Linkage: White vs. Navas – Does the New Testament teach “the deity of Christ”? (Dale)

May 112013
 

boxing-clip-artAbly reviewed by Sean Finnegan. I would add a few philosophical comments:

  • White, like many evangelicals, understands “the deity of Christ” as meaning that Jesus and God are numerically one, that is, numerically identical. He argues that various things the NT asserts about Jesus imply this. (e.g. He is worshiped, called “Lord.”) Conveniently, he ignores the many passages which assert or presuppose a qualitative difference between Jesus and God. He ignores these because it is self evident that things which ever (or even merely could) differ, can’t be numerically identical.
  • White emphasizes the charge of “rationalism” vs. Navas. It’s unclear quite what that is supposed to be. Perhaps his main idea is that a “rationalist” ignores elements of divine revelation which are inconsistent with his theology.
  • But if that’s what he means, then as I just observed – White is plainly a rationalist! Takes one to know one, evidently. :-) (Is he projecting his own double-think onto his opponent?)
  • Sean’s point about choice of passages should be emphasized. Navas here fights White, as it were, on White’s home turf. To be fair, White should debate him again, taking the negative side, and letting Navas pick the five passages.
  • White was sloppy on the topics of monotheism and worship. And he overuses the ad hominem and question-begging assertion that Navas is simply looking at the texts through unitarian blinders. Still, he is an able debater. As is Navas.
  • This sort of debate can get tedious because of the focus mainly on the exegesis of texts. Those texts are, of course, the main evidence. But I think that both sides could have spent more time making their overall case – actually making explicit arguments, not only showing how various texts allegedly fit their respective views, and then going, see! This is, after all, a battle of theologies. If only reading the texts was going to solve this, well, it would’ve been resolved a long time ago. And it is clear – or at least, it is clear to me – that the theoretical arguments are really the locus of disagreement. e.g. Jesus is rightly worshiped, and only God can be rightly worshiped, therefore, Jesus just is God and vice-versa. (Even though they differ!) But that second premise is false, according to the New Testament. On carefully thinking through White’s traditional catholic arguments, see this. They do get a bit more into such argument in part 2.
  • Relatedly, it strikes me that for White, focusing almost completely on (favorite) texts is a way of avoiding hard questions, like: isn’t White’s theology self-contradictory? (e.g. Jesus and the Father are both identical to God, but not to each other. God is and is not the ultimate source of the cosmos. God does and does not have a God above him.) If so, we can reject it as false. And we can see that there is a weighty reason to suspect his interpretations of the texts, on our assumption that what they teach is true, and so self-consistent. If he’s going to resist these inferences, he’ll need to say a lot more about how it can be rational to believe a clear, stable, apparent contradiction. It will not do to merely repeat that his view is (allegedly) based on all the texts.
  • In light of 2nd and 3rd century catholic theology, it is amazing that White thinks it absurd (and/or “Gnostic”) that the Son is an intermediary between God and humans, who is less great than God / the Father. More on that theme in a forthcoming screencast and paper, but for now, see this series.

Flocanrib and the ambiguity of the word “Trinity” (Dale)

Apr 252013
 
anti botox brigade

Cerberus’ owner takes him/them for a ride?

Our fictional story was necessary, to help us think about some important distinctions about referring terms.

It is easy to forget that “Trinity” was once a puppy, a neologism. But it was. It was born some time in the second half of the second century. We don’t know who coined it, but the earliest surviving mention of it is by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (d. c. 185). Commenting on the Genesis days of creation, in his remarks on the fourth day, he says that

…the three days which were before the luminaries [i.e. the stars], are types of the Trinity [Greek: triados, a form of trias], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. (“Theophilus to Autolycus,” Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. II, p. 101)

One could better translate triados here as Continue reading »

photo by: emdot

trinitarian or unitarian? 9 – Hippolytus’s two-stage logos theory (Dale)

Mar 272013
 

lonely tree in the snow Hippolytus (c. 170-236) is an interesting, if obscure character. He was a presbyter in Rome, and on some reports, was a bishop of Rome – either a pope on an anti-pope, depending on how you look at it (he would have been a rival bishop, if this is true, to either Zephyrinus or Callistus). (See the entry on him in this book, pp. 164-5)

He was especially concerned to combat “monarchian” theology. In my view, it is a huge undertaking to get clear what on just what “monarchian” theology was all about. In any case, it is clear that the Hippolytus re-asserts the two-stage logos theory against it, the same sort of theory we saw  in Ireneaus. He may have been a disciple of Irenaeus.

God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world. 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 »

One-self Trinity theories (Dale)

Mar 232013
 

I used to call these sorts Trinity theories of “modalism.” I still think that is not a bad description, so long as you specify that it is not by definition heretical or wrong.

But I now think “one-self” is a more neutral term, which even better describes the sort of theory.

The reasoning goes like this.

The Christian God must, after all is said and done, be 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 »

“Subordinationism” (Dale)

Mar 132013
 

grammar-vaderIn the recent and ongoing series, I have been showing that famous early “fathers” are not, contrary to popular accounts, trinitarians at all, once we carefully define the term. They are unitarians, again, carefully defining the term.

But these recent comments by reader “Villanovanus” got me thinking.

He finds it outrageous that I call people like Irenaeus and Origen “unitarians,” even though I also call them “subordinationists.” Isn’t a subordinationist by definition a trinitarian? (When one reads the trinitarian authors of histories of theology, they are usually a little more modest, saying that these folks are sort of, kind of, maybe trinitarians, if not good ones, or fully developed ones, etc.)  Am I not grammatically challenged, or perversely unwilling to look up terms in a dictionary? If a “subordinationist” is by definition a trinitarian, then “subordinationist unitarian” is a contradiction in terms.

He cites a number of dictionary type definitions of “subordinationism”, e.g.

  • [subordinationism] the doctrine that the first person of the Holy Trinity is superior to the second, and the second superior to the third. (© Random House, Inc. 2013)
  • [subordinationism] either of two interpretations of the doctrine of the Trinity, often regarded as heretical, according to which the Son is subordinate to the Father or the Holy Ghost is subordinate to both (Collins English Dictionary – Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
    Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009)
  • [subordinationism] the theological tenet of progressively declining essence within the Trinity. (-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.)

The second definition is too narrow. But making “subordinationism” Continue reading »

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 »

Swinburne on analytic vs. continental philosophy (Dale)

Feb 252013
 

SwinburneHere’s a gem of a passage from a little-read paper by Richard Swinburne, from this book.

This is part of talk he gave at a 2001 conference in Moscow, Russia, co-sponsored by the Society of Christian Philosophers and the Russian Orthodox church. So he’s explaining the wider context of analytic philosophy to them.

Sometimes, when we have to explain things to those outside the camp, we are forced to pare things down to essential points, and Swinburne does that beautifully here.

Over the past sixty years there have been two very different streams of “Western philosophy.” The stream which we call “continental philosophy” is 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 »

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.

I’m Back (Dale)

Feb 082013
 

scumbag is backWasn’t able to post for awhile there, but I’m glad commenters kept things rolling here.

At the end of the Fall semester I was scrambling to get ready to teach my first study abroad class, in western India. Had a fantastic time, and learned a lot. Focused in particular on theories of religious pluralism, both Indian and “western.”

We hope to do this class again next year, so I’m putting out the word first here. One student was a trinities reader who found out about the course through the internet. It was really great to have him there, and the image here is dedicated to him. :-)

The course would be very roughly from a few days after Christmas 2013 to up till the third week of January, 2014, and is open to any undergraduate; it is a three-credit course, and your college or university may or may not count it for credit in Philosophy or Religious Studies. Here at SUNY Fredonia, and at some other SUNY schools, it counts as an upper level elective for both. Eventually, there should be updated info available here.

Below the fold is the highlight reel. If you look really close, you can see my pasty white face in one of them.

Although I’m busy now writing a book and various articles (and teaching three classes), I’ve got some good post ideas for the coming months, so stay tuned! Continue reading »

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 »

Buddhist positive mysterianism (Dale)

Oct 112012
 

Positive mysterianism: it’s not only for Christians. And I very much doubt it was Christians who first hit upon the strategy… In any case, here’s an example from fourth century India:

Our only grounds for speculating about Mainstream responses to Mahayana thought are the objections that the Mahayanists address in the own writings. In some cases, the Mahayanists argue against the objections, in others they are content to leave them as paradoxes that separate the sheep from the goats: Only a bodhisattva [i.e. an enlightened person, destined to become a buddha], they say or imply, would have the courage not to be deterred by such paradoxes.  Asanga, for instance… the second objection [to his doctrine of Buddhahood] is this: If the realization of all Buddhas, past and future, is already identical, beginningless, and infinite, then why must individual bodhisattvas exert effort for the sake of Awakening? This paradox Asanga allows to stand. (Robinson, et. al. Buddhist Religions: A Historical Introduction, 5th ed., p. 117, emphases added)

To paraphrase: if you were an enlightened being like me – which you are not – you would accept this piece of evident nonsense like I do. That I accept it shows my spiritual advancement. What’s that, you say? Why don’t I accept all contradictions? Other contradictions, of course, are unacceptable. But this one is mine. It is accepted, not only by me, but by my homeboys too. Thus, it is acceptable. But I realize that I’m wasting my breath talking to you about this.

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 »

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 »

 Older Entries

Switch to our mobile site

Click to listen highlighted text! Powered By GSpeech