Important new open access journal: The Journal of Analytic Theology (Dale)

May 122013
 

jatCongratulations to editors Oliver Crisp, Michael Rea, Trent Dougherty and Kevin Diller on the launch of an important new open access journal: The Journal of Analytic Theology.

What is “analytic” theology?

Good question. Roughly: theology done using the tools of contemporary (typically English-language) “analytic” philosophy.

What is that? Here’s one answer by a master practitioner. Also, this journal aims to “explore theological and meta-theological topics in a manner that prizes terminological clarity and argumentative rigor.” I assume that the topics will not be limited to Christian ones, although glancing through the names on the editorial board, I don’t recognize the names of anyone I know to be a non-Christian.

I’m sure this is going to be an important source both for philosophers and for theologians. The inaugural issue in fact features some interactions between the two.

It also features an interesting article by trinities contributor Scott Williams – congratulations, Scott! Maybe I’ll post a few comments or here on trinities soon.

Finally, kudos are due to the Center for the Philosophy of Religion at the University of Notre Dame and Baylor University for their support of this project. Their support is advancing the cause of Christian thought.

Love the logo. If they made another, they could talk about their official “logos.”

OK, I’ll stop.

He is risen… so not reincarnated (Dale)

Mar 312013
 

Jesus is alive, and he still has a real, flesh and blood body. He has had that body continuously – but for a break of less than three days –  for over 2000 years. Because of that, he has not switched bodies, not reincarnated, not been reborn as some present day dude. Jesus is still driving the original model… with a few upgrades, of course.

This is important to know, because of the proliferation of fake Jesuses today, like A.J. Miller in Australia, Sergey Anatolyevitch Torop in Russia, Jose Miranda (also here) in America, Álvaro Theiss (also here) in Brazil, and other assorted crazies.

Acid test: Does this claimant Continue reading »

trinitarian or unitarian? 8 – Origen on “God” vs. “a god” (Dale)

Mar 252013
 

wordOrigen, many other ancient catholics, takes the Word (logos) of John 1 to be the pre-human Jesus.

For the record, I don’t think that is correct. But I won’t contest it here.

In the quotes here, he’s commenting on “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This is from an long commentary on John, this portion of which was probably written in 231-2 AD.

Many people who wish to be pious are troubled because they are afraid that they may proclaim two Gods and, for this reason, they fall into false and impious beliefs. They either deny that the individual nature of the Son is other than that of the Father by confessing him to be God whom they refer to as “Son” in name at least, or they deny the divinity of the Son and make his individual nature and essence as an individual to be different from the Father. (Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel According to God, trans. Robert E. Heine, p. 98, bold added)

Permit me to paraphrase: people think that this Word who is with God and yes is God must be another God, a second God. But that seems wrong – isn’t monotheism true? Thus, they either think Father and Son to be numerically one (the same God) or they deny that the Word, that is, the pre-human Jesus to be divine – to be such that the word “God” applies to him.

Immediately following the passage above, Origen gives his solution.

Their problem can be resolved in this way. Continue reading »

Credo House Ministries’ Inaccuracies about the Trinity and the Council of Nicea (Dale)

Mar 212013
 

Unimpressed-Mona-LisaI’ve blogged about these folks before. I do not enjoy criticizing apologists, because I think Christian apologetics is important. And the folks at Credo House Ministries seem like good-hearted and hard working Christians who are doing their best to help Christians love God with their minds. And I think Patton is an excellent blogger and writer.

But I feel compelled to correct some of their inaccurate statements about “the” doctrine of the Trinity. In this video, they want to correct the myth that “The Trinity” – by which they mean “the” doctrine of the Trinity, or rather, the widely accepted catholic creedal formulas -”was invented.”

Well, given that it is a doctrine which we’re talking about, a theory, which didn’t exist in BC times, of course it was “invented,” i.e first formulated and stated by some folks.

But it actually wasn’t in 325, at Nicea! That formula, as then understood, was consistent with Christian unitarian theology.

But let’s go through their video. Continue reading »

Linkage: Dan Wallace: 5 Myths About Bible Translation (Dale)

Mar 192013
 

booksCheck out this post by Dan Wallace over at Parchment and Pen. I teach religious studies, and regularly encounter this one:

Myth 1: The Bible has been translated so many times we can’t possibly get back to the original.

Wallace’s answer is absolutely right.

#2 is also an important point. Wallace might have added that quotation marks are never in the Greek manuscripts; they didn’t exist in ancient times. In a sense, they are part of the translation – and at times, a product of translators’ interpretation.

I agree with the substance of Wallace’s comments #3 and #4 as well. But on #5, it is wholly unclear what he means by the “deity of Christ.” Evangelicals love that phrase, I think in part because of its ambiguity.

It is true, though, that Constantine is not any kind of major player in the development of catholic doctrine. That’s just Dan Brown nonsense – the bane of anyone who loves the intellectual enterprise of history.

Update: 15 more. Some of this stuff is embarrassing; but Wallace is doing God’s work, because many of these are in wide circulation.

Leonard Hodgson on “Subordinationism” (Dale)

Mar 062013
 

small-dog-big-dogAnglican theologian Leonard Hodgson’s 1943 book The Doctrine of the Trinity is creative, insightful, and I think believed by no one. It posits what I call a “three self” theory, what others call a “social” theory. But my purpose here is to relay his insights regarding the approach to monotheism in the first three centuries of Christianity.

…”subordinationism.” That term is used to describe theories current in the monarchian controversies of the third and fourth centuries. Those theories were attempts to secure the unity of the Godhead by regarding one Person as ultimately God in His own right and the others as divine in a secondary or subordinate sense. …only one of the three Persons, the Father, was in patristic times regarded in this way as the real God… [the theory is fundamentally an attempt] to find the unity by treating one of the elements as ultimate and reducing the others to terms of it. (The Doctrine of the Trinity, p. 88, emphases added)

Subordinationism… attempts to preserve the unity by making one Person ultimately the real God and the others divine because of their relation to Him. Hippolytus of Rome was notorious for the subordinationism into which he was driven in his efforts to refute Sabellius. Although in this connection Origen is chiefly memorable for the doctrine of eternal generation by which he freed trinitarian theology from one element in subordinationism, i.e. temporal secondariness, yet other elements remained… ( p. 100, bold added)

The notion that in the Trinity one Person may be the fount or source of being or godhead for another lingered on to be a cause of friction and controversy between the East and the West, and still persists into much Christian theology of to-day. …[But in the divine] unity, there is no room for any trace of subordinationism… the thought of the Father as the Source or Fount of Godhead is a relic of pre-Christian theology which has not fully assimilated Christian revelation. (p. 102, emphases added)

A few quibbles; Continue reading »

New Papers (Dale)

Feb 152013
 

paperI’ve just updated my homepage with a paper forthcoming in Faith and Philosophy, called “Hasker’s Quests for a Viable Social Theory.” My sincere thanks to editor Thomas Flint, and to that journal’s anonymous readers for their help.

The paper critically examines the various discussions of William Hasker, a very accomplished Christian philosopher, and former editor of F&P, from whom I have learned much. I think that more than anyone, he’s tried hard to make the “social” approach to the Trinity work – in which you say that the “Persons” of the Trinity really are persons, that is, selves, and then try to figure out how this is not going to be tritheism. In my judgment, Hasker does not succeed in coming up with a philosophically and theologically viable take on the Trinity. But judge for yourself, after you see the arguments.

Along the way I discuss Bill Craig’s (and J.P. Moreland’s?) social theory. This too seems like a dead end to me.

Social theorists’ most serious problem is not that they raise the hackles of many Christian philosophers, but rather that they contradict the New Testament. (e.g. Paul and John.) Maybe in a few days I’ll post a historical supplement to this paper – a part the journal compelled me to cut, which deals with Hasker’s misunderstandings of some patristic material.

I have other forthcoming papers which I’m not at liberty to publicly post yet. In “On Bauckham’s Bargain,” (forthcoming in Theology Today), I critically examine Richard Bauckham’s “christology of divine identity” – which has attracted so many evangelical apologists and theologians. I worked hard to make this paper communicate to non-philosophers, and I really hope it leads to some helpful discussion.

Another forthcoming publication is a slightly revised version of this talk, to be published here. I miss the pictures, but I think it is an important topic for all Christians to think carefully about.

God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament – conference presentation (Dale)

Nov 032012
 

Here’s a video of my May 2012 talk in Atlanta, “God and his Son: the Logic of the New Testament.” Many thanks to Sharon and Dan Gill, who filmed, edited, and posted it on their fine website, 21st Century Reformation.

The characteristic thesis of unitarian Christianity (aka Biblical Unitarianism, Christian Monotheism) is that the Father of Jesus just is the one God, Yahweh, and Jesus is someone else.

This is assumed in this passage:

Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ (John 20:17, ESV)

Actually, it is consistently assumed in the entire New Testament – there is no difference between authors on this score. But here, it is especially close to the surface, as it were.

And it is explicitly asserted in these:

When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him.  And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (John 17:1-3, ESV)

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—  yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Cor 8:4-6, ESV)

The waters have been muddied by evangelical and Catholic apologists arguing for “the deity of Christ,” and by some big name theologians like Bauckham and Wright arguing that in the last passage Paul “inserts Jesus into the Shema.” In this talk, after I give a quick logic lesson, I discuss how logic helps us to think clearly about these three passages.

You’ll have to watch the video to find out why the Lord is face-palming. :-) Hint: it has to do with an often-misread piece of scripture.

Here’s the screencast version, which I did when I got back from the conference.

Orthodox modalism (Dale)

Aug 012012
 

Consider this recent affair; to the relief of many evangelicals, this prominent leader has turned from the brink of damnable heresy. That is, he’s turned from Oneness Pentecostal theology (which is, in my experience, as clear as mud) to “Orthodoxy.” Christianity Today trumpets: “T.D. Jakes Embraces Doctrine of the Trinity, Moves Away from ‘Oneness’ View“.

“I began to realize that there are some things that could be said about the Father that could not be said about the Son,” Jakes said. “There are distinctives between the working of the Holy Spirit and the moving of the Holy Spirit, and the working of the redemptive work of Christ. I’m very comfortable with that.”

This is the indiscernibility of identicals (also here) in action. This is a valid inference : x and y have differed, so x and y are not numerically identical. So in his view, the Father is not the Son.

So far so good. But what sorts of things does he think the Father and Son are?

It seems: “manifestations.” Of what? God. So they are two manifestations of God.

So of course he asserts that he (the new trinitarian) and the Oneness folk “are saying the same thing.”

At this event Pastor Marc Driscoll grilled Jakes on catholic formulas, and Jakes said yes to them all, only qualifying – like a number of catholic theologians – that he doesn’t much like the term “person.” So as far as Driscoll and many viewers are concerned, he’s “orthodox.”

But Jakes’ misreading of 1 Tim 3:16 is revealing – he thinks that the one God – conceived as a self (I’m interpreting here) manifested in the life of Jesus – so that the self operative there in that life is simply God. “Jesus” is the mode of God’s manifesting in this way, including, presumably, a real human being.  Of course, Jesus, aka the Son isn’t the Father; they are two different modes of God, ways God is. (He says “manifests” but since he agrees that the Trinity is eternal, he must have in mind something intrinsic to God rather than a relation to creatures.)

Just as Jakes has said before:

I believe in one God who is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe these three have distinct and separate functions — so separate each has individual attributes, yet are one. I do not believe in three Gods. …Though no human illustration perfectly fits the Divine, it is similar to ice, water and steam: three separate forms, yet all H20. Each element can co-exist, each has distinguishing characteristics and functions, but all have sameness…. (link and emphasis added)

For Jakes, God just is a certain great self, who eternally lives in three ways. It seems he is a noumenal, eternally concurrent FSH modalist.

But my point is not to throw rocks at Jakes. Rather, my point is Continue reading »

Metatheology with Baber (Dale)

Jul 262012
 

(click for image credit)

Thanks to all you excellent commenters! I can’t always keep up.

I see my friend philosophy professor Harriet Baber has been on there asking some provocative questions like some kind of Socratic gadfly. :-)   I thought they deserved a post. The quotes here are from her comments.

WHAT pre-existed: the 2nd Person of the Trinity or Christ?

Orthodox / catholic-kosher answer: both. The 2nd person of the Trinity is assumed to be personally identical to (and so, identical to) the man Jesus.

What if I hold that the Trinitarian Person was pre-existent but became a human at some time in the late 1st century BC so that, in effect, Christ is a proper temporal part of the 2nd Person of the Trinity. Does this make me an adoptionist?

To all the non-philosophers out there; she is applying the recent metphysical doctrine of temporal parts here, thinking of, e.g. a self as extended across or spread out over time, rather than lasting (entire) though time. In current day metaphysicians’ lingo, people perdure rather than endure. So in this case the one Christ would be that whole four-dimensional, event-like thing, with the early part being the pre-human logos and the latter part being the human Jesus – but as I’m using the terms here (this is tricky – there are no standard terms here) the logos and Jesus would be temporal parts of the one Christ.

I don’t know, Harriet, whether or not this makes you an adoptionist; I suggest we lay aside Continue reading »

Jesus: not an entirely fictional character (Dale)

Jul 182012
 

Eminent Bible scholar Dr. Craig Keener argues that yes, the man Jesus existed; Jesus is not an entirely fictional character.

Big news, huh? :-)

I’ve followed this issue from afar from a while, but just can’t get myself to take this point of view (that Jesus never existed) seriously. To anyone very much acquainted with the relevant sources, it is obvious that there was a Jesus – whatever you think about his miracles, his claims, his status as Son of God, etc.

It is so obvious that one of our more important critics of traditional Christianity and the Bible, textual scholar and historian Dr. Bart Ehrman, has recently penned a book refuting Jesus-never-existed claims. See this long interview with fellow scholar Dr. Ben Witherington here.  (HT: triablogue)

And here is Ehrman on NPR. And The Huffington Post. And the Washington Post. And Religion Dispatches. (He gets a lot of press!)

Honestly, don’t spend too much time on this – it is at bottom a conspiracy theory. But credit to Ehrman and Keener; if one can muster the energy to take it seriously, it brings out the strength of the evidence for a historical Jesus.

It will be more interesting when he wades into more christological territory, into the matter of the historical Jesus’ self-understanding and public teaching about himself. In the Witherington interview linked above he says Continue reading »

Buzzard’s textual arguments against Jesus’ pre-human existence – Part 4 (Dale)

Jul 162012
 

In this recent video, Sir Anthony makes various relevant points. As I said in part 1 of this series, his linguistic argument against “pre-existence” is not his only one. At 3:11ff he gives a version of the linguistic argument I’ve been criticizing. It seems to me that the title of this video is false. To have been “begotten of God” I think, just means to be the Son of God – “begotten” neither means nor uncontroversially implies having been caused to come into existence.

I completely agree with him, by the way, that the NT strongly and repeatedly warns against any teaching that Jesus is not a real human being. But as we’ll see, we Christians disagree about what it is to be a real human being. And what it is to be a real human being is a philosophical question, and one not definitively settled by the Bible.

At 1:29-1:51 Sir Anthony says, basically, that it is doubtful that a human can exist as a non-human before its human existence, i.e. before its conception. At 4:21-38 he seems to make the stronger assertion that any human must come to exist in his or her mother’s womb.

Of course, there are test-tube conceived babies. I think he means
Continue reading »

Buzzard’s textual arguments against Jesus’ pre-human existence – Part 3 (Dale)

Jul 152012
 

Do you think that you pre-existed your conception?

Me neither.

True, there are cultures which pre-suppose this. But most of the human race, including ancient Jews, assumes that getting parented involves getting brought into existence some time between the sexual union and birth. You, the younger human being, exist because of what your parents did. This, I suggest,  is the default human assumption. You exist because of them.

Abe and Sarah did what married folk do. Because of this (with some sort of miraculous fertility assist from God) Isaac came to exist. When? Opinions vary as to the exact time, but certainly before birth, and  no earlier than union of sperm and egg – that’s what most of us think.

So Matthew and Luke don’t mention any pre-human existence for Jesus. They do assert that he’s the human son of Mary who was “begotten” – seemingly, conceived (as most translations have it) by the power of God. And as Buzzard emphasizes, for this reason, the angel says, the child will be called the Son of God.

What? Isn’t he called that because he has the divine nature, because he is one essence with the Father? Well, that’s not what it says. Would Luke have said it somewhere if he’d believed it? We would think so. So, this is a problem for the theological heirs of the fourth century catholic “fathers”. But it is not, on the face of it, a problem for humanitarian unitarians.

The elephants in the room Continue reading »

Buzzard’s textual arguments against Jesus’ pre-human existence – Part 2 (Dale)

Jul 142012
 

Buzzard complains at length about Platonizing “fathers” insisting that the New Testament teaches the “eternal generation” of the Son, citing the Lewis Carrol passage here. (pp. 260ff) I think he’s right to do so; the exegetical crimes of the “fathers” are legion. But in the end, I think Buzzard goes a bit too far.

The “word ‘beget‘,” he says, “is deprived of its actual meaning.” (p. 260) A page later:

The word “beget” had a perfectly easy meaning: to originate, to procreate, to cause to come into existence.” (p. 261)

I would say: let’s be careful here. If I understand correctly, the core meaning of the verb gennao is to become the parent of a child, to procreate, whether as father or mother.

Does this necessarily imply bringing into existence? Arguably not. If it did, then a sentence like this would be a self-contradiction (like married bachelor, square circle, or Jewish pope): “Sarah and Abraham begat Isaac, and when they did, Isaac’s soul moved from heaven down into Sarah’s womb.” Who would say such a thing? Well, a bloke like Origen, who believed in the pre-human-existence of all humans (i.e. their rational souls). And what if, for reasons known only to him, God first created Isaac’s soul, and then, say, five years later made those of Sarah and Abe. And later, Sarah and Abe beget (become the parents of) Isaac. Here, the one begotten would be older than the ones who begot him.

Now I’m not telling you to believe these things, or that the scriptures teach them. Rather, my sole point is Continue reading »

Buzzard’s textual arguments against Jesus’ pre-human existence – Part 1 (Dale)

Jul 132012
 

Let’s pretend that this shows Jesus at the age of 3 months. Does the New Testament teach that no more than 12 months before, Jesus came into existence (for the first time), that is, in philosopher’s lingo, that he was generated?

Sir Anthony Buzzard has argued that the New Testament teaches exactly that, and explicitly so. There’s been a boiling discussion of this argument by our intrepid commenters on this post.

I think this issue deserves some posts. In the past I’ve never been sure I’ve quite understood his argument, and so have never taken a position on it. I’m going to think through it in this series of posts.

Let us first note that the truth and reasonableness of this humanitarian unitarian christology doesn’t stand or fall with this exegetical argument. There may be other textual, theological, or philosophical reasons to hold that Christ did not exist before his human life, i.e. before his conception. It is clear to me, in fact, that this argument is not Sir Anthony’s only reason for this view. (See e.g. comment #2 in the discussion linked above.)

Second, let’s note that it is a very strong or bold argument. Continue reading »

Dale Tuggy interviewed by J. Dan Gill (Dale)

Jun 072012
 

I had the pleasure of meeting J. Dan Gill  recently in Atlanta. He’s a retired pastor in Nashville, Tennessee, but is very active with his wife Sharon in promoting what many call “biblical unitarianism,” what he calls a “One God” theology. (I prefer “unitarian Christianity” or “Christian unitarianism.”) He came to these views back in the 80s after rejecting “Oneness” Pentecostal theology. He’s an insightful speaker and Bible interpreter, always in pursuit of his dream “of seeing Christians pursue original / authentic Christianity together.”

He does a great  job here, interviewing me about my background, Philosophy, the evolution of my views, and so on. Downloads are available on the version posted on his website, 21stcr.org.

God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament (Dale)

Jun 042012
 

Below are links to my new screencast lecture, God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament. It is based on a talk I gave in May 2012 in Atlanta, Georgia. An actual video of that talk has been posted at the 21st Century Reformation website. I wasn’t reading from a script, so the versions are a bit different.

Part 1:

Part 2: Continue reading »

Who Should Christians Worship? (Dale)

May 302012
 

Here’s a screencast version of a talk I gave in Atlanta at the 2012 Theological Conference sponsored by the Atlanta Bible College. My thanks to the hosts and audience there for a good discussion.

This version is a bit longer, and I’ve tweaked my definitions of idolatry, I hope making them more accurate.

I believe an actual video of my talk will eventually be posted at the 21st Century Reformation website. The Atlanta version is more conversational and has film of me talking, and I believe it will include the Q&A that followed. I will post links when they are available.

Part 1:

Part 2: Continue reading »

Trinitarian-Unitarian Debates – 1 Bosserman vs. Finnegan, 2008 – Part 5 (Dale)

May 262012
 

Closing statements:

Finnegan: 1:48:43- 1:52:12 Only one Yahweh. Jesus does things God says he can’t do, e.g. die. Jesus affirms Shema. In John 10, Jesus uses a concept of “representational deity” – i.e. calling a being who isn’t God “God” because of some likeness to God in some respect(s). Trinity is confusing, post-biblical. But it is a solution to a non-existent problem, namely, of their being two Gods. But I don’t have that problem, so don’t need the solution.

Bosserman: 1:52:13 – 1:58 Jesus is my God. With all love, I must say that this is more than an intellectual matter. Repentance is necessary. So just as Jesus rebuked the Samaritan woman (“You worship what you do not know.”) Unitarianism makes man the focus instead of God; it is ”a man-made religion.” As the serpent tempted Eve to put herself over and be the measure of God, so unitarians disregard God’s word and critique God rather than believe as he says. And as the serpent says they can “be like God” so unitarians “blur the line” between creator and creature, and make God dependent on his creation. This is “exactly” what the serpent promised Eve. And as the serpent questioned God’s threat of death, unitarians arbitrarily exempt one son of Adam [Jesus] from need of atonement, and they think that God arbitrarily (“by fiat”) forgave Jesus [for Adam's sin?]. So the serpent was right about this one man. I’m not being rude, I have to call out your unwillingness to submit to God until he fits your box. (Offers prayer that the sinners present, the unitarians, would be given grace to submit to God’s word, the veils removed from their eyes. )

My final comments: Both debaters Continue reading »

Trinitarian-Unitarian Debates – 1 Bosserman vs. Finnegan, 2008 – Part 4 (Dale)

May 252012
 

Bosserman questions Finnegan: 1:36:20

  • B: Did OT saints understand that the physical Temple would be replaced by Jesus?
  • F: No.
  • B: So does the NT contradict the OT on this?
  • F: Incomplete vs. contradictory claims.
  • B: What about Deut 12?
  • F: Like you, I think it doesn’t predict an unending physical temple.
  • B: Why can’t God then only later reveal himself to be not only one but also triune?
  • F: Jesus confesses Jewish monotheism [in Mk 12:29] which Jews then and now think incompatible with three divine beings. E.g. pronouns.
  • B: How is the Trinity case different from the Temple case?
  • F: I believe in progressive revelation, but OT says God not a man, can’t be ignorant – so it contradicts Trinity claims.
Comment: point Finnegan. Bosserman can’t Continue reading »
 Older Entries

Switch to our mobile site

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech