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.

Craig wins again (Dale)

Feb 102013
 

craig - that's your argument

This post is a commentary on the Craig-Rosenberg debate. Most of my comments are in italics; factual reporting is in regular text.

In short, Craig undeniably wins. I felt bad for Rosenberg, and could hear naturalistic philosophers of religion face-palming throughout the debate.

Debaters: there’s a lot you can learn from here.

  • 8:00 The debate has judges? Yet no philosophers? Or rather, one who used to teach it?
  • 17:14 – Debate finally starts. C comes out hitting on all cylinders, with a clean argument for a self (an “unembodied mind,” “a consciousness,” or “person”) which exists a se (he hedges with talk of “a personal being”) (person etc. – before 24 min). (See comment re: 37:00 below.)
  • 25:30 It is clear that C has read some of Rosenberg’s work.
  • C keeps his arguments simple, short, and understandable – though philosphers and other pros might prefer more detail. But this is effective communication; he knows his audience. His pace is conversational, and not a word is wasted. It is clear that C has tailored his arguments to his opponent, even while using mostly his standard arguments – and he points out some of the most ridiculous things R has said follow from naturalistic atheism.
  • 28:00 - I don’t at all understand C’s comeback to the multiple cosmoi objection to the fine tuning argument. A rare mis-step in C’s debate performance.
  • 37:00 C: God “can be personally known.” Never mind that God is NOT literally a self/person, or C’s controversial Trinity speculations, which he habitually presents as “the” doctrine of the Trinity. But, this does nothing to hurt him in this debate.
  • 38:00 Rosenburg starts his case, and is hilariously rude. He falsely implies Continue reading »

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.

Trinitarian-Unitarian Debates – 1 Bosserman vs. Finnegan, 2008 – Part 5 (Dale)

May 262012
 

Closing statements:

Finnegan: 1:48:43- 1:52:12 Only one Yahweh. Jesus does things God says he can’t do, e.g. die. Jesus affirms Shema. In John 10, Jesus uses a concept of “representational deity” – i.e. calling a being who isn’t God “God” because of some likeness to God in some respect(s). Trinity is confusing, post-biblical. But it is a solution to a non-existent problem, namely, of their being two Gods. But I don’t have that problem, so don’t need the solution.

Bosserman: 1:52:13 – 1:58 Jesus is my God. With all love, I must say that this is more than an intellectual matter. Repentance is necessary. So just as Jesus rebuked the Samaritan woman (“You worship what you do not know.”) Unitarianism makes man the focus instead of God; it is ”a man-made religion.” As the serpent tempted Eve to put herself over and be the measure of God, so unitarians disregard God’s word and critique God rather than believe as he says. And as the serpent says they can “be like God” so unitarians “blur the line” between creator and creature, and make God dependent on his creation. This is “exactly” what the serpent promised Eve. And as the serpent questioned God’s threat of death, unitarians arbitrarily exempt one son of Adam [Jesus] from need of atonement, and they think that God arbitrarily (“by fiat”) forgave Jesus [for Adam's sin?]. So the serpent was right about this one man. I’m not being rude, I have to call out your unwillingness to submit to God until he fits your box. (Offers prayer that the sinners present, the unitarians, would be given grace to submit to God’s word, the veils removed from their eyes. )

My final comments: Both debaters Continue reading »

Trinitarian-Unitarian Debates – 1 Bosserman vs. Finnegan, 2008 – Part 4 (Dale)

May 252012
 

Bosserman questions Finnegan: 1:36:20

  • B: Did OT saints understand that the physical Temple would be replaced by Jesus?
  • F: No.
  • B: So does the NT contradict the OT on this?
  • F: Incomplete vs. contradictory claims.
  • B: What about Deut 12?
  • F: Like you, I think it doesn’t predict an unending physical temple.
  • B: Why can’t God then only later reveal himself to be not only one but also triune?
  • F: Jesus confesses Jewish monotheism [in Mk 12:29] which Jews then and now think incompatible with three divine beings. E.g. pronouns.
  • B: How is the Trinity case different from the Temple case?
  • F: I believe in progressive revelation, but OT says God not a man, can’t be ignorant – so it contradicts Trinity claims.
Comment: point Finnegan. Bosserman can’t Continue reading »

Trinitarian-Unitarian Debates – 1 Bosserman vs. Finnegan, 2008 – Part 3 (Dale)

May 242012
 


Time for mutual interrogations! This is the best part of this debate.

Finnegan questions Bosserman: 1:24:35 – 1:36:19

  • F: Was the incarnate Jesus immortal?
  •  B: Only in his divine nature. So, yes, he was.
  • F But then, he can’t die.
  • B: The human nature can.
  • F: So not God, but the impersonal human nature died?
  • B: No, Jesus died as a man; I’m no docetist.
  • F: I’m unclear on the answer then. Did Jesus die or not? If he exp’d a human death, he died, no?
Comment: Finnegan is right – the answer is totally unclear. Hence, Bosserman reaches for a red herring: Continue reading »

Trinitarian-Unitarian Debates – 1 Bosserman vs. Finnegan, 2008 – Part 2 (Dale)

May 232012
 

  • Finnegan rebuttal 52:28-1:08  Back to pronouns: Bosserman’s rebuttal was unclear. Overwhelming number of pronouns and verbs re: God are singular; by the ordinary meaning of language, this communicates that he is one being. John 17 says Father is the only true God, and presupposes Jesus to be someone else. Bosserman has not answered who the first trinitarian was. And he hasn’t derived three persons and one essence from the Bible. Nor does it make sense. “Elohim” can be translated singular or plural, and needn’t refer to a plural unity. Is he saying Jesus = YHWH? If so, isn’t that modalism rather than trinitarianism. But if he’s a different “YHWH” then it seems there are two of them. “Before Abe was I am [the one]” i.e. the messiah; that’s the best way to take that saying. Believes Jesus an unfallen, sin-free human, being virgin born with God causing him. Col 1:15 doesn’t teach Jesus’ pre-existence; it’s about the new creation effected by Jesus. John 6:62 – “came down from heaven” is figurative. John 1 – can translate with “it” for “logos.” “God” in NT in over 99% of texts refers to Father. Rare in both testaments to call any human a “god.” Jesus died; God can’t. Thus they are two.
  • Bosserman rebuttal 1:08:48 – 1:24:05 Can’t assume unitarianism in OT; never says that God is unipersonal. Continue reading »

Trinitarian-Unitarian Debates – 1 Bosserman vs. Finnegan, 2008 – Part 1 (Dale)

May 222012
 

Sean Finnegan is an intelligent and well spoken “Biblical Unitarian” Christian. He recently earned an M.A. in Church History from Boston University. He runs the christianmonotheism website, which aggregates work by contemporary Christian unitarians. I was pleased to meet him at a recent conference, at which he gave a fascinating presentation on how many (but not all) “church fathers” rejected the everlasting earthly Kingdom in favor of “going to heaven,” i.e. a non-bodily afterlife.

Here’s a blog post by Sean on the debate I’ll be reviewing below.

Brent Bosserman was at the time of the debate an adjunct professor at Northwest University in Washington state. I believe he’s still there, but can’t find out much about him online. But here’s a long 2007 talk of his, called “Christianity and Trinitarian Worldview.” He talks at the start about his background.

This debate suffers by not having a precisely defined debate question. While Finnegan mostly sticks to the biblical case for his view and against Bosserman’s, Bosserman pulls out a broad brush and tries to compare all-encompassing “worldviews.” This is not a good idea; a debate is finite in time!

The intros are over-long and intrusive here; I’ve skipped you to the actual start. My summaries and commentary follow.

  • start  - 32:06  Finnegan opening statement. Starts with his central claims, and with emphasizing that 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 »

Switch to our mobile site

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech