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.

trinitarian or unitarian? 9 – Hippolytus’s two-stage logos theory (Dale)

Mar 272013
 

lonely tree in the snow Hippolytus (c. 170-236) is an interesting, if obscure character. He was a presbyter in Rome, and on some reports, was a bishop of Rome – either a pope on an anti-pope, depending on how you look at it (he would have been a rival bishop, if this is true, to either Zephyrinus or Callistus). (See the entry on him in this book, pp. 164-5)

He was especially concerned to combat “monarchian” theology. In my view, it is a huge undertaking to get clear what on just what “monarchian” theology was all about. In any case, it is clear that the Hippolytus re-asserts the two-stage logos theory against it, the same sort of theory we saw  in Ireneaus. He may have been a disciple of Irenaeus.

God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world. 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 »

trinitarian or unitarian? 3 – Irenaeus’s 2-stage Logos theory (Dale)

Mar 022013
 

two-handsThe earlier 2nd century catholic apologists like Justin, Tatian, and Athanagoras, were clearly two-stage theorists about the Logos/Word/Son.

That is, for them, the Logos existed from all eternity as an attribute of God, and was only at a certain time, just before or at the time of God’s creation, expressed, so as to exist as another alongside God (cf. Proverbs 8), by means of whom God created the cosmos.

So if by “Logos” you mean an intelligent agent, a powerful self that can be God’s helper in creation, then this has a finite history. (J.N.D. Kelly eloquently and accurately sums up their 2-stage view in his Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 95, 100.) The idea, though, that this agent used to be an attribute of the Father is evident nonsense.

A bit later, Origen clearly denies two-stage theory, in favor of a mysterious eternal generation of the Word/Logos by God – a one-stage theory.

Things are bit less clear with Irenaeus.

Frankly, the heavyweights Continue reading »

Buddhist positive mysterianism (Dale)

Oct 112012
 

Positive mysterianism: it’s not only for Christians. And I very much doubt it was Christians who first hit upon the strategy… In any case, here’s an example from fourth century India:

Our only grounds for speculating about Mainstream responses to Mahayana thought are the objections that the Mahayanists address in the own writings. In some cases, the Mahayanists argue against the objections, in others they are content to leave them as paradoxes that separate the sheep from the goats: Only a bodhisattva [i.e. an enlightened person, destined to become a buddha], they say or imply, would have the courage not to be deterred by such paradoxes.  Asanga, for instance… the second objection [to his doctrine of Buddhahood] is this: If the realization of all Buddhas, past and future, is already identical, beginningless, and infinite, then why must individual bodhisattvas exert effort for the sake of Awakening? This paradox Asanga allows to stand. (Robinson, et. al. Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction, 5th ed., p. 117, emphases added)

To paraphrase: if you were an enlightened being like me – which you are not – you would accept this piece of evident nonsense like I do. That I accept it shows my spiritual advancement. What’s that, you say? Why don’t I accept all contradictions? Other contradictions, of course, are unacceptable. But this one is mine. It is accepted, not only by me, but by my homeboys too. Thus, it is acceptable. But I realize that I’m wasting my breath talking to you about this.

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 »

Dale Tuggy interviewed by J. Dan Gill (Dale)

Jun 072012
 

I had the pleasure of meeting J. Dan Gill  recently in Atlanta. He’s a retired pastor in Nashville, Tennessee, but is very active with his wife Sharon in promoting what many call “biblical unitarianism,” what he calls a “One God” theology. (I prefer “unitarian Christianity” or “Christian unitarianism.”) He came to these views back in the 80s after rejecting “Oneness” Pentecostal theology. He’s an insightful speaker and Bible interpreter, always in pursuit of his dream “of seeing Christians pursue original / authentic Christianity together.”

He does a great  job here, interviewing me about my background, Philosophy, the evolution of my views, and so on. Downloads are available on the version posted on his website, 21stcr.org.

A Tale of Three Kims – Part 2 (Dale)

May 282012
 


To continue:

Jun-suh had heard rumors that both Kim Il-Sung and then later Kim Jong-Il had died. Jun-suh reasoned that since the Great Leader could not die, some foolish people must have mistaken the economic Leader (Leader as manifested to North Koreans, i.e. Kim Jong-un) for the immanent Leader (which is incomprehensibly great). In himself, he is one Leader but is three men. He has manifested himself as such, and we can trust that the economic Leader is the immanent Leader, and vice-versa. He remembered reading this somewhere, and was firmly convinced of it.

His Leaderology was now highly developed. But his friend Seo-yun made one last try to convince him Continue reading »

A Tale of Three Kims – Part 1 (Dale)

May 272012
 

The news came by state radio, state newspaper, and state television. Great Leader Kim Il-Sung had make a startling announcement.

Hereforth, my beloved son Kim Jong-Il is also your Leader.

What did it mean?

“They are really one Leader” said Jun-suh. Look at their portraits. Are they not one man, photographed slightly differently?

“No,” argued Seo-yun; Kim Jong-Il is the son of Great Leader.

“Well, that would make him also a Great Leader, wouldn’t it?” And we all know that there is just Great Leader. We have been taught this all our lives.

Seo-yun countered, raising an eyebrow, “One can’t be one’s own son…”  She paused to let the point sink in.

But Jun-suh was unmoved. He pressed his case. “The Great Leader is one. This goes without saying. Our love and loyalty are for him, and him alone. It is him alone we praise at our festivals.”

“Wait… I was at that recent rally… the Great Leader and his son our Leader were both there!” Continue reading »

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 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 »

How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament (Dale)

May 172012
 

Most Christians are (at least in theory, according to creeds and statements of faith promulgated by denominations) trinitarians, believers in a triune or tri-personal God, which they call the Trinity. But some have always been unitarians, believers in one God who is one perfect self, who does not in any way contain three selves or “persons.” Nowadays, these are a minority (again, going by official statements and membership rolls – I think the facts about Christians’ actual beliefs are more complicated than the official documents suggest).

In my view, before around fifth century, unitarians were always a majority. Of course, they didn’t call themselves “unitarians” – that term is of late 17th c. coinage – but arguably most of them were unitarians - for some arguments read this. (Update: or this series.)

In any case, one can’t determine what is true by taking a vote. Truth may be unpopular. But also, it can be popular. So, who is right?

I propose that the following clear arguments provide a way forward. Which should we accept?

T1 The Father is not the Trinity
T2 The Trinity is God.
T3 Therefore, the Father is not God.

T1 The Father is not the Trinity.
U2 The Father is God.
U3 Therefore, The Trinity is not God.

“Is” here means numerical identity throughout. If x in this sense “is” y (in logic we write x=y) then x and y are one and the same, numerically one thing, numerically identical, and so x and y can’t ever differ in any way. The order doesn’t matter: it will be true that x=y just in case it is also true that y=x. And if it is false that x=y, then x and y are truly two – those terms name different things. To repeat: every “is” in these arguments is the “is” of identity. This is why we’re dealing with clear arguments. We’re not talking about some less close relation or association.

“God” here names Yahweh, the one true God asserted in the Hebrew scriptures.

Each argument is valid; in each case, if both premises were to be true, then the conclusion would also be true.

But we can’t consistently accept both arguments as sound. T2 conflicts with U3, and T3 conflicts with U2 (in both cases the pairs are contradictories – pairs such that one must be true and the other false).

So what to do?

Let us start on common ground. All sides should agree 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 »

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.

Craig, White, and Cerberus (Dale)

Mar 182012
 

First, I suggest we stick with “SER-ber-us” because pronouncing it “Ker-ber-us” fills some people’s  heads with images like these. And we can all agree, that is not a good thing. :-)

Last time, I mentioned Bill Craig’s recent public assertion of his Cerberus analogy for the Trinity. Here’s a remix by an Islamic apologist, with snickering commentary by Reformed Christian apologist James White.

I take it White is not a “social” theorist like Craig, but rather a negative mysterian (refusing to assign much intelligible content to the doctrine) – like those Dallas Theological Seminary folks. In that video linked above, he just asserts that Craig doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

This (that he’s a negative mysterian) in confirmed by this follow up video.  (Or at his blog.) In the name of just sticking with what the Bible says, he just Continue reading »

A Few Thoughts on Sudduth’s Open Letter (Dale)

Feb 022012
 

A few thoughts on re-reading Sudduth’s open letter explaining his conversion.

Saith Sudduth,

Krishna is the all-attractive Absolute who is manifested in the different religious traditions of the world. There is merging into impersonal Brahman. There are also distinctly theistic experiences in which the self encounters a personal God.

The ultimate being is either personal or not. Thus, it can’t be that both the aforementioned experiences are veridical, i.e. represent God as God really is.

I think Sudduth agrees; he goes on to explain that “merging” experiences are something like the devotee coming in contract with what some would call the “energies” of God. Of course, Indian philosophers like Sankara would disagree. And I don’t know why we should accept Sudduth’s claim that:

…that transcendental consciousness (the aim of nearly all religious traditions) is in fact variegated in nature.

I don’t know that there is any one general sort of experience which nearly all traditions aim at. Experiences of a loving god are not at all like the sorts of experiences monistic types profess, wherein, they say, Continue reading »

Merry Christmas (Dale)

Dec 252011
 

Pictured here is Giovanni Francesco di Bernardone (a.k.a. St. Francis of Assisi, d. 1226 ) – my photo of a 19th c. statue from southern Arizona, probably well worn from processions and general fondling. I understand that he started, or at least popularized the building of manger scenes.

I remember reading his early biographies some years ago. I never could decide what to think: whether he was extremely holy, mentally ill, or both. Once a well known Christian philosopher who works in medieval philosophy described St. Francis to me as “a stinker” – I think the meaning was a sort of drama queen or manipulator. So that’s another option. ;-) But I remain perplexed.

Went to a Christmas eve service tonight. At one point the pastor said that the incarnation – that God became a human being – makes no sense to us, yet at some level we – i.e. all we Christians – believe it. If I were less tired, or in a different mood, this would induce a whole series of rants/lectures from me. But, not tonight. I will just say: I am grateful that God sent us his only Son, the perfect representation of him and sure way to him.

After the jump: another pic taken at the same place as the Francis pic. This time, someone indisputably both holy and sane, also celebrated Catholic-style. Merry Christmas! Continue reading »

 Older Entries

Switch to our mobile site

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech