Another Trinity/Monotheism “Debate”

February 2nd, 2010 by Brian

FYI . . . over at Parchment and Pen, Rob Bowman just announced that he will be having a “debate” with Christadelphian Dave Burke concerning the doctrine of the trinity.  The date is a ways off (April). Notice that Kingdom Ready is represented in the resource section of the post. They are limiting themselves to 5,000 words per post–that’s probably less than some of the recent posts on this site. I’m not familiar with Dave Burke.  Any one know about him?

24 Responses to “Another Trinity/Monotheism “Debate””

  1. on 02 Feb 2010 at 10:08 pm1 Dave Burke

    Hi Brian,

    I guess I’m qualified to answer your question. :)

    I am the co-founder and administrator of an online Christadelphian forum (www.thechristadelphians.org/forums). I’m 37 years old (in a couple of weeks) and I’ve been a Christadelphian all my life.

    My role in our community is equivalent to what mainstream Christians call a “pastor.” I’ve studied and debated the Trinity (both formally and informally) for about 17 years now. I’ve also studied early Christian history at university. I possess no professional theological qualifications, but consider myself well read for a layman.

    I have debated the Trinity online with Robert Turkel and enjoyed some informal exchanges with Edgar Foster on JW Christology and the history of Arianism. For a couple of years I was also a regular at Matt Slick’s forums (www.carm.org) where I debated his evangelical staff and members alike. I am fairly well known in the British and Australian Christadelphian communities. I believe Sean Finnegan knows my twin brother, Jonathan.

    Rob Bowman had originally proposed a word limit of 10,000 each, but I considered that far too lengthy for the average reader. It’s difficult to maintain the focus and force of an argument in a debate context when you have that much material sloshing around on a blog. 5,000 words is long enough to be detailed but short enough to be accessible; this probably works out at 4,000 for argument and 1,000 for rebuttal.

    At the end of the sixth week, the word limit will be lifted and we’ll respond to questions and arguments from the audience, so we’ll have a chance to deal with anything which hasn’t been covered by that stage.

    I really like what you guys are doing at Kingdom Ready. It’s an excellent site with good quality material. May God bless your work.

    In Christ,

    Dave

  2. on 03 Feb 2010 at 8:21 am2 Sean

    Dave,

    Glad to have you here. I have the utmost respect and admiration for your brother. I didn’t know he had a twin!

    grace & peace

  3. on 03 Feb 2010 at 8:33 am3 Xavier

    Sean,

    FYI, Anthony Buzzard will be debating Michael Brown and James White this month:

    I will be “debating” (discussing is a kinder word) the prominent apologist for the Trinity Michael Brown, who is a Messianic Jew, on February 8th at 3 pm EST (show will be archived at lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org).

    Then there is popular debater James White, author of a small and very readable paperback The Forgotten Trinity. The site for the discussion is premier.org.uk/unbelievable. Focus on the Kingdom, Feb. issue.

    Check out White’s flippant comments on his blog, his kept tabs on Anthony for some time now:

    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3739

    http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3744

  4. on 03 Feb 2010 at 10:26 am4 Dave Burke

    Thanks Sean, it’s great to have your support.

    :)

  5. on 03 Feb 2010 at 11:52 am5 Brian

    Dave,

    Thanks for your reply. Look forward to the debate.

    Brian

  6. on 03 Feb 2010 at 8:55 pm6 Dave Burke

    Cheers Brian. Feel free to visit our forums if you ever feel like discussing some fresh Unitarian material!

  7. on 09 Feb 2010 at 2:30 am7 Xavier

    Well, the Buzzard v. Brown debate is over, who won?

    http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/2010/02/08/february-8-2010/

  8. on 09 Feb 2010 at 8:20 am8 Matthew Janzen

    I am very thankful to Anthony for discussing with people like Brown and White. Anthony is extremely knowledgable in these areas and I believe very capable of articulating the unitarian position with clarity and grace.

    I just listened to the exchange he had with Dr. Brown and I must say that Dr. Brown’s method of interaction with others is unsettling to me. For example, he acted as though he could not see the point about the superiority of Christ in a text like John 1:15, 30. Astonishing to say the least.

    Anthony, in my opinion, did a much better job here at presenting a position. He was very focused and to the point. Dr. Brown often likes to jump from text to text without really exegeting any text. He did this a few shows ago with James White as well.

    Anyhow, I look so forward to the discussion between White and Buzzard!

  9. on 09 Feb 2010 at 9:51 am9 Xavier

    Just to bring you up to date on the White debate, it will hopefully be later this month [tentative Feb. 28 date] and aired the following week [1st week of March].

  10. on 09 Feb 2010 at 10:34 am10 Tim

    Matthew,

    I have observed this behavior almost without exception among evangelical or conservative scholars. I guess when you invest many years and money in getting an advanced degree (sometimes many degrees), I can see how it is difficult to admit that you might be wrong, or that there are other legitimate ways to look at a passage.

    I am tending to think that the more “liberal” scholars are really closer to the truth than the evangelical types. It is these so-called liberal types that will admit that the trinity is no where found in the Bible and “evolved” over hundreds of years. I have more respect for a liberal that believes in the trinity and that will admit this, than someone like Dr. Brown who is supremely confident in his interpretation, yet is considered conservative or evangelical in his outlook.

    I have recently (within the last couple of years) started to really study the scriptures at a deeper level. It can be unsettling at first to see how ambiguous the original text is in a lot of cases. I read a commentary on the book of Job recently and the author admitted that there is a lot in there that people have no idea how to translate or what it means, so they kind of make stuff up.

    Many “conservative” interpretations of John 1 are along the same lines. We should take the prologue as axiomatic and not try to fit it into a grid or theological system. But I digress …

  11. on 09 Feb 2010 at 1:01 pm11 Jaco

    Oh, brother, what a debate!

    I think that Mr Buzzard by far won this debate! His demeanor, his elegance, his solid presentation of Scripture without using vague language just made a rock-solid case!

    Blessed be our God for that!

    Jaco

  12. on 09 Feb 2010 at 10:02 pm12 Joseph

    Someone should make a separate thread for the Sir Anthony debate with Dr. Brown so that we can discuss the details of the debate.

  13. on 09 Feb 2010 at 10:08 pm13 Xavier

    Joseph,

    Sean has known of the debate for some time now, perhaps he [and the other posters] are busy.

    Don’t see why you cannot post your comments here though, would love to know what you thought.

  14. on 09 Feb 2010 at 10:42 pm14 Joseph

    Thanks Xavier for the heads up,

    I thought Brown’s “pleading the case”argument was basically a cope-out because of his lack of MSS evidence to prove the contrary. Buzzard, I thought did a great job at bringing up the MSS evidence to support his case, when I don’t believe at one time did Brown cite a specific MSS to support his position. Rather, Brown relied on the Church’s historical majority for his proof of the Trinity, or as he called it, “complex unity.”

    On a personal note, I get a feeling that Brown uses his being a Jew as though this gives him more understanding of the Tanakh than someone who is not Jewish. I live in Israel, also have Jewish blood, and speak Hebrew, would disagree with Brown’s apparent demeanor. I also consider myself to be Messianic. I never think that because I can speak Hebrew, and that because I have Jewish blood this somehow makes me more of an expert on Biblical texts.

    Overall, I think Buzzard handled himself very well being in a radio format where Dr. Brown controls the format, and has the louder mic. :)

    Thoughts?

  15. on 23 Feb 2010 at 9:13 am15 Lori Carlile

    Anthony won that debate, hands down. The trinitarians are confusing and make no sense. I am a former trinitarian.

  16. on 23 Feb 2010 at 9:48 am16 Xavier

    Lori

    How did you come to the sound doctrine?

    BTW: Anthony will be debating James White today over at premier.org.uk/unbelievable. Taping will be done today and hopefully will be made available on March 6. Look out for it.

  17. on 23 Feb 2010 at 7:54 pm17 Xavier

    Well, the James White v. Anthony Buzzard debate is “in the can” [as they say]. Check out White’s [albeit] brief comments on his blog and follow for it for future posting of the program.

    This was a very different discussion, since Sir Anthony is very genteel, and would normally respond with “thank you” even after I had said something akin to “Sir Anthony’s position is rank heresy.” So it was a very different exchange.

    Yeah, “different encounter” because as amazing as it might sound for most of us who hold to a Socinian Christology, people like White or Dr. Michael Brown seem never to have met one.

    The feedback I got from “the Buzzard camp” was that White was beffudled by some of Anthony’s responses regarding the readings of Ps 110.1; Heb 1.10.

    Can’t wait to listen to this one.

    PS: As regards Michael Brown, he has asked Anthony back for a second go around. Can’t wait for this one either:

    For the sake of closure, then, let’s do this (my time also being limited on this blog here): Come back on my radio show, and we will agree to focus on some of these crucial texts in depth (e.g., John 1; 8:58 20:28; Philippians 2:5-11; Hebrews 1). While I promise to be gracious to you on a personal level, I promise also to clearly and sharply expose your erroneous viewpoints. I expect the same posture from you.

    Regrettably, the phone lines problems we had the first time around distracted from our conversation (at least on my side, where my studio was in upheaval with the construction crisis outside), not to mention that I wanted to be sure that I went out of my way to give you space to state your views before gently differing with them. Since we have established our personal civility towards one another, let’s “take the gloves off,” so to say, in terms of the issues, as we have here.

    http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/2010/02/08/february-8-2010/comment-page-9/#comment-15572

  18. on 24 Feb 2010 at 1:06 am18 Jaco

    Xavier,

    I have not visited the Line of Fire website lately. It doesn’t surprise me. Brown is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Civility doesn’t feel good for the savage. Taking off the gloves is the kind of street fighter style we expect from spiritual terrorists. I have extremely little regard for this charlatan.

    Jaco

  19. on 24 Feb 2010 at 9:57 am19 Xavier

    Jaco

    Gently instruct those who oppose the truth. Perhaps God will change those people’s hearts, and they will learn the truth. 2Tim 2.25

  20. on 24 Feb 2010 at 11:06 am20 Jaco

    Ok, brother,

    I’ll accept your counsel.

  21. on 24 Feb 2010 at 4:12 pm21 Joseph

    Where can I find the recent White vs. Buzzard debate?

  22. on 27 Feb 2010 at 8:47 pm22 Mark C.

    Anthony’s discussion with James White on the British radio show “Unbelievable” is scheduled to air March 6. They post the programs on their website after they air.  See http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable.

  23. on 27 Feb 2010 at 9:23 pm23 Xavier

    Joseph

    For any future news, updates etc., check out his website:

    http://focusonthekingdom.org/index.html

  24. on 13 Mar 2010 at 8:48 pm24 Xavier

    The James White v. Anthony Buzzard debate finally online:

    http://www.premierradio.org.uk/listen/ondemand.aspx?mediaid={8D308942-5CE3-4BB8-9039-B8653F819D33}

    Who won?

Leave a Reply