My “On Baukham’s Bargain” has drawn a response from my biggest fan, the Reformed brawler Steve Hays. I reply in the comments there.
Given how many evangelicals have jumped on the Bauckham Bandwagon, I hope that it’ll get some serious discussion in the journals or elsewhere.
Here’s my first reply to his post:
Steve, it’s odd to spend so many words sniping at my summary of what Bauckham holds forth as advantages of his theory. e.g. After the seventh point (of Bauckham’s!) you object, “That’s a diversionary tactic.” Is that an objection to Bauckham?
Read all the way through, then think, and then, finally start objecting.
About the “fatal concession”, I’m afraid you’re mistaken. The time-explicit version of the indiscernibility of identicals is all I need to make the point. Jesus and God have, at one time, differed. It follows that they are not identical (by the time-explicit version). This is in a footnote just because it’s a technical point. See here if you still don’t get it. http://youtu.be/9IPJq1kcDuc?t=5m49s
“Tuggy has now abandoned strict identity” Eh… no.
” If we say an agent could do otherwise, and we gloss that by reference to possible worlds, then is he the same self?”
This is what is impossible: Steve being dismissive and not being dismissive at one and the same time, in one and the same “possible world”. In another possible world (at this same time), it may be that Steve is not dismissive. That is wholly compatible with him being dismissive in this, the actual world.
“He’s projecting his own complaints onto the text, as if the NT writers saw the issues the same way he does.”
Wow, are you shooting from the hip here. Of course, I’m not complaining at all about the NT, but rather about Bauckham’s theory. Maybe you have a hard time separating the two?
“By ascribing to Jesus exclusive names, titles, attributes, actions, and prerogatives that are uniquely reserved for the one true God.”
Yeah, I discuss this argument in the paper. Only God can be truly described as F. Jesus is truly described as F. Ergo, God = Jesus. And, you admit, because the NT says so, that the two have differed. So you directly imply that one and the same being has, at one time, differed from itself.
Has God himself told us this? If so, we might try to overlook that it seems as obviously false as any claim does. Of course, the point of the whole paper, which I don’t think you’ve really digested, is that Bauckham’s theory seems ill-equipped to help us understand the texts. When faced with such a patent incoherence, we really ought to doubt our theory, and see if we can make better sense of the text. We should be afraid that the apparent contradictions have come from our own confused theorizing, and not from the texts themselves. In every other context, we rightly hesitate to attribute an obviously confused message to a text.
Is it arrogant to refuse to believe what appears contradictory? It can be. It doesn’t seem to be in the above case; it is the humble course to try to make the best sense out of a text. But it is plainly arrogant to foist a demonstrably incoherent theory on the Christian public, and if they point out its incoherence, accuse them of sitting in judgment over God’s self-revelation. I dare say God does not appreciate this condemnation; as we listen to him, he expects and requires us to use the minds he so generously gave us.
The fact is that the argument above was not endorsed by a great many historic mainstream theologians. e.g. http://trinities.org/blog/archives/5000 They called Jesus “God” and thought of him as in a lesser sense divine, but they demonstrably did not draw the conclusion that Jesus and the Father were the same being, or the same God. Instead, the argued that the one God of the OT is the Father, who is greater than Jesus. In your mind, Steve, the numerical identity of Jesus and God is an obvious implication of the NT. Well, then Justin, Origen, Tertullian, etc. didn’t get the memo. Which is to say, no – that’s not at all an obvious implication of the NT, but rather a controversial theory about it.
Update: I’ve gone a few rounds with him there. Though he can’t help calling me a liar etc. he’s relatively well-behaved, and raises some objections based on the idea that I’ve somehow unfairly concocted what I say about numerical identity just to trip up Trinity theories. I explain why this is not at all so.
Update 2: He goes another round, but this time is back to his usual bile and belligerence. I couldn’t muster the will to try to correct all his errors. This gets old, when the student constantly accuses one of incompetence, dishonesty, and such.
The post My diabolical “ruse” exposed – drat! appeared first on Trinities.