[Vision2020] Is Doug Jones a Man of his Word?
Nick Gier
ngier@uidaho.edu
Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:40:19 -0800
--Boundary_(ID_K3cW5zW5Q6oknr6iXxg13A)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Greetings:
Last November Doug Jones promised me that the two of us would have a four=20
part debate on the Trinity in Credenda Agenda. He set some very=20
restrictive word limits, but I eagerly sent him my first 400-wrd=20
installment, appended below. He also promised that he would publish a link=
=20
to my entire 5,000 word piece on the topic and provide a response to that=20
on line. That link is www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinity.htm. It is a=20
response to Jones' article on the Trinity in Credenda/Agenda, vol. 14:2 at=
=20
www.credenda.org.
Let me reiterate that all my writing is scanned against hate, rage, libel,=
=20
slander, and anti-Christian sentiment. Indeed, in this piece I actually=20
wish that Jones were, ironically, more orthodox on the Trinity.
Wilson and Jones say that their critics are "boring," but what I find=20
really boring and frustrating is the lack of response to my challenges to=20
debate fundamental points, be it the Trinity or whether Wilson can actually=
=20
defend his booklet on slavery. In my profession when your position is=20
criticized and you do not respond, your position quickly loses all=20
credibility. The Socratic dialogue must continue either with a defense or=
=20
a concession. Intellectual honesty and integrity demands it.
So, Mr. Jones, I'm eagerly awaiting your response to the first round of the=
=20
Trinity Debate. If you are going to name one of your churches after the=20
Trinity, and if you are going to have a Trinity festival in downtown=20
Moscow, then you should be able to tell us what it really means!
WONDROUS TRINITIES EVERYWHERE
=93He who knows one religion knows none=94=96Max M=FCller
by Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus
Department of Philosophy
University of Idaho
Doug Jones=92 principal thesis is that monism (=93all reality is one=20
substance=94) is really bad, and that monistic philosophy has led to the=20
worship of power, mass conformity, the loss of humor and irony, and the=20
rape of women. With one fallacious brush, Jones paints all of Asian thought=
=20
and most of Western philosophy as monistic and proposes that his=20
Trinitarian thinking somehow corrects all of these maladies.
I demonstrate that most Asian thought is not monistic and that the schools=
=20
that are, Zen Buddhism and philosophical Daoism, contain dramatic examples=
=20
of nonconformism and a consummate sense of humor and irony. Furthermore,=20
there are fully personalized Trinitarian Godheads in Zoroastrianism,=20
Buddhism, Religious Daoism, and Hinduism that have produced the qualities=20
that Jones admires (including dancing), but which are, ironically, mostly=20
missing in the history of Christianity.
John Calvin defines the Godhead as =93one simple essence comprehending three=
=20
persons or hypostases=94 and he defends a =93unity of [divine] substance=94=
=20
(homoousia) against the Arians (Institutes 13.4, 5, 20). Jones appears to=20
reject this orthodox formulation when he wrote to me that =93there is no=
flat=20
oneness that could operate outside the communal aspect of the Trinity.=94=20
Jones doesn=92t realize that if divine unity is just the mere togetherness=
of=20
the three persons, then the only logical result would be a polytheistic=20
tritheism.
The great Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth maintained that if the=20
persons of the Trinity are viewed as personalities, as Jones has in fact=20
done, then the heresy of tritheism would be unavoidable. Calvin defines the=
=20
persons of Trinity using the Greek word hypostasis and this does not=20
express the idea of a divine personality. The Church Fathers would have=20
chosen the Greek word prosopon if they intended to indicate a=20
self-conscious personality.
Jones=92 dramatic images of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit frolicking=20
together as children make for great religious literature but bad orthodox=20
theology. The most important point, however, is that in the orthodox=20
Trinity substantial unity (a fully monistic ousia) has ontological priority=
=20
over any hypostasis, and that every one of Jones=92 horrid allegations of=20
monistic thinking also apply to orthodox Trinitarians. Reductio ad absurdum!
Nicholas F. Gier
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Idaho
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843
http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm
208-883-3360/882-9212/FAX 885-8950
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/ift/index.htm=
--Boundary_(ID_K3cW5zW5Q6oknr6iXxg13A)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
Greetings:<br><br>
Last November Doug Jones promised me that the two of us would have a four
part debate on the Trinity in <i>Credenda Agenda</i>. He set some
very restrictive word limits, but I eagerly sent him my first 400-wrd
installment, appended below. He also promised that he would publish
a link to my entire 5,000 word piece on the topic and provide a response
to that on line. That link is
<a href=3D"http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinity.htm" eudora=3D"autourl"=
>www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinity.htm</a>.
It is a response to Jones' article on the Trinity in <i>Credenda/Agenda,
</i>vol. 14:2 at
<a href=3D"http://www.credenda.org/"=
eudora=3D"autourl">www.credenda.org</a>.<br><br>
Let me reiterate that all my writing is scanned against hate, rage,
libel, slander, and anti-Christian sentiment. Indeed, in this piece
I actually wish that Jones were, ironically, more orthodox on the
Trinity.<br><br>
Wilson and Jones say that their critics are "boring," but what
I find really boring and frustrating is the lack of response to my
challenges to debate fundamental points, be it the Trinity or whether
Wilson can actually defend his booklet on slavery. In my profession
when your position is criticized and you do not respond, your position
quickly loses all credibility. The Socratic dialogue must continue
either with a defense or a concession. Intellectual honesty and
integrity demands it.<br><br>
So, Mr. Jones, I'm eagerly awaiting your response to the first round of
the Trinity Debate. If you are going to name one of your churches
after the Trinity, and if you are going to have a Trinity festival in
downtown Moscow, then you should be able to tell us what it really
means!<br><br>
<div align=3D"center"><font size=3D4><b>WONDROUS TRINITIES
EVERYWHERE<br><br>
</b></font>=93He who knows one religion knows none=94=96Max M=FCller<br><br>
by Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus <br>
Department of Philosophy<br>
University of Idaho<br><br>
<br>
</div>
Doug Jones=92 principal thesis is that monism (=93all reality is one
substance=94) is really bad, and that monistic philosophy has led to the
worship of power, mass conformity, the loss of humor and irony, and the
rape of women. With one fallacious brush, Jones paints all of Asian
thought and most of Western philosophy as monistic and proposes that his
Trinitarian thinking somehow corrects all of these maladies.<br><br>
I demonstrate that most Asian thought is not monistic and that the
schools that are, Zen Buddhism and philosophical Daoism, contain dramatic
examples of nonconformism and a consummate sense of humor and irony.
Furthermore, there are fully personalized Trinitarian Godheads in
Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Religious Daoism, and Hinduism that have
produced the qualities that Jones admires (including dancing), but which
are, ironically, mostly missing in the history of Christianity.<br><br>
John Calvin defines the Godhead as =93one simple essence comprehending
three persons or <i>hypostases</i>=94 and he defends a =93unity of [divine]
substance=94 (<i>homoousia</i>) against the Arians (<i>Institutes</i> 13.4,
5, 20). Jones appears to reject this orthodox formulation when he wrote
to me that =93there is no flat oneness that could operate outside the
communal aspect of the Trinity.=94 Jones doesn=92t realize that if divine
unity is just the mere togetherness of the three persons, then the only
logical result would be a polytheistic tritheism. <br><br>
The great Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth maintained that if the
persons of the Trinity are viewed as personalities, as Jones has in fact
done, then the heresy of tritheism would be unavoidable. Calvin defines
the persons of Trinity using the Greek word <i>hypostasis</i> and this
does not express the idea of a divine personality. The Church Fathers
would have chosen the Greek word <i>prosopon</i> if they intended to
indicate a self-conscious personality.<br><br>
Jones=92 dramatic images of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit frolicking
together as children make for great religious literature but bad orthodox
theology. The most important point, however, is that in the orthodox
Trinity substantial unity (a fully monistic <i>ousia</i>) has ontological
priority over any <i>hypostasis</i>, and that every one of Jones=92 horrid
allegations of monistic thinking also apply to orthodox Trinitarians.
<i>Reductio ad absurdum</i>!<br><br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
Nicholas F. Gier<br>
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Idaho<br>
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843<br>
<a href=3D"http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm"=
eudora=3D"autourl">http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm<br>
</a>208-883-3360/882-9212/FAX 885-8950<br>
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/ift/index.htm" eudora=3D"autour=
l">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/ift/index.htm</a></html>
--Boundary_(ID_K3cW5zW5Q6oknr6iXxg13A)--