podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation

By Jove! I think I’ve got it. The real reason why Dale Tuggy has only evasively replied to my first comment of July 18, and has simply ignored the first of my questions (“… if the “trinity” is so poorly represented in the NT (if at all), why did Protestants defend it, tooth and claw?”) is that, contrary to what it would be normal to expect from the title and – even more – the contents of his podcast 189 (“The unfinished business of the Reformation”), Tuggy has never entirely abandoned hope that some day someone will “finish the business”, that is come up with a “theory of the trinity” that is satisfactory, in terms of “consistency”, “intelligibility”, and “fit with the Bible”. A confirmation of what I am saying may be found in a journal article by Tuggy of 2003. Here are the abstract and title:

Abstract: In recent years, many resourceful thinkers have brought a new clarity to the issues surrounding the doctrine of the Trinity. Two incompatible families of Trinitarian doctrine have been clearly distinguished: Social Trinitarianism and Latin Trinitarianism. I argue here that no theory in either camp has yet evaded the triune pitfalls of inconsistency, unintelligibility, and poor fit with the Bible. These two main approaches appear to be hopeless, and I argue that appeals to ‘mystery’ are no way to avoid the difficulties at hand. Thus, the Trinitarian project is as yet unfinished [emphasis added]. (The Unfinished Business of Trinitarian Theorizing, Dale Tuggy, Religious Studies, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Jun., 2003), pp. 165-183, Cambridge University Press )

What if his “Strict Unitarianism” (while his “core business” continues to be examining ad comparing “trinities, theories about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”) is just a stage on the way to “finishing the business”?

Good clear talk, as usual and now expected of Dale. I have my usual quibbles, however, about some of the logical approach used here, particularly with respect to “the New Testament writers were Unitarian”. Let’s ask a different question: were the New Testament writers Unitarian in the same way that, say, Zedekiah was a Unitarian? The keyword to unpack the development toward Triune God advocacy of late fourth century Christianity, is “hitherto”. From a Jewish pre-Christian perspective, the core of the faith was Yahweh – all of his major qualities are included in that space and presumed unassignable, including creation, salvation, judgement, cosmic rule, etc. The “central religious space” in the Jewish mind would have been filled with this being along with his presumed non-attributable qualities. So the religious core, or “hub”, appears identical to Yahweh.
However, as it turns out, it isn’t. Some of those qualities can be shared and even be given to the Messiah and executed through an individuated Spirit. Extraordinarily, and in the wake of three important mutations:

– Early resurrection and cosmic rule of Messiah by God
– Worship of Jesus alongside God
– Participative/collaborative eschatological kingdom age

… a fourth mutation has occurred in the Jewish Christian sect: the triune Hub, filling up the same space Yahweh used to fill, now comprising God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Hitherto, that was not the case. Henceforth, it is understood to be so (including the historical prosopological reinterpretation).
Further factors fuelling this first-century emergence of a Triune Hub can also be identified, including the need to demarcate Jesus’ baptism of Spirit from John’s, a prior acceptance of the Jewish community of the divine Logos category, and some ambiguity around the LXX translation for Yahweh. I really like also Hurtado’s simple claim that no longer is possible to speak of God for more than a verse or three in the New Testament before returning to Jesus and vice versa.

Given the likelihood of a first-century trinity of this order, I believe it is misleading to presume no reconfiguration of the divine ordering, which later centuries will interpret via substance with a view to its defense in that setting. This was certainly not without its flaws, as Richard Winfield states in “From Concept to Objectivity: Thinking through Hengel’s Subjective Logic”, p. 36: “The appeal to substance not only begs the question, but undermines itself through the vitiating circularity of allowing what makes something determinate to be already determinate”. I can list along with any Unitarian who cares to join me a fair few more problems. HOWEVER, if fourth-century Triune God advocacy is rather an expression of a mutated Hub of the Jewish faith, then writing off first-century trinitarianism might actually be as guilty of importing fourth-century ideas as the Jesus is God apologists.

Thanks.

Hi Dale, I appreciate both oral communication and the written communication. When is comes to analyzing 15 points, I do much better analyzing written communication because I am a snail slow note taker. Pax, Jim

Dale, I would also like to add to your list the following two observations
A: Lack of explicit teaching (as opposed to ‘mentions’) in Paul on the Trinity or ‘deity of Christ’ (he would need several chapters in eg Romans / 1 Corinthians)
B: Lack of any mention of the so-called ‘deity of Christ’ in the preaching in Acts (especially surprising if belief in the ‘deity of Christ’ is essential for NT salvation, as many evangelicals suppose)