Swinburne @ Biola (Dale)

Feb 272013
 

swinburne4Richard Swinburne was a visiting fellow at Biola University’s Center for Christian Thought in the Fall of 2012.

Here are the videos they’ve posted from that visit.

Interestingly, they seem to have avoided the topic of Swinburne’s Trinity theory – at least, judging by the videos they posted. One has to wonder why. Maybe they just wanted to leave room to discuss the soul, about which Swinburne has many plausible arguments. But in general, again, judging by what they’ve posted, they seem to have avoided areas in which some would think Swinburne to be, as it were, off the (American) evangelical reservation.

In this one, he pretty clearly implies that churches not ruled by bishops in a line traceable to the apostles are not legitimate churches, not continuations of the movement (and he thinks institution) Jesus founded. That would be: most Protestant churches! But the interviewer lets it go.

Again, in this one, Swinburne expounds a view of atonement which I think differs quite a bit from what most American evangelicals think, but the differences are not highlighted.

Here’s an exception. Right up front, in the first minute, Swinburne notes that probably most Biola philosophers and theologians will disagree with his thesis, that “God” is what Swinburne calls “a metaphysically necessary” being. (See here for what he means by that.) Be forewarned: this is as arcane as Swinburne gets, and the questioners afterwards are clearly, and understandably, struggling to grasp his meaning and motivations. Here too is the written form, which is forthcoming in the European Journal for Philosophy of Religion.

For my fellow philosophers, here are a few quick thoughts on that paper, to help you understand why Swinburne denies that God (on anything) is a metaphysically necessary being.

  • Most of us want to say that God, if he exists, must be a metaphysically necessary being – one who can’t not exist, whose non-existence is absolutely impossible. Why think this?
  • Some would say, Continue reading »

Moses Stuart on Nicea (Dale)

Feb 202013
 
agreeable mug

(click image for source)

Moses Stuart (1780-1852) was a brilliant American Bible scholar and theologian, who has been called the father of exegetical studies in America. He wrote commentaries, debated a famous unitarian, and in the very engaging and carefully reasoned Letters on the Eternal Generation of the Son, he argued that the patristic doctrine of eternal generation of Son by Father was (1) without biblical support, and (2) inconsistent with the true or full divinity of the Son, which implies self-existence (and so not being in any sense derived from or caused by another).

Stuart is a trinitarian, and I would call him a negative mysterian. But he is very learned, and despite this expresses himself very clearly. The book is full of insights about historical theology. His discussion of early patristic views relating to the “eternal generation” of the Logos is very careful, and very helpful. (pp. 14-76)

Here’s a particularly insightful passage about the Arian controversy, which is a good balance to the partisan catholic accounts which are still being written.

I would not intimate a doubt that the Nicene fathers meant… to oppose the doctrines of Arius. But in what respects was the opposition made? …The answer is not difficult to any one who reads attentively and understandingly the history of those times…  …that the Son of God, in respect to his nature as Logos, was a derived Being, both parties fully acknowledged. In regard to Arius, this will not be questioned; and in regard to his opponents, the Nicene creed is demonstrative evidence of this. The point mainly disputed was, whether Christ was derived from God by generation and from eternity; or whether he was produced by creative power, and was “the beginning of the creation of God.”

[I don't] call in question the comparative superiority of the Nicene doctrine, over that of Arius, in respect to spiritual ideas of the divine nature; or in respect to consistency. Both believed Christ to be the creator of the world, and the object of religious worship. …While both parties, then, acknowledged a derived Divinity; while both agree to call him God; and to represent him as the creator of the world, and the object of religious worship; and only disputed about Continue reading »

Mark Edwards on Councils and the Trinity (Dale)

Feb 172013
 

Edwards book“The” doctrine of the Trinity was established neither at Nicea (325 AD) nor at Constantinople (381 AD). In catholic lore, it is all supposed to hang on the then novel term homoousios – but it does not – that is, not only on that. This one catholic Trinity doctrine is in fact not a fully determinate doctrine at all, but only a template, a set of boundaries within which to build a doctrine. (Not unlike the statement from Chalcedon in 451 AD.) Hence, the plethora of mutually incompatible theories since, all aiming to be catholic.

By itself this template gives one only a vague, fuzzy mental image of what “the Trinity” or “the triune God” amounts to. Admittedly, many individual Christians and denominations are perfectly happy with that, as evidenced by the proliferation of formulaes which can only be hopelessly vague to one seeking evidence for or against them. (e.g. “one God, existing in three Persons”)

Back to the fourth century, though. I found this passage from patristic scholar Mark Edwards’s Catholicity and Heresy in the Early Church helpful. I think he sketches the template somewhat too specifically, but he makes a number of excellent points. (I’ve silently corrected a few obvious typos and added some bold highlights and links.)

For over 1,500 years the presuposition of systematic theology has been a doctrine of the Trinity which states that there are three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of whom is properly and fully identical both with the being called God and with that substance or nature which we call the Godhead. It is both a logical and ecclesiastic deduction from these tenets that the Godhead is identical with God – to speak philosophically, that the essence of God is identical to his existence – but the church does not accept that the identity of each person with the Godhead entails that the persons are identical with one another. Nor is it acceptable to argue that each is God individually while all three are generically identical with the Godhead, for that would be, not only to divorce God from his essence, but to treat this essence as though it were a category or species exemplified by three particulars, as the human species is exemplified by particular humans. That would be to postulate three gods, whereas the axiom of good Churchmanship is that, while the Father is God and the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, there are none the less not three gods but one.

It is also held as an indefeasible premise that no one of the three is greater or less than either of the other two, Continue reading »

Santa vs. Arius, round 2 (Dale)

Dec 062012
 

Now that I’m actually looking for it, I see that this stuff is very popular on Catholic websites and blogs. Here it is – the same version I mentioned last time in comic form.

Excellent epistemologist and apologist Tim McGrew responded on Facebook to my previous post:

Of the 318 bishops that Athanasius (and Eusebius in his Chronicon) say were present, I can find names of only 68, counting Nicholas among them. I do think this calls for a revision of your claim that “[i]f he had been there, likely his name would be on the lists.” The lists are, judging by other information we have, exceedingly incomplete. [emphasis added]

Tim, I can’t find that – can you give a citation and/or link? Book II of the Chronicon  is only preserved by Jerome, isn’t that right? But I don’t find what you say here. I can’t find any mention of Nicholas of Myra by searching Athanasius’s works  (electronically and by indexes of what I have in print). I’m willing to withdraw my argument, but I need to see the primary source(s).

I do find, in addition to the source I cited before, this book. I don’t know how reliable this guy is. But he puts the earliest mention at 510, probably well after St. Nick legends had started to grow.

And The New Catholic Encyclopedia (2nd ed., 2003) says, boldly,

No historically trustworthy evidence of [Nicholas's] ancestry or the events of his life exists, except for the fact of his episcopate.

After mentioning his alleged presence at Nicea and some other claims about him (but not the assault on Arius),

More than 2,000 churches are dedicated to him in France and Germany, and about 400 in England. Russia, Sicily, Lorraine, and Greece honor him as patron. The principal miracle-legends deal with his liberation of three unjustly imprisoned officers; his secret provision of dowries for three poor girls; and his deliverance of three innocent youths condemned to death. The oldest documentary evidence of the Nicholas legends is an eleventh-century manuscript in Karlsruhe Library. (“Nicholas of Myra, St., vol. 10, pp. 377, 378, emphasis added)

This reputable writer puts him at Nicea (p. 58), but doesn’t cite any primary source. He says that and the second council of Nicea, in 787, Nick came up:

On October 1, the bishops discussed a series of biblical texts pertaining to images and a long series of citations from patristic writings. …St. Nicholas of Myra and Plato were said to have been recognized in visions because they both looked like their images. (p. 308)

Again, no primary source. :-( The only lesson I take from this is that he was a popular saint at that point.

Here is a somewhat more helpful secondary source, by Dr. Adam C. English. Click to look inside, then scroll down half way, to “Council of Nicea.” Essentially, some lists have Nick at Nicea and others don’t. But the earliest don’t. Hence, the denial cited in my previous post. And some historians, looking at all the evidence, deny he was there. But this author says that on the whole, it is more likely that he was there. I don’t understand the basis of this judgement, just from looking at that excerpt. Is it just that, given the good evidence of his existence as a bishop at the time, he probably would’ve been invited and gone?

In any case , one could grant for the sake of argument that Nicholas was at Nicea. Then, my argument of the last post re: absence of evidence has to be surrendered.

But I would still argue that without a reasonably early source for this tale, we should not believe it. It would have been, had it occurred, a memorable part of the proceedings, and so it is likely that it would’ve been soon recorded. It would be too good, too juicy to leave out. Thus, if it wasn’t…

Is the earliest version of the punching / slapping story in the source named above from the 11th c.?

Update: No answer to this last question yet, but in Facebook discussion Tim says essentially that one should suspend belief on whether or not this happened.

I say, if it were just the different attendance rolls that were relevant, I’d be on the side of suspending belief too. But given the nature of the story, I think denial is more reasonable. This is a… colorful story about a man who for whatever reason became (after his demise) a legend-magnet (and we’re not really sure how early this occurred). And again, had it happened, it likely would’ve been reported at the time.

Did Santa punch out Arius? (Dale)

Dec 052012
 

(click for image credit)

If memes are to be believed, yes.

Santa (Nicholas, Bishop of Myra) punched Arius himself in the face, at the famous council of Nicea, no less.

But – I hate to tell you – memes are not always to be believed.

This one’s been making the rounds online for a few years. Even Catholic philosophy professors are getting in on the fun.

And it is fun. Postmoderns are so wishy-washy about truth, about commitment, about correct doctrine. No one these days cares so much that they’d punch their theological opponent in the face. Ah, to return to the good old days…

>:-/

In fact, catholic church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries were sometimes marred by violence, and it was not at all funny. To those who would applaud the alleged punch, or at least find it hilarious, I would paraphrase a great man: those who use the fist, will get the fist.

In any case, when I heard this recently I thought it sounded too fun to be true… (and I only told you the start of it – apparently in some longer versions Nick gets reprimanded by Constantine himself, and then vindicated by Jesus and Mary). I’ve read some books about Nicea, and never bit down on this little chestnut before. (I’d remember.)

So I do a little internet fact checking, and find this, from the old Catholic Encyclopedia:

There is reason to doubt his presence at Nicaea, since his name is not mentioned in any of the old lists of bishops that attended this council.

Sorry, folks. Here, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If he had been there, likely his name would be on the lists. But, it isn’t. Thus, it is unlikely he was there.

Better quality fun-spoiling would be a citation of the earliest version of this legend. I’m willing to bet that it is nowhere close to the time of alleged event (325 AD).

Anyone?

I leave you with a better Catholic meme. To get the joke, you must be both a sci-fi nerd and a theology (or biblical studies, or religious studies) nerd.

You’re another! (Dale)

Nov 272012
 

“You’re another” – that’s what tu quoque means – it’s the name of an informal fallacy, often called a fallacy of relevance. For example, if I argue that your theory is self-contradictory, suppose you retort that my theory is too. Well, so…? It’s irrelevant to the point that the first theory mentioned is self-contradictory (so, self-refuting).

Cornell grad student Chad McIntosh argues that if the social trinitarian God – or rather: the three divine persons  posited by clear “social” Trinity theories – would be deceivers, then so would the perfect self in whom I believe, being a unitarian Christian. So granting that an ST is implausible, for similar reasons unitarian Christian theology is implausible (because it has a perfect being doing what appears a wrongful deception).

Is this a defense of ST?

I’ve already argued in that paper than a Swinburne-type ST implies what looks like wrongful deception by at least one of the three divine persons. This hasn’t been disputed.

I don’t grant that if God is a single self, then Continue reading »

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.

Further thoughts on Swinburne’s God-talk (Dale)

Aug 222012
 

(click for image credit)

In this 2010 post I reacted to an interview by social trinitarian Richard Swinburne. My concern was that Swinburne has a theory on which the Trinity is not itself a person, but in answer to the question “Is God a self?” He answers affirmatively. What gives?

Recently a reader e-mailed me with this link (thanks, Anthony). If you look at around 14 minutes, you’ll hear him make abundantly clear that he thinks God is a self, that he just is a certain perfect person. From the official transcript:

In the view of all that is the theory that theism, the theory that there is a God, is that a  simple explanation of the universe? …God is supposed to be a personal being. What is a person? A person is a being with certain powers to move their arms or whatever, certain beliefs and certain purposes which are formed by their desires so they have inclinations to do things, desires, powers and beliefs. We are persons in that sense but we of course have finite powers, God is supposed to be limitless in his power. We have some beliefs true, some false and plenty of things we do not have beliefs about. God is supposed to have all true beliefs to help be omnipotent and omniscient and God is supposed to be perfectly free in the sense that he is not in anyway influenced by desires. We have some desires which influence us and on the other hand we see certain things as good to do and that influences us. But we have views about what is worth doing which are quite out of line with our desires to do things and therefore we are subject to irrational desires. God is supposed not to be subject to irrational desires and in that sense he is perfectly free hence being omniscient he will see what is good and having no inclination to do anything else if you recognise  something as good you have an inclination to do it. So he will inevitably do what is good.

So this is a very simple kind of person unlike us who are complicated persons in being mixtures of desires for the bad, perception to the good, limited powers and so on. He is a simple person in the sense of my definition. He is one person, he has only got three properties, he has got an infinite degree of each or rather, as I have described it so far, two properties and one absence of a property. That is to say he does not have desires for irrational ends. (p. 5)

“God” here, given his own trinitarian speculations, can’t be the Trinity. In my post linked above,  I lay out this inconsistent triad: Continue reading »

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 »

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 »

Trinitarian-Unitarian Debates – 1 Bosserman vs. Finnegan, 2008 – Part 3 (Dale)

May 242012
 


Time for mutual interrogations! This is the best part of this debate.

Finnegan questions Bosserman: 1:24:35 – 1:36:19

  • F: Was the incarnate Jesus immortal?
  •  B: Only in his divine nature. So, yes, he was.
  • F But then, he can’t die.
  • B: The human nature can.
  • F: So not God, but the impersonal human nature died?
  • B: No, Jesus died as a man; I’m no docetist.
  • F: I’m unclear on the answer then. Did Jesus die or not? If he exp’d a human death, he died, no?
Comment: Finnegan is right – the answer is totally unclear. Hence, Bosserman reaches for a red herring: Continue reading »

Trinitarian-Unitarian Debates – 1 Bosserman vs. Finnegan, 2008 – Part 2 (Dale)

May 232012
 

  • Finnegan rebuttal 52:28-1:08  Back to pronouns: Bosserman’s rebuttal was unclear. Overwhelming number of pronouns and verbs re: God are singular; by the ordinary meaning of language, this communicates that he is one being. John 17 says Father is the only true God, and presupposes Jesus to be someone else. Bosserman has not answered who the first trinitarian was. And he hasn’t derived three persons and one essence from the Bible. Nor does it make sense. “Elohim” can be translated singular or plural, and needn’t refer to a plural unity. Is he saying Jesus = YHWH? If so, isn’t that modalism rather than trinitarianism. But if he’s a different “YHWH” then it seems there are two of them. “Before Abe was I am [the one]” i.e. the messiah; that’s the best way to take that saying. Believes Jesus an unfallen, sin-free human, being virgin born with God causing him. Col 1:15 doesn’t teach Jesus’ pre-existence; it’s about the new creation effected by Jesus. John 6:62 – “came down from heaven” is figurative. John 1 – can translate with “it” for “logos.” “God” in NT in over 99% of texts refers to Father. Rare in both testaments to call any human a “god.” Jesus died; God can’t. Thus they are two.
  • Bosserman rebuttal 1:08:48 – 1:24:05 Can’t assume unitarianism in OT; never says that God is unipersonal. Continue reading »

How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament (Dale)

May 172012
 

Most Christians are (at least in theory, according to creeds and statements of faith promulgated by denominations) trinitarians, believers in a triune or tri-personal God, which they call the Trinity. But some have always been unitarians, believers in one God who is one perfect self, who does not in any way contain three selves or “persons.” Nowadays, these are a minority (again, going by official statements and membership rolls – I think the facts about Christians’ actual beliefs are more complicated than the official documents suggest).

In my view, before around fifth century, unitarians were always a majority. Of course, they didn’t call themselves “unitarians” – that term is of late 17th c. coinage – but arguably most of them were unitarians - for some arguments read this. (Update: or this series.)

In any case, one can’t determine what is true by taking a vote. Truth may be unpopular. But also, it can be popular. So, who is right?

I propose that the following clear arguments provide a way forward. Which should we accept?

T1 The Father is not the Trinity
T2 The Trinity is God.
T3 Therefore, the Father is not God.

T1 The Father is not the Trinity.
U2 The Father is God.
U3 Therefore, The Trinity is not God.

“Is” here means numerical identity throughout. If x in this sense “is” y (in logic we write x=y) then x and y are one and the same, numerically one thing, numerically identical, and so x and y can’t ever differ in any way. The order doesn’t matter: it will be true that x=y just in case it is also true that y=x. And if it is false that x=y, then x and y are truly two – those terms name different things. To repeat: every “is” in these arguments is the “is” of identity. This is why we’re dealing with clear arguments. We’re not talking about some less close relation or association.

“God” here names Yahweh, the one true God asserted in the Hebrew scriptures.

Each argument is valid; in each case, if both premises were to be true, then the conclusion would also be true.

But we can’t consistently accept both arguments as sound. T2 conflicts with U3, and T3 conflicts with U2 (in both cases the pairs are contradictories – pairs such that one must be true and the other false).

So what to do?

Let us start on common ground. All sides should agree Continue reading »

Arguing against no one (Dale)

May 162012
 

Princeton philosopher Thomas Kelly in a paper on the epistemology of disagreement (i.e. what the reasonable response when we find the people just as smart and informed etc. as us disagree on some important matter):

In principle, we ought to be able to give due weight to the available reasons that support a given view, even in the absence of actual defenders of the view who take those reasons as compelling. But in practice, the case for a view is apt to get short shrift in the absence of any actual defenders. The existence of actual defenders can serve to overcome our blindspots by forcefully reminding us just how formidable the case is for the thesis that they defend… But the case for a given view itself is no stronger in virtue of the fact that that view has actual defenders…

Thomas Kelly, ” The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement,” p. 31 (in pre-print).

At first this reminded me of a proverb I’ve often thought of when reading some catholic theologian who has evidently never put the slightest effort into understanding the overall case for unitarianism:

“The first to speak in court sounds right–until the cross-examination begins.”  Proverbs 18:17 (NLT)

But this is actually a different point than Kelly’s. A better courtroom analogy for Kelly’s point is: Continue reading »

Anthony Buzzard: That Jesus Should be Worshiped Does not Imply that He is God (Dale)

May 092012
 

(click for image credit)

Sir Anthony Buzzard is the author of a number of books, including the 2007  Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian.

Interesting title, no?

Some Christians will think it true but trivial.

Others, against the evidence, assert it to be false.

Others will urge that he is implicitly but not explicitly a trinitarian, i.e. that his beliefs entailed it, though he did not believe it.

I agree with with Buzzard, though, that it is both true and important. According to the gospels, Jesus’ beliefs included the numerical identity of the one true God with his heavenly Father, and we should assume him to be self-consistent on this subject, so he did not also think that the one true God is numerically identical to this: Father+Son+Spirit. (Things identical to the same thing must also be identical to each other.)

But isn’t Jesus worshiped in the New Testament? And doesn’t that show that he is God himself?

No – I agree with the substance of this recent video by Buzzard: Continue reading »

 Older Entries  Newer Entries

Switch to our mobile site

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech