Here's my first rejoinder to Bowman’s first rebuttal.
Shelenberger's First Rejoinder (February 27, 2021)
Part 1 of 4
Rob:
>>>
Please take into advisement that over this entire post should be a
disclaimer that I do not agree that working out the semantic and
philosophical issues inherent in this particular line of argument is
essential to the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation. <<<
Aaron:
/// Why is that? Could you please expand on this. ///
Rob:
>>> As I've explained before, and as you seem to anticipate, there is a difference between the following two claims:
P1. Only the Father is the true God.
P2. The Father is the only true God.
John 17:3 expresses P2, not P1, and orthodox Christians accept P2. <<<
Aaron:
/// Are you saying that John 17:3 *strictly* requires the P2 expression? ///
Rob:
>>>
Now, some orthodox Christians do accept P1, but my point stands that
these are not necessarily the same proposition. P1 means that the Father
is the only member of the class "true God"; P2 means that the class
"true God" is a class that excludes all false gods and that the Father
is properly described as belonging to that class. To put it another way,
"the only true God" is simply a more expansive designation for "God,"
so that there really is no difference between saying "the Father is God"
and "the Father is the only true God." Now, I would agree that P2 would
exclude Jesus as true God *if* the true God is one and only one person,
the Father. However, that condition is basically Unitarianism. In
short, yes, your argument *does* presuppose Unitarianism. <<<
Aaron:
///
From what I understand, there are Monarchical Trinitarians (and maybe
Nicene Trinitarians?) who take John 17:3 to be expressing *both* P2
*and* the true God being one and only person, the Father, because he is
the fountainhead of God, while they maintain the "full divinity"
(whatever this means) of the Son, Jesus Christ.
If
you're consistent, you would also have to call this condition basically
Monarchical Trinitarianism, which *does* presuppose Monarchical
Trinitarianism. But then you really cannot be consistent, because the
positions Monarchical Trinitarianism and Unitarianism are contradictory,
so that your accusation of "presupposing Unitarianism" would ultimately
lead to self-refutation.
You're
admitting that "some orthodox Christians do accept P1". I see. Could
those specific "orthodox Christians" be Monarchical Trinitarian? I'm
curious: Who are you referring to specifically? Now, from talking to the
said Monarchical Trinitarians, they seem to assume that the placement
of "only" does not matter, and for that they affirm both P1 and P2 to be
expressions of John 17:3.
In
any case, no it doesn't presuppose Unitarianism, because as I've stated
in my OP the way the language is used in the Bible, it does not matter
where "only" is placed. But you are disputing this claim. Let's see how
your comeback holds. ///
Part 2 of 4
Aaron:
//
But from the standpoint of the way the language is used in the Bible,
it does not matter where "only" is placed. We know that the statements
“Jesus is the only begotten Son” and “only Jesus is the begotten Son”
have the same meaning in so far as “only” is placed in the statements.
In John 17:3 "only" is used as a quantifier. It is making a
quantification that the "true God" is *none* other than the Father. //
Rob:
>>>
Your example isn't a very helpful one, because "only begotten" actually
translated one word, not two, and it means something like "unique/only
child" (context matters as far as the precise sense). "Jesus is the
monogenes Son" is a true proposition, and yes, it entails that only
Jesus is the Son specifically described as monogenes. "Only Jesus is the
Son of God" is arguably not a true proposition, because (for example)
Israel is God's son in a different sense. <<<
Aaron:
///
I'd like to hear you engage my statement: In John 17:3 "only" is used
as a quantifier. It is making a quantification that the "true God" is
*none* other than the Father.
I
think my example does its job in making a point about the placement of
"only". Your Israel example proves my point even more. That "only" Jesus
being God's Son does not in any way pose a problem with Israel's being
God's son, precisely because of what you said: They are sons in two
different senses. ///
.
.
.
Aaron:
//
Is there an example in the Bible where the placement of "only" matters?
I don't think there is. If there is, then that may be a game changer in
the debate. //
Rob:
>>>
Perhaps there isn't, but that wouldn't matter, because (again) the
logic of predication is stipulated to work somewhat differently in the
unique case of God, if God is triune. <<<
Aaron:
///
You're saying that, if God is triune, the logic of predication is
stipulated to work somewhat differently. Is it because God is unique in
that God is triune? Explain how this is. You're not saying that logic
works differently when comes to God. Are you? I hope not. I would like
you to be as clear as you possibly can when you explain yourself here
please. ///
Rob:
>>>
In other words, the placement probably wouldn't matter when making
predications of individual finite beings, but it might matter when
making predications about one of the divine persons united as/in one
divine being. <<<
Aaron:
/// You're using the words "probably" and "might", as though you're not sure or tentative. Care to elaborate? ///
Rob:
>>>
Perhaps more relevant is the fact that there are biblical texts that
use the word "only" in which, if you applied the same reasoning as you
are using here, we would have to conclude that the text is
self-contradictory. I'll give you two examples.
After
the Flood, according to Genesis, “Only Noah was left, and those that
were with him in the ark” (Gen. 7:23). The Septuagint translation uses
the word monos, as in John 17:3. From a woodenly simplistic grammatical
analysis, it may appear that “those who were with him in the ark” are
distinguished from the “only” one who “was left” (the verb is in the
singular form, indicating literally that only one person was left). But
such an inference is clearly contrary to the intent of the statement as a
whole in context. The statement singles out Noah as the one who “alone”
was left alive after the Flood, yet its intended meaning is clearly not
to exclude “those that were with him in the ark” as also having
survived.
The same
idiomatic way of speaking occurs in the passage about the woman caught
in adultery, which says that Jesus “was left alone [monos], and [kai]
the woman who was in the midst” (John 8:9, my translation). (I agree
with the consensus of biblical scholars that John 7:53-8:11 is not part
of the original Gospel of John, but it does show how Greek writers of
the period used such language, which is all that matters here.)
The
point is that one must consider what is actually being said in context
and not treat an apparent grammatical disjunction in a woodenly literal
way. <<<
Aaron:
///
As I've stated again and again, I certainly agree that we cannot take a
verse or two in isolation. We must take the whole counsel of God, the
Bible, into consideration and account for all the relevant texts. ///
Rob:
>>>
The same caution also applies to John 17:3 (although it is not using
precisely the same idiom as the above two texts). The verse affirms that
eternal life consists in knowing the Father and Jesus Christ. Now this
is a startling statement if Christ is just a creature, no matter how
great. <<<
Aaron:
///
At one level it is startling to me, for how could God possibly make a
mere creature, as the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5), be that great?
At
another level it shouldn't be startling to me (and it isn't), because I
believe that God is *powerful enough* to exalt this man to the highest
status, making him Lord (Phil. 2:8-11). Why would I want to limit God?
God is God, and I am not. ///
Rob:
>>>
Eternal life is all about knowing God—that is, about having a
relationship with him in which we know him personally, in which we enjoy
life with him forever. John 17:3 expands this observation to say that
eternal life consists in knowing both the Father and Jesus Christ.
<<<
Aaron:
///
Amen! And to clarify, eternal life consists in knowing both the Father
the only true God and Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. ///
Rob:
>>>
In this context, Christ’s reference to his Father as “the only true
God” does not exclude himself from that status. Rather, Christ is
honoring the Father as God while trusting the Father to exalt him at the
proper time. Thus, Jesus immediately goes on to affirm that he had
devoted his time on earth to glorifying the Father (v. 4) and to ask the
Father in turn to glorify him (v. 5). <<<
Aaron:
///
Now, wait just a minute! If Christ is "the only true God" too (just
like the Father) why wait for the Father to exalt him at the proper
time? If Christ is "the only true God" too (just like the Father), then
he's already up there equal with the Father as "the only true God".
If
you come back with "Well, the doctrine of the Incarnation holds that
Christ the God-man was to be exalted at the proper time" or something to
that effect, it still wouldn't solve the problem, because there is the
"God" part (in 'God'-man) that's already exalted that doesn't require
exaltation. ///
Part 3 of 4
Aaron:
//
Some might comeback with: “You are assuming Unitarianism in order to
prove Unitarianism.” No I’m not. I’m merely applying the way the Bible
talks, and we even the modern readers intuitively and naturally apply
the same way of talking in our day-to-day conversation with others. //
Rob:
>>>
I think I've shown that yes, you are assuming Unitarianism, because you
are assuming that the language of predication used of God works in the
same way as when used about finite beings "in our day-to-day
conversation with others." <<<
Aaron:
///
This is not assuming Unitarianism. This is assuming and applying the
way the Bible talks. You’re conflating the two. So, no you haven't shown
me that I'm assuming Unitarianism.
First,
to illustrate my application of the way the Bible talks, I provided an
example of Donald Trump being the only true President, which you did not
address in your reply. If Trump is the only true President, then no one
else is. No one else is what? "true President". Similarly, if the
Father is the only true God, then no one else is. No one else is what?
"true God". To be clear, the language doesn't just exclude Christ; it
excludes others who are not the Father.
Second,
you're conflating the two things I said: (1) "I’m merely applying the
way the Bible talks." I expanded this by providing an example of Jesus
being the only begotten Son of God and only Jesus being the begotten Son
of God. (See my further reply on this.) I also asked if there's any
biblical example in which the placement of "only" matters, to which you
answered "Perhaps there isn't". (See my further reply on this.) The very
admittance that there *isn't* a biblical example itself supports what I
think the way the Bible talks. For this reason alone, I'm not assuming
Unitarianism.
(2)
I also said that we *even* the modern readers intuitively and naturally
apply the same way of talking in our day-to-day conversation with
others. This was only meant to be a confirmation of the way the Bible
places "only" in the way it talks.
Third, see my post above that this accusation of yours would I think ultimately lead to self-refutation on your part. ///
Rob:
>>>
Also, I've given some evidence that "the way the Bible talks" sometimes
runs counter to what "modern readers intuitively and naturally" expect.
<<<
Aaron:
///
I do agree that Bible talks do sometime go against modern readers'
intuition. But the "evidence" you provided do not, at all, have any
negative effect on my position. ///
.
.
.
Aaron:
//
2. ...Since he does not include himself, it would follow that he is
excluding himself from being in the category "the only true God". //
Rob:
>>> No, that does not follow at all. That's a blatant argument from silence. <<<
Aaron:
///
Rather than calling it "a blatant argument from silence" I'd like to
hear you provide a reason why it's that. Besides, you took a small part
of what I said and left a big chunk. Let me repost the whole thing with
some emphasis, and I ask that you engage it.
Let's go strictly with "you [Father], the only true God,” so that we have the statement “The Father is the only true God”.
According
to the text, the ONLY PERSON Jesus places in the category “the only
true God” is the Father—no one else. Jesus does NOT INCLUDE HIMSELF in
the category (NOR does he include ANYONE ELSE). (Sorry. I'm not yelling,
only emphasizing.) Jesus does not say “that they know you [Father] *AND
ME* [Jesus Christ], the only true God”. Since he does not include
himself, it would follow that he is excluding himself from being in the
category "the only true God".
Let
me ask you: When Jesus said "you [Father] the only true God," does he
exclude *anyone* at all from the category "the only true God"? Who does
Jesus include in that category? ///
.
.
.
Aaron:
//
3. Being that it is appositive, the grammar interchangeably allows “you
[Father]” and “the only true God” as subject and predicate, which
logically points to the exclusion of Jesus as the only true God (unless
the Bible teaches Modalism).
We
may grammatically construct the appositive as (1) "The Father is the
only true God" and (2) "The only true God is the Father." These
constructions show that the only true God *just is* the Father:
Father=the only true God; the only true God=Father. They have the form
a=b and b=a. //
Rob:
>>>
I'm starting to wonder how many times I need to answer this argument.
That's an overly cut-and-dried, wooden understanding of apposition. I
thought I explained this to you not long ago and you conceded the point,
backing down to the softer claim that the apposition *could* be
interpreted in a completely interchangeable manner, not that it
"logically" must be, <<<
Aaron:
///
There's an OP by Bobby Glen Thomas (2/20/21) in this forum under which
you posted: "Apposition can be used for description or for further
identification or specification; it does not automatically or invariably
express complete interchangeability in all contexts."
To
which I replied: "I agree. What I would like to hear you acknowledge is
that the grammar itself, at least, *allows* such an interchangeability.
Of course, grammar all by itself does not decide. And yes everything
that the Bible says needs to be taken into account."
Then
you replied: "Aaron, if all you want to claim is that there *could* be
complete interchangeability between appositional elements, depending on
context and all relevant information being considered, you've got my
support. Up to now, whenever I've seen this issue raised by Unitarians,
Jehovah's Witnesses, et. al., they have made a strong claim that the
grammar requires us to understand John 17:3 in such a way that Jesus
Christ is absolutely excluded from being recognized in other statements
as truly God."
I
don't see anywhere here that I conceded the point. I'm still
maintaining that the appositive allows the interchangeability of
"Father" and "the only true God" as subject and predicate. I see no
restriction to this. You would need to provide an argument why P2 (The
Father is the only true God) is *strictly* the required expression of
John 17:3, if this is your position. ///
Part 4 of 4
Aaron:
//
4. If Jesus being the only true God is part and parcel of knowledge of
eternal life, then he missed a great opportunity to mention that one
very important thing. Well, Jesus didn’t mention it. It must not be
important and, for that matter, true. //
Rob:
>>> Hence my stipulation in my first response to you in this thread:
"Avoid
begging the question by assuming, for example, that if the NT writers
wanted to teach 'X' they would have worded it in such-and-such a manner,
or they would have mentioned it in this or that place."
The
claim that if something was important it would have been mentioned in
this or that specific text runs afoul of the fact that probably no one
text or passage explicitly states everything that would be considered
important to know. For example, John 17:3 says nothing about the
atonement or the resurrection. It's just bad reasoning. <<<
Aaron:
///
I agree that no single biblical text captures all the important truths
to be known, and here you are strawmanning: I never said that a text has
to state explicitly everything that would be considered important to
know. John 17:3 says nothing about the atonement or the resurrection,
because the atonement or the resurrection are not under discussion in
the text. But "the Father" being "the only true God" and "Jesus Christ"
being "sent by the Father" and "knowledge of these two" being "eternal
life" are under discussion in John 17:3. For this reason, I maintain
that if Christ being the only true God--too, in addition to the
Father--is part and parcel of knowledge of eternal life, then he missed a
great opportunity to mention that one very important thing; well, he
didn’t mention it; it must not be important and, for that matter, true.
///
Rob:
>>>
Although I do not need to offer an explanation for why Jesus did not
mention his being the one true God with the Father at this particular
moment, I happen to have an explanation. Jesus humbled himself and came
to glorify the Father, and he abided by the principle that one should
not seek his own glory (e.g., John 7:18). This principle actually
resonated with the honor/shame culture in which Jesus lived (as just one
example, see Prov. 27:2). Christ's focus in John 17:3 was to honor his
Father when addressing him humbly in prayer (as the divine Son
incarnate, fully human). <<<
Aaron:
///
You're saying that Jesus (the only true God) humbled himself and came
to glorify the Father (the only true God), and he, Jesus, (the only true
God) abided by the principle that one should not seek his (the only
true God's) own glory (e.g., John 7:18). This principle actually
resonated with the honor/shame culture in which Jesus (the only true
God) lived (as just one example, see Prov. 27:2). Christ's (the only
true God's) focus in John 17:3 was to honor his (the only true God's)
Father (the only true God) when addressing him (the only true God)
humbly in prayer (as the divine Son incarnate, fully human).
And this is what you offer as an explanation of why Jesus did not mention his being the one true God? ///
No comments:
Post a Comment