Jerry Walls: What is wrong with Calvinism? (Dale)

May 172013
 

Devastating.

I have long noted that Augustinian/Calvinist theology is unpopular among Christian philosophers, though many, like me, go through a Calvinist phase (when I was a sophomore and junior in college), before seeing its problems to be hopeless. Walls concisely and fairly sums up what Calvinism is all about, and then shows it to be profoundly problematic, focusing on philosophical problem rather than biblical ones.

I would add that many of us – many Christians who’ve studied analytic philosophy – are persuaded by the Consequence Argument that compatibilism about human freedom is false, and also that if compatibilism about human freedom were true, then J.L. Mackie would have a sound argument for atheism. Christians need to make the free will defense against that argument, and to do that, you must believe in libertarian freedom. (But, that’s the kind of freedom we all, or almost all, believe in anyway.)

Mysterianism, as Walls points out, is very important to being a Calvinist. They think that “The Bible teaches X” is an answer to any difficulty. But it isn’t – in particular, objections to the effect that the Bible doesn’t actually teach X, and/or that X seems to be a contradiction.

Judging just by a few things he says here, I assume that Walls is a “social” trinitarian; but I don’t think that detracts from his case. And note that God is a “he” throughout.

Note to young professors and grad students – this is how you give a presentation. Note what Walls does.

  • Simple but relevant slides. Not too many. No distractions.
  • Talks loudly, to the audience, moving around.
  • Touch of humor.
  • Knows what Continue reading »

Linkage: White vs. Navas – Does the New Testament teach “the deity of Christ”? (Dale)

May 112013
 

boxing-clip-artAbly reviewed by Sean Finnegan. I would add a few philosophical comments:

  • White, like many evangelicals, understands “the deity of Christ” as meaning that Jesus and God are numerically one, that is, numerically identical. He argues that various things the NT asserts about Jesus imply this. (e.g. He is worshiped, called “Lord.”) Conveniently, he ignores the many passages which assert or presuppose a qualitative difference between Jesus and God. He ignores these because it is self evident that things which ever (or even merely could) differ, can’t be numerically identical.
  • White emphasizes the charge of “rationalism” vs. Navas. It’s unclear quite what that is supposed to be. Perhaps his main idea is that a “rationalist” ignores elements of divine revelation which are inconsistent with his theology.
  • But if that’s what he means, then as I just observed – White is plainly a rationalist! Takes one to know one, evidently. :-) (Is he projecting his own double-think onto his opponent?)
  • Sean’s point about choice of passages should be emphasized. Navas here fights White, as it were, on White’s home turf. To be fair, White should debate him again, taking the negative side, and letting Navas pick the five passages.
  • White was sloppy on the topics of monotheism and worship. And he overuses the ad hominem and question-begging assertion that Navas is simply looking at the texts through unitarian blinders. Still, he is an able debater. As is Navas.
  • This sort of debate can get tedious because of the focus mainly on the exegesis of texts. Those texts are, of course, the main evidence. But I think that both sides could have spent more time making their overall case – actually making explicit arguments, not only showing how various texts allegedly fit their respective views, and then going, see! This is, after all, a battle of theologies. If only reading the texts was going to solve this, well, it would’ve been resolved a long time ago. And it is clear – or at least, it is clear to me – that the theoretical arguments are really the locus of disagreement. e.g. Jesus is rightly worshiped, and only God can be rightly worshiped, therefore, Jesus just is God and vice-versa. (Even though they differ!) But that second premise is false, according to the New Testament. On carefully thinking through White’s traditional catholic arguments, see this. They do get a bit more into such argument in part 2.
  • Relatedly, it strikes me that for White, focusing almost completely on (favorite) texts is a way of avoiding hard questions, like: isn’t White’s theology self-contradictory? (e.g. Jesus and the Father are both identical to God, but not to each other. God is and is not the ultimate source of the cosmos. God does and does not have a God above him.) If so, we can reject it as false. And we can see that there is a weighty reason to suspect his interpretations of the texts, on our assumption that what they teach is true, and so self-consistent. If he’s going to resist these inferences, he’ll need to say a lot more about how it can be rational to believe a clear, stable, apparent contradiction. It will not do to merely repeat that his view is (allegedly) based on all the texts.
  • In light of 2nd and 3rd century catholic theology, it is amazing that White thinks it absurd (and/or “Gnostic”) that the Son is an intermediary between God and humans, who is less great than God / the Father. More on that theme in a forthcoming screencast and paper, but for now, see this series.

Bill Maher on God and Jesus (Dale)

Apr 012013
 

I consider comedian Bill Maher to be a fairly funny guy. I don’t care for his politics. But I watched his movie Religulous, and I thought it had some funny and interesting moments. He’s not as smart as he thinks he is. He’s typical of kids who were raised Catholic, who didn’t pay too much attention, and who later sloughed off the whole thing as childish, without any serious investigation.

Here’s some of his schtick:

  • “God had a son” – sorry Bill, you can jeer at the claim rather than seriously consider it, but that only reveals your contempt for Christianity – it doesn’t show anything ridiculous about the claim. Granted, it is an unusual claim. Of course, Jesus was an unusual man.
  • “suicide mission” – Sort of sounds like he’s blowing himself up to kill others. Gee, Bill, that’s just not at all like the claim that he came, in part, to willingly offer him as a sacrifice for all the sins of humanity. Bill surely knows better, and is depending on the ignorance of the audience to find that a stinging and funny comparison. Fail.
  • “they can’t kill you because you’re really Me”

Here, Bill has a point. Consider this argument:

  1. God is immortal. Continue reading »

Credo House Ministries’ Inaccuracies about the Trinity and the Council of Nicea (Dale)

Mar 212013
 

Unimpressed-Mona-LisaI’ve blogged about these folks before. I do not enjoy criticizing apologists, because I think Christian apologetics is important. And the folks at Credo House Ministries seem like good-hearted and hard working Christians who are doing their best to help Christians love God with their minds. And I think Patton is an excellent blogger and writer.

But I feel compelled to correct some of their inaccurate statements about “the” doctrine of the Trinity. In this video, they want to correct the myth that “The Trinity” – by which they mean “the” doctrine of the Trinity, or rather, the widely accepted catholic creedal formulas -”was invented.”

Well, given that it is a doctrine which we’re talking about, a theory, which didn’t exist in BC times, of course it was “invented,” i.e first formulated and stated by some folks.

But it actually wasn’t in 325, at Nicea! That formula, as then understood, was consistent with Christian unitarian theology.

But let’s go through their video. Continue reading »

Linkage: Dan Wallace: 5 Myths About Bible Translation (Dale)

Mar 192013
 

booksCheck out this post by Dan Wallace over at Parchment and Pen. I teach religious studies, and regularly encounter this one:

Myth 1: The Bible has been translated so many times we can’t possibly get back to the original.

Wallace’s answer is absolutely right.

#2 is also an important point. Wallace might have added that quotation marks are never in the Greek manuscripts; they didn’t exist in ancient times. In a sense, they are part of the translation – and at times, a product of translators’ interpretation.

I agree with the substance of Wallace’s comments #3 and #4 as well. But on #5, it is wholly unclear what he means by the “deity of Christ.” Evangelicals love that phrase, I think in part because of its ambiguity.

It is true, though, that Constantine is not any kind of major player in the development of catholic doctrine. That’s just Dan Brown nonsense – the bane of anyone who loves the intellectual enterprise of history.

Update: 15 more. Some of this stuff is embarrassing; but Wallace is doing God’s work, because many of these are in wide circulation.

Santa vs. Arius, round 2 (Dale)

Dec 062012
 

Now that I’m actually looking for it, I see that this stuff is very popular on Catholic websites and blogs. Here it is – the same version I mentioned last time in comic form.

Excellent epistemologist and apologist Tim McGrew responded on Facebook to my previous post:

Of the 318 bishops that Athanasius (and Eusebius in his Chronicon) say were present, I can find names of only 68, counting Nicholas among them. I do think this calls for a revision of your claim that “[i]f he had been there, likely his name would be on the lists.” The lists are, judging by other information we have, exceedingly incomplete. [emphasis added]

Tim, I can’t find that – can you give a citation and/or link? Book II of the Chronicon  is only preserved by Jerome, isn’t that right? But I don’t find what you say here. I can’t find any mention of Nicholas of Myra by searching Athanasius’s works  (electronically and by indexes of what I have in print). I’m willing to withdraw my argument, but I need to see the primary source(s).

I do find, in addition to the source I cited before, this book. I don’t know how reliable this guy is. But he puts the earliest mention at 510, probably well after St. Nick legends had started to grow.

And The New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd ed., 2003) says, boldly,

No historically trustworthy evidence of [Nicholas's] ancestry or the events of his life exists, except for the fact of his episcopate.

After mentioning his alleged presence at Nicea and some other claims about him (but not the assault on Arius),

More than 2,000 churches are dedicated to him in France and Germany, and about 400 in England. Russia, Sicily, Lorraine, and Greece honor him as patron. The principal miracle-legends deal with his liberation of three unjustly imprisoned officers; his secret provision of dowries for three poor girls; and his deliverance of three innocent youths condemned to death. The oldest documentary evidence of the Nicholas legends is an eleventh-century manuscript in Karlsruhe Library. (“Nicholas of Myra, St., vol. 10, pp. 377, 378, emphasis added)

This reputable writer puts him at Nicea (p. 58), but doesn’t cite any primary source. He says that and the second council of Nicea, in 787, Nick came up:

On October 1, the bishops discussed a series of biblical texts pertaining to images and a long series of citations from patristic writings. …St. Nicholas of Myra and Plato were said to have been recognized in visions because they both looked like their images. (p. 308)

Again, no primary source. :-( The only lesson I take from this is that he was a popular saint at that point.

Here is a somewhat more helpful secondary source, by Dr. Adam C. English. Click to look inside, then scroll down half way, to “Council of Nicea.” Essentially, some lists have Nick at Nicea and others don’t. But the earliest don’t. Hence, the denial cited in my previous post. And some historians, looking at all the evidence, deny he was there. But this author says that on the whole, it is more likely that he was there. I don’t understand the basis of this judgement, just from looking at that excerpt. Is it just that, given the good evidence of his existence as a bishop at the time, he probably would’ve been invited and gone?

In any case , one could grant for the sake of argument that Nicholas was at Nicea. Then, my argument of the last post re: absence of evidence has to be surrendered.

But I would still argue that without a reasonably early source for this tale, we should not believe it. It would have been, had it occurred, a memorable part of the proceedings, and so it is likely that it would’ve been soon recorded. It would be too good, too juicy to leave out. Thus, if it wasn’t…

Is the earliest version of the punching / slapping story in the source named above from the 11th c.?

Update: No answer to this last question yet, but in Facebook discussion Tim says essentially that one should suspend belief on whether or not this happened.

I say, if it were just the different attendance rolls that were relevant, I’d be on the side of suspending belief too. But given the nature of the story, I think denial is more reasonable. This is a… colorful story about a man who for whatever reason became (after his demise) a legend-magnet (and we’re not really sure how early this occurred). And again, had it happened, it likely would’ve been reported at the time.

Did Santa punch out Arius? (Dale)

Dec 052012
 

(click for image credit)

If memes are to be believed, yes.

Santa (Nicholas, Bishop of Myra) punched Arius himself in the face, at the famous council of Nicea, no less.

But – I hate to tell you – memes are not always to be believed.

This one’s been making the rounds online for a few years. Even Catholic philosophy professors are getting in on the fun.

And it is fun. Postmoderns are so wishy-washy about truth, about commitment, about correct doctrine. No one these days cares so much that they’d punch their theological opponent in the face. Ah, to return to the good old days…

>:-/

In fact, catholic church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries were sometimes marred by violence, and it was not at all funny. To those who would applaud the alleged punch, or at least find it hilarious, I would paraphrase a great man: those who use the fist, will get the fist.

In any case, when I heard this recently I thought it sounded too fun to be true… (and I only told you the start of it – apparently in some longer versions Nick gets reprimanded by Constantine himself, and then vindicated by Jesus and Mary). I’ve read some books about Nicea, and never bit down on this little chestnut before. (I’d remember.)

So I do a little internet fact checking, and find this, from the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

There is reason to doubt his presence at Nicaea, since his name is not mentioned in any of the old lists of bishops that attended this council.

Sorry, folks. Here, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If he had been there, likely his name would be on the lists. But, it isn’t. Thus, it is unlikely he was there.

Better quality fun-spoiling would be a citation of the earliest version of this legend. I’m willing to bet that it is nowhere close to the time of alleged event (325 AD).

Anyone?

I leave you with a better Catholic meme. To get the joke, you must be both a sci-fi nerd and a theology (or biblical studies, or religious studies) nerd.

God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament – conference presentation (Dale)

Nov 032012
 

Here’s a video of my May 2012 talk in Atlanta, “God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament.” Many thanks to Sharon and Dan Gill, who filmed, edited, and posted it on their fine website, 21st Century Reformation.

The characteristic thesis of unitarian Christianity (aka Biblical Unitarianism, Christian Monotheism) is that the Father of Jesus just is the one God, Yahweh, and Jesus is someone else.

This is assumed in this passage:

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ (John 20:17, ESV)

Actually, it is consistently assumed in the entire New Testament – there is no difference between authors on this score. But here, it is especially close to the surface, as it were.

And it is explicitly asserted in these:

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.  And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:1-3, ESV)

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—  yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor 8:4-6, ESV)

The waters have been muddied by evangelical and Catholic apologists arguing for “the deity of Christ,” and by some big name theologians like Bauckham and Wright arguing that in the last passage Paul “inserts Jesus into the Shema.” In this talk, after I give a quick logic lesson, I discuss how logic helps us to think clearly about these three passages.

You’ll have to watch the video to find out why the Lord is face-palming. :-) Hint: it has to do with an often-misread piece of scripture.

Here’s the screencast version, which I did when I got back from the conference.

Further thoughts on Swinburne’s God-talk (Dale)

Aug 222012
 

(click for image credit)

In this 2010 post I reacted to an interview by social trinitarian Richard Swinburne. My concern was that Swinburne has a theory on which the Trinity is not itself a person, but in answer to the question “Is God a self?” He answers affirmatively. What gives?

Recently a reader e-mailed me with this link (thanks, Anthony). If you look at around 14 minutes, you’ll hear him make abundantly clear that he thinks God is a self, that he just is a certain perfect person. From the official transcript:

In the view of all that is the theory that theism, the theory that there is a God, is that a  simple explanation of the universe? …God is supposed to be a personal being. What is a person? A person is a being with certain powers to move their arms or whatever, certain beliefs and certain purposes which are formed by their desires so they have inclinations to do things, desires, powers and beliefs. We are persons in that sense but we of course have finite powers, God is supposed to be limitless in his power. We have some beliefs true, some false and plenty of things we do not have beliefs about. God is supposed to have all true beliefs to help be omnipotent and omniscient and God is supposed to be perfectly free in the sense that he is not in anyway influenced by desires. We have some desires which influence us and on the other hand we see certain things as good to do and that influences us. But we have views about what is worth doing which are quite out of line with our desires to do things and therefore we are subject to irrational desires. God is supposed not to be subject to irrational desires and in that sense he is perfectly free hence being omniscient he will see what is good and having no inclination to do anything else if you recognise  something as good you have an inclination to do it. So he will inevitably do what is good.

So this is a very simple kind of person unlike us who are complicated persons in being mixtures of desires for the bad, perception to the good, limited powers and so on. He is a simple person in the sense of my definition. He is one person, he has only got three properties, he has got an infinite degree of each or rather, as I have described it so far, two properties and one absence of a property. That is to say he does not have desires for irrational ends. (p. 5)

“God” here, given his own trinitarian speculations, can’t be the Trinity. In my post linked above,  I lay out this inconsistent triad: Continue reading »

Orthodox modalism (Dale)

Aug 012012
 

Consider this recent affair; to the relief of many evangelicals, this prominent leader has turned from the brink of damnable heresy. That is, he’s turned from Oneness Pentecostal theology (which is, in my experience, as clear as mud) to “Orthodoxy.” Christianity Today trumpets: “T.D. Jakes Embraces Doctrine of the Trinity, Moves Away from ‘Oneness’ View“.

“I began to realize that there are some things that could be said about the Father that could not be said about the Son,” Jakes said. “There are distinctives between the working of the Holy Spirit and the moving of the Holy Spirit, and the working of the redemptive work of Christ. I’m very comfortable with that.”

This is the indiscernibility of identicals (also here) in action. This is a valid inference : x and y have differed, so x and y are not numerically identical. So in his view, the Father is not the Son.

So far so good. But what sorts of things does he think the Father and Son are?

It seems: “manifestations.” Of what? God. So they are two manifestations of God.

So of course he asserts that he (the new trinitarian) and the Oneness folk “are saying the same thing.”

At this event Pastor Marc Driscoll grilled Jakes on catholic formulas, and Jakes said yes to them all, only qualifying – like a number of catholic theologians – that he doesn’t much like the term “person.” So as far as Driscoll and many viewers are concerned, he’s “orthodox.”

But Jakes’ misreading of 1 Tim 3:16 is revealing – he thinks that the one God – conceived as a self (I’m interpreting here) manifested in the life of Jesus – so that the self operative there in that life is simply God. “Jesus” is the mode of God’s manifesting in this way, including, presumably, a real human being.  Of course, Jesus, aka the Son isn’t the Father; they are two different modes of God, ways God is. (He says “manifests” but since he agrees that the Trinity is eternal, he must have in mind something intrinsic to God rather than a relation to creatures.)

Just as Jakes has said before:

I believe in one God who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe these three have distinct and separate functions — so separate each has individual attributes, yet are one. I do not believe in three Gods. …Though no human illustration perfectly fits the Divine, it is similar to ice, water and steam: three separate forms, yet all H20. Each element can co-exist, each has distinguishing characteristics and functions, but all have sameness…. (link and emphasis added)

For Jakes, God just is a certain great self, who eternally lives in three ways. It seems he is a noumenal, eternally concurrent FSH modalist.

But my point is not to throw rocks at Jakes. Rather, my point is Continue reading »

Jesus: not an entirely fictional character (Dale)

Jul 182012
 

Eminent Bible scholar Dr. Craig Keener argues that yes, the man Jesus existed; Jesus is not an entirely fictional character.

Big news, huh? :-)

I’ve followed this issue from afar from a while, but just can’t get myself to take this point of view (that Jesus never existed) seriously. To anyone very much acquainted with the relevant sources, it is obvious that there was a Jesus – whatever you think about his miracles, his claims, his status as Son of God, etc.

It is so obvious that one of our more important critics of traditional Christianity and the Bible, textual scholar and historian Dr. Bart Ehrman, has recently penned a book refuting Jesus-never-existed claims. See this long interview with fellow scholar Dr. Ben Witherington here.  (HT: triablogue)

And here is Ehrman on NPR. And The Huffington Post. And the Washington Post. And Religion Dispatches. (He gets a lot of press!)

Honestly, don’t spend too much time on this – it is at bottom a conspiracy theory. But credit to Ehrman and Keener; if one can muster the energy to take it seriously, it brings out the strength of the evidence for a historical Jesus.

It will be more interesting when he wades into more christological territory, into the matter of the historical Jesus’ self-understanding and public teaching about himself. In the Witherington interview linked above he says Continue reading »

Arguing against no one (Dale)

May 162012
 

Princeton philosopher Thomas Kelly in a paper on the epistemology of disagreement (i.e. what the reasonable response when we find the people just as smart and informed etc. as us disagree on some important matter):

In principle, we ought to be able to give due weight to the available reasons that support a given view, even in the absence of actual defenders of the view who take those reasons as compelling. But in practice, the case for a view is apt to get short shrift in the absence of any actual defenders. The existence of actual defenders can serve to overcome our blindspots by forcefully reminding us just how formidable the case is for the thesis that they defend… But the case for a given view itself is no stronger in virtue of the fact that that view has actual defenders…

Thomas Kelly, ” The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement,” p. 31 (in pre-print).

At first this reminded me of a proverb I’ve often thought of when reading some catholic theologian who has evidently never put the slightest effort into understanding the overall case for unitarianism:

“The first to speak in court sounds right–until the cross-examination begins.”  Proverbs 18:17 (NLT)

But this is actually a different point than Kelly’s. A better courtroom analogy for Kelly’s point is: Continue reading »

Craig on Flying Spaghetti Monster Mockery (Dale)

May 142012
 

The “Flying Spaghetti Monster” was born as an inept parody of intelligent design arguments.

About this, philosopher William Lane Craig is right on the money.

The FSM is more than this, though. It is thought by many village-atheist-type young males (roughly 12-29) to be an oh-so-clever-and-naughty parody of monotheism in general, apart from any design-creation controversies.

The thing is, the FSM is not clever – only naughty – or at least, potentially so, if people care enough to be offended by it (which I do not recommend). Really, the only amusing thing about it is how amused these folk are with themselves, as they think they’ve somehow pulled the pants down on believers in God.

But the joke’s on them.

Here are two differences between God and the FSM: (1) Many of our greatest scientists and philosophers have believed in God (examples: Newton, Descartes) – either on the basis of one or more arguments or based on his being the best explanation for certain facts vs.  no such people re: the FSM, (2) countless seemingly sane people claim to have experiential evidence for the existence of God vs. none for FSM.

Now these facts don’t show that God exists or that it is reasonable to believe in God. But it does show that it is reasonable to investigate the existence of God and not give another two seconds of thought to the FSM.

Done.

King of the Non Sequitur (Dale)

May 132012
 

The word is “Therefore…” When you are making a deductive argument, this means that what you are about to say logically follows from (is implied by) what you have just said. That is, if the former part were to be true, what you’re about to say must also be true.

A non sequitur (Latin for: “it doesn’t follow”) is an invalid argument, one in which the premises don’t imply the conclusion, that is, where one could consistently accept all the premises and yet deny the conclusion.

I recently stumbled upon this youtube video, The Trinity Explained (with Reason), featuring a supremely confident sounding young man. I watched amazed, as a torrent of non sequiturs ensued.

If only this fellow was as good at constructing arguments as he as at selecting pictures!

Here are most of them – note that in each case, the step starting with “Therefore” is not implied by the premises.

1. If unitarianism is true, God is more comprehensible than if trinitarianism is true.
2. God is not totally comprehensible and not fully explainable.
3. Therefore, unitarianism is false.

1. Unitarianism is true.
2. Therefore, God is no greater than a human being. Continue reading »

Patton’s problem with Apologists (Dale)

May 072012
 

(click for image credit)

I recently stumbled upon a great post by Michael Patton that just about perfectly expresses how I’ve felt about Christian apologists since growing past teenagerhood.

In part:

This is the problem that I have with some apologists (those who defend the faith). Don’t get me wrong, I believe very much in apologetics and also love many apologists. But very rarely do I find a reasonable apologist. Most are very hardened because they are committed first to defending their particular position, not so much to learning.

Read the whole thing. He also has done a similar post recently.

I would add: apologists too often fall into mere rhetorical violence: hyperbole, attacking a straw man, verbal aggression, smug, acid condescension, simply repeating oneself more loudly, insults, poisoning the well, and so on. And this is leaving aside poorly constructed arguments. Sadly, debates between philosophers (one or both of whom may be atheists) are nearly always ”cleaner” (more reasonably and respectfully conducted) than your average debate between a Christian apologist and anyone else.

I’m always reminded of what James says: Continue reading »

“Sabellianism Reconsidered” Considered – Part 8 (Dale)

Apr 222012
 

In this last post in this series, I want to put out a few critical reactions to Baber’s “Neo-Sabellian” Trinity theory.

My thanks to Harriet for this piece and for her interaction with us here.

No doubt, she’ll argue back; and she will probably say something about how her views have changed since she wrote this piece.

So, in no particular order:

  1. I agree with her that it’s suspicious if some philosophical theory should appeal to us only or mainly because it’ll help us in theology. I also agree with her that it’s interesting to at least try to come up with what is in some sense an acceptable Trinity theory which uses only metaphysical doctrines we have other reasons to believe.
  2. Again, I think it is a good aim to produce an intelligible (seemingly consistent) Trinity theory, assuming some such theory is called for. I think she’s correct to complain about the severe obscurity of traditional claims about “eternal generation” and “procession”.
  3. Picky point: I think “Neo-Sabellian” is a misnomer. It’s “Neo” all right, but Continue reading »

A Lesson in Christological Rhetoric (Dale)

Apr 082012
 

You say that you want to argue for a “high” christology, for something widely considered to be a mainstream Christian understanding of Jesus. My advice is: be careful - if you say too much, you’ll open yourself up to refutation, and your claim will appear implausible, or too contentious and theoretical, or you’ll at least invite questions you have no intention of answering. How, then, to state your thesis?

“Jesus is God himself“? Sounds heretical (suggests they’re the same person, and not merely the same being, and that the Son and Father are the same person). Plus, sounds a bit too strong.

“Jesus has the divine nature“? What’s a divine nature? Who knows? Help! Is there a metaphysician in the house? You don’t want to go there – legions of nature-theories are lurking in the shadows, nipping and growling at one another, and at you.

“Jesus is a member of the Trinity“? Good and vague – but it raises that whole Trinity issue. Better to sidestep that one.

“Jesus is included in the identity of God.” Mysterious, but not in a good way. Plenty unclear, but sounds too high-falootin’, too academic – like something Brian McLaren would write. Too newly minted. You can retreat to this if need be – you can name-drop a famous scholar or two here – but whatever you do, don’t lead with it.

“Jesus is God“?

Mmm… good and vague. Powerfully simple, pithy. Close – but too much like the first statement above.

You may believe all of the above – but you don’t want to say any of those claims, unless you have to.

Here’s a better way: Continue reading »

Theophilus Lindsey on human stubbornness (Dale)

Apr 012012
 

…very rarely is there found candour enough in the human breast, for a man to recede from opinions, for the defence of which he has drawn his pen, and been highly applauded, however strong and demonstrative be the evidence to the contrary that is presented to him. (Theophilus Lindsey, An Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worship, From the Reformation to Our Own Times, p. 175)

Sad but true.

I must add, though, that one should be very careful in wielding this charge. In the context Lindsey is unfair; he makes this remark about a person in a dispute who in my judgment was not simply being stubborn, not ignoring a mass of evidence to the contrary.

We can be too quick to mock politicians (“Flip-flopper!”) who’ve changed their minds about substantial issues. We assume, cynically, that they must be merely saying they’ve changed beliefs to gain political advantage. But how do we know they haven’t really changed their mind, after revisiting the evidence? Case in point: Romney on abortion.

Given how finite and fallible we are, if someone never changes his mind, you can be sure that he just doesn’t think much.

True story: On the day I successfully defended my PhD dissertation Continue reading »

It’s just gotta be true… (Dale)

Mar 242012
 

<gossip>Once some years ago, I was hanging out with a group of Christian philosophers, and the subject of the Trinity came up. One person,  a well known philosopher, firmly remarked that “It’s just gotta be modalism.”

I recently shared this story with a Christian philosopher friend. In response, he told me that more recently, he was hanging with a group of Christian philosophers, and one (who is at least as respected as the aforementioned – which is to say, very) opined firmly that Christians should just admit to being tritheists and defend tritheism. </gossip>

My friend and I got a big laugh out of this.

Neither philosopher, by the way, has published yet on this topic. But maybe we’re in for a bumpy ride!

The more I think about this, though, the less funny I think it is. There’s nothing new under the sun, says my darker self. And I recall the words of the dearly departed Christian philosopher William Alston,

It is a well known fact, amply borne out by the history of the discussion of the topic, that as soon as one goes beyond the automatic recital of traditional creedal phrases one inevitably leans either in the direction of modalism – the “persons” are simply the different aspects of the divine being and/or activity – or tritheism – there are really three Gods, albeit very intimately connected in some way. (“Swinburne and Christian Theology,” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion, 41 (1997) , p. 54).

Well, if that’s so, maybe there’s a problem with those traditional creedal phrases! (For his part, Alston rested with a very unsatisfying appeal to mystery.)

I tremendously respect all three of these people – Alston and the two nameless ones – but I dare say that none of the three has fully enough explored all the options.

How not to conduct theological dialogue (Dale)

Mar 222012
 

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 Continue reading »
 Older Entries

Switch to our mobile site

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech