Experiential Argument for the Trinity
Okay, here is my presentation of the experiential argument for the doctrine of the Trinity as I understand it.
(E1) We experience the Trinitarian God in salvation-history.
(E2) If we experience the Trinitarian God in salvation-history, this counts as evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity is trustworthy.
(E3) Therefore we have evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity is trustworthy.
But my argument dealt with proto-Trinitarian propositions. So to keep the terms consistent, we must add the following proposition:
(E4) If we have evidence that the doctrine of the Trinity is trustworthy then we also have evidence that the Bible’s proto-Trinitarian propositions are trustworthy.
(E5) Therefore we have evidence that the Bible’s proto-Trinitarian propositions are trustworthy.
And if you accept my proposition (6), that the Bible’s proto-Trinitarian propositions are remote propositions, then we may also conclude:
(E6) We have evidence that some of the Bible’s remote propositions are trustworthy.
Therefore, on the basis of (E6), those who accept this argument must reject my (5), “There is no evidence that any of the Bible’s remote propositions are justified.” Thus the first conclusion (7) no longer follows.
This argument, if accepted, also allows us to reject one of the propositions in the second argument, but at first glance I am not seeing it right now. Since it’s late and I promised to get this up today, I’m going to let this stand as is. Maybe some of you smarter guys can help me refine this argument to get it more in line with what you are saying. In the meantime, I’m ready to be done with this topic for the day.
I need to do some less serious blogging. What happened to sitting around a table with a beer? Somehow I got sucked into the proposition thing and now I’m spending all my time just trying to figure out terms and keep things clear. So somebody tag me with an inane meme or something. Good night.