PW’s
third attempt at justifying his claim that Trinitarianism entails polytheism
was:
The contradictions and absurdities of trinitarian belief might
be itemised as follows:
i) God is one
ii) God is three co-equal persons
a) Is the Father completely God without any deficiency in
his deity? Christians in my experience always claim the
Father is completely God, not lacking anything that pertains to complete deity
or Godhead.
b) Is the Son of God completely God without any
deficiency in his deity? Christians in my experience always claim
the Son of God is completely God not lacking anything that pertains to complete
deity or Godhead.
c) Is the holy spirit completely God without any
deficiency in his deity? Christians in my experience always claim
the holy spirit is completely God not lacking anything that pertains to
complete deity or Godhead.
If we look again at point i) above we can see the problem. a b
& c suggest three co-equal persons each one a separate god: Father, Son of
God, and holy spirit. Each is completely God and each lacks no attribute of
deity. There are three different and separate centres of consciousness, three
separate wills, three separate persons. etc. And yet the contradictory and
irreconcilable belief is held simultaneously: that God is “one”. (Emphasis
original)
Although
it is unsound, PW at least went through the trouble of trying to make this look
like an actual argument. Unfortunately, the critical link in his syllogism
necessary to infer his desired conclusion is completely missing.
PW
has told us that Christians believe each distinct person of the Trinity is
completely God. From this he jumps to the conclusion that each person is a
separate God. For all the appearance of an argument, the premise needed to
demonstrate why the first premise leads to PW’s conclusion is completely
missing. Essentially, once we strip away all the fluff, the following is all PW has given us:
Premise 1: Each one of the distinct persons of the Trinity is completely God and lacks no attribute of deity;
Premise 2: _________________;
Conclusion: Christians believe in three gods or divine beings.
However,
suppose the missing premise is one of the following:
“Each
person of the Trinity is God by virtue of completely sharing/possessing the
same being, essence, and nature as the other two persons.”
Or,
“The
Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory
equal, the majesty co-eternal.”
Or,
“All
the fullness of the divine essence belongs to each person, such that they are
not generically but substantially one.”
Or,
“The
divine essence possessed completely by the Father is numerically identical to
the divine essence possessed completely by the Son and completely by the
Spirit.”
Would
PW’s conclusion follow from any of these? Certainly not. That’s why PW left out
the necessary premise. Anything he supplied would either not accurately reflect
Christian belief, and thus would be a straw man, or it would be one or another
of the premises I gave above, from which his conclusion would not follow. Accordingly,
he suppressed the requisite premise and offered his elliptical argument hoping
no one would notice.
Of
course he may not have been trying to be deceptive here. The possibility exists
that PW is no better as a logician than he is as a theologian or as an exegete
of Holy Scripture. The problem with this option is that PW made reference to the
Athanasian Creed in the original post where he first lied about what Christians believe, and this very creed explicitly
states what PW suppressed:
Whosoever
will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic
faith; which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt
he shall perish everlastingly.
And
the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in
Unity;
Neither
confounding the persons, nor dividing the
substance
For
there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son and another of the Holy
Spirit.
But the Godhead of the Father, of the
Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.
So
not only did PW lie when representing what Christians believe about God; he
also could not justify his excuse for doing so by demonstrating that our belief
actually entails polytheism.
Although
it would not be as fun, I think PW was better off when he didn’t even try to
respond. As the saying goes, it is better to let other people think you lie like Muhammad than to open your mouth and prove it.
7 comments:
Poor Pee Wee, its no wonder that he doesn't want to debate you.
Hello Brother Anthony and team!
I think this man need some sleeping tablets. Being of the professsion he does not remember what he had wrote in any of his previous articles. With sleeping tablets he will wakeup wit a fresh head and will be able to remember what he wrote before.
GOD BLESS you in YESHUA' S NAME amen.
We must not forget that we human being have limitation in understanding everything; we cannot add or destroy anything in this seen and unseen world. It is not unusual to perceive God-Head with our limited worldly knowledge and that is why by faith on Jesus Christ we are saved and guaranteed our eternal life. Jesus is alpha and omega, but Muhammad is a dead man, killed by poison.
Muslims Prophet Muhammad had difficulty understanding Trinity, God of truth and spirit with his worldly knowledge. Muhammad son of Abdullah, husband of many wives, businessman, great warrior, composer of rhythmic political book, the Quran had limited knowledge understanding Son out of radiant of God the Father. He only knew that it takes two father and mother to bear a son. Paul William understands only this basic truth, and missed salvation of God thru Jesus Christ. He is the loser by his conscious.
Anthony Rogers fails to engage with the incoherence of the Trinity
doctrinehttp://bloggingtheology.org/2014/10/26/8825/
Paul, thanks for being such an easy target. I will reply later this evening or tomorrow, Lord willing.
Anthony it would be nice if you actually addressed the issues and refrained (for once) from sarcasm, abuse and defamation. Let us see if you can do this.
PW,
I am not your dhimmi. Here is my refutation.
Post a Comment