I’ve adopted (for the time being) a pretty open policy on the comments. Don’t encourage careless posters, that is, trolls, who drop unsupported controversial claims like firecrackers in order to get attention for themselves. Such a person often thinks of himself as a latter-day Socrates, but shows none of Socrates’ deadly seriousness, moral earnestness, or argumentative aptitude. Ignore their comments, and they’ll get bored and move on to a more reactionary crowd.
Such people are to be distinguished from serious people who hold unpopular views, but are willing to articulate, defend, and at least in principle, even reconsider their views. Such are often dismissed as mindless “cultists”, but I say, listen carefully first, lest you apply that brush-off in a lazy and unkind fashion. Take others as seriously as you’d want them to take you.
Matthew,
You’re surely correct, when it comes to theory. At a practical level, however, spiritually disastrous teachings and a wicked lifestyle seem to go hand in hand. And the latter is a sign of the former. People protect themselves when they flee from serious evidence of systematic immorality. I don’t see, though, that this has much to do with his Unitarian-style views on the Trinity. It has a lot to do with his views, though, on say adultery, and leadership.
With Wierville, it seems there was a boatload of consistent allegations, which amounts to strong testimonial evidence – different from your average scandal at the Baptist church up the street. I believe that certain CES people, formerly leaders in the Way, have been quite open about it.
Those are concerning issues if one were a member of that organization. However, they in no way effect the claims or arguments that Wierwille makes in JCING. If Peter Singer started killing infants tomorrow it wouldn’t count against his arguements. If we’re going to engage in an examination by ad hominem I’m going to have to switch fields from philosophy to history in order to compete.
Let me add that I’d think anyone who has been around Christian’s long wouldn’t be surprised by both allegations of sexual immorality, and findings of facts regarding those allegations. In the case of Wierwille it appears there were only accusations, yet in the case of Martindale there were findings of fact.
My point in this thread has been two fold. First I don’t think JohnO’s erroneous claims should stand unresponded to. I’d make the same case in standing up for a fair reporting of Buzzard, Graeser etal, as well as Wierwille. Secondly, I don’t see how any of this matters if we are to consider the claims these men advanced in the subset of books we are considering. If that’s our goal, then we don’t have much business poking about the rest of their lives.
On the subject of comparative bios, there’s this scary stuff.
I don’t know why the Greek should be such a big deal since neither men engage in a great deal of textual analysis in their books. Since you seem to want to attack Wierwille perhaps we should run a comparison of Buzzard and Wierwille to make sure that your attack doesn’t bounce back on you.
The biographical details don’t seem to be that far apart in regards to education and affiliation. I don’t think you want to make hay out of the cult claims since such pejorative uses of the term aren’t going to carry much weight with me.
If Buzzard thinks the Greek in JCNIG is bad I’d certainly like to see the details. My Greek is really bad so I’m not in a position to make that judgment myself, but I’m not willing to accept Buzzards claim without evidence. I don’t know why there should be such hard feeling since both men are advancing similar claims, and is some cases similar arguments. So, maybe we can get back to doing some philosophy rather than biography.
Matthew,
I’m working on that “blog of my own”. As for:
“My claim was that JCNIG came before both OGOL and TDOTT, and that if had an influence on the former.” I imagine your “if” is supposed to be “it”?
I know Buzzard personally, and I’ve talked with him about JCING – and he (a professor of Greek) said the greek was bad. Secondly it is widely known that VPW did not have a doctorate from an accredited school. The quick google of VPW leads to cult identification.
The point is, someone who isn’t trained in a field cannot make truly meaningful statements about information based solely on that field. NT Greek is one of these situations.
JohnO,
Perhaps you should get a blog of your own so that you’ll have room to defend all of the claims that you’ve been making around here.
I have no idea what Buzzard thinks of JCING but I don’t think it matters much. My claim was that JCNIG came before both OGOL and TDOTT, and that if had an influence on the former. That’s a simple empirical fact.
I’m surprised that you find JCING horrible if you like OGOL and TDOTT since all of the books contain a lot of the same arguments and evidence. If you are going to claim that the former is horrible and that the Greek sucks, then you should provide some evidence to support your claim. A quick google of Wierwille’s name would tell you that he took clases at the University of Chicago Divinity School and graduated with a Masters of Theology from Princeton Theological Seminary. So, it’s not as if he had “no training at all.” Of course it’s of little matter what training he had because when doing philosophy we try and restrict ourselves to attacking arguments and not the man who made them.
“Victor Paul Wierwille’s Jesus Christ is not God” is a horrible book. Buzzard does not see VPW as a forerunner of anything.
VPW’s book is horrible on nearly every account. The arguments chosen are horrible. His greek work is really sloppy and in cases untrue. He has no training at all.
Buzzard’s books are very “stream of conciousness” feeling I will agree. But it handles every scripture that trinitarians use to show that Jesus is God.
The participant here maybe interested in fact that we will have, on The Narrow Mind, Jehovah’s Witness apologists Greg Stafford. This show will be live, Wednesday, Sept. 27. 9-10am PST.
Also, that Tuesday (9/26), R.K. McGregor Wright will be our guest, discussion “Trinitarian Theology at the Center of Christianity.” This will be a two-hour program, 5-7 PST.
The phone lines will be open for both programs. Go here for a list of upcoming shows.
Oh, I meant to mention that I’m a little generous when it comes to the polemics in these books. They are written by folks that have been called heretics (and worse) for years, they are a very excluded minority, some have split from mainline denominations, and I think their a little tired of not getting a seat at the table. It isn’t just philosophers who have ignored these positions, but theologians and pastors too. The only ones that pay much attention are the cult awareness networks who can hardly be counted on to give someone a charitable interpretation, and whose own work is often polemical.
Buzzard’s book is a little uneven too. The book doesn’t have a well ordered feel, but seems more like something slapped together. I suspect he would have faired better had he had a decent editor. That said I like a lot of his points, some of which were new to me, and I love the title. Victor Paul Wierwille’s Jesus Christ is not God was a forerunner of both Buzzard’s The Doctrine of the Trinity and One God and One Lord, and it had to have had a serious influence on atleast the later of the two. I’ve heard good things about J. Gwyn Griffith’s Triads and Trinity too. I guess I’ll have to sit back and wait for discussion of those to come around. 😉
Yeah, I’ve read Buzzard. A little too polemical for my tastes, but worth discussing for sure. Also, you gotta love the title he picked for his book. 😉 I hope to discuss his and related views, after I keep my promise to go through what Christian philosophers have done in the last, I don’t know, 30 years or so. As Matthew points out, they’re (usually) inclined to solve difficulties with what they know best – lots of fancy distinctions, and the application of the latest logical and metaphysical theories. This, of course, has been going on since… at least Origin, I suppose.
Matthew great to have a third monothiest here. And Dale and Jeff it’s the first post in the series. She posted like 8 times on virgin birth – I can only imagine she’ll beat that for the trinity (no pressure vynette 😛 ).
And you two – if you want a challenge – go read The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound by Sir Anthony Buzzard (cousin of JAT Robinson who was a bishop in the Anglican church).
“Their type of theology (and anything resembling the Racovian Catechism) has been pretty well ignored by contemporary Christian philosophers.”
Well I like to think that’s not exactly true since I’m one of those types. The worst aspect is that many Christian philosophers today would deny that we are Christian at all. There isn’t much philosophically interesting about explaining the nature of a God who is monotheistic in the narrowist sense. At least nothing on the level of what Trinitarians have to explain. The interesting bits for us come in explaining things like atonement.
I’ll agree with the ignored part! They don’t know we exist. Our people are routinely kicked out of churches for not believing in the trinity. Hard to imagine that of all the letters to pagan nations and the book of Acts, they never preached a trinity in order to be a christian and yet now it is mandatory.
Dale, I assume you like reading, so I’ll give you another book you’ll like from our perspective: The Doctrine of the Trinity: Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound by Sir Anthony Buzzard.
Thanks, JohnO. I do plan, at some future date, to go through the theology argued in One God and One Lord. It’ll take me a while to get there, though, as I’m starting at the more traditional end of the spectrum, and there’s a long way to go. Their type of theology (and anything resembling the Racovian Catechism) has been pretty well ignored by contemporary Christian philosophers.
I am a Biblical unitarian (not at all to be confused with UU). The CES people are “cousins” I guess. I agree with them on the issue of who God is (and isn’t). I’m not too sure exactly how much I would otherwise agree with them. I don’t have any contact with them, although some of the people I know do.
Hi John,
Are you a “Biblical Unitarian”, as in the truthortradition website, One God & One Lord, etc?
*raises hand* – I’m a non-mainstream commentor. I’ve changed my beliefs before in the face of error, and have no problem doing so. If you truly believe that I am in error talk to me. And I’ll defend what I believe – and you can show me why you think I’m wrong.
Comments are closed.