[Vision2020] Answer to Jones: Second Part
Nick Gier
ngier@uidaho.edu
Sun, 28 Mar 2004 14:37:05 -0800
--Boundary_(ID_XNVOqjlisRxTdH2ytJT3lg)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Greetings:
Rose tells me that all my postings come through in 7.5 font, but when I get
them from moscow.com they are in 12 pt. I'm sending this in 14 pt., so let
me know how it appears to you.
This is the second part of my answer to Doug Jones on the Trinity. I'm
sure most of you will be relieved that we will do the rest of the debate
off-line. I've suggested that he redo his last response to me and tell us
exactly what his position on the Trinity is. Although he gave us two book
references, which I will read, I want to hear it in his own words. Jones
has limited us to two 400-word statements in the "Credenda" debate so I
don't want to waste my words on side issues.
I stand by my statement that "in the orthodox Trinity, substantial unity .
. . has ontological priority over any hypostasis (person)." In the history
of discussions of the Trinity the greatest heresy was Tritheism, a view
that Jones appears to express, and he has to call off his dogs on Oneness
if he is to avoid it. That means it was always better to err on the side
of divine oneness rather than divine threeness. This is especially
important to early Christians as they carried over the Jewish emphasis on
the unity of God. Note the divine unity, including a near unity of
purpose, in this passage: "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from
whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
through whom are all things and through whom we exist" (I Cor. 8.6). Note
also that Paul has a divine dyad here not a Trinity.
I don't use the charge of "incoherence" lightly, but here is the crux of
it. Jones says that the Trinity is "simultaneously a three-in-one and a
one-in-three," then launches into a vicious attack on philosophical and
theological oneness. In the process he sets up a Straw Man of Pure Being
that has no expressions except some radical mystics among us. Since many
monists and monotheists (Jones conflates the two) speak of dynamic and
mysterious divine unity, one is at loss to understand why divine unity in
Christianity is wonderful but really, really bad in other views, or why
three-in-one is somehow better than two-in-one or
seven-in-one. Conservative evangelical theologian Carl Henry states that
without the evidence of the New Testament we are "unsure whether two, three
or more centers of consciousness exist within the one God" ("God,
Revelation, and Authority, vol. 5, p. 197). But even to speak of "centers
of consciousness" is to flirt with Tritheism. One being will three centers
of consciousness is usually not considered a normal person, and God would
certainly be the perfection of personhood.
Henry's observation leads to an important issue that Jones ignored
in his response--namely, there is no evidence for the Trinity in the Hebrew
Bible and there is weak evidence in the New Testament. (For example, Paul
speaks of divine twoness just as often as threeness.) There is also the
fact that the doctrine of the Trinity was ignored for 200 years in early
Christian philosophy and theology. I've added a new paragraph to my
on-line essay on this topic, which you can read below.
Finally, Jones obviously did not read my section non-Christian
Trinities very carefully, and has therefore wasted even more words on this
misunderstanding. Jones seems to have overlooked this passage: "No Hindu
has ever worshiped an undifferentiated One, just as no Greek ever worshiped
Aristotle's unmoved mover. . . . Hindus who follow Shiva have a fully
personal Godhead that is expressed in the Trinity of Shiva the Creator,
Preserver, and Judge." (Citing impersonal Brahman from the Upanishads is
irrelevant to popular Hinduism, which is a dynamic personal theism.) There
is also the fully personalized Godhead in the Krishna Trinity, the Daoist
Trinity, Pure Land Buddhism, and of course the fully personalized double
Trinity of Zoroaster. Jones cannot reject these Trinities as formulated
incorrectly, when Christians themselves can't decide among themselves,
historically and now, how to articulate the Trinity.
Here is the new paragraph to my essay:
If the Trinity were so central to the Gospel one would think that
it would be a dominant doctrine in the early Christian Church. After a
through study of early Christian texts, Robert M. Grant makes the following
conclusions: "The doctrine of the Trinity in unity is not a product of the
earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed before
the end of the 2nd Century."(Robert Grant, "Gods and the One God"
[Westminster, 1986], p. 150) It is clear that the earliest formulations of
the Trinity were just as much influenced by neo-Platonism and Aristotle as
the Bible. The first inkling of the doctrine is not even trinitarian,
because Justin Martyr adds an "army of good angels" to the threesome of
Father, Son, and "prophetic Spirit."(Apology 1.6.2) When Athenagoras
(Embassy 10.2) says that Christ is the "ideal form" (idea) and the
"energizing power" (energeia), he is indulging in the Hellenizing thought
that Jones so much condemns. The first book on the Trinity was written by
Novatian of Rome, but Grant concludes that his doctrine subordinates the
Son to the Father and joins the strong Arian movement that was finally
crushed by "orthodox" bishops at the Council of Nicea.
The term "orthodox" is the label for those who win and it is just as much a
political term as a theological one.
--Boundary_(ID_XNVOqjlisRxTdH2ytJT3lg)
Content-type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
<html>
<font size=3D4>Greetings:<br><br>
Rose tells me that all my postings come through in 7.5 font, but when I
get them from moscow.com they are in 12 pt. I=92m sending this in 14
pt., so let me know how it appears to you.<br><br>
This is the second part of my answer to Doug Jones on the Trinity.
I=92m sure most of you will be relieved that we will do the rest of the
debate off-line. I=92ve suggested that he redo his last response to
me and tell us exactly what his position on the Trinity is.
Although he gave us two book references, which I will read, I want to
hear it in his own words. Jones has limited us to two 400-word statements
in the =93Credenda=94 debate so I don=92t want to waste my words on side
issues.<br><br>
I stand by my statement that =93in the orthodox Trinity, substantial unity
. . . has ontological priority over any hypostasis (person).=94 In
the history of discussions of the Trinity the greatest heresy was
Tritheism, a view that Jones appears to express, and he has to call off
his dogs on Oneness if he is to avoid it. That means it was always
better to err on the side of divine oneness rather than divine
threeness. This is especially important to early Christians as they
carried over the Jewish emphasis on the unity of God. Note the
divine unity, including a near unity of purpose, in this passage: =93Yet
for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for
whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things
and through whom we exist=94 (I Cor. 8.6). Note also that Paul has a
divine dyad here not a Trinity.<br><br>
I don=92t use the charge of =93incoherence=94 lightly, but here is the crux =
of
it. Jones says that the Trinity is =93simultaneously a three-in-one
and a one-in-three,=94 then launches into a vicious attack on philosophical
and theological oneness. In the process he sets up a Straw Man of
Pure Being that has no expressions except some radical mystics among
us. Since many monists and monotheists (Jones conflates the two)
speak of dynamic and mysterious divine unity, one is at loss to
understand why divine unity in Christianity is wonderful but really,
really bad in other views, or why three-in-one is somehow better than
two-in-one or seven-in-one. Conservative evangelical theologian
Carl Henry states that without the evidence of the New Testament we are
=93unsure whether two, three or more centers of consciousness exist within
the one God=94 (=93God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 5, p. 197). Bu=
t
even to speak of =93centers of consciousness=94 is to flirt with
Tritheism. One being will three centers of consciousness is usually
not considered a normal person, and God would certainly be the perfection
of personhood.<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Henry=92s
observation leads to an important issue that Jones ignored in his
response--namely, there is no evidence for the Trinity in the Hebrew
Bible and there is weak evidence in the New Testament. (For example, Paul
speaks of divine twoness just as often as threeness.) There is also the
fact that the doctrine of the Trinity was ignored for 200 years in early
Christian philosophy and theology. I=92ve added a new paragraph to my
on-line essay on this topic, which you can read below.<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>Finally,
Jones obviously did not read my section non-Christian Trinities very
carefully, and has therefore wasted even more words on this
misunderstanding. Jones seems to have overlooked this passage: "No
Hindu has ever worshiped an undifferentiated One, just as no Greek ever
worshiped Aristotle=92s unmoved mover. . . . Hindus who follow Shiva have a
<b>fully personal Godhead</b> that is expressed in the Trinity of Shiva
the Creator, Preserver, and Judge." (Citing impersonal Brahman from
the Upanishads is irrelevant to popular Hinduism, which is a dynamic
personal theism.) There is also the fully personalized Godhead in the
Krishna Trinity, the Daoist Trinity, Pure Land Buddhism, and of course
the fully personalized double Trinity of Zoroaster. Jones cannot reject
these Trinities as formulated incorrectly, when Christians themselves
can't decide among themselves, historically and now, how to articulate
the Trinity.<br><br>
Here is the new paragraph to my essay:<br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>If the
Trinity were so central to the Gospel one would think that it would be a
dominant doctrine in the early Christian Church. After a through study of
early Christian texts, Robert M. Grant makes the following conclusions:
"The doctrine of the Trinity in unity is not a product of the
earliest Christian period, and we do not find it carefully expressed
before the end of the 2nd Century."(Robert Grant, =93Gods and the One
God=94 [Westminster, 1986], p. 150) It is clear that the earliest
formulations of the Trinity were just as much influenced by neo-Platonism
and Aristotle as the Bible. The first inkling of the doctrine is not even
trinitarian, because Justin Martyr adds an "army of good
angels" to the threesome of Father, Son, and "prophetic
Spirit."(Apology 1.6.2) When Athenagoras (Embassy 10.2) says that
Christ is the "ideal form" (idea) and the "energizing
power" (energeia), he is indulging in the Hellenizing thought that
Jones so much condemns. The first book on the Trinity was written by
Novatian of Rome, but Grant concludes that his doctrine subordinates the
Son to the Father and joins the strong Arian movement that was finally
crushed by "orthodox" bishops at the Council of=20
Nicea.<br><br>
The term =93orthodox=94 is the label for those who win and it is just as muc=
h
a political term as a theological one.<br><br>
<br>
</font></html>
--Boundary_(ID_XNVOqjlisRxTdH2ytJT3lg)--