Congratulations to both debaters on a fight well fought. (Here’s all the commentary.) Plenty of punches, thrown hard, relatively few low blows – two worthy opponents. Certainly, the fight must be decided on points, as there was no decisive knockout. Both debates are in different ways very impressive, and I learned a lot from both.
Kudos to C. Michael Patton and Parchment and Pen for hosting the debate.
I hope you readers out there enjoyed my commentary on the debate. I sometimes got naggy or nerdy, and always expressed myself with typical lack of tact, but I tried to be helpful, and to show the helpfulness of philosophy and logic in thinking through these things.
In this last post in the series, a few concluding reflections on the debate.
Looking back on this debate, I see that I’ve ended up where I began: wondering what Bowman thinks the Trinity doctrine is. This, after all the debate was about whether or not the Bible teaches that.
Burke argued that the Bible teaches what I call humanitarian unitarianism (he calls it “biblical unitarianism”) – roughly, that the one God of Israel is the Father, whereas the Lord Jesus is a human being and his unique Son, and the Holy Spirit is God’s power. I understand what Burke argued for, and if it is true, then nothing that can claim to be an orthodox Trinity theory is true. But I don’t, in the end, understand Bowman’s view.
I flagged this issue at the start. As the debate wore on, I settled on the interpretation that each of the Three just is (is numerically identical to) God, and yet each of the three is not identical to either of the other two. I stuck with this interpretation, all the way to the bitter end. And yet, I never did like this interpretation – Bowman is a smart guy, and it is not charitable to interpret anyone, much less smart guys, as (even implicitly) contradicting themselves. Still, it seemed to best fit his claims, his lists of propositions he offered as definitions of the doctrine, and his defense of the apparent contradictoriness of the doctrine in the comments following Burke’s last post.
Why, then, does Bowman think of the “persons” as three something-or-others in some sense “in” God? These “persons”, he insists, are not selves (thinking and acting things, things each with a first person perspective on the world), because they are not things/entities/substances, and every self is a certain kind of entity. Bowman wants to say that God isn’t in this sense a “person”, though God is “personal” in that God “contains” three “persons”. What is such a “person”? He doesn’t know. I don’t either.
I might have guessed that Bowman is, like some theologians, a modalist – holding the “persons” to be ways God is, lives, or acts. (This is common – in eschewing “modalism” most theologians mean only to deny that the persons never overlap in time, or that they are merely appearances.)
But this interpretation doesn’t make sense either. It seems Bowman considers God to be a self, and Jesus to be a self. And, Jesus and God are one and the same (numerically identical). Same what? Same god, same divine self. That’s the point of all the divine titles, deeds, honors, etc. – those can only belong to the one god, God. If they belong to Jesus (as Bowman urges) that’s because God is who Jesus is. And yet, surely he assumes that Jesus just is the Son of God. But the Son of God is one of the three “persons” in God, and so is not a self, not a thinking and acting thing. I don’t get it. I wish I did.
You can argue till you’re blue in the face that the Bible teaches X. But if I don’t grasp what you mean by X, I can never be persuaded by you. Burke argued that the Bible teaches Y, and it is clear enough that if Y then not-X, and Y consists of claims A, B, and C, each of which I understand. Still working on X, though. Thus, Burke wins the debate, in my view.
I understand this much about Bowman’s position – he’s defending evangelical talk about God and Jesus. And thinking (sometimes?) of Jesus as just being God himself. And he holds that only his view remains faithful to the Bible – to all of it, and that this is the only humble view, whereas others proudly and unjustifiably discard some of what the Bible says.
But is it humble to rest in an apparently contradictory interpretation of the various texts? This comment by Bowman was telling:
As a debater, I could be pleased by the approach that you took to this debate, since in terms of the debate your approach has played into my hands. …Consistent with anti-Trinitarianism in all of its forms, over a third of your closing statement focuses on what you correctly describe as “the argument from reason.” In addition, four of the ten bulleted points articulating the superiority of Unitarianism to Trinitarianism with which you begin your closing statement are rooted in this argument from reason. Yet the debate is supposed to focus on which of our positions best reflects the teachings of the Bible.
Bowman thought that Burke had wasted much of his closing statement on concerns about what is consistent, as if this were irrelevant to interpreting the Bible. But normally, for all of us, Bowman included, that an interpretation is apparently contradictory is a weighty reason to avoid it. Why, then, accept it here? I think a factor in many people’s thinking is the idea that what Bowman was urging is the majority report of Christianity through the ages. There’s a kind of complacency that comes from being in the mainstream… or at least thinking you’re in the mainstream.
But the evangelical habit of putting things in terms of who “is God” is inherently unclear (because, oddly enough, of that innocent looking little word “is”) and does no justice to the rich history of debate on the status and relations between especially the Father and the Son of God. As we saw in round 5, 2nd & 3rd century guys thought Jesus was “divine” or shared the divine substance, but clearly distinguished between him and God, holding him to be lesser than God in several ways (power, glory, authority, time of existence, even goodness). Again, in the 4th c., as my co-blogger J.T. Paasch so clearly lays out, they didn’t identify Jesus and God. (See e.g. his concluding post.) True, evangelical spirituality involves thinking of Jesus as God, and evangelical apologists like Bowman speak out for “historic Christian orthodoxy”, but the realities of the catholic tradition are what they are, immovably laid down in black and white, and they refute the idea that the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is numerically identical to God. But we should already have known that – some things are true of one, that are not true of the other!
Some people have wondered what my view of all this is. Some point later this summer, I’m intending to do a series about the evolution of my views on the Trinity, so stay tuned if you’re curious.
But on one level, my view is that both Bowman and Burke believe in God, and endeavor to follow God’s Son, in all aspects of their lives, in community with other disciples. I assume then, that both are children of God, reborn, destined for eternal life with God and his people. Yes, they have conflicting theories about God and his Son and Spirit/spirit, and they interpret the Bible somewhat differently. I assume that God doesn’t view either as an idolater or unbeliever, and that he looks at each a good bit less harshly than each (sometimes) looks at the other. Someday, over a nice beer ale, we’ll be able to sit in a pub somewhere with Jesus at the table, and he can enlighten either Bowman or Burke (or both – their positions are contrary, not contradictory – both can’t be true, but logically, both could be false) about where they went wrong. At least one will be profoundly embarrassed, probably shed a tear, but Jesus will be gentle, and if there is a “winner” he won’t rub it in, and in ten or maybe ten thousand years perhaps it’ll largely be forgotten.
Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that both views are true (that’d be too much paradox for any of us), or that they are equally reasonable, or that this debate doesn’t matter, or that one’s views on the Trinity have no important practical consequences. I firmly deny all these things.
What I’m saying is that this is an argument between siblings, and so is not like the showdown between Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Our older brother, then, is at bottom a friend of both sides, and we should gladly follow him in this, whatever our theories may be. The contempt that so easily slips in – we should let it go. Argue on, brothers.
Mario
Wery well put.
Confirms my innermost feelings!
Blessings
John
@ John
“My poor mind can only conjure up the image of ‘conjoined twins’. (…) I guess that I am assuming the equivalence of ‘brain’ and ‘consciousness’”
Like here (http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/3745806-3×2-700×467.jpg)? By Jove! You got it! How would this be unthinkable and/or conceptually inappropriate?
“According to my model, we have two unique identities and the divine nature. The Father as the source of the divine nature. The Son has it by inheritance.”
The problem is: what is, according to you, this “divine nature” that Jesus would have “by inheritance”? In a human father-son relationship, we call it “genome”. If the father is God, and the son is Jesus, what is it that he has from the Father “by inheritance”? BTW, do you perchance (while rejecting the “trinity”) affirm the “pre-existence of the son”? If this was the case, would you consider the “pre-existence of the son” compatible with Unitarianism?
“You reject the fully fledged Trinity of the Cappadocian scoundrels but are you accepting another model which is not outright Unitarianism?”
I am well familiar with the history of Christian doctrines. So I affirm that the full-fledged “trinity” of the 4th century (the “one ousia, three hypostases” of the Cappadocian scoundrels) is the consequence of the “original sin” of “flirting” with the Philonian notion of deuteros theos, applied to God’s logos (as early as Justin Martyr), to which the “subordinationist trinity” (of Tertullian and Origen, just to name two) inevitably followed, to which Arian notion of “created Son” followed. To “remedy” all this mess, there were IMO only two alternatives …
1. To affirm that Jesus is the incarnation of the logos (John :1-18), which logos is NEITHER a “co-eternal, co-equal person”, NOR “pre-existent” as a person, BUT an eternal essential attribute of God (and the other eternal essential attribute is God’s Spirit), which would have been logical, rational, transparent and in line with the Scriptural data;
2. To affirm the full-fledged “trinity”, which is (perhaps) not illogical, but is certainly irrational, obscure and certainly NOT drawn from Scriptural data, other than with a lot of twisting and turning.
… unfortunately no.2 was chosen by the entirety of Christianity. Still predominantly is.
I have chosen no.1 …
Mario
It’s very difficult to imagine these ‘fantastic’ beings . My poor mind can only conjure up the image of ‘conjoined twins’.
In the simplest case we have two brains sharing a variety of organs which are necessary for their survival.
There is no doubt here – two brains, two consciousnesses , two independenty acting and thinking ‘selves’
two souls. two ‘identities’.
Imagine now a being who has only one head but two conjoined bodies. Surely we only have ONE brain one consciousness -one ‘self’ , one soul, one ‘identity.’?
One can conclude ., one identity per ‘brain’.
The whole thing can devolve into a debate about the definition of terms . I guess that I am assuming the equivalence of ‘brain’ and ‘consciousness’
Going back to the Trinity – we have
The Father – an independent thinking and acting being with a unique identity
The Son —an independently thinking and acting being with a different unique identity
Holy Spirit – not a parson
According to my model, we have two unique identities and the divine nature
The Father as the source of the divine nature
The Son has it by inheritance.
NO Trinity
You reject the fully fledged Trinity of the Cappadocian scoundrels but are you accepting another model which is not outright Unitarianism?
Blessings
John
@ Sean
In case of any doubt on your part, let my be clear about this: I abhor, not only the full-fledged “trinity” (that Jefferson ascribes to Athanasius, and I rather think is the “masterpiece” of the three Cappadocian scoundrels), but also the “preliminaries”, from Justin Martyr’s deuteros theos, through Tertullian and Origen, all the way to the two Eusebii, well into the 4th century.
This being premised, while I much admire, in many ways, Thomas Jefferson, I find his a.m. quotation highly inconsistent: one may abhor the “trinitarian god”, find it scripturally unfounded, etc. BUT, if one says that it can be analogized “like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads”, how can one say, at the same time, that it is “a hocus-pocus phantasm”, “that no candid man can say he has any idea of it”?
The image of Cerberus is repellent (and if this is one’s problem, one can replace it, perhaps, with a three-headed swan – http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Uu1PDtV3q4Q/TEiWaDawSGI/AAAAAAAAAEI/QVE1IyYselk/s1600/threeheadedswan03+copy.jpg), NOT illogical.
@Mario:
I was surprised that Craig used Cerberus to try and analogize the Trinity, because Thomas Jefferson famously used the same analogy to criticize it!
“Nor was the unity of the Supreme Being ousted from the Christian creed by the force of reason, but by the sword of civil government, wielded at the will of the fanatic Athanasius. The hocus-pocus phantasm of a God like another Cerberus, with one body and three heads, had its birth and growth in the blood of thousands and thousands of martyrs…. In fact, the Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it, and how can he believe what presents no idea?” (Thomas Jefferson, December 8, 1822)
Almost two hundred years later Jefferson’s words still hold true: “…no candid man can say he has any idea of it…”
~Sean
Hi John, and thank you for welcoming me back.
There is a way of picturing the “orthodox trinity” in its full ‘co-equality , co-eternality and consubstantiality’ version, although most “orthodox trinitarians” prefer to ignore it because they feel embarrassed by it. It is proposed (and IMO, reasonably argued for) by William Lane Craig, in his online article at reasonablefaith.org, “A Formulation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Trinity” (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity). Essentially, the image is based on the well known mythical Cerberus, the three-headed “hellhound”.
Here are the start and the end of the “juicy bit” of Craig’s article:
” In Greco-Roman mythology there is said to stand guarding the gates of Hades a three-headed dog named Cerberus. We may suppose that Cerberus has three brains and therefore three distinct states of consciousness of whatever it is like to be a dog. Therefore, Cerberus, while a sentient being, does not have a unified consciousness. He has three consciousnesses. We could even assign proper names to each of them: Rover, Bowser, and Spike. (…) Now if we were asked what makes Cerberus a single being despite his multiple minds, we should doubtless reply that it is because he has a single physical body.”
Then, William Lane Craig goes on to “[s]uppose … that God is a soul which is endowed with three complete sets of rational cognitive faculties, each sufficient for personhood.”
Of course, it is rather difficult to reconcile this image with the “eternal generation” of “god-the-son” and with the “eternal spiration” of “god-the-holy-spirit”. Perhaps one would have to picture the “head” of “god-the-son” as … er … “popping out” of the head of the “father”, and the “head” of “god-the-holy-spirit” as equally “popping out” of the head of “god-the-father”. If you add the “filioque” clause, the image would become even more complicated, with “god-the-holy-spirit” “popping out” from BOTH the head of “god-the-father” and the head of “god-the-son”.
Howzat?
Hi Mario,
Nice to see you back at Trinities!
I’wasn’t arguing for Catholic dogma – I certainly do not believe in ‘co-equality , co-eternality or consubstantiation’ of the alleged parties of the ‘Godhead’
One can understand , that this thinking leads to the theory of Relative Identity.- without accepting the theory
The idea of ‘three fold consciousnesses ‘ is absurd – even if I eliminate the idea about one of them being functionally dominant !
The idea that one ‘brain’ begets another – and one of them calls the other ‘the only true God’ must alert one to something being very wrong.
To be absolutely honest the concept of numerical identity is the only thing that makes any sense to me and from what I can see it eliminates the possibilty of a Trinity ‘
Am I wrong?
Blessings
John
@ John
“The theory of three consciousnesses implies that one consciousness – or ‘brain’ is functionally dominant and begets another , while a third emerges via spiration. One of these self-consciousnesses even calls another ‘the ONLY true God’.”
No, there is no (necessary) implication, unless, of course, you consider the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed (an act of the Church, NOT a scriptural datum) essential to the definition of “trinity”. That a doctrine of “three co-equal, co-eternal, consubstantial persons” does not (necessarily) “imply” the “functional dominance” of one of them over the other is exemplified by John Calvin, whom we may consider a “hyper-trinitarian”, because he rejects any such “dominance” of one “person” over the other two, when confronted by the pastor Pierre Caroli over his orthodoxy, summoned in front of a synod of Swiss local churches, refused to recite the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, even saying that (mine is only a loose, but faithful quotation) the “Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made” bit seemed to him more appropriate for a hymn than for a doctrinal statement.
Charles,
The charge of ‘rationalisation’ or ‘over-intellectualism’ is frequently levelled against Unitarians – but all we are saying is that there is but one God -the Father- and that Christ is His Son.
Compare this with the convuluted confusion that is the ‘Trinity’ i.e.
-three ‘hypostases ‘sharing one ‘ousia ‘- three persons sharing one substance
the problem is is no-one can define ‘persons’ or ‘substance’ in a satisfactory way – and the Catholic
Encyclopedia acknowledges that this approach lacks internal consistency
– The Catholic encyclopedia suggests an alternative model based on The Theory of Relations or
Relative Identity. . Most people find it incomprehensible but it comes down to ‘ a three fold
consciousness knowing itself in three ways in accordance with three modes of existence”
( see The Catholic Encyclopedia -chapter styled “Blessed Trinity -the divine relations”)
To be sure , this model is consistent – but does it make sense.?
The theory of three consciousnesses implies that one consciousness – or ‘brain’ is functionally dominant and begets another , while a third emerges via spiration. One of these self-consciousnesses even calls another ‘the ONLY true God’.
I would challenge you, who is over-intellectualising.!!
To make matters worse, the Trinity is not supported by scripture!
There is but one God the Father and Christ is His Son.
Worship the God that Christ served and worshipped!
Blessings
John
Saying that Jesus is a friend to both sides is pretty ironic. It contains the very conflict it attempts to placate (He isn’t your brother at all if He is God).
You assume a magnanimity that some scriptures might challenge.
(Phinehas in Num 25:7-13, Paul in Gal 1, parables of virgins and talents)
When you have a different God, a different Jesus, a different gospel and hope, I don’t think genuine fellowship is likely. You can be as magnanimous as you like and it isn’t going to change those facts. Every reference to God, every mention of Jesus, every prayer offered will require translation (equivocation).
While I am not advocating determining who is saved and who is not, to continue on together you risk becoming a pretender, a compromiser in the worst sense. And to what end? What are you honoring with this magnanimity? God or an institution? If an institution, how are we not committing the same root error as Trinitarians (fear of man over fear of God)?
You hint at an assumption of the ‘un-knowable-ness’ (and therefore un-culpability?) of it all (both positions might be wrong). It is true that we are separated from the sources by thousands of years, multiple languages, and significant cultural differences, but if we cannot agree that the scriptures are common literature that the authors intended to be understood, what hope is there for any of us?
Isn’t the point of all this mental effort to find the truth? If it is just to demonstrate how smart we are, how gifted we are at clear thinking, heaven help us…
If you cannot say with certainty that Trinitarians are not worshiping the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jesus, what is the point of what you are doing?
This is something only a vocational scholar can afford. The rest of us have to get on with our lives, we have to have something solid to teach our children, we have to actually adopt a useful framework with which to read the Bible.
Having made the transition from being a trinitarian to a unitarian I am sympathetic to the challenges and suffering involved. You risk loosing everything in terms of religious community, family, being branded a heretic… it is a life shaking process. But God, Jesus, and the truth are worth it!
The kind of magnanimity that you are advocating cheapens it. It suggests that you are OK where you are as a Trinitarian, no genuine discipleship necessary, no sacrifice. No need to repent of the fear of man, no need to examine your epistemological roots and return to the Apostolic faith.
Having found the truth, we need to be charitable, granted. No need for contempt. But I’m sometimes doubtful that God shares your magnanimity, especially toward the learned.
Thanks, Dale for providing a forum for Dave to be able to complete his share of the debate according to original intentions. I am very puzzled as to why Rob has not allowed Dave to finish, and why nobody can make any more comments…..and why the votes have still not been called in. This debate raised a lot of interest all around the world, and it has just been suddenly muzzled. Very strange, to say the least. Could it be that Rob is waiting for people to forget it? Should he NOT finish the matter with the world wide grand vote he had so enthusiastically advertised in the beginning of his challenge, perhaps your website could hold its own poll? Had Dave Burke called for the debate, and then suddenly ‘ended’ it this way, no doubt there would have been many Trinitarians crying foul (or perhaps even chicken.:D) Thanks for your virtual (in both senses!) moderation of the debate.
I find it sad that Rob condemned the abundance of Daves final (allowed) rebuttal especially since much of it was necessarily given over to answering the many blatantly false accusations that Rob had levelled at him.
Now if only I knew a Biblical word for “false accuser”…
Dale, could you please delete post #12? Its formatting is all over the place.
Alternatively, if you think this stuff doesn’t belong here, feel free to delete the lot.
Thanks. 🙂
The Argument from Reason (III)
Rob,
Trinitarians are aware of the logical problems presented by their doctrine, but solutions have proved elusive. Consequently, many will admit the problems without attempting any solution, while others try to excuse the problems rationalistically (as you do). Ralph Smith (Trinity and reality: An introduction to the Christian faith, Canon Press, 2004, p.6):
Here Smith boldly affirms the contradiction. Unwilling to apply the same principles of logic that he would apply to almost any other doctrine, he gives the Trinity a free pass. But others have correctly recognised the inconsistency here. John V. Dahms (“How Reliable Is Logic?”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,Volume 21, 1978 (V 21, N 4, p.372):
Pages 373-374:
Dahms also closes the door on the traditional escape routes:
Dahms’ conclusion is a classic case of special pleading; he affirms that the law of contradiction should not be applied universally:
But this only results in further problems for Christian “orthodoxy.” Norman Geisler (“?Avoid All Contradictions: A Surrejoinder To John Dahms”, JETS 22:2 (June 1979) pp.156) replies thus to Dahms:
Geisler has a valid point, but even he cannot reconcile the contradictions Dahms has presented. Instead he takes a different path (p.159):
Between Dahms and Geisler we see that Trinitarianism fails the standard tests of logic and reason that Christians have always applied to almost every other doctrine. Neither Dahms nor Geisler can escape this conclusion. Both attempt rationalistic solutions which consist of little more than special pleading; Dahms says the law of contradiction does not always apply, while for Geisler the only option is to avoid using non-contradiction as a test of truth (“I do believe in tests for truth other than noncontradiction”).
It’s a sorry state of affairs, made worse by another startling admission:
(John H. Fish III, “God the Son”, Emmaus Journal Volume 12, 2003 (1) (34), Dubuque, IA: Emmaus Bible College).
Note the statement in bold: it reflects a point I have been making throughout this entire debate. Trinitarians cannot say that God is the Father, but that is precisely what the apostles do say, and it is repeated throughout the NT.
The Argument from Reason (II)
Rob,
Let’s check a proper list of dictionary definitions, rather than your selectively edited list:
The definitions under “4” and “12” are perfect for Unitarians, and both fall within the realms of normative usage. Note that Trinitarianism gets a mention in “13”, where we find a definition that is very different to the normative usage. Unitarianism requires no special favours from dictionaries.
The fact is that the word “person” is a problem only for Trinitarians. Aquinas openly acknowledged the dilemma facing Trinitarian definitions of God, when he defined God as necessarily “a unity because of the unity of essence; a trinity, because of the three I know not what [trinitatem propter tres nescio quid]” (De Trinitate, 5.8.10).
God, for Aquinas, is necessarily a Trinity because of God’s three “somethings”, but Aquinas is totally at a loss as to how to describe them, since no word is applicable. He can’t even bring himself to use the Latin for “persons.”
You say:
You have missed my point. I didn’t claim that unless it can be substantiated from the Old Testament alone it can’t be Biblical. My point was that since the Trinitarian view of personhood isn’t used in the Old Testament, how can we apply it to the New Testament? Furthermore, I asked how the idea is deduced from Scripture; I did not simply ask how it is deduced from the Old Testament. So not only did you misrepresent me, but you also avoided my question.
You say:
Absolutely false, since C can only be viewed as a valid conclusion if it is held a priori that one being can be three persons, and that persons are not beings. Thus the validity of C is predicated on an assumption which is found nowhere in the Biblical evidence. It is completely non-Biblical.
You say:
Wrong again. Not only was this not my criticism, but the burden of evidence lies on you to prove that it is possible for God to be deity and man concurrently, whilst possessing all the attributes of both. You have not presented any evidence to support this claim, which runs aground on the law of contradiction and breaks up shortly thereafter.
My position on the incarnation is based upon the Biblical evidence I have presented throughout this debate, the Bible-based definition of God and his attributes which I presented in Week 1, and the usual tests of logic and reason which apply to any examination of exegesis and theology.
The Argument from Reason (I)
Rob,
Your claim that I have “played right into your hands” by presenting an argument from reason is frankly absurd. If I was trying to present an argument for my own Christology purely on the basis of logic without any reference to Scriptural evidence, you could have valid grounds for objection. But that is not what I am doing, nor am I trying to rationalise the evidence away.
You say:
Yes, absolutely! That’s why my arguments are fundamentally Bible-based, and that’s why I have repeatedly tested both of our positions against the evidence of Scripture. But I’m sure you’ll agree that our interpretations must also be logically and rationally consistent. As I said in my own closing argument:
I know you subscribe to a form of systematic theology, I know you believe it is important to approach the Bible with a consistent hermeneutical method, I know you believe reason has a part to play in our exegesis of Scripture and I know you seek to avoid self-contradiction. I know all of this because you made it very clear in your Week 1 argument and also in your article here, where you say:
(My emphasis. You may wish to edit that article now our debate is over, since it uses your defunct 6-point Trinity formula from Week 1).
This quote demonstrates two things:
You believe that logic has a legitimate part to play in exegesis and theology
You believe that illogical conclusions (e.g. self-contradictory statements) are to be avoided
But having decided this, you must be consistent; you can’t just wave logic away when it doesn’t suit you. I know you are aware of the logical difficulties presented by Trinitarianism, because your arguments have betrayed an inner tension which remains unresolved. On one hand you have tried to defend the illogical nature of Trinitarianism, referring to it as merely “paradoxical”; on the other hand you assert self-contradictions as if they are perfectly valid (e.g. Jesus is fully God and fully man). This demonstrates that you are fully aware of Trinitarianism’s inherent self-contradictions, but seek to dismiss them by rationalistic means (contrary to your own principles of exegesis).
I think it’s important to review the role of logic and reason in Christian theology to ensure that we are viewing these concepts in the right way and applying them appropriately. A good place to start is your concept of “person” within the context of Trinitarianism. I originally asked for your definition of “person” in Week 1, but you didn’t want to talk about it. Instead you deflected the request with a promise to define “person” and “being” in Week 5. But by the time Week 6 was over, you still hadn’t provided your definition of “person.” I found this very strange; surely “person” and “being” are not difficult words to define? Or are they only difficult to define when you’re trying to fit them into a Trinitarian template?
A fellow Trinitarian eventually extracted a definition of “person” from you during the post-debate discussion. In your defence you “explained” that you hadn’t been able to provide this definition earlier because our word limit was too restrictive. That is not a credible excuse.
There was nothing to stop you providing a definition in one of your rebuttals or counter-rebuttals, since the word limit only applied to our weekly arguments. I used my rebuttals to introduce material I hadn’t been able to fit into my 5,000 word limit, and I even did you a favour by addressing a Trinitarian proof text you had wanted to use in Week 3 but had abandoned due to lack of space (Colossians 1:15-20). You could have done exactly the same with your definitions of “person” and “being”, so you cannot blame our weekly word limit for your (failure? refusal?) to provide the requested definition.
The funny thing is, I didn’t really mind how you chose to answer my question, nor did I care about the details! All I wanted was a working definition so that I could see how it fitted into your personal version of Trinitarianism. You could have said anything you liked, and I would have worked with it. There was no need for prevarication or avoidance.
In the end you chose to argue that the Bible does not present a definition of “person”, which is true but irrelevant, since the Bible shows us how the English word “person” should be applied to those whom we identify as “persons” in the Bible, linguistically. The Bible shows us that the standard English meaning of “person” is applicable, and Trinitarians themselves only ever abandon this standard meaning when speaking of God. This is demonstrably the fallacy of special pleading.
Bowman has closed the debate without warning, which means I wasn’t able to post the Week 6 counter-rebuttal I’ve been working on.
Dale, I hope you won’t mind if I post the first section here. It concerns the argument from reason, which has considerable implications for Bowman’s version of Trinitarianism and the formulae he’s been using.
My rebuttal to Bowman’s Week 6 argument Ma href=”http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/05/the-great-trinity-debate-part-6-rob-bowmans-closing-statement/comment-page-3/#comment-33878>starts here.
My counter-rebuttal to Bowman on my Week 1 argument starts here.
My counter-rebuttal to Bowman on my Week 2 argument starts here.
My counter-rebuttal to Bowman on my Week 3 argument starts here.
My counter-rebuttal to Bowman on my Week 4 argument starts here.
My counter-rebuttal to Bowman on my Week 5 argument starts here.
Dale, can we rest assured by the thought of having a beer with Jesus somewhere in the promised new system of things where he will reveal the truth of the matter to us, IF he is revealing these Biblical things to his sheep right now? His sheep will listen to his voice (John 10:14, 27), though some who claim to be sheep and claim to be doing the things of God apparently will not be recognized by the master. (Mt 7:21-23)
This is clearly serious stuff.
The “we are all just siblings”-thought might come across as really nice, mild or comforting, if it were true, or could lull us into spiritual sleep, while we should be urged to be awake, keeping our sense of urgency. (Mt 24:42-44; Mark 13:32-37; Ro 13:11; 1Th 5:6)
“And this is the eternal life, that they should know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:3, Darby)
Look for the goofy evolution-related pictures. 🙂
Marg, that’s a pretty fortunate position to be in. Good for you! May God bless your continued study of His Word.
🙂
I am definitely curious. But I am almost illiterate when it comes to finding things on-line. Will I find your story by checking in on this particular series?
In the meantime, I can testify that it IS possible for trinitarians and unitarians to dwell together in unity.
I am part of a conservative congregation which is officially trinitarian. But they aren’t familiar with the Athanasian Creed, so they aren’t aware that they ought to excommunicate anyone who doesn’t agree with them.
We all believe that the Bible is infallible, however wrong each of us may be in our understanding of it; and that makes it possible for us to worship (and work) together in love.
With a few minor skirmishes, of course.
Great summary Dale. Thanks for all the work you’ve put into your commentary throughout the debate.
All I was trying to say was: I believe the pub is already open. (But it won’t be open all night.)
“Brethren, the delight of my own heart and my supplication which [I address] to God for them is for salvation. For I bear them witness that they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own [righteousness], have not submitted to the righteousness of God.” (Romans 10:1-3, Darby)
Hi, Dale, I think you are a really nice guy, and I truly enjoyed your commentary. Thanks.
About the evolution of your views: if you are truly sincere, honest, humble and truth-loving, will God be able to enlighten you (Bowman, Burke, me) before the great day? Does He want to? What about Dan. 12:3-4?
“For the day of Jehovah is at hand in the valley of decision.” (Joel 3:14, Darby)
This is not about winning or losing a debate. I believe it is about how we respond to God.
“I drew them with bands of a man, with cords of love; and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I gently caused them to eat.” (Hosea 11:4, Darby)
P.S.
And I think it is rather sad that the letter “n” is the only person in the English alphabet that doesn’t have eyes or hands. 🙁
Comments are closed.