In round 1, Burke explains that he’s a biblical unitarian, not a “rationalist” or “universalist” unitarian. Further, he confesses that:
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, but not God himself
and
The Holy Spirit is the power of God, but not God himself.
Further,
The Bible is the inspired Word of God and the sole authoritative source of Christian doctrine and practice.
He neither affirms or denies inerrancy, though I doubt that will matter to this debate. That he really holds the Bible to be the sole source of Christian doctrine is doubtful, even though he reiterates this old Protestant slogan. I predict we’ll see him using principles justifiable only by reason, for example in interpreting the Bible. But he is asserting that councils, bishops, etc. have no underived authority, no authority that is independent of the Bible.
I will be using the words “God” and “Father” interchangeably.
This is familiar from John, Paul, and Peter. And Jesus in all the Gospels. (Yes – there are a very few passages where arguably Jesus is addressed as or called “God” – these are infrequent exceptions, but any theory will have to account for them as well.)
Here’s my first flag:
Arguments from silence are inadmissible
An argument from silence (“argumentum ex silentio”) is a logical fallacy defined as a conclusion based upon a lack of evidence. For example:The apostle Paul does not refer to the virgin birth in his epistles
Therefore, Paul was ignorant of the teaching that Jesus’ mother was a virgin when she conceived him
This argument is flawed because the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Arguments from silence can be good arguments. Argument from silence is an informal fallacy, and for any informal fallacy, there can be circumstances where the inference in question is reasonable. If someone doesn’t say P, we oftentimes can’t conclude with any probability that not-P – it depends, though.
- But when I got home tonight, my wife didn’t mention anything about being mugged today. I conclude that she was not mugged today. This is a perfectly fine argument, although the premises don’t entail the conclusion. (The missing premise: Probably, if my wife had been mugged today, she would have told me that she had been some time between my arriving home and now.)
- Again, I don’t see a pink elephant in here, so there is no pink elephant it here. No problem with that argument at all.
- Still, Burke is right that the example argument he gives is a weak one, or at least not obviously very strong.
Flag 2:
Any proposed definitions of a word must be supported from several examples of identical usage
This principle is self explanatory.
No, there are cases where you can reason to the meaning of a word when there are no parallels. I’m going to itch my frack right now; it is itchy, because I used Crusty Brand Shampoo too many days in a row. I’ll itch my frack right after I push my hair out of the way, and remove my hat. Probably, some loose dandruff will be released.
Now, I’ll bet you’re pretty sure what I meant by “frack”. I take it Dave’s point, though, is that he doesn’t want to allow arbitrary, special-pleading, theory-saving definitions for words. Fair enough.
Flag 3:
the Christian God is the Jewish God and everything that we know about Him through the Christian message was already known to the Jews through Judaism.
I don’t think he really wants to say this. But it can be argued that the NT concept of God pretty much is the same as the OT one, though the NT writers may have presented a better or more complete representation of his character. I mean, where does any NT author assert some essential attribute of God that that can’t be found somewhere in the OT?
Flag 4:
Since it is now widely accepted that the first-century church was not Trinitarian, it has become necessary for Trinitarians to explain (a) why this was and (b) how Trinitarianism successfully emerged from an ideological climate which was wholly unfavourable to it.
This is, in my view, true and important. Further, there’s a unsettling disconnect here between biblical specialists and theologians on this score. But I throw a minor flag, because the point does need arguing in this context. Bowman appears to hold that the NT writers implicitly held trinitarian views. If this is so, then in a sense some early Christians were trinitarian. This is probably out of bounds for this debate, but if anyone is curious, read what we have from Justin Martyr, and ask yourself whether or not he’s a trinitarian in anything like the sense on which Bowman would insist.
Burke points out that on the face of it, the God of the Bible is a self. There are the personal pronouns. And there is the way he’s clearly assumed to be someone other than, and hence some other being than (any person / self just is a certain being) Jesus – someone Jesus obeys, prays to, loves.
- I think Dave goes too far when he asserts that Deut 6:4 features “explicit Unitarian language”, but I’ve posted on that passage before. (Again, here.)
- He doesn’t need to say that, though. Yahweh is supposed to be what? A god. What is a god? A certain sort of self. That puts the burden on one who accepts the accuracy of the Bible, but denies that he’s a person / self. We’ll look next time at how Bowman responds.
He anticipates that Bowman won’t be impressed, so he asks:
(a) What would you consider valid evidence of a Unitarian God?
(b) If God is one person how would you expect Scripture to say so?
Good questions.
Finally, Burke points out, like Samuel Clarke, that only the Father / God is called pantokrator (all – powerful), and according to two gospels, only he is all-knowing, and Jesus is not all-knowing. (Mt 24:36) God is omnipresent, self-existent, essentially immortal, morally perfect, invisible, and incorporeal. Jesus doesn’t share these last two attributes.
But according to Burke, Jesus is morally perfect, and this entails that he can neither sin nor be tempted. But was he not tempted, according to Burke?
Next up: Bowman’s opening salvo.
Helez:
That would be pretty bizarre, since my post at Parchment & Pen demonstrates via reference to Jewish writings that this is exactly how they viewed such passages. Are you claiming that they suddenly changed their minds in the 1st Century AD?
What would you consider evidence? I suggest you take a look at Hebrews 7:9, where the same language is used.
I’ve already established that Jewish tradition treated passages of this nature in a non-literal sense and I’ve shown that they were still doing this in the 1st Century. That’s good enough for me.
Dave, I do not object the legitimateness of “predestination language” in itself. I object to your attempt to apply this concept on a verse like John 17:5. The fact that such language is used sometimes in Scripture doesn’t prove *at all* that the concept can be forced upon verses that actually do not resemble such language at all. So, because “predestination language” is used somewhere else, doesn’t mean that it is used in this verse.
(If what you posted on P&P is the best you can do, than that kind off underlines my point.)
Dave, besides, what would be the reason to force such interpretation upon verses like this if accepting the most natural reading of the text is actually in perfect harmony with the Bible as a whole?
Helez:
Sure, that’s perfectly reasonable. But look at the rest of Jesus’ words in John 17, where he repeatedly uses the language of predestination (as I showed in my post at P&P). He constantly refers to events which have not yet occured as if they already have. So the context matches my interpretation perfectly. I don’t need to force it onto the text; it’s already there.
Well mate, you’re entitled to your opinion. But the evidence is all there and it looks pretty good to me.
What do you mean by “the most natural reading of the text”? The most natural reading of the text is the one which is in perfect harmony with the rest of the Biblical evidence. I believe my interpretation provides that reading.
Your reading turns Jesus into a divine super-being who pre-existed, was never truly a human in the first place, and probably didn’t even die on the cross.
Dave, if you want to believe John 17:5 reflects “predestination language,” then I’ll respect that.
You ask: What do you mean by “the most natural reading of the text”?
Well, can’t you at least acknowledge that the most natural reading of this text simply is Jesus asking his Father to glorify him with the glory that he had (no the idea about him in the mind of God) alongside God, before the world was?
My reading doesn’t turn him into the misconceptions you presume.
I believe the Bible shows us that Jesus had a prehuman existence as a created spirit person, the firstborn Son of God. His life was miraculously transferred from heaven to earth to be born as a human soul, the man Jesus Christ. He didn’t have two natures bound together in a single person. He was a perfect human man, like Adam was. When he died he didn’t exist anymore until he was resurrected by God, his heavenly Father. Yes, Jesus gave up his human life as a ransom sacrifice for the benefit of mankind. (Heb 10:5; Joh 6:51) After his death and resurrection Jesus is a mighty, glorious spirit person, incorruptible and immortal. He returned to an even higher position in the heavens.
Dave, something else: why do you believe there was a need for (the idea of) a Savior, the Messiah, “before the world existed”?
Dave,
I can’t help but wonder where both you and Rob have disappeared? It is Saturday and we have not seen any official rebuttals from either one of you on the official debate site.
Helez:
I don’t think of it in terms of “need.” I simply observe that the concept was already there in God’s plan. Look at the way John expresses it in Revelation 13:8:
Here John tells us that the Lamb (Jesus) was “slain from the foundation of the world.” This is clear predestination language, expressed as if referring to a literal event. Yet we know that Jesus was not literally slain at the foundation of the world.
The allusion is most likely to Genesis 3:21, where God made coats of skins to cover Adam and Eve, a process which required the death of an animal (typifying Christ).
cherylu:
I don’t know about Rob (he’s probably just very busy) but I have been very ill this week. I have spent most of the past three days in bed, unable to write or think clearly. I am gradually improving, but remain in poor health.
I can’t make any promises about a rebuttal; as it stands, I will struggle to get my Week 4 argument finished in time for Monday.
Dave, thanks for your response. I hope you will be better soon.
Re 13:8 speaks of “from [apo] the foundation of the world,” not of “before [pro] the world was.” (Joh 17:5)
apo vs. pro
You will presumably agree with me that the word kosmos in Scripture can have various meanings. Generally there is a clear connection between kosmos and the world of mankind. This helps us to understand what is meant by the phrase ‘from the founding of the world’ (also used in Lu 11:50, 51; Mt 25:34; Re 17:8, compare Mt 13:35; Heb 9:26).
“The founding of the world” relates to the beginning of mankind. Heb 4:3 shows that God’s creative works were, not started, but “finished from the founding of the world,” and since Eve evidently was the last of God’s earthly creative works, the world’s founding could not precede her. Lu 11:50, 51 speaks of the ‘shedding of the blood of all the prophets since the foundation of the world’, i.e. from the time of Abel onward.
The world that God started when he created Adam and Eve was “very good,” it was absolutely free from sin and corruption. (Ge 1:31) It did not need a “redemption.” (Eph 1:7). The particular world in Re 13:8 is the one that came into existence after Adam and Eve rebelled in Eden, a world very different from the one originally purposed by God.
So, again, what makes you believe “the concept” of a Savior “was already there in God’s plan” before [pro] the world existed?
And, if you believe that Jesus’ life and work on earth were foreknown and planned by God “before the world was,” does this mean that you also believe that Adam and Eve’s disastrous disobedience were foreknown by God before he created them? It was He who knowingly and deliberately has been setting all the wickedness in motion?
I simply believe the person known as Jesus existed with God very literally, not just as an idea in the mind of God in a time before there was a need for ‘a concept of a Savior.’ The latter is not taught in Scripture.
Helez,
Thanks for your comments. I agree that “from the foundation of the world” could also mean “from the beginning of mankind.” It doesn’t affect my argument either way.
The fact that God is omniscient and knew that it would be necessary. Jesus wasn’t a backup plan.
Yes, God knows everything so He knew that Adam and Eve would sin. This does not make Him responsible for their sins, nor does it make Him responsible for ours. God’s foreknowledge does not cause events; it merely grants Him advance knowledge of them.
Do you believe God knew there would be a need for a saviour?
Dave,
You agree that “from the foundation of the world” could also mean “from the beginning of mankind,” and append that this doesn’t affect your argument either way.
Well, at least it means that Re 13:8 doesn’t confirm your claim that the concept/idea of a Saviour, the Messiah, was already there in God’s plan before the rebellion in Eden.
You explain that “the fact that God is omniscient and knew that it would be necessary,” makes you believe the concept of a Savior was already there in God’s plan” before the world existed. And: “Yes, God knows everything so He knew that Adam and Eve would sin.”
This is a common misconception about God. God is omniscient in the sense that nothing can be hidden from him. But does God’s divinity and perfection require that he is all-knowing, not only respecting the past and present but also regarding the future? That would be an arbitrary view of things. Just like God’s almightiness and perfection in strength does not require him to use his power to the full extent of his omnipotence in any or in all cases, God can choose to exercise his infinite ability of foreknowledge in a selective way and to the degree that pleases him. So, it is not a question of ability, what God *can* foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, but of what God sees fit to foresee, foreknow, and foreordain, for “He does whatever He pleases.” (Ps 115:3)
This selective or discretionary exercise of God’s powers of foreknowledge, harmonizes with God’s own righteous standards and is consistent with what he reveals of himself in his Word.
If God would have known, even before he made Adam and Eve, that they would disobey him, God’s placing before Adam and Eve the prospect of everlasting life would have been a sham. So would the Bible’s invitation, “let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost.” (Re 22:17) But God would never offer something he knew that it was impossible for one to obtain. Also, if God, for example, long ago foreordained precisely who would gain eternal salvation and who would be eternally destroyed, why does the Bible say that God “is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance”? (2Pe 3:9)
You seem to believe that when God told the first couple: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth,” (Ge 1:28) he already knew that their wonderful prospect of life in a paradise was doomed to failure. I do not.
You affirm that you believe it was God who knowingly and deliberately has been setting all the wickedness in motion. Though you add that God’s foreknowledge does not cause events. But his creating of Adam and Eve most certainly did *cause* events. So how do you believe God is not *also* responsible for the wickedness? If I give my child in custody with an imperturbable murderer, knowing in advance that he will kill the child, am I not *also* responsible for its death, even though I was not the one murdering it?? If the full weight of all the wickedness of the world was deliberately set in motion by your God, he would be partly to blame for it.
By the way, isn’t your God terribly bored, all history from creation onward being a mere rerun of what had already been foreseen and foreordained?
Shalom,
H.
Before Augustine of Hippo, early Christian writings do not reflect anything resembling unconditional predestination.