Responding to an Evangelical on My Appeal to the Work of Andrew Malone on Whether God the Father Can Be Seen

In my post Andrew Malone on God being "Invisible" and 1 Timothy 1:17 and 6:16, I quote from Andrew Malone, a Trinitarian, on how Col 1:15, 1 Tim 1:17, and 6:16 does not teach God the Father cannot be seen. Careful readers (and even just half-competent readers) will note that (1) I noted that Malone was a Trinitarian at the very beginning of the post; indeed, at the end of the blog post I noted that, as a Trinitarian, Malone would not be friendly towards LDS theology of divine embodiment; (2) I never stated Malone was teaching God the Father is material, not immaterial (again, I noted he is a Trinitarian, so this would be obvious) and (3) quoted Malone simply to show that "invisible" in Col 1:15 (aορατος) and 1 Tim 1:17 and 6:16 does not mean God the Father cannot be seen ever.

Proving himself, yet again, not to be intellectually honest, Robert Bowman "responded" in a facebook group (a friend shared the following with me):

Bowman's response, to be perfectly honest, can best be summed up with the following image:

My longer response: The whole "person X disagrees with you theologically, so it is not proper to appeal to him!" routine is common to Bowman, but it is both tiring and hypocritical. It is tiring as, anyone with any academic training can tell you, one need not share 100% agreement with a commentator's theology to reference them favourable. The fact that Malone, as a Trinitarian, believes God the Father to be immaterial does not weaken my appeal to his writings, as I never used him to support divine embodiment (on this, see: Lynn Wilder vs. Latter-day Saint (and Biblical) Theology on Divine Embodiment); instead, Malone's comments soundly refute the eisegesis of these and similar texts to teach, contra LDS theology, God the Father can be seen and that Joseph Smith could not have seen the Father in the First Vision (though at least Bowman admits that “invisible” (αορατος) does not always mean “immaterial”).

It is also hypocritical to play the "Well, person X does not believe in doctrine Y" game as Bowman has appealed to Rabbinical sources against LDS (on the issue of Old Testament figures like Abraham engaging in polygyny) and other non-Trinitarian commentators before.

Imagine a situation where Bowman was debating a Jew, and Bowman appealed to Rashi to show that respected Jewish commentators did not shy away from a "suffering servant"-like interpretation of the Messiah, but carefully noted, at the start and end, Rashi would not be a supporter of Bowman’s Christology and Trinitarianism. Imagine how Bowman would respond if the Jewish apologist were to respond, "well, Rashi was a Jew and not a Trinitarian, so appealing to him to support a "suffering-servant" interpretation of a Messianic text is bogus!" Bowman would, correctly, point out that such a "response" is intellectually disingenuous, as Bowman would not have to agree with Rashi on everything (genetic fallacy, anyone?); instead, Rashi was being referenced on one point only, and not to support the entirety of Bowman's theology, and such disagreements between Bowman’s and Rashi’s theology was acknowledged at the start and end of the response. And yet, this is the essence of Bowman's "response" to the blog post.

This is not just a “swing and a miss”; it is a “swing and an epic blunder” from Bowman, similar to his Temple of Solomon nonsense. It speaks volumes of the gullibility of Evangelicals that he is a go-to source on many issues.

Further Reading:

Blake T. Ostler, “Out of Nothing”: A History of Creation ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought (discusses the meaning of “invisible”/”unseen” matter and related topics)