{"id":1966,"date":"2010-05-28T15:01:39","date_gmt":"2010-05-28T19:01:39","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=1966"},"modified":"2013-11-24T23:49:47","modified_gmt":"2013-11-25T04:49:47","slug":"scoring-the-burke-%e2%80%93-bowman-debate-%e2%80%93-round-5-%e2%80%93-burke-part-2-dale","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/scoring-the-burke-%e2%80%93-bowman-debate-%e2%80%93-round-5-%e2%80%93-burke-part-2-dale\/","title":{"rendered":"SCORING THE BURKE \u2013 BOWMAN DEBATE \u2013 ROUND 5 \u2013 BURKE – Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"As we saw last time<\/a>, Burke in round 5<\/a> argues<\/strong> like this:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. 2nd c. catholic theology was predominantly subordinationist.<\/li>\n
  2. If the apostles had taught the Trinity, this wouldn’t have been so.<\/li>\n
  3. Therefore, the apostles did not teach the Trinity.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In a long comment (#23)<\/a> Bowman objects,<\/p>\n

    For some reason… anti-Trinitarians think it is bad news for the doctrine of the Trinity if second-century and third-century church fathers were not consistently Trinitarian<\/strong> in their theology, but that it is not bad news for them if their particular non-Trinitarian brand of theology is completely missing<\/strong> from those centuries.<\/p>\n

    It is true that many of the church fathers in the second and third centuries held to some form of ontological subordinationism<\/strong>. However, a fair-minded reading of these church fathers shows that this was a deviation within a generally trinitarian theology<\/strong>. They were not Arians<\/strong>, and by that I mean that their theology was distinctively different from Arianism and far closer to Trinitarianism<\/strong>. …in general what we find are theologies that might fairly be described as defective or immature forms<\/strong> of Trinitarianism. None of them is anything close to a Unitarian<\/strong>. None of them is Arian, though as you correctly state some of them have tendencies in their theology that one could describe as leaning that direction.<\/p>\n

    …it\u00a0is<\/em> a history of Trinitarianism<\/strong>, from the moment the apostle John died right through the councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon and beyond. It is a history in which the belief that Christ had existed since before creation as God was almost universally accepted <\/strong>among religious groups professing to be Christian. It is a history in which almost everyone agreed that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are divine. And it is a history in which Unitarianism is glaringly absent<\/strong>. (emphases added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Yes, pretty much every historically informed unitarian who comes <\/strong>along reads the “apostolic fathers” and the extant mid to late 2nd c. catholic theologians, and finds support there. For example:\u00a0Biddle<\/a>,\u00a0Clarke<\/a>,\u00a0Christie<\/a>,\u00a0Norton<\/a>,\u00a0Lindsey<\/a>,\u00a0Priestley<\/a>,\u00a0Webster<\/a>,\u00a0Lamson<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    Why?<\/p>\n

    A unitarian is one who identifies (considers numerically identical) God and the Father<\/strong>, and who doesn’t so identify the Son or Spirit. In other words, for a unitarian, God just is a perfect self – the Father – and he doesn’t have any “persons” within him. Whatever it is to be “fully divine”, unitarians hold that there is one such self. Unitarians differ among themselves<\/strong> about whether (1) the Son pre-existed his conception, and whether (2) the Holy Spirit is a person\/self. Subordinationists (sometimes misleadingly called “Arians”) answer yes to both of these, while humanitarians answer no to both. Subordinationists disagree<\/strong> among themselves about whether there was ever a time when the Son and Spirit were not – that is, whether or not their generation and procession were in time.<\/p>\n

    In my list above, Biddle, Clarke, and Webster are subordinationists. Christie, Norton, Priestley, and Lindsey were humanitarians. Christie and Priestley were first subordinationists, but after thinking about it more, switched to humanitarian unitarianism. This was pretty common in the late 18th to early 19th c. Also common were the two sorts of unitarians getting along fairly well. The chief point for both is that the Father just is God<\/strong> – they’re concerned to save monotheism, and to preserve the unique honor of the Father. They agree that in some sense or other the Son exists because of, and so is subordinate (ontologically and functionally) to the Father. And they unite in holding especially the “Athanasian” creed<\/a> sort of trinitarianism as unscriptural and contradictory.<\/p>\n

    I note that this was all common knowledge<\/strong> in educated circles c. 1800 in America and elsewhere. That it is not now, is a\u00a0testimony\u00a0to the in-house mindset of Catholic and Protestant academic theologians of the last 100 years or so. They are, for whatever reasons, just not interested in these debates. This attitude is deeply entrenched among today’s academic theologians. Being trained in philosophy, this mystifies me; we’re taught to always look high and low for the strongest arguments for theories, and also that you don’t really understand a theory until you try out some really tough objections on it, and see how it holds up (i.e. how holders of that theory could reply). As the proverb says, the first one to speak seems to have a slam-dunk case, until his opponent comes along and cross-examines him.<\/p>\n

    Back to unitarians. They look at the 2nd century catholics<\/strong>, and see people who appear to identify God and the Father. And they don’t speak of God as in any sense containing, including, or being composed of the three persons. They’re unitarians, and because of their logos theology speculations, they’re subordinationist, not humanitarian unitarians. Right? (The 19th c. humanitarian\u00a0Lamson<\/a> is especially forceful on these points.)<\/p>\n

    Wrong, says Bowman<\/strong>. They were in fact immature, somewhat confused trinitarians.\u00a0Or maybe, almost-trinitarians<\/strong>. Not only does he think this, but he thinks it is pretty obvious – something any unbiased look will reveal. Why? They weren’t “Arians”, and their views are more like trinitarians’.<\/p>\n

    But that they were not Arians is irrelevant – 4th. c. Arianism and some sort of trinitarianism are not the only possible views. We also have the unitarians who think Jesus to be eternally generated, or who hold a logos theory which may<\/em> feature an eternal Son (if<\/em> it is possible that a self used to be a property<\/a>). Why does Bowman think that they are close to being trinitarians<\/strong>, or are even defective or immature trinitarians? Looking at his quotations, I don’t know, except that he’s impressed by the same sorts of triadic mentions of the Three as we find in the NT. Considered by itself, that’s pretty weak.<\/p>\n

    But let’s try to help him out. Why consider these guys proto- or almost- or defective trinitarians? I can think of two reasons<\/strong>. First, that their views were part of a historical sequence which inevitably led to full-blown trinitarianism. Second, they hold all or most of the essential beliefs of trinitarianism. (Commenters: are there other reasons?)<\/p>\n

    On the first point: this development doesn’t look<\/em> inevitable. Read (for beginners) When Jesus Became God<\/a><\/em>, or (for the patient) Hanson’s book<\/a>. If you want to say it was inevitable, you should go Catholic, and hold that God infallibly guides the bishops, who possess the mantle of the apostles. I assume<\/em> Bowman doesn’t want to go there.<\/p>\n

    On the second point: are any of these essential to “the” Trinity doctrine?<\/strong><\/p>\n