{"id":1715,"date":"2010-04-15T10:25:55","date_gmt":"2010-04-15T14:25:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=1715"},"modified":"2013-11-24T23:33:40","modified_gmt":"2013-11-25T04:33:40","slug":"scoring-the-burke-%e2%80%93-bowman-debate-%e2%80%93-bowman-1-dale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/scoring-the-burke-%e2%80%93-bowman-debate-%e2%80%93-bowman-1-dale\/","title":{"rendered":"SCORING THE BURKE \u2013 BOWMAN DEBATE \u2013 Bowman 1"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignright size-medium wp-image-1718\" title=\"referee-2.jpg\" alt=\"\" src=\"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/referee-2.jpg-217x300.jpg\" width=\"217\" height=\"300\" \/>I take it the purpose of the debate is whether or not &#8220;the&#8221; doctrine of the Trinity is derivable from the Bible.<strong> What is this doctrine, exactly?<\/strong> The burden falls on Bowman to be clear about just what doctrine is in view; he&#8217;s making the positive case. Here&#8217;s <a title=\"Bowman 1\" href=\"http:\/\/www.reclaimingthemind.org\/blog\/2010\/04\/the-great-trinity-debate-part-1-rob-bowman-on-god-and-scripture\/\" target=\"_blank\">what he says<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>1. There is one (true, living) God, identified as the Creator.<br \/>\n2. This one God is the one divine being called YHWH (or Jehovah, the LORD) in the Old Testament.<br \/>\n3. The Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is God, the LORD.<br \/>\n4. The Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, is God, the LORD.<br \/>\n5. The Holy Spirit is God, the LORD.<br \/>\n6. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are each someone other than the other two.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>When a philosopher sees this, he quotes that great thinker, Bill Clinton: <strong>&#8220;It depends on what the meaning of &#8216;is&#8217; is.&#8221;<\/strong> 1 is clear &#8211; that is the &#8220;is&#8221; of existence. 2 is clear &#8211; that is the &#8220;is&#8221; of identity (aka absolute, Leibnizian, or numerical identity). But 3-6 are mushy.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>One option would be to read the &#8220;is&#8221;s is 3-5 and the &#8220;are&#8221; as involving identity (affirmed in 3-5, denied in 6). This would be straight up inconsistent. From f = g, s = g, and h = g, it logically follows that f = s = h &#8211; but on this reading, this last thing is denied in 6.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li>Another option, which I doubt Bowman has in mind, would be to read 3-6 as involving only <em>relative<\/em> identity. 3-5 would say that the various persons are <em>the same being as<\/em> God, but 6 would say that no two of them are <em>the same person as<\/em> each other. This might sound like just what the doctor ordered, but one has to be an uber-sophisticate in logic and metaphysics to pull this off. 2 still seems to involve non-relative identity (numerical sameness, <em>not<\/em> relativized to a kind). Normally, we understand relative identity talk as really involving absolute identity. &#8220;Dubya is the same person and George W. Bush.&#8221; This implies that Dubya is a person, Bush is a person, and Dubya = Bush. So if the Father and Son are the same god, this would mean that the Father is a god, the Son is a god, and the Father = the Son. D&#8217;oh! A relative identity theorist either has to argue that there&#8217;s no such thing as absolute identity (=) or specify how it relates to relative identity relations.<\/li>\n<li><strong>If I had to guess what he&#8217;s thinking<\/strong>, I would guess, based on some things he says about the term &#8220;person&#8221;: as follows. 2 does involve the concept of identity. 3-6 involve modes of this thing mentioned in 1 &amp; 2. Bowman thinks the Father is a mode of God, a way God is. And so on for the Son and Spirit. And these are <em>three<\/em> different modes (6). In short, the Trinity doctrine is that a perfect self, God, exists eternally in three different modes, perhaps personalities, or something like personalities.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Bowman then:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Flies the evangelical flag &#8211; inerrancy, sola scriptura.<\/li>\n<li>Denies not &#8220;hyper-Biblicism&#8221; (no doctrine is authoritative unless <em>explicitly<\/em> spelled out in the Bible).<\/li>\n<li>Heads off the lame-o anti-trinitarian argument that we ought not use <em>any<\/em> non-biblical language. (<strong>Flag<\/strong> &#8211; surely this is a straw man in this debate, as is the previous claim above.)<\/li>\n<li>Argues that the <em>Shema<\/em> is consistent with unitarian and trinitarian theology. The latter, I think, is unclear. And I don&#8217;t think he takes a stand on precisely how he thinks that passage should be understood.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Then, a crucial point:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>I could discuss other proof texts that Biblical Unitarians and other non-Trinitarians cite as proof that God is a unipersonal being, but the result will be the same in each case: such texts typically prove that God is a single being but do not address the specific Trinitarian claim that God is a unipersonal being. Non-Trinitarians typically argue, for example, that it is obvious from the pervasive use of singular pronouns for God (<em>I<\/em>, <em>he<\/em>, <em>him<\/em>, <em>his<\/em>, <em>you<\/em> [sing.]) throughout the Bible that God is only one person. <strong>This argument would be sound if by \u201cperson\u201d we meant an individual being. However, in Trinitarian theology, a divine \u201cperson\u201d is not an individual being<\/strong>, because God is one being, not three. The doctrine of the Trinity cannot be refuted by assuming that it is false; and this is what non-Trinitarians do when they assume that a person can only be an individual being.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Flag &#8211; no, <strong>two flags<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>First, Bowman still doesn&#8217;t clarify what he means by &#8220;person&#8221;. Hence, it is not clear what claims he will be arguing is implied by the Bible.<\/li>\n<li>Second, how is the trinitarian definition of &#8220;person&#8221; relevant to interpretation of the Hebrew word for &#8220;him&#8221;, &#8220;his&#8221; etc. as used by an ancient Jew? I don&#8217;t see any fallacious question-begging here by the other side. <strong>Suppose you were trying to figure out the views of some local Jedis<\/strong> &#8211; what they think this &#8220;Force&#8221; thingee is. Do they call it &#8220;it&#8221;, or &#8220;him&#8221;, or &#8220;her&#8221;. If one of the latter two, they are assuming it is a self. As Ricky Ricardo would say, Bowman has a lot of &#8216;splainin&#8217; to do. (This, by the way, was not a problem for early catholic theologians, as like NT writers, they identified the one God with the Father of Jesus &#8211; which I <em>assume<\/em> Bowman does not.)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Finally, Bowman beats the mysterian drum. He argues that because God can&#8217;t be completely understood, we&#8217;ll run into apparent contradictions in thinking about him.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Flag<\/strong> &#8211; that doesn&#8217;t obviously follow &#8211; apparent <em>non sequitur<\/em> fallacy here. And his examples not having to do with the Trinity don&#8217;t seem apt.<\/p>\n<p>He confesses, then, that there are <strong>&#8220;logical difficulties&#8221; in his view<\/strong> &#8211; that is, apparent contradictions. If so, then my guess above must be wrong, for it is apparently consistent. But Bowman doesn&#8217;t tell us what these are.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Flag<\/strong> &#8211; if you admit that your view is apparently contradictory, please say where exactly &#8211; this will help us to understand your view! He darkly hints that in 6 above &#8220;person&#8221; has &#8220;a somewhat different connotation as compared to its use for human beings&#8221;. I don&#8217;t think he means to say &#8220;connotation&#8221;&#8230; but in any case, how do these meanings of &#8220;person&#8221; differ? I the mundane realm, a person is a self, a thinking thing, a substance with intelligence and will, roughly speaking. What, in contrast, is a divine &#8220;person&#8221;?<\/p>\n<p>He then inveighs against &#8220;approaches to Scripture that <em>a priori<\/em> disallow all mystery, paradox, or incomprehensibility&#8221;. <strong>Flag<\/strong> &#8211; isn&#8217;t this a red herring (an irrelevance, mere distraction)? Is there some reason to think that Burke does this? I assume that Bowman and Burke both agree that apparent inconsistency and unclarity and not good things in a theory, but bad things, and that they should not be lightly allowed.<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>I am concerned here only to plead that non-Trinitarians not dismiss the doctrine of the Trinity, or any other doctrine, merely because it is difficult to understand. In the context of this debate, I am anticipating and arguing against <em>a priori<\/em> objections that amount to saying that the Trinity cannot be true <strong><em>regardless of what the Bible may say<\/em><\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><strong>Flag<\/strong> &#8211; Straw man? Red herring? Even<a title=\"poisoning the well fallacy explained\" href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Poisoning_the_well\" target=\"_blank\"> poisoning the well<\/a>? He pins all of the above of on unitarian author Donald Snedeker. Well, never mind that &#8211; you&#8217;re debating Burke here, and Snedecker ain&#8217;t Burke.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, <em>if<\/em> what is meant by &#8220;the Trinity doctrine&#8221; <em>really is<\/em> contradictory, then no, it can&#8217;t be true, no matter what any person or book says. But, is it? That is, is the trinitarian doctrine under debate here consistent or not? If I really knew what Bowman had in mind, I could venture a firm opinion.<\/p>\n<p>I thought the point here was to expound his positive views and background assumptions. Instead, he&#8217;s fired off a lot of rounds, it seems to me, prematurely and haphazardly. Settle that happy trigger finger down, Cowboy! \ud83d\ude42<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>I take it the purpose of the debate is whether or not &#8220;the&#8221; doctrine of the Trinity is derivable from the Bible. What is this doctrine, exactly? The burden falls on Bowman to be clear about just what doctrine is in view; he&#8217;s making the positive case. Here&#8217;s what he says: 1. There is one&hellip;&nbsp;<a href=\"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/scoring-the-burke-%e2%80%93-bowman-debate-%e2%80%93-bowman-1-dale\/\" rel=\"bookmark\">Read More &raquo;<span class=\"screen-reader-text\">SCORING THE BURKE \u2013 BOWMAN DEBATE \u2013 Bowman 1<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1718,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[37,21,15,4,33,8,10,5,38,20,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1715","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-apologetics","category-bible","category-christology","category-heresy-orthodoxy","category-incarnation","category-linkage","category-logic","category-modalism","category-monotheism","category-mystery","category-philosophy"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1715","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1715"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1715\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5451,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1715\/revisions\/5451"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1718"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1715"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1715"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1715"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}