Dale Tuggy

Dale Tuggy is Professor of Philosophy at the State University of New York at Fredonia, where he teaches courses in analytic theology, philosophy of religion, religious studies, and the history of philosophy.

4 Comments

  1. James Goetz
    June 7, 2017 @ 11:39 pm

    Hi Dale,

    Thank you for this post. I first clarify that I did not read McLatchie’s post, so I cannot comment on the cohesiveness of his post.

    That said, Luke’s teaching of the Holy Spirit’s submission to the Lord Jesus Christ is a clear indication of Christ’s divine association. That said, Luke is unclear about the ontology of Christ’s divine association. Also, the Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Luke identifies himself with the ambiguous Daniel 8 Son of Man coming from the sky. The Son of Man in Daniel 8 is ambiguous in multiple ways. The beasts and the Son of Man are juxtaposed as both kings and kingdoms. Also, the Son of Man is juxtaposed as both divine and human. Furthermore, Old Testament concepts of divine beings included the uncreated Lord and created divine beings such as angels, so the divinity of the Son of Man is ambiguous. All of this makes Luke’s Christology ambiguous; while it easily coheres with a doctrine of divine-human incarnation, regardless if the divine nature is created or uncreated.

    Per your “Worse, 3 is incompatible with every Christian’s belief that there are differences between God and Jesus.” No, both Tertullian and Gregory the theologian compared the Trinity to an ancient coregency that does not cohere with classical identity. The strict numerical identity breaks down into what I call “impure relative identity” in the case of a coregency. In this analogy, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each identical to the Lord. This identity also works with what Augustine called a “functional hierarchy.”

    In sum, the context of impure relative identity and functional hierarchy can make all Christological imagery in Luke and Acts fits with Trinitarianism.

    Pax,

    Jim

  2. Rivers
    June 7, 2017 @ 8:22 pm

    Dale,

    I’m glad you posted prompt response to Jonathan McLatchie’s blog post.

    Great job!

    Rivers 🙂

  3. Sean Holbrook
    June 7, 2017 @ 6:18 pm

    Look forward to your book coming into physical print. I’d love to get a copy when it does. I’ve been listening to your podcasts more lately and you remind me of me—but you’re smarter haha. That philosophy and logic stuff… I love it, but I’m not as good at it.

    Mr. McLatchie doesn’t understand prophecies. It’s amazing how one can understand prophecy and how a man can fulfill God’s words all through the OT and no one ever thought the man was literally God… yet when we get to the NT that gets thrown out the window. I guess next Mr. McLatchie will say that Cyrus was God himself? Has he read through that prophecy of Isaiah 45? It says Cyrus will save Israel(and he did), but YHWH said He will do it. Do we now conclude that Cyrus = YHWH? This is inane.

    There’s nothing trinitarian in formula in Acts…anywhere. The rose-colored glasses are thick on this Mr. McLatchie.

    P.S. Why you make me do maths to leave you a comment Dale? I haven’t done my times tables in years haha

    • Rivers
      June 7, 2017 @ 8:26 pm

      Sean,

      Good points. I also noted some of the implication of McLatchie’s “logic” (?) in response to his post on Facebook.

      It seems that the deity of Christ fanatics have arbitrarily introduced a “Trinitarian Mindset” into the cultural background of the NT.

      Rivers 🙂