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.


  1. Gene
    November 20, 2010 @ 2:10 pm

    Christology is important because Jesus said it was. More specifically, he knew the obvious danger was ultimately people who didn’t understand who he was (which precedes believing), would not be obedient to the gospel.

    Your view on Oneness and Trinity does affect how you treat baptism. This is not a new argument, but a rather important one.

    When looking at how we should understand or view Christ IT MUST BE FROM A OUTCOME BASED ANALYSIS, rather than a reconstructive. What the disciples ultimately did reveals what they believed and would be logically deduced by all, unless we are hampered with a directive that forces us to view the Godhead in a polytheistic manner.

    I use polytheistic because of the insistence by the promulgators of this doctrine that there are “persons” in the Godhead. aIf this were true, they could only be one in fellowship or unity. But Jesus makes a point to declare a different kind of oneness with the father. At least twice he states emphatically to people he was speaking with, seeing him was seeing the father. He also said that the father dwelt in him and he in the father.

    One might say, if there is one, why does he use these terms to describe himself. Well, there could be no other way to describe the redemptive work that he undertook without showing his involvement in the process without causing an inability for us to comprehend.

    The outcome analysis has to take pre-eminence because at some point our salvific must mirror the experience of the early church as Paul declared in Galatians, there was no other doctrine for salvation.

    Irregardless of what the State run Religion the Catholic church declares to be the order of the day, if it doesn’t match the word of God, they have become as irrelevant to Christianity as the Pharasee in Jesus’ day to the Law of Moses as they teach for doctrine the commandments of men. Unfortunately, for so called protestant church that follow the same seed dogma, they are trapped seeing a trinity because there creeds must be adhered to before they open the word. Let God be true and every man a Liar!!!!!

  2. trinities - Reader Question About Modalism (Dale)
    January 11, 2008 @ 2:41 pm

    […] my work, I use “modalism” as a neutral and descriptive term. (See here.) A trinitarian theory is “modalist” if it identifies one or more of the persons of the […]

  3. Dale
    April 13, 2007 @ 6:52 pm

    Hi Nelson,

    Thanks for the comment. Re: Peter – are you talking about the transfiguration incident? What does that have to do with the Trinity or modalism?

    I guess I see what you’re thinking with Acts 2:38. It refers to getting baptized “in the name of Jesus”, and I guess you’re trying to harmonize that with the famous baptismal statement in the Great Commission, right? Can see why one needn’t take Peter to be calling the Trinity “Jesus Christ” in that verse? I think, only UPCI interpreters do, of all interpreters.

  4. Nelson Casas
    April 13, 2007 @ 2:16 am

    Apostle peter had to be the biggest Modalist. First: He was rebuked by the Father when he wanted to build three tabernacles (only one Temple has or ever be needed). Second: Luke described peter as being full of the Holy Ghost when he gave “the trinity” the name Jesus Christ (acts2:38)

  5. Some thoughts on heresy at trinities
    January 29, 2007 @ 7:26 pm

    […] In contrast, outside the context of Catholicism, suppose you, my fellow non-Catholic self-professed Christian, assert that one of my opinions is “heretical”. I say, “Says who?”, because I’m not a member of your denomination. You say, according to Historical Christianity. I say, you’re just faking it now – what does that even mean, and even if we do precisely enough define that term, why think that it holds something essential to Christianity which I deny? So you say, what’s the issue is the Essence of Christianity – you’re denying an essential belief. And I say, according to whom? As best I can tell, I affirm all the truly essential beliefs of Christianity. The point is just this: outside the context of Catholicism or something like it (Orthodoxy, or some denomination with highly defined required beliefs and procedures for enforcing them), it is useless and a waste of time to throw an accusation of “heresy”. Why waste time with the attempt to bully me out of my opinion, when you could instead be stating (1) evidence that my belief is false, and (2) evidence that my false belief is harmful to the cause of Christ, indeed, so dreadfully harmful that I should be pruned off the vine, as it were. Either I’m in your church group, or I’m not. If I’m in it, you can appeal to its authority. If I’m not, you’ll have to stick with whatever sources of evidence I accept in theology – things such as the Bible, reason, experience, certain councils, church fathers, mainstream opinion through certain eras, or whatever – this will be different for different people. This is complicated, and hard, and the temptation to lazily dismiss opinions as “heretical” will always be there. But that’s just theological life without the domineering presence of Mother Church. In sum, one should leave aside the language of heresy, unless one is operating within the sort of canon-law machinery that puts teeth into such accusations. In this blog, then, I’m going to eschew deriding certain trinitarian theories as “heretical”. The worst accusations I can lob are: false, contradictory, unintelligible, unjustified, unbiblical, practically harmful. But “heretical”? That’s for some authoritative ecclesial body or bodies to decide – whether they be the Roman church, the Orthodox tradition, some Protestant denomination(s), or just each local assembly. Whatever a group forbids to be taught on pain of expulsion from that group – that is heresy, relative to that group. Even if I wanted to run some sort of Spanish Inquisition, in an ecclesiastically non-homogenous context, it’s just useless to denounce something as “heresy”. The relevant paradigm is that of a rational conversation between friends, not a trial. Technorati Tags: Heresy, Orthodoxy, Catholic, Catholicism, Pope, Schleirermacher, McGrath, Decider, theology, […]

  6. Islam-Inspired Modalism - Part I at trinities
    October 27, 2006 @ 2:12 pm

    […] Wow. That’s straight up modalism, presumably noumenal, concurrent FSH modalism. To be most specific, each divine “person” is identified with a (timeless?) event, with God’s having a certain property – being a real thing (Father), being articulate (Son), and being alive (Spirit). The classic Muslim objection to trinitarianism is that it is simply a kind of polytheism. Note how neatly this move beats that objection! There’s only one God, only one divine Person here, who has three properties. This “victory” comes, though, at a heavy price.     A couple of comments. First, I haven’t traced this modalistic move to its earliest known source in Christian-Muslim interaction, but I strongly suspect that it didn’t start with Paul of Antioch. I believe it may go back as early as some time in the 800s. Maybe I’ll post on that when I find it. Could it be that for hundreds of years, this is the best that many Christian apologists could come up with? I’m assuming that this was how they really understood the doctrine, and was not merely a convenient, temporary “spin” on it, adopted for polemical purposes. (Could be wrong, but this seems the safest course in the absence of contrary information.) Second, to my knowledge, this spin on the Trinity doctrine was never decried as heresy, in either Western or Eastern Christianity. Actually, it seems very close to, though genuinely different than, mainstream thinking. Surely, Augustine’s many analogies in his On the Trinity had some influence here. Third, Christians still jump to, or expose their allegiance to, various forms of modalism when interacting with Muslims. My next post will be on a contemporary example of this. […]