James White, Do You Understand What You Believe?
James White discussed a YouTube Video I made. This is my video. This is his discussion of it. Let me ask White if he knows his own theology.
Granted, I'm not so good when it comes to making videos. And granted, the picture I used is to make fun of the faith rather than be technically precise. But let me explain what I said. Let's see if I'm as ignorant as he claims that I am. I think he is the one exhibiting some ignorance about Christian theology.
Richard Swinburne argues for the Nicene subordination doctrine of the Trinity. [Richard Swinburne, “Could There Be More Than One God? Faith and Philosophy 5, no. 3 (July 1988): 225–41. Reformed thinkers like John Calvin and Benjamin Warfield argued for Trinitarian autotheos, in that the Son and the Spirit do not derive their being from the Father but are God in and of themselves. See Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 35–57.]
Swinburne claims that a first God could eternally “create” a second and even a third God, who “proceeds” from the first God, but that there was no reason to eternally create any other Gods since love would be complete in three Gods and no more. He concludes that “if there is at least one God, then there are three and only three Gods” since “there is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary God.” Swinburne’s view is but one form of the “social Trinitarian model” of the Trinity. I don’t think any account of the Trinity is plausible for the Christian, and that includes Swinburne’s understanding. I find Swinburne’s scenario wildly implausible and guided more by what he thinks the Bible says than by any philosophical reasoning. The bottom line is that no matter how an orthodox triune God is conceived, this is not a simple being.
Social trinitarianism stresses the diversity of persons within the Trinity, while anti–social trinitarianism stresses the unity of the God. According to William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, “Social trinitarianism threatens to veer into tritheism (three gods); anti–social trinitarianism is in danger of lapsing into unitarianism (one God with no distinct persons in the Godhead).” Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), p. 583. Craig and Moreland criticize Swinburne’s view by arguing that “the Father’s begetting the Son amounts to creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), which . . . makes the Son a creature.” However, without this causal dependence of the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit, “then we are stuck with the surprising and inexplicable fact that there just happen to exist three divine beings all sharing the same nature, which seems incredible.”(p. 588).
A second form of social trinitarianism is known as the “group mind” theory, in which the Trinity is “a mind that is composed of the minds of the three persons in the Godhead.” Craig and Moreland tell us the specific problem they attempt to deal with: “if such a model is to be theologically acceptable, the mind of the Trinity cannot be a self-conscious self in addition to the three self-conscious selves who are the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, for otherwise we have not a Trinity but a Quaternity, so to speak” (p. 588).
The third form of social trinitarianism is called “Trinity monotheism,” Moreland and Craig inform us, which “holds that while the persons of the Trinity are divine, it is the Trinity as a whole that is properly God.” The problem with this view they attempt to deal with is that if it is to be considered as “orthodox,” “it must hold that the Trinity alone is God and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while divine, are not Gods” (p. 589).
For an excellent critique of social trinitarianism, which has become the dominant evangelical model for the trinity, see Brian Leftow’s “Anti-social Trinitarianism,” in The Trinity, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendal, and Gerold O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). Leftow’s main point is that social trinitarianism “cannot be both orthodox and a version of monotheism” (p. 203). Moreland and Craig argue that anti–social trinitarianism reduces to unitarianism. I agree with both of these criticisms, leaving us with no plausible understanding of the Trinity.
When it comes to the Incarnation, I've discussed it here.
As far as the term "Logos" meaning the 2nd person of the trinity goes, Moreland and Craig used it this way in their book Philosophical Foundations.
When it comes to the statement "Jesus is God" goes, most theologians typically describe Jesus as participating in the divine nature, but to say "Jesus is God" is not something they want to say since the term "God" describes something larger than Jesus himself.
--------------------------------
Dr. White claims: "I haven't ever publicly commented on John Loftus before..." But that is simply not true. Other posts relating to James White can be found here, and here.
Granted, I'm not so good when it comes to making videos. And granted, the picture I used is to make fun of the faith rather than be technically precise. But let me explain what I said. Let's see if I'm as ignorant as he claims that I am. I think he is the one exhibiting some ignorance about Christian theology.
Richard Swinburne argues for the Nicene subordination doctrine of the Trinity. [Richard Swinburne, “Could There Be More Than One God? Faith and Philosophy 5, no. 3 (July 1988): 225–41. Reformed thinkers like John Calvin and Benjamin Warfield argued for Trinitarian autotheos, in that the Son and the Spirit do not derive their being from the Father but are God in and of themselves. See Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 35–57.]
Swinburne claims that a first God could eternally “create” a second and even a third God, who “proceeds” from the first God, but that there was no reason to eternally create any other Gods since love would be complete in three Gods and no more. He concludes that “if there is at least one God, then there are three and only three Gods” since “there is something profoundly imperfect and therefore inadequately divine in a solitary God.” Swinburne’s view is but one form of the “social Trinitarian model” of the Trinity. I don’t think any account of the Trinity is plausible for the Christian, and that includes Swinburne’s understanding. I find Swinburne’s scenario wildly implausible and guided more by what he thinks the Bible says than by any philosophical reasoning. The bottom line is that no matter how an orthodox triune God is conceived, this is not a simple being.
Social trinitarianism stresses the diversity of persons within the Trinity, while anti–social trinitarianism stresses the unity of the God. According to William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, “Social trinitarianism threatens to veer into tritheism (three gods); anti–social trinitarianism is in danger of lapsing into unitarianism (one God with no distinct persons in the Godhead).” Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), p. 583. Craig and Moreland criticize Swinburne’s view by arguing that “the Father’s begetting the Son amounts to creation ex nihilo (creation out of nothing), which . . . makes the Son a creature.” However, without this causal dependence of the Father to the Son and Holy Spirit, “then we are stuck with the surprising and inexplicable fact that there just happen to exist three divine beings all sharing the same nature, which seems incredible.”(p. 588).
A second form of social trinitarianism is known as the “group mind” theory, in which the Trinity is “a mind that is composed of the minds of the three persons in the Godhead.” Craig and Moreland tell us the specific problem they attempt to deal with: “if such a model is to be theologically acceptable, the mind of the Trinity cannot be a self-conscious self in addition to the three self-conscious selves who are the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit, for otherwise we have not a Trinity but a Quaternity, so to speak” (p. 588).
The third form of social trinitarianism is called “Trinity monotheism,” Moreland and Craig inform us, which “holds that while the persons of the Trinity are divine, it is the Trinity as a whole that is properly God.” The problem with this view they attempt to deal with is that if it is to be considered as “orthodox,” “it must hold that the Trinity alone is God and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while divine, are not Gods” (p. 589).
For an excellent critique of social trinitarianism, which has become the dominant evangelical model for the trinity, see Brian Leftow’s “Anti-social Trinitarianism,” in The Trinity, ed. Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendal, and Gerold O’Collins (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). Leftow’s main point is that social trinitarianism “cannot be both orthodox and a version of monotheism” (p. 203). Moreland and Craig argue that anti–social trinitarianism reduces to unitarianism. I agree with both of these criticisms, leaving us with no plausible understanding of the Trinity.
When it comes to the Incarnation, I've discussed it here.
As far as the term "Logos" meaning the 2nd person of the trinity goes, Moreland and Craig used it this way in their book Philosophical Foundations.
When it comes to the statement "Jesus is God" goes, most theologians typically describe Jesus as participating in the divine nature, but to say "Jesus is God" is not something they want to say since the term "God" describes something larger than Jesus himself.
--------------------------------
Dr. White claims: "I haven't ever publicly commented on John Loftus before..." But that is simply not true. Other posts relating to James White can be found here, and here.