[Vision2020] Trinity Challenge, one more time

Mon, 16 Feb 2004 13:34:16 -0800

--Boundary_(ID_UcKbUJIKns1UUVPP/O++qA)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

Greetings:

Shame on me, complaining about Rose=92s embedded code and then, even though=
 I=20
thought it would be plain text, my challenge to Doug Jones looks just as=20
bad!  So I=92m sending the whole piece again, plus the following response to=
=20
Ben Merkle.

Ben, I don=92t claim to have any special authority on the Trinity.  It is=
 not=20
my area of expertise, and I=92m not sending the piece to any theology=20
journal.  But Jones obviously should have done a better job on it, even in=
=20
the more popular format of Credenda.  I do have the authority to judge his=
=20
knowledge of philosophy and his philosophical skills, and the knowledge he=
=20
displays in his Trinity piece is very poor and his reasoning skills in his=
=20
=93monograph=94 (!) on racism are non-existent.

Last November Jones promised me that the two of us would have a four part=20
debate on the Trinity in Credenda Agenda. He set some very restrictive word=
=20
limits, but I eagerly sent him my first 400-wrd installment, appended=20
below. He also promised that he would publish a link to my entire 5,000=20
word piece on the topic and provide a response to that on line. That link=20
is www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinity.htm. It is a response to Jones'=20
article on the Trinity in Credenda/Agenda, vol. 14:2 at 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 a=
=20
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--Max M=FCller

by Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus
Department of Philosophy
University of Idaho

Jones=92 principal thesis is that monism (=93all reality is one substance=94=
) is=20
really bad, and that monistic philosophy has led to the worship of power,=20
mass conformity, the loss of humor and irony, and the rape of women.  With=
=20
one fallacious brush, Jones paints all of Asian thought and most of Western=
=20
philosophy as monistic and proposes that his Trinitarian thinking somehow=20
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=20
(www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinplates.htm) that have produced the=20
qualities that Jones admires (including dancing), but which are,=20
ironically, mostly missing in the history of Christianity.

John Calvin defines the Godhead as =93one simple essence comprehending three=
=20
persons=94 and he defends a =93unity of [divine] substance=94against the=
 Arians.=20
Jones appears to reject this orthodox formulation when he wrote to me that=
=20
=93there is no flat oneness that could operate outside the communal aspect=
 of=20
the Trinity.=94  Jones doesn=92t realize that if divine unity is just the=
 mere=20
togetherness of the three persons, then the only logical result would be a=
=20
polytheistic tritheism.

         The great Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth maintained that if=
=20
the persons of the Trinity are viewed as personalities, as Jones has in=20
fact done, then the heresy of tritheism would be unavoidable.  Calvin=20
defines the persons of Trinity using the Greek word "hypostasis" and this=20
does not express the idea of a divine personality. The Church Fathers would=
=20
have 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 has priority over any "hypostasis," and that=20
every one of Jones=92 horrid allegations of monistic thinking also apply to=
=20
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_UcKbUJIKns1UUVPP/O++qA)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

<html>
Greetings: 
Shame on me, complaining about Rose=92s embedded code and then, even though
I thought it would be plain text, my challenge to Doug Jones looks just
as bad!&nbsp; So I=92m sending the whole piece again, plus the following
response to Ben Merkle. 
Ben, I don=92t claim to have any special authority on the Trinity.&nbsp; It
is not my area of expertise, and I=92m not sending the piece to any
theology journal.&nbsp; But Jones obviously should have done a better job
on it, even in the more popular format of Credenda.&nbsp; I do have the
authority to judge his knowledge of philosophy and his philosophical
skills, and the knowledge he displays in his Trinity piece is very poor
and his reasoning skills in his =93monograph=94 (!) on racism are
non-existent. 
Last November Jones promised me that the two of us would have a four part
debate on the Trinity in Credenda Agenda. 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><=
font face=3D"Times New Roman, Times" size=3D4>.
It is a response to Jones' article on the Trinity in Credenda/Agenda,
vol. 14:2 at
<a href=3D"http://www.credenda.org/" eudora=3D"autourl"><font=
 face=3D"Times New Roman, Times" size=3D4=
 color=3D"#0000FF">www.credenda.org</a>. 
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. 
Wilson and Jones say that their critics are &quot;boring,&quot; 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. 
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=20
means! 
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&nb=
sp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbs=
p;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab><x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp=
;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>WONDROUS
TRINITIES EVERYWHERE 
<div align=3D"center">=93He who knows one religion knows none=94--Max
M=FCller 
by Nick Gier, Professor Emeritus 
Department of Philosophy 
University of Idaho 
</div>
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.&nbsp; 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. 
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.&nbsp; Furthermore, there are fully personalized Trinitarian
Godheads in Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, Religious Daoism, and Hinduism
(<a href=3D"http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinplates.htm" eudora=3D"auto=
url">www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/trinplates.htm</a>)
that have produced the qualities that Jones admires (including dancing),
but which are, ironically, mostly missing in the history of
Christianity. 
John Calvin defines the Godhead as =93one simple essence comprehending
three persons=94 and he defends a =93unity of [divine] substance=94against t=
he
Arians. 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&nbsp; 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. 
<x-tab>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</x-tab>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.&nbsp; Calvin defines the
persons of Trinity using the Greek word &quot;hypostasis&quot; and this
does not express the idea of a divine personality. The Church Fathers
would have chosen the Greek word &quot;prosopon&quot; if they intended to
indicate a self-conscious personality. 
Jones=92 dramatic images of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit frolicking
together as children make for great religious literature but bad orthodox
theology.&nbsp; The most important point, however, is that in the
orthodox Trinity substantial unity has priority over any
&quot;hypostasis,&quot; and that every one of Jones=92 horrid allegations
of monistic thinking also apply to orthodox Trinitarians. Reductio ad
absurdum! 
 
<x-sigsep></x-sigsep>
Nicholas F. Gier 
Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Philosophy, University of Idaho 
1037 Colt Rd., Moscow, ID 83843 
<a href=3D"http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm"=
 eudora=3D"autourl">http://users.moscow.com/ngier/home/index.htm 
</a>208-883-3360/882-9212/FAX 885-8950 
President, Idaho Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO 
<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_UcKbUJIKns1UUVPP/O++qA)--