Yet another round from Steve Hays.
This is my last entry in the discussion; I may or may not comment, but no more posts.
Again, this is what I hear from him:
- Yes, the divine nature is a universal, shared by the Three. But let’s not make any Platonic assumptions about forms/universals being in some other realm than what has them, or being more fundamental.
Indeed, let’s not.
Are the persons parts of the Trinity, for him?
He brings up the Mandelbrot set. This is an abstract object. It doesn’t have parts, but rather members. Is he suggesting that the Trinity is a set, with members rather than parts? That it has infinite members? I don’t know.
Then, a digression about analogy. Of course, my point was: don’t you think God is literally a self? (Not: Is God analogous to a self?)
Perhaps he assumes that all terms that apply to God do so only analogically? I think that’s obviously false; we have terms that express concepts abstract to be satisfied by either God or a creature. e.g. “exists,” “conscious,” “similar to God.”
Or maybe he’s just worried about painting himself into the Quaternity corner.
I think Tuggy is now insinuating that the Trinity devolves into the Quaternity.
There goes that Tuggy again, insinuating things about the doctrine! No, the subject is just: what Steve Hays thinks.
The Trinity would not be a “self” in the same sense that the constituent members are “selves.” The Trinity is not a fourth person, over and above the three persons. Rather, each person is conscious of what the other two are conscious of. Not just that each person is conscious of the other two persons, but conscious of their consciousness.
So no, the Trinity isn’t a self in the same sense each person is. This conveniently leaves it an open question whether or not it is a self in any other sense, and whether it’s literally a self, or only analogous to a self.
But perhaps his final answer is that it (the Trinity) really is an it, not a he.
The “owner” of the “corporate viewpoint” is each member of the Trinity. That’s because each person not only has his own first-person viewpoint, but is also privy to the viewpoint of the other two.
I conclude, then, that in his view there are three, not four conscious beings here, and three points of view. It’s just that each also can (and always does, I assume) adopt the viewpoint of both the others.
About his “data” of revelation; he’s unable to see that some of these are precisely what are at issue. In other words, he begs the question, because he’s not able to adopt the perspective of those he would refute.
Now, finally: I switch to brief criticism: This looks to me basically like a poorly developed “social” Trinity theory. We have three beings here, each of which fully has the property of divinity. Thus, it looks like we have three gods. Yes, I know that surely he intends it to be monotheistic. So, the theory seems inconsistent.
What is the Trinity? A group? A composite thing? A set with members? A quasi-self? He doesn’t know. But it seems that he wants to deny the one God to literally be a self. If so, he goes hard against the Bible, throughout. God knows, acts, gets mad, makes and carries out plans, stands in an I-thou relationship to Jesus, as well as to disciples of Jesus. Further, I’m willing to bet that like just about all Christians, he interacts with God as a self to a self.
Evidently, Steve hopes that positing perfect mental access between the three deities will somehow imply their being one god. But, that has not been shown. It looks like a picture of three gods with perfect access to each others’ minds.
I think this is all a poor fit with the Bible.
But laying aside that, is it creedally orthodox? Not clear. While the creeds say that all three must be “homoousios”, they also say that the Son is true God from true God. In Steve’s theory, does the Son derive his existence or divinity from the Father? I don’t know. All he’s said is that all three equally and fully possess divinity. So, I don’t know if his theory is orthodox by (small-c) catholic standards.
Update: as of 7/5/11, lots more long posts, with lots of accusations, flailing away to find some obvious confusion in my own views, but never addressing this monotheism objection. To the creedal worry, his answer is that being a Protestant, he doesn’t care if it is creedal or not. Fair enough. I’ve commented quite a bit over there, probably too much.
Hi. This goes back to the Capodiacan interpretations of the Fourth Century. Gregory of Naz called this problem you refer to a “monstrous dilema” in his “ON NOT THREE GODS”. In my opinion he (among others) developed the theory of the depersonalization of God, making “Him” an “It” to get around this problem. And the rest is history.
You have hit the bulls eye with this one I believe. Three “Persons” = conscious selves/selfs – but – one individual “God.” “God” no longer is “one” or an individual “self”. They want to have their cake and eat it.
I thought it did since you have 3 Persons + the 1 Being/Essence.
Hi Dale, I agree that you should not waste your time conversing on anybody’s site who feels that it is their “pastoral duty” to call you a henchman for the devil. You can find plenty of Trinitarians such as Bill Hasker who will converse with you while following etiquette according to the rules of academic debate.
I also agree with you that it is foolhardy to throw out all concepts of numerical identity, especially in regards to spatial objects.
Hi Noah,
Thanks – always glad to have students reading trinities!
I’m sorry, I can’t agree that I left a lot of important, on-target points on the table – other than those by the thoughtful and clear-headed Paul Manata, which I hope to return to (will probably post here when I do). He’s pushing far down the mystery-defense track.
About numerical identity being required – you must ask: required for what? Here’s one thing (scroll way down to my long comment); this is partly why I say we’re all committed to it. Rejecting it because of its feared theological consequences is foolhardy, when you see how basic it is to our conceptual repertoire. Nearly all philosophers agree, btw – even those like Brower and Rea, who make very careful, limited used of a concept of numerical sameness without identity.
Dr. Tuggy
Touche on the ‘no offense’ statement. In many ways it is mere rhetoric used in attempting to soften the offense.
I’m well aware that you probably have many papers to write and other professor related tasks, but wouldn’t it be better to say that than attacking Steve as being a ‘shameful abuse[r]’ or that he has slandered you (since those things themselves are being debated in a way (i.e. are unitarians heretical/Christians even))?
As far as Steve not understanding you or ‘knowing his stuff’, I’m not sure that is the case. I don’t think you have shown numerical identity as being required (or a priori the case, I know it has quite a lot of support philosophically, but Steve’s point that Scripture should overturn our presuppositions seems right to me (and possibly to you in many cases)) and you seem to be trying to pigeon hole his theory into those you’re used to (i.e. social trinitarianism, your quibbles over ‘self,’ etc.). Steve would raise objections and then you would tend to repeat what you said and Steve would as well, causing somewhat of stand still and times. I’m not so sure that’s the best tactic, but then again I’m just an undergrad ;). I’ve been reading basically all the combo between you two and your typical response to Steve’s exegesis was to punt the problem to some unitarian work or paper you are working on. You also left several of Paul’s very good, in my opinion, points/observations and arguments unanswered (maybe because you forgot about earlier posts since Steve kept bringing up new ones). I am biased here, but to me you didn’t seem to have many cogent responses to Steve’s arguments or exegesis. I do look forward to reading your coming papers on the topics to see if any of my questions/issues are answered.
Noah, Isn’t it interesting how often the words “No offense, but” are followed by something offensive. 🙂
About Steve’s arguments… Experience has taught me that they’re not worth my time to parse. They turn out to be a combo of blustered assertion, confusion, and an embarrassing amount of spite.
About the confusions: he still doesn’t admit that he too presupposes, indeed his arguments need the concept of numerical identity. He still imagines he has some other concept which is not quite = but which should count as numerical sameness. He’s still confused about the point that if A = B, then it can’t also be that something else which isn’t =A is also =B. He simply has no answer to the tritheism problem for his view. And absurdly, he poses as the noble defender of trinitarianism, when there are lots of trinitarians who understand all these points, and build their theories accordingly.
That he’s mean, doesn’t ruin my day – I have pretty thick skin. That he doesn’t know this stuff, doesn’t bother me. I spent thousands of words in explaining this and that. That he consistently pays back clear argument and plain-spoken explanations with abuse and grandstanding, shows me that he’s wasting my time.
I wish him the best, but I’ve got stuff to do.
Watch – this comment ought to be good for a couple more flaming posts. Let me suggest a title: TUGGY: BOCK BOCK BOCK. Of course, if it were on my blog, it’d have this too.
😉
No offense Dr. Tuggy,
but how is that not just a lazy cop-out (and an ad hominem)? Steve’s post contained quite a few arguments that can’t be waved away as mere ‘shameful abuse.’ Did you really expect Steve and other trinitarians, like myself, to welcome your unitarianism with open arms because you’ve come to that position after much reading and thoughtful reflection? Heresy is heresy no matter how one comes to it. If you deny the Trinity, you deny God (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), and thus you are not from God but of the devil. You are either for God or against God. Assuming Trinitarianism is true and linked with verses like Luke 10:16, Matthew 12:30, etc. seems to make the argument go through pretty clearly. Given this, Steve’s remarks concerning you being a ‘flunky of the devil’ or a ‘Christ-hater’ are not slanderous on his position. You may not like what Steve is calling you, but that’s irrelevant to the argument he presents (assuming that’s what you were going after with the James reference, which concerns fellow believers, something Steve, I, and other Trinitarians don’t include unitarians as). How are you not like a little child whining to his friends because another kid on the playground called him a name he didn’t like?
Hi Dale
In his blog, David Waltz used the words “…..
..and that of true ‘sola’ scripturians who draw their conclusions about the Christian doctrine of God “from the Bible alone””.
And herein lies the problem -protestants perform an infinite variety of ‘gymnastics’ to ‘prove’that their doctrine is in the Bible.!!!
Thus we have people like Hays telling us that the Trinity is referred to in Isaiah, or The Shema etc.
Hays pompous verbisity reflects the frustration that he must feel at having to justify his conclusions ‘from thin air’. We all know his counter-arguments – but find them less than credible.!
In his rage at being challenged, Hays has allowed his ‘mask’ to slip down just a little- and reveal a very nasty man!
His whole agenda is fear driven – and he is attempting to instill fear into his audience.
Most of us have moved beyond that nonsense!
What does one say to someone who states publically “I think Dale is a flunky of the Devil”!!!!!!!!
Shame on you Hays!!
I hope you find peace- and grace one day!
My first reaction to Hays is “is there any hope for the human race?’
(Hays would of course give me a snug self-righteous response.)
When the history books are written one day , they will reveal that there were seekers after truth , who carried the ‘light’ fearlessly through a dark world
Dale, you are one such person!
Blessings
John
I think I’m done – he has little to offer but shameful abuse. Why should I invite him to sin further? That would make me culpable, and would shed little light on these matters.
Reformed epologists like Mr. Hays are in the unenvious position of having to defend a ‘half-way house’ theology—and this is especially so, concerning the doctrine of the Trinity. John Henry Newman dealt a mortal blow to the consensus theory among Trinitarians that the doctrine was not only a clear, explicit teaching of the Bible, but was also clear, explicit teaching of the pre-Nicene Church Fathers—both are inaccurate. Honest scholars now admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is a development, with many also acknowledging that it is but one of the possible developments from the material presented in the Bible, and early Church history.
So, Hays is stuck between the Catholic/EO position which insists that the Bible, and the doctrine of God, needs an infallible teaching magisterium, and that of the ‘true’ sola scripturians who draw their conclusions about the Christian doctrine of God from the ‘Bible alone’.
Grace and peace,
David
I apologize again for a typo:
I suppose that one of the biggest ancient hallmarks [of] orthodoxy was that the Trinity was one substance, not merely one divided substance but one indivisible substance. Perhaps Steve proposes one divided divine substance instead of one indivisible substance. If he proposes one divided substance, then I suppose that he would be a social trinitarian tritheist, which would not be creedally orthodox.
I suppose that one of the biggest ancient hallmarks orthodoxy was that the Trinity was one substance, not merely one divided substance but one indivisible substance. Perhaps Steve proposes one divided divine substance instead of one indivisible substance. If he proposes one divided substance, then I suppose that he would be a social trinitarian tritheist, which would not be creedally orthodox.
Dale
As I understand things -Steve Hays is positing a ‘dressed up’ form of tritheism.
If the ‘persons’ referred to posess perfect mental access how is it that some of them do not know things that the others know.?
Trinitarians are yet to come up with a cohesive and coherent theory that is scripturally defensible and can be understood by persons of avarage intelligence.
This is a scary chap- I’m glad I live in the twentyfirst century !!
Blessings
John
Comments are closed.