Wednesday, June 22, 2011

The King is dead, long live the King!

I’ll use this occasion to tie up a few loose ends in my response to Dale Tuggy, and reframe the debate in more general terms.

I. Revelation and apophaticism

The reason I focus on exegetical theology is not due to a totemic adoration of Scripture, or reflexive appeal to Scripture for Scripture’s sake. Rather, it’s entirely practical.

Only God knows what God is like. As such, only God can make known to others what God is like. Hence, propositional revelation must lay the foundation for our doctrine of God. Philosophy can refine or extend our conception, but we can’t begin with philosophy, or use that as the benchmark.

Apophaticism is the default setting. God is not inherently unknowable. However, God is practically unknowable except for when, where, and to whom he makes himself known.

And Israel’s aniconic piety is emblematic of this default apophaticism. God is invisible. He must manifest himself to us–in word and deed.

II. Monotheism and apophaticism

The classic monotheistic passages enunciate the unicity of God, not the unity of God. They’re less concerned with what God is like than what God is unlike. The true God is unlike the false gods of paganism. 

As such, the monotheistic passages are misapplied when unitarians cite them to disprove the Trinity. They don’t say what God can or can’t be like in himself, but rather, accentuate how unlike God is to false gods. In that respect, the monotheistic passages are basically apophatic. They tell us what God is not. The true God is not like the pagan deities. But to find out what God is like, for a positive exposition, you must turn to different passages.

III. Theological method

Unitarianism takes the monotheistic passages as its starting point, using that as a benchmark to reinterpret whatever else the Bible has to say about God.

However, the Bible itself isn’t like a shopping mall map that says You are here, or Start here–radiating out from that indexical. There can be more than one place to start. Logically, you’d begin with whatever passages directly deal with the topic.

You could begin with the monotheistic passages, or you could begin with what the Bible says about the Holy Spirit, or you could begin with what the Bible says about the Angel of the Lord–and so forth. What if you made that your benchmark?

On the one hand, there’s a sense in which the NT can only be true if it fulfills the OT. The NT must be true to the OT.

On the other hand, there’s a complementary sense in the OT can only be true if it is fulfilled. To the extent that the OT is a forward-looking document, to the extent that the vision of the OT looks beyond the horizon-line of OT history, it can’t function as an independent benchmark.

In ascertaining what the Bible says about God, you can always begin with the OT. That’s legitimate. But there’s a certain logic in beginning with the NT. For the view is better from the summit than the valley.

IV. Narrative theology

Unitarians seize on passages that depict Jesus as subordinate to the Father. And they infer his metaphysical status from these depictions.

However, that’s one-sided. Take the major theological motif in which the relation between the Father and the Son is depicted in terms of royal succession. On the one hand, there’s a sense in which that depicts the son as initially the social inferior. He is elevated to the throne by his father.

On the other hand, if that’s a metaphysical statement, then it cuts both ways. Does this mean God is in his dotage? Over-the-hill? It’s the picture of a superannuated monarch who retires when the heir apparent comes of age. An image of senescence and mortality, where sons take their fathers’ place. Le Roi est mort, vive le Roi!

Perhaps the unitarian will assure is that this is merely anthropomorphic. Or perhaps he’ll say that’s a narrative convention, in which a father-figure plays the type-character of the elderly, senile king while his firstborn son plays the type-character of the youthful prince.

And there’s a lot of truth to that, but once again, that cuts both ways. If we’re going to make allowance for one of them, then we must make allowance for the other.

V. One God in three persons

In what sense is God one God? It’s important to clarify whether we’re asking an exegetical question or a philosophical question? From an exegetical standpoint, there is one God in whatever sense accommodates whatever else the Bible has to say about God.

We don’t begin with some preconceived notion of what it must mean for God to be one God, then pare down the witness of the Bible to fit inside our narrow preconception. If there’s a tension between God’s self-revelation and our preconception, then we must expand our preconception to make room for what God tells us about himself. 

4 comments:

  1. "Only God knows what God is like. As such, only God can make known to others what God is like. Hence, propositional revelation must lay the foundation for our doctrine of God. Philosophy can refine or extend our conception, but we can’t begin with philosophy, or use that as the benchmark."

    This is put extremely well.

    I have not had the opportunity to read your exchange with Dale Tuggy, but I am looking forward to doing so soon.

    This may have come up already, but what are some of the apologetic implications of, for example, what I've quoted from you above? Are there reasons for believing in the Trinity that exist independently of Scripture? How might we attempt to persuade an unbeliever, argumentatively speaking, to believe in the Trinity?

    Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Steve,

    A few comments on your final reflections.

    "we can’t begin with philosophy, or use that as the benchmark."

    I can honestly say that I don't know what is meant by "beginning with" philosophy. As to "using it as the benchmark" - I think we have to use the reasoning powers which God gave us and expects us to diligently apply. But that's not using "philosophy", if that means reliance on some controversial theory which contradicts the Bible.

    Steve, I'm not sure what you say all the stuff about our needing divine revelation to properly know God. Is this a fear that a philosopher may be a closet deist? (This one isn't!)

    "unicity" not "unity" - Sorry, don't get it. Isaiah says, straight up, that Yahweh, Israel's god, is the only true god - the one who created the earth and is provident over it.

    "monotheistic passages are basically apophatic" Breathtaking claim, in my view; can't stand up to the passages we're talking about. They cite God's unique knowledge, power, control - these truths have to do with his intrinsic features. It strikes me as wishful thinking to insist that this is merely telling us how God is not. That may be what your theories demand that it say, but that's not what it says. Sure, he's contrasted with the gods or "gods" of the nations - they lack his power, knowledge, and control!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Unitarianism takes the monotheistic passages as its starting point, using that as a benchmark"

    It sure would be nice if there were some simple, methodological failing which unitarians obviously commit, and which when pointed out, others could use to dismiss their theology entirely. Unfortunately, this is desperately unfair - they sweat very hard over scripture as a whole, including all your favorite christological and trinitarian texts. I could cite many examples of this - Wilson is a good one. Do they "begin with" the NT? I don't know; but it seems to me that they spend far more time on it. e.g. Clarke

    "If there’s a tension between God’s self-revelation and our preconception, then we must expand our preconception to make room for what God tells us about himself. "

    I can safely say that present-day unitarians (I exclude Unitarian Universalists) wholly agree. The dispute, of course, is about just what he's told us.

    About the "expansion" you think is plainly implied in the Bible - I'm curious about what that is. In your view, what is God, or what does it mean to believe in three persons who "are" one God? I think trinitarians need to put on the table what they think the traditional formula, in their view, mean. Only then can you compare the theory to some unitarian theory. Maybe, Steve, you should do a post on this. What is the common, pre-trinitarian concept of a god. And then, what proper, trinitarian concept replaces this, based on the Bible.

    Thanks for the interactions here. Adios!

    ReplyDelete
  4. DALE SAID:

    “I can honestly say that I don't know what is meant by ‘beginning with’ philosophy. As to ‘using it as the benchmark’ - I think we have to use the reasoning powers which God gave us and expects us to diligently apply. But that's not using ‘philosophy’, if that means reliance on some controversial theory which contradicts the Bible.”

    I already gave specific examples to illustrate what I have in mind.

    “Steve, I'm not sure what you say all the stuff about our needing divine revelation to properly know God. Is this a fear that a philosopher may be a closet deist? (This one isn't!)”

    I already explained myself on that score.

    “’Unicity’ not ‘unity’ - Sorry, don't get it. Isaiah says, straight up, that Yahweh, Israel's god, is the only true god - the one who created the earth and is provident over it.”

    Which makes my point. That refers to the unicity (or singularity) of God, not the unity (or simplicity) of God.

    “’Monotheistic passages are basically apophatic’ Breathtaking claim, in my view; can't stand up to the passages we're talking about. They cite God's unique knowledge, power, control - these truths have to do with his intrinsic features. It strikes me as wishful thinking to insist that this is merely telling us how God is not. That may be what your theories demand that it say, but that's not what it says. Sure, he's contrasted with the gods or ‘gods’ of the nations - they lack his power, knowledge, and control!

    Unfortunately, you blew right past my adjective. I said the “classic” monotheistic passages. I’m alluding to the traditional monotheistic prooftexts in historical theology. For instance, Aquinas cites Exod 20:3 and Deut 6:4 in 1.42.21 of the Summa Contra Gentiles. Turretin is another case in point.

    By contrast, I think you’re alluding to some passages in Isaiah.

    For future reference, resist the temptation to underestimate your opponents. It backfires.

    “It sure would be nice if there were some simple, methodological failing which unitarians obviously commit, and which when pointed out, others could use to dismiss their theology entirely. Unfortunately, this is desperately unfair - they sweat very hard over scripture as a whole, including all your favorite christological and trinitarian texts. I could cite many examples of this - Wilson is a good one. Do they ‘begin with’ the NT? I don't know; but it seems to me that they spend far more time on it. e.g. Clarke”

    It’s necessary for unitarians to explain away the Trinitarian passages in the NT. That Sisyphean task does, indeed, generate a lot of perspiration. Keep the Right Guard handy!

    “I can safely say that present-day unitarians (I exclude Unitarian Universalists) wholly agree. The dispute, of course, is about just what he's told us.”

    No, the dispute is over the fact that you don’t allow a Bible writer to say something you disagree with.

    Instead of trying to discover what made sense to John (or Matthew, or Paul), or discover how John understood Isaiah, you’ve decided in advance what John is permitted to think. Not trying to make sense of what made sense to the author, but preempting certain interpretations because they are nonsensical to you.

    ReplyDelete