{"id":1894,"date":"2010-05-16T13:40:56","date_gmt":"2010-05-16T17:40:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=1894"},"modified":"2010-05-16T13:42:45","modified_gmt":"2010-05-16T17:42:45","slug":"scoring-the-burke-%e2%80%93-bowman-debate-%e2%80%93-round-3-re-evaluated-dale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/scoring-the-burke-%e2%80%93-bowman-debate-%e2%80%93-round-3-re-evaluated-dale\/","title":{"rendered":"SCORING THE BURKE \u2013 BOWMAN DEBATE \u2013 ROUND 3 Re-evaluated (DALE)"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"The “Great Trinity Debate<\/strong><\/a>” has been interesting, exhausting, and a bit hard to follow. It would’ve been better to have somewhat shorter posts and required post-rebuttals. As it is, some of the debate has been tucked away in the comments<\/strong> of the posts, while the blog<\/a> plugs away on other topics. This sort of substantial, quality content shouldn’t be hidden in comments.<\/p>\n

I previously called round 3 a draw<\/a>. But my call was premature; Burke kept punching, in a long set of comments (#4-15)<\/a>, which substantially strengthened his case. Bowman has left them unanswered for about a week, I believe, as I post this. I re-call this round now for Burke.<\/p>\n

Revised score<\/strong> up through round 4:<\/p>\n

Bowman: 0
\nBurke: 3
\ndraw: 1<\/p>\n

What he does is address some important texts<\/strong> which as usually read<\/em>, assert or assume the claims that Jesus created the cosmos, or just that he pre-existed his conception. I can’t summarize Burke’s long exegesis, but I’ll hit a few highlights in this post. What he shows, drawing on some recent scholarship, is that the texts in question can be given non-arbitrary, plausible readings which are consistent with humanitarian christology.<\/p>\n

Burke also rebuts some of Bowman’s points re: prayer to Jesus<\/strong>. Bowman argues that Christ can’t be a creature, and must be omniscient (hence divine), if he can hear and answer prayers. This argument is hardly a knockdown one.<\/p>\n

How might Bowman know the limits of a glorified human<\/strong>, raised to this pre-eminent position? Given that Jesus is a glorified, immortal human, and “seated at God’s right hand” etc., why couldn’t he have knowledge that far surpasses that of any “normal” human like you or me? Indeed, why couldn’t he be in some sense omnipresent – or at least, widely<\/em> present? Burke says:<\/p>\n

Is it possible for Jesus to hear prayer? I believe so. After all, he received the Holy Spirit without measure (John 3:34); he is perfected and immortal (II Timothy 1:10, Revelation 1:18); he has been exalted to the Father\u2019s right hand (I Peter 3:22) and all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to him (Matthew 28:18). Does this prove that he is God? Not at all. The capacity to hear believers\u2019 prayers indicates tremendous supernatural power, but it is still a long way short of omniscience (a quality that Jesus clearly lacks; see Matthew 24:36, Mark 11:12-14, Luke 2:52, John 11:34)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

But is it proper to pray to Jesus, if he is not God? Burke argues, in the end, yes<\/strong> – “provided that this is not done as an act of religious worship.” I’m not sure what the word “religious” is doing there… What would “non-religious” worship be? Besides, Burke holds that Jesus is<\/em> worshiped in Revelation 5. I’m not sure why, then, this qualification is there. But in the end Burke, like many unitarians, emphasizes that “in Scripture prayer is predominantly focused on the Father”, while leaving some aspect of this question “to the believer’s conscience.”<\/p>\n

Some key passages<\/strong> Burke covers:<\/p>\n

1 Cor 8: 4-6<\/strong> <\/a>– Burke shows that the NT writers assume the one God of Israel to be one and the same (being, person, god) as the Father of Jesus. He also shows a consistent contrast between the one God (the Father, YHWH) and the one Lord (Jesus, the Son of God). These are assumed, it seems, to be two selves. Burke points out that Paul’s (and others’) salutations habitually mention the two of them. He argues, following McGrath, that here Paul strikingly sets up Jesus alongside the one God; one needn’t read the passage as revealing a new “person” or personality within the divine nature. Moreover, Paul seems to be making a point against polytheism – contra those idolatrous turkeys – there is one one God, the Father. Oh yes, and there’s only one Lord too.<\/p>\n

But doesn’t the latter part imply that God created all things through Jesus?<\/strong> No – Burke argues that we should see Paul’s theme of Christ’s “new creation”<\/strong> here – the idea is that God created the cosmos, and Christ has now saved, renewed, or re-created it. Burke lists the main passages with this theme, giving a plausible take on Colossians 1<\/a> along the way.<\/p>\n

This brings us to Philippians 2<\/strong><\/a>, which many see as obviously teaching the heavenly, glorious pre-existence of Jesus, his Incarnation, and his being returned to his formerly glorious state. Burke has a careful, long discussion of this. He urges that it be read as a piece of “Adam christology<\/strong>” – Jesus as the founder of a new race, a second Adam, as it were –\u00a0and that there is no reference to Christ’s pre-existence in it, properly understood. Further, Burke argues that his reading fits better with Paul’s point – “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus…”. In sum,<\/p>\n

Rob, your interpretation of Philippians 2 is contradicted by standard theological and lexical authorities. It is inconsistent, unnecessarily complicated, and built on presuppositions which you make no attempt to substantiate.<\/p>\n

I propose a simpler exegesis, which retains the OT subtext:<\/p>\n