Here's part 3 of the exchange with Bowman's second rebuttal.
Bowman's Second Rebuttal (February 27, 2021)
Aaron, as I've stated before, I don't have time for protracted exchanges on FB (not just here, but in any FB group).
I had written: 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.
You asked:
/// Why is that? Could you please expand on this. ///
I already did so in my first post in this thread, where I explained what I maintain is the proper method, over against the method of pounding on the same few proof texts over and over.
You asked:
/// Are you saying that John 17:3 *strictly* requires the P2 expression? ///
No, I'm saying it need not mean P1 but might mean just P2.
To make John 17:3 work as an objection to the Trinity, you must EITHER assume P1 *and* interpret it as excluding the Son as eternal deity (thereby presupposing Unitarianism) OR accept P2 but interpret it on the assumption that the true God is one and only one person (again presupposing Unitarianism). Those Trinitarians who view the Father alone as autotheos because he is neither begotten nor proceeding can accept P1 but then argue that "true" here is not to be contrasted with "false" but instead expresses how the Father is personally distinct from the Son and the Spirit. Their position is arguably the classic, patristic position. All I'm arguing is that John 17:3 can also be interpreted in such a way that it does not exclude the Son from being "true God" if we understand that expression to mean truly deity in contrast to false gods (which I maintain is a more biblical way of understanding the expression).
You wrote:
/// 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 I did engage your statement. I showed examples where interpreting "only" in the manner you prescribe results in contradiction. I don't think you engaged my argument in which I showed this from Genesis 7:23 and 8:9, even though you quoted it. My point was that we should "not treat an apparent grammatical disjunction in a woodenly literal way" if doing so contradicts other biblical passages. You did not address my point about grammatical disjunction. But that is your whole case from John 17:3; without interpreting the grammatical disjunction as excluding Jesus as being true God, your use of John 17:3 as a proof text against the deity of Christ goes nowhere.
My position is simply this: There is only one true God, and the "quantifier" in that statement is "one," not "only." I affirm that whatever is truly God is properly described as "the only true God" because there is no other God than the only true God. Thus, I affirm that the Father is the only true God. I just don't interpret this so as to deny what John himself says elsewhere about the Son/Word/Jesus being (truly) God.
You wrote:
/// Why would I want to limit God? God is God, and I am not. ///
I agree. And I would not want to limit God to being unipersonal on the basis of isolated proof texts.
You wrote:
/// 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". ///
I explained why later, and you didn't address my explanation. Instead, you quoted it back to me with "only true God" inserted several times and asked me, "And this is what you offer as an explanation of why Jesus did not mention his being the one true God?" How about you just address the explanation as I presented it?
"Exalt" here is honor-culture language for a person of authority honoring someone, not metaphysical language for someone becoming something he was not by nature previously.
I did address your "Donald Trump" argument. I pointed out that God is not a finite being (as is Trump).
You had written:
/// Since he does not include himself, it would follow that he is excluding himself from being in the category "the only true God". ///
I pointed out that your statement here was "a blatant argument from silence." You replied:
/// Rather than calling it "a blatant argument from silence" I'd like to hear you provide a reason why it's that. ///
Really? Do I really need to spell it out?
Here's your statement again:
/// Since he does not include himself, it would follow that he is excluding himself from being in the category "the only true God". ///
Your argument can be restated as follows:
p1. He did not include himself.
c. Therefore, he excluded himself.
We can restate this even more formally as follows:
p1. 'Christ is included' is not stated in John 17:3.
c. Therefore, 'Christ is included' is not true.
That's precisely the form of an argument from silence, Aaron. An argument from silence fallaciously draws an inference from the fact that something is not stated in a particular context. The argument takes the following form:
p1. 'X' is not stated at point y.
c. Therefore, 'X' is not true.
That's your argument! It's an argument from silence.
I didn't quote the rest of your comment on this point because you merely restated the same argument in several ways.
You wrote:
/// 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? ///
He excluded anyone that would claim or be viewed as a different God than the one true God. His statement only specifically included the Father, but my whole point is that his statement should not be interpreted to exclude other divine persons who share with the Father in the category of being 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. ///
I'm not using John 17:3 in an attempt to disprove your position. The burden of proof is on you, not on me. You must show not just that the appositive allows such interchangeability but that it *requires* it. To answer your objection, all I need do is to show that the appositive does *not* necessarily require such interchangeability.
You wrote:
/// 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. ///
My objection to your argument was not a straw man, because my point was that Jesus did not need to address every issue relevant to what is involved in us having eternal life. Nor did he need to comment specifically on his own divine status in that particular sentence. Your argument is an argument from silence (This text does not say 'X,' therefore 'X' must not be true).
There is no "discussion" in John 17 about the Father being the only true God. This fact is stated briefly as just part of a single sentence. Now, if Jesus had been claiming to give a lecture on the nature of deity and the relations among the divine persons, we would have expected him to talk about his own deity as well as that of the Holy Spirit. But that's not the subject of John 17.
I think that covers most of what you said.
Aaron, as I've stated before, I don't have time for protracted exchanges on FB (not just here, but in any FB group).
I had written: 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.
You asked:
/// Why is that? Could you please expand on this. ///
I already did so in my first post in this thread, where I explained what I maintain is the proper method, over against the method of pounding on the same few proof texts over and over.
You asked:
/// Are you saying that John 17:3 *strictly* requires the P2 expression? ///
No, I'm saying it need not mean P1 but might mean just P2.
To make John 17:3 work as an objection to the Trinity, you must EITHER assume P1 *and* interpret it as excluding the Son as eternal deity (thereby presupposing Unitarianism) OR accept P2 but interpret it on the assumption that the true God is one and only one person (again presupposing Unitarianism). Those Trinitarians who view the Father alone as autotheos because he is neither begotten nor proceeding can accept P1 but then argue that "true" here is not to be contrasted with "false" but instead expresses how the Father is personally distinct from the Son and the Spirit. Their position is arguably the classic, patristic position. All I'm arguing is that John 17:3 can also be interpreted in such a way that it does not exclude the Son from being "true God" if we understand that expression to mean truly deity in contrast to false gods (which I maintain is a more biblical way of understanding the expression).
You wrote:
/// 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 I did engage your statement. I showed examples where interpreting "only" in the manner you prescribe results in contradiction. I don't think you engaged my argument in which I showed this from Genesis 7:23 and 8:9, even though you quoted it. My point was that we should "not treat an apparent grammatical disjunction in a woodenly literal way" if doing so contradicts other biblical passages. You did not address my point about grammatical disjunction. But that is your whole case from John 17:3; without interpreting the grammatical disjunction as excluding Jesus as being true God, your use of John 17:3 as a proof text against the deity of Christ goes nowhere.
My position is simply this: There is only one true God, and the "quantifier" in that statement is "one," not "only." I affirm that whatever is truly God is properly described as "the only true God" because there is no other God than the only true God. Thus, I affirm that the Father is the only true God. I just don't interpret this so as to deny what John himself says elsewhere about the Son/Word/Jesus being (truly) God.
You wrote:
/// Why would I want to limit God? God is God, and I am not. ///
I agree. And I would not want to limit God to being unipersonal on the basis of isolated proof texts.
You wrote:
/// 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". ///
I explained why later, and you didn't address my explanation. Instead, you quoted it back to me with "only true God" inserted several times and asked me, "And this is what you offer as an explanation of why Jesus did not mention his being the one true God?" How about you just address the explanation as I presented it?
"Exalt" here is honor-culture language for a person of authority honoring someone, not metaphysical language for someone becoming something he was not by nature previously.
I did address your "Donald Trump" argument. I pointed out that God is not a finite being (as is Trump).
You had written:
/// Since he does not include himself, it would follow that he is excluding himself from being in the category "the only true God". ///
I pointed out that your statement here was "a blatant argument from silence." You replied:
/// Rather than calling it "a blatant argument from silence" I'd like to hear you provide a reason why it's that. ///
Really? Do I really need to spell it out?
Here's your statement again:
/// Since he does not include himself, it would follow that he is excluding himself from being in the category "the only true God". ///
Your argument can be restated as follows:
p1. He did not include himself.
c. Therefore, he excluded himself.
We can restate this even more formally as follows:
p1. 'Christ is included' is not stated in John 17:3.
c. Therefore, 'Christ is included' is not true.
That's precisely the form of an argument from silence, Aaron. An argument from silence fallaciously draws an inference from the fact that something is not stated in a particular context. The argument takes the following form:
p1. 'X' is not stated at point y.
c. Therefore, 'X' is not true.
That's your argument! It's an argument from silence.
I didn't quote the rest of your comment on this point because you merely restated the same argument in several ways.
You wrote:
/// 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? ///
He excluded anyone that would claim or be viewed as a different God than the one true God. His statement only specifically included the Father, but my whole point is that his statement should not be interpreted to exclude other divine persons who share with the Father in the category of being 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. ///
I'm not using John 17:3 in an attempt to disprove your position. The burden of proof is on you, not on me. You must show not just that the appositive allows such interchangeability but that it *requires* it. To answer your objection, all I need do is to show that the appositive does *not* necessarily require such interchangeability.
You wrote:
/// 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. ///
My objection to your argument was not a straw man, because my point was that Jesus did not need to address every issue relevant to what is involved in us having eternal life. Nor did he need to comment specifically on his own divine status in that particular sentence. Your argument is an argument from silence (This text does not say 'X,' therefore 'X' must not be true).
There is no "discussion" in John 17 about the Father being the only true God. This fact is stated briefly as just part of a single sentence. Now, if Jesus had been claiming to give a lecture on the nature of deity and the relations among the divine persons, we would have expected him to talk about his own deity as well as that of the Holy Spirit. But that's not the subject of John 17.
I think that covers most of what you said.
Eat it and die.
ReplyDelete