A poor exchange. Read it first – then my comments.
Where do I start?
- The unitarian behaves poorly. Pretending to ask questions, he instead puts forward objections. This is disrespectful. And it makes the compliments at the start seem disingenuous, which is obnoxious.
- But Bill serves it back, by sarcastically labeling the thing “Muslim objections…” Cute.
- Are these objections “simple-minded”? No, not really. What they are, are objections to Jesus being the same self as, and so identical to God. They are objections from the indiscernibility of identicals. And they do apply to one-self understandings of the Trinity.
- But the unitarian, not having done his homework, lobs them at Craig, to whom they do not apply. ‘Cause Craig thinks that God is not a self, and so neither Jesus nor any other self can be identical to God, in his view.
- In this belief, Craig is at odds with many (most?) evangelicals, who think that Jesus is God himself. But he’s not going to let on about this major division in the camp. He’s just going to bat away the objections, assuming his own unique brand of “social” Trinity theory. Being an excellent batter, he generally connects.
- In the end he lectures the unitarian that he doesn’t understand “the doctrines of the Trinity” and Incarnation, by which he means, his own rational reconstructions as sketched in the chapters of his book with Moreland. This is a bit misleading. It’s perfectly fair to defend your own theories, but it is not fair to pass them off as the mainstream views.
- Still, Craig’s book has been out since 2003. But did the smarty-pants objector read it, before taking pot shots at Craig? Nope. Did he even bother to surf over here to read all about Craig’s “Trinity monotheism“? Nope. Boo.
To my unitarian friends: Craig is right – first, study up, thoroughly. Then try your hand at objecting. There are in fact many Trinity theories which try to explicate the orthodox formulas. An objection that is relevant against one often won’t work against another. And philosophy is the only discipline that will give you the tools you need to argue with a thinker as (mentally) muscular as Bill.
To Bill: You ought to grant that this is a well-motivated minority report in Christianity, at least as much so as, say, Molinism. (It’s been far more widely held than Molinism too, and for far longer.) So you should treat unitarians with at least the respect you give to your atheist opponents, not with contempt. Don’t underestimate how much they’ve looked into the exegetical basis of the creeds; proof-texting them or giving the old Walter Martin style arguments will be futile, because they have systematic and usually well-motivated ways to read all the texts. See, e.g. this, out since 2000. Or there’s the Clarke version, for a different sort of unitarianism. Honestly, you’re underestimating how well motivated these views are.
People: don’t make me use Mr. Yuck again! 
Print 
PDF
I find Bill’s attitude towards Unitarianism to be typical of evangelicals both in and out of academia. For a long time I was puzzled by the fact that these individuals would be more hostile to views that at least share some common history and common cause, than to views that come out of radically different traditions. For example, I once had a close friend and colleague who admitted that it would be easier to accept me as Buddhist than as a Unitarian. I don’t have a good explanation for this phenomena, but I suspect it has something to do with Unitarianism being a more of a live threat to these individuals.
Hi Matthew – I wonder if by “Unitarian” he meant “Unitarian Universalist”? I assume not.
This phenomenon is not easy to explain. One central fact though would be the catholic tradition of over the top rhetoric against any non-catholic theology or christology – they’re deniers, Judases, betrayers, closet Jews, they’re assaulting Christ, or robbing him, they’re arrogant rationalists, etc. There is a load of embarrassing bombast in both church fathers and in some reformers. Worse, there are non-embarrassing but obviously wrong slurs like this, which are a part of mainstream theological lore. The “rationalist” line is just demonstrably wrong, but it’s endlessly repeated.
Another factor I think is anti-cult apologetics. To the younger me, unitarianism was synonymous with JWs or Mormons – these people insanely, against obvious evidence, denying the divinity of Christ.
Another factor, I think, is the liberalism vs. fundamentalism divide, and the pluralism vs. non-pluralism divide. The former (in each case), so the lore goes, want to make Jesus “just a man” – important, perhaps, but no more so that any decent leader, e.g. the Buddha. And isn’t that what any unitarian is saying? (For the record, absolutely not!)
Very important, I think, is the social marginalization of unitarians; so long as they’re beyond the pale, one needn’t argue with them, or even expend any energy to understand what they think and why. So you just keep slandering them. This has not always been so! There have been eras, brief perhaps, in which catholics would stoop to argue at length with unitarians. Let’s just say that the unitarians, as a rule, more than held their own.
One final factor – there’s a kind of lazy historical determinism out there: Y happened, then X happened – therefore X was inevitable given Y. Y = a good number 18th & 19th c. Christians become various sorts of unitarians, X = 19th c. denominational Unitarianism morphed into a non-Christian movement. So *surely* anyone who comes to hold unitarian theology is well on his way to atheism or an anti-Christian pluralism.
But no, and don’t call me Shirley.
Craig’s lead off I would consider a poor representation of orthodoxy
“1. Crucial to an understanding of the Christian doctrine of Christ is that the incarnate Christ had two natures, one human and one divine. When Christ died he did so, not in his divine nature but in his human nature, i.e., his soul was separated from his human body. He gave his human life as a sacrifice for sin to redeem us from sins.”
Here it appears to me as though he equates the divine nature with Jesus’ soul, ” i.e., his soul was separated from his human body”, however orthodox Trinitarian doctrine equates both body and soul as parts of Jesus reified human nature. It was the Apollinarian heresy that equated the divine son as the replacement of Jesus rational soul. Usually Trinitarian apologists describe Jesus as a Divine person who allowed his assumed human nature to die in sacrifice, not his person. Even though Craigs response may require finer nuancing, we see this same type of dichotomy in Craigs hasty response.
If Craig only knew with what great sadness we watch our trinitarian brethren missing the enormity of Christs sacrifice, that He gave up his entire being when he allowed himself to be put to death. He didn’t withhold the important part, HIMSELF, although they must believe he did to cling to their Trinitarian doctrine. If Jesus did not offer his self in sacrifice are our “selves” redeemed.
Yes, this is an excellent point. The official catholic view is that his whole human nature died, body and soul. This idea that the Logos is the soul of the man Jesus (i.e. is what he has instead of a normal human soul) – well, I think Athanasius held that, but the mainstream catholic movement post-Chalcedon denies it. Of course, if you think any soul that inhabits a human body (in the right way) is thereby human, this wouldn’t obviously compromise his genuine humanity. I think this is what, e.g. Clarke thought.
I wouldn’t push your last point too hard – there are and have been plenty of unitarian dualists, who think that Jesus really died, really gave himself, yet understand that (as with all human death) as separation of body and soul. Death is still a bad a terrifying thing and a real loss, even if dualism is true; it needn’t be an annihilation or total de-activation or something to be bad… or so I would argue.
@Reality Checker: Are you familiar with the Tome of Leo regarding the “two natures” doctrine? I’d suggest reading it–it’s really important for understanding catholic theology of the incarnation. And it is, after all, endorsed by the Council of Chalcedon. You can find a translation here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604028.htm
Thanks SMW, I did follow your link. I had perused it years ago but never sat down to read it in its entirety before this evening. I had expected a novel, since it’s called a ‘tome’, but it’s of reasonable length. now I can see how they could attach or make reference to it in the appendices (my word) of Chalcedon’s Creed. It is always interesting to trace the route of the development of doctrine through historical documents.
I too found this Q&A to be interesting. While Michael’s questions appear to be naïve, that is, not anticipating the typical Trinitarian response, I also found that some of Dr. Craig’s responses unwittingly refuted his position. The entire exchange left much to be desired. I find when Dr. Craig defends theism that his presentation is robust and convincing. But that is not the case when he defends Trinitarianism.
Dale, I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood the poor guy that William Lane Craig laid in to as a disingenuous poseur, positing simple-minded objections under the guise of pretend questions. His name is Michael, which is how he identified himself in his post to Craig’s “Reasonable Faith” website.
I’m afraid you’ve done Michael an injustice by illustrating your piece with a silly Mr Yuck face. The person you portray as just a smarty-pants objector had asked sincere — believe me, sincere — questions of the famous and gifted Christian apologist, questions that he believed to be relevant on the basis of his own understanding of the Scriptures.
Michael is not what you say he is (and certainly not what Craig takes him for) Dale. As it happens, I know the story of how Michael connected to Bill Craig. He’d never heard of the man before he went, together with his dad, to a debate Craig took part in, opposing an atheist, during his UK tour last year. Michael was deeply impressed by William Lane Craig: both by his demeanour in the debate and also by the force of his arguments. He’d never been to a debate before, nor had he ever heard this level of compelling philosophic argument from an apologist who seemed clearly to be deeply committed to the same Scriptures that underpin Michael’s own faith and understanding. Michael was blown away by what he heard from Dr Craig during that debate.
You see, he’s just an ordinary working bloke, not deeply educated or particularly well read. He does know his Bible though. You’re right, Michael wasn’t well prepared when he felt motivated to write to a man he saw as an impressive Christian who somehow, inexplicably believed in the trinity. Michael certainly had no idea that Craig’s brand of trinitarianism isn’t mainstream, and that his questions would not therefore quite register as he thought they might. He just asked straight, logical questions of Dr Craig in the vain hope that he might just spark the glimmer perhaps of some sort of reassessment about the nature of God in the learned and eminent theologian. Fat chance, as we’ve seen. Michael was deeply disappointed, even disillusioned by Bill Craig’s rather contemptuous reply. He just took aim and blasted off a scattergun response, never mind that a sensitive young Christian was on the receiving end.
You’re a clever man, Dale, very highly educated and extremely well informed about all manner of things to do with trinities of every kind. Dr Craig has a keen intellect and he’s devastatingly sharp. I can’t help feeling that for all his Christian good will and efforts to promote reasonable or should I say reasoned faith, sometimes he doesn’t manage to climb down from the edifice of exalted academia he inhabits for much of his time. By way of contrast, Michael represents one of the many meek ones in the faith. He’s one of those of whom it is written: “…be clothed with humility: for God… giveth grace to the humble.” We might all bear in mind what follows: “Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time: casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you.”
What you said for Bill Craig (and I wonder if he’ll ever see it) is spot-on: “…you should treat unitarians with at least the respect you give to your atheist opponents, not with contempt. Don’t underestimate how much they’ve looked into the exegetical basis of the creeds…”
But you did poor Michael a something disservice, I’m sorry to say Dale.
“a disingenuous poseur, positing simple-minded objections”
Not exactly – look at what I said. I believe his “questions” were sincere objections – it’s just that he put them in the form of rhetorical questions. Craig was reacting, understandably if all-too-humanly, to that assault.
Example:
Better:
Whereupon Craig would explain that he doesn’t hold that Jesus=God. He only thinks the Son was crucified, not the triune God or the Father.
I understand that thrusting rhetorical questions at people is what is often considered “dialogue” on the Internet. And I know that some unitarian Christians by example put this sort of thing forward as if it were a serious refutation of Trinity theories. Perhaps Michael picked up this procedure from his fellow unitarians. But it’s not good, respectful dialogue.
I don’t really think the objections were simple minded. I do think they were uninformed. I don’t say he’s at fault for this, but still, it would be better to do a bit of googling first, before trying to start a debate.
I agree that Craig should have responded more gently. Sadly, he’s not able to imagine that the questioner could be a young follower of Jesus, deserving of, at worst, gentle correction, and not of contemptuous dismissal. To him non-trinitarian implies non-Christian.
Thanks for this comment, Phil. Though I’ve defended the strict letter of what I said, I think you’re correct that I did not properly consider the asymmetry between the two; I was sort of holding both Craig and Michael to a scholar’s standard, whereas this was unfairly strict to Michael, and too little for Craig, who should be held, as a senior and very public scholar, to the absolute highest standards.
Michael: I apologize if I rubbed salt in your wounds.
I am reminded of this statement from James 1:
We PhDs are all heading towards senility and/or death. We should spend our days serving fearfully and humbly, knowing that whatever we’ve achieved, we will shortly share the grave with our brethren. There’s no PhD only section in a graveyard, or indeed, in the Kingdom. Nor is our King a college graduate, much less a PhD.
I very much appreciate your reply Dale. Thank you.
It’s a small point but I should clarify that I didn’t mean that you thought of Michael as ““a disingenuous poseur, positing simple-minded objections under the guise of pretend questions”. I meant that’s how Craig dealt with him. My opening sentence is clumsy. You just called Michael a smarty-pants objector which, having read your response, I now take as a term of endearment.
Your point about rhetorical questions not being regarded as good, respectful dialogue is well taken, although Michael’s would have been intended more as leading questions perhaps.
May God bless us all, labourer and PhD alike, in our pursuit of truth and righteousness. And may we all “consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near.” Those two things will bridge us over senility and out of the grave, Dale.
Yes!