Someone on Facebook asked me if I’d seen the White-Ventilacion debate, and I replied that yes, I had – I sent him this link. Then I realized that an argument I used there in explaining the seeming incoherence of White’s Trinity theory also reveals his differences from Brown.
I wrote,
Argument 1: collapsing the Father and Son
1. The Father just is God (i.e. the Father and God are numerically one).
2. The Son just is God (i.e. the Son and God are numerically one).
3. God just is the Son. (From 2, by the symmetry of numerical identity: if a = b then b = a.)
4. The Father just is the Son. (From 1 and 3, by the transitivity of numerical identity: if a = b and b = c, then a = c.)
5. It is not the case that the Father just is the Son.
Dr. White commits to 1, 2, and 5. But then, 3 and 4 follow. And 4 contradicts 5. If “the” Trinity implies 1, 2, and 5, then it is incoherent! What does Dr. White do to show us how a trinitarian can avoid 4? Nothing! And to make matters worse, it’s not clear that 1 and 2 are consistent with any Trinity theory, which demands that the one God be numerically the same as the Trinity.
White’s commitment to 1 and 2, I think, is implied by his assertion that each of the three “is fully and completely God.” (The Forgotten Trinity, 171) It’s also shown by his bitter social media complaints when I explain that while unitarians identify the one God with the Father alone, trinitarians identify the one God with the Trinity (and so, not with the Father). Of course, that’s charitably assuming they are coherent in their views! White jumps in at this point as essentially says, “Liar! We do identify God with the Father, as also the Son and the Spirit.” Well, if that’s your view, then you must deal with the argument above, among other problems! (And we should note that other trinitarians gladly deny 1 and 2 above.)
White commits to 5 because creedal orthodoxy says you must say that. Also, it truly is implied by something which White thinks the Bible implies: that the Three are different Persons. (The Forgotten Trinity, 154-157) The premise is also required by the fact, which I mentioned repeatedly in my recent debates, that in the Bible Father and Son simultaneously differ. Also, wanting to be self-consistent, and knowing that it is classically considered heresy, White denies 4. (Again, as well he should! Things which simultaneously differ must be two.)
Problem is, 4 follows from 1 and 3! I assume he’d cry “mystery” at this point. But his only real escape is denying 1 and/or 2. Which is it, Dr. White?
In contrast, Brown denies 5. That’s indefensible, as I explain here. And I think he is committed to 4. I don’t think he said this in the debate, but based on his writings, Brown wants to say that the Father and Son are different somethings – he apparently has no term for it, but I would say something like modes or personalities – permanent ways God is – but it is pretty clear that he thinks Father and Son are the same self (the same “He”), the same god, and the same being. (Comparison: between “Happy Trump” and “Sad Trump” there is but one being, one man.) But that is to commit to 4 and deny 5.
So as I understand them, and they are welcome to correct me, Brown affirms 4 and denies 5, while White denies 4 and affirms 5. And as I said in the debate, Brown is a clear case of what I call a “one -self” trinitarian. In contrast, White is not. I take him to be a positive mysterian.
Both are committed, I believe, to 1 and 2. As both are allergic to the use of standard deductive logic, I’m not sure either is clear that 2 entails 3, but I would expect Brown to affirm 3 and White to deny it. But that’s just a speculation.
What to make of all this? This is part of the deal with being in the Trinity Club. You can contradict your fellow trinitarians with little fear of consequences, because you both “affirm the Trinity.” You go along with the language – or in Brown’s case some of it – and make sense of it however suits you. And if you’re a Protestant, you convince yourself that your Trinity theory is simply what the Bible obviously says. And although you are theorizing, you deny it (and also, don’t put proper effort into it) because in your mind you are just repeating what the Bible obviously says.
But White’s theory, and Brown’s theory – they can’t both be what the Bible teaches unless the Bible is simply incoherent on these matters. Nonetheless, both will confidently tell others that “the doctrine of the Trinity” – as if that were one well defined set of claims – is essential, and that denying it will cast you from God’s favor (or at least be perilous – I don’t know that they quite agree on this either).
This is disturbing both on an ecclesial level and on an intellectual level.
As to obviousness, this is refuted by the historical facts – that no tripersonal God appears in Christian history until c. 370s A.D. Obvious implication of the Bible are noticed right away by competent readers. But that’s another post.
Dale, you are correct that being in the Trinity Club is all that really matters to them.
I was hoping that you would ask something like this:
1. Is the Father the one true God? (Jn. 17:3)
2. Is the Son the one true God?
3. Is the Spirit the one true God?
4. Is the Trinity the one true God?
5. Are all 4 of the above the one true God?
You have to keep the logic at a 3rd grade level. Simple yes/no answers. Your logic given above is way above their 3rd grade logic. They will just waffle and shrug their shoulders and say, “I am just being biblical. That’s all that matters.” They have no interest in seriously thinking at a higher level.
I think I heard Brown, in response to your “one-self” versus “three-self” question, say that he thought the Bible was not precise on that point. He added that he did not take a definite position on “persons” versus “aspects” or whatever. So he seems to be just fine with White’s view, though Brown himself prefers to “stick to biblical language” and avoid designations such as “persons,” “aspects,” etc., while White definitely emphasizes the “persons” of the “one what, three who’s” Being, adding that he carefully distinguishes between “person” and “being.” So, if I understood Brown correctly, he does not rule out White’s view; he’s just not sure that thinking of Father, Son, and Spirit as “persons” is the best way (most accurate biblically) to think of them. This means he would probably have no problem with considering people who agree with Karl Barth’s position as well as people who agree with Richard Swinburne’s position as fellow orthodox believers.
In the debate, Brown seemed somewhat non-committal to the Holy Spirit. He likes to link up Jesus with God, but doesn’t seem too enthusiastic about the Spirit any which way. Which left me wondering what he really thinks on that subject. Is he even really Trinitarian? He’s not “jealous” for the Spirit in the way he seemed to be for the defining Jesus as God and for calling both Jesus and God the name “Yahweh.”
Sadly, I can imagine Brown responding that he doesn’t affirm or deny any of your premises, as he “sticks with the Bible”. That’s pretty much what he did during the debate, right?
Yeah this is a little more laid out–but it’s something I noticed years ago while reading/listening to Dr. Brown and Dr. White. They really have a differing view on the Trinity–White tries to keep onto his very careful wording to keep from contradicting(yet, he does it in his own book)… and Brown isn’t as careful and sounds like a oneness modalist. Again, not saying Brown IS oneness, he just sounds like it.
You either affirm Jesus is a “He,” the Father is a “He,” and the Spirit is a “He,” and they’re all one “He” Triune God somehow sharing the same being(which, is a “He” for some like Brown and an “It” for others like White) which leads to a 3 He’s = 1 He.. 3 = 1; or you deny it by changing the being to an “It” and claiming 3 He’s = 1 It as White does so you have 3 X = 1 Y. Then you’ve got a biblical contradiction.
This is something I drove myself nuts with years ago trying to figure out as a Trinitarian and it couldn’t be done. Either candid Trinitarian writers ADMITTED it was contradictory or just avoided it and called it a mystery to keep from thinking about it.
Comments are closed.