Paul Manata and others, The Closet and Possibility

[Peter]

I remember we had this discussion on the PB a little while ago only the roles were reversed and Mr Manata was defending TAG against Binity / Quadinity.

I can't pretend to understand half the issues going on in this debate and I tend to lean towards the anti-TAG side on this but I think a word can be said for TAG in the area of the doctrine of the necessity of the Trinity according to the scriptures. The number of persons constituting the Godhead is something hidden from the light of nature. Believing God is three in one is entirely a matter of faith known only by special revelation. In the Bible God reveals himself as Father, Son and Spirit. To believe this and more is to add to God's revelation and commit idolatry (Deut 4:2; 12:32; Rev 22:18). I think Sola Scriptura and the RPW makes a quadinity impossible.

 

[austinbrown2]

My own concluding thoughts on this post.

1. Paul considers my responses a good expression of piety. Well, thanks. That’s a good thing, right?

2. In the midst of these technical discussions one thing becomes extremely apparent to me: man is a finite being that is ever prone towards error and confusion. Some of this is due to ignorance and some of it is due to sin and some of it is due to conditioning. The fact that this little band of Christians cannot agree on methods, etc., surely points to the truth of this assertion. Therefore, I move towards (3).

3. In a sense, all of this talk is superfluous. The Roman Empire did not get turned on its head because of sophisticated argumentation. It was a result of Christians, through the power of the Holy Spirit, preaching the Word to lost sinners. We know Christ and Him crucified. Sure, apologetics is good and required of us, but it must not be divorced from the Lordship of Jesus Christ nor the cross and the resurrection. If we cannot agree on that, then I dare say the apologetic task is futile. As I have interacted with the uneducated to the educated they both share one blatantly clear thing in common (if you probe a bit) they love their sin. This reality colors everything, no matter how pious the apparent intellectual struggle appears.

4. In this vein we talk a lot about “proof” and “impossibility,” but the fact remains that these categories are bound up with each man’s own autonomous standards. If there isn’t sovereign grace and if there isn’t common grace and if there isn’t the sense of deity in man, then the apologetic task is futile. Autonomous man is the measure of all things. This is patently obvious. Ever talked with a non-believer anyone?

5. This raises my final concern. I am uncomfortable with people saying that made up worldviews are our only threat. This is all the threat that is necessary. Possibility is all-consuming from my perspective. Paul, you want me to tell you what the necessary preconditions are… well, you tell me what the preconditions are! Is it possible that the Triune God does not exist? Answer me that. If we say that it is possible, then we are answering the question from the standpoint of autonomy. Man wasn’t made to operate in this fashion. And when we do, possibility rises to ultimacy and it swallows everything. I repeat, the likelihood of possible X and possible Y are equally likely and unlikely given our ignorance of potential factors P and Q which may or may not effect the truthfulness of X and Y. Every probability has an equal ultimacy of ultimate unknowability. The absolute Lord of Abraham is the only One who can rule over this “What if” problem. If someone disagrees with this, then I simply ask you the Christian if Jesus Christ is absolutely Lord. If so, why such contention here? Do we want this absolute claim to be more palatable to non-Christians? Do we think that something less will solve the problem? But granted, I’m all for utilizing arguments that comport with Christianity and don’t dishonor the Lord. In fact, I will go so far as to say that everything points to Christianity. Thus, everything can be used as evidence. That’s how far-reaching my apologetic, yes, TAG arguments goes. As Christians we must not sacrifice God on the alter of chance. Hopefully we can agree on this.

Blessings,
Austin

 

[austinbrown2]

P.S. I posted this before I knew some peace was arrived at. I am glad to see that the tension has dropped significantly. May the Lord bless all of our efforts, done through our own unique contributions.

Austin

 

[VanVos]

I understand yon need take a break from debate, I know how exhausting it can be. But I will attempt answer the questions here

1. I would argue yes. An objective testator gives objective knowledge to the communion that exists between the persons of Godhead. In creation every case is establish by two or more witnesses (Matt 18:16) It's a precondition for proof of any given relationship.

2. A paradox with trinitarianism is allowable because it gives the necessary preconditions for intelligibility; I still don't how any alternative does.

3. See 1

4. Again trinitarianism sufficiently gives us the preconditions for intelligibility therefore 4th member of the God head is unnecessary, and since God is perfect He can not be or do something unnecessary.

VanVos

Just wanted to add that it would have been better for me to use the language of objective testifier rather than objective testator. I hope my argument is now more intelligible.

 

[austinbrown2]

I do understand the implications of the quadrune issue... but I think it doesn't have teeth. Now we are at a stand-off. That's the nature of argumentation and person variable apologetics and knowledge acquisition. Hence, imago dei and sovereign grace are vital.

>>>>>>>All you're saying is that you *believe* that P, but you can't *show* that P.<<<<<<<<<<<,

None of us can show P when we are dealing with a person who plays by their own rules. How do you prove P? You can't even convince me, a Christian, that my method is false Are you going to prove P by inductive arguments? A-priori deductive arguments? Probability arguments? I use all of these in real life apologetics, so long as I firmly set apart Christ Jesus as Lord as I do so.

And while I get your point about the Muslim thing, we do call people to faith and repentance. I think we Christians who are steeped in philosophy forget this point. We preach Christ crucified. I tell you the truth, Ravi Zacharius and John Piper have been more effective in preaching the Gospel than any philosophical argument.

Cheers,
Austin