyDeleteThe Mormon is using a Walton like comparative ANE argument regarding polytheism and James White either doesn’t get it or totally botches the response by talking about liberal readings of the Bible.
I actually made a similar argument several years ago, but I was using it to show why one might want to be careful in uncritically adopting Walton’s scheme. It didn’t occur to me at the time that Mormons would actually employ it.
Apologists can’t get comfortable thinking they’ve heard it all before. We also saw this with Frank Turek last year or the year before. They need to take their opponents seriously and adapt as their opposition adapts.
From what I’ve seen so far, it’s only when the Mormon tries to argue that the Father and Jesus can’t be eternal spirits because then there’s no distinction that he falls apart, and not because of anything James White said, but because his argument is just so confused.
How would you respond to a Mormon using a Walton/Heiser styled argument? I think it's probably popular among their more clever apologist. A Mormon used the same argument on Matt Slick and he didn't handle it Well either:
Deletehttps://youtu.be/OXJBImi3TtI
I wasn't saying that I have an answer to the argument, only that a Christian apologist should have one and I don't think James White gave a very good one.
DeleteHaving said that I would go about building a response in the following way:
1. Look at the individual passages the Mormon cites to see if they are equivalent to the biblical passages.
I went back and listened to this section again (starting 17:09) and Kwaku cites two: "the Tale of Sinuhe ... 'He is a god without equal, with none in existence preceding him' and the great Cairo Hymn to Amen Ra 'Unique one, like whom among the gods (literally like whom of the gods)? you are the sole one who made all that exists. One alone, who made that which is. Single, unique, without second.'
There can be a difference between saying that being 'x' is unique or without equal or the first and saying that being 'x' is 'y' and there is no other 'y' (Isaiah 45:5)
2. Look at the overall picture of the texts or religious cannon (if there is one). For instance, the Bible says God is unique but it also says (and frequently within the immediate context of saying) other gods are idols, frequently described as worthless, man-made, lifeless (Lev. 26:7) etc. The texts cited by Kwaku may just have one part of that equation: a certain god is unique, but explicit affirmation is given to other gods. Take, for example, Greek religion. Zeus is presented as unique and the first son of Chronos, but explicit affirmation is given to the existence of other gods.
3. Suppose the biblical language is underdetermined. Certain arguments for classical theism entail one God (Ontological, Moral).
This is how I would start building a response.
Should be Lev. 26:30
DeleteThe Sire,
DeleteHeiser is aware that Mormons makes use of his views, and I believe he's responded to and corrected that misappropriation.
I myself may do some posts interacting with recent Mormonism.
I couldn't make it all the way through. There were too many assertions without any deep dive into the justification, or lack thereof, of those assertions. It was very much all over the place. I share Jonathan's sentiment about White discussing liberal readings; it doesn't seem to help White's position by labeling some of the views as liberal if one is willing to embrace those views. At one point Durbin tries to get the Mormon to start backing up the points by going deep into the Biblical text, but that is cut off by White coming in to say he has to object to something else. And so the debate is very much surface level with a description of views and names of views and less about their justification (which is not the same as asserting their being justified).
ReplyDeleteIt's me Sam Shamoun using the ben malik moniker. I am listening to it now and I'm at the 104 minute mark. I can say that the young man being interviewed has yet to turn to the Bible because White hasn't allowed him to by constantly interjecting. It's not a bad thing, but I still wanted to hear the man's biblical case. Moreover, this young man is quite articular and well read, and very sharp, since he was able to address and correct many of Jeff Durbin's false assumptions and misinterpretations of what the young man was saying.
ReplyDeleteWhite's exegesis of Philippians 2:5-11 is clearly wanting since he assumes that his view of the text is the contextual one, or the only plausible interpretation of the passage. In reality, both Daniel Wallace and Denny Burk have argued that Philippians 2:6 actually teaches that the Son is not functionally equal to the Father and didn't try to be. They base this on their extensive examination of the use of the articular infinitive, i.e. to einai("the being")which both men claim can only mean within this particular context that Jesus did not grasp at being equal with God. Here is a link to Burke's thorough discussion of this point for those interested in reading his arguments for themselves: http://resources.thegospelcoalition.org/library/on-the-articular-infinitive-in-philippians-2-6-a-grammatical-note-with-christological-implications
And: https://bible.org/article/meaning-harpagmos-philippians-26-overlooked-datum-functional-inequality-within-godhead
White's definition of humility is also lacking, since one can be humble by not seeking after something that doesn't rightly belong to them. In other words, knowing one's station in life and not seeking to attain a status that s/he doesn't deserve is a sign of humility.
Besides, even the argument White uses to show that Jesus and the Father are two equals, with Christ voluntarily setting aside that equality, doesn't work either. The gist of White's argument is that the context of Philippians 2 is an exhortation to fellow believers to treat others as better than themselves. White argues that just as all believers are equal to one another in the sight of God, so are Christ and God. And just as Christ did not cling to, or exploit his equality with God, but voluntarily humbled himself before the Father, believers are too do likewise and set aside their equality in humble service to each other.
The problem with this claim is that, though we are all equal in one sense, there is another sense in which believers are not equal, namely, in terms of positions of authority. After all, the same Paul talks about levels of authority within the body (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:28-31), and the NT even tells us to submit to those who are in leadership over us, i.e. the bishops etc. As such, this actually comports with the view of Wallace and Burk, namely, there is a sense in which Christ and the Father are not equal, since the Son by virtue of being the Son is subject to the Father in terms of authority, though being equal to him in essence, power, honor and glory.
Final point. White made a blunder around the one hour, four minute mark when he said, "Isaiah 6, when Isaiah saw Jehovah sitting on the throne, that was Jesus! That was the One WHO WOULD BECOME THE SON in the incarnation."