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. Autofire
    June 11, 2017 @ 4:25 pm

    Hi Dale,
    I have a problem reconciling biblical unitariansim with monotheism.

    Unitarian biblical theology, for all intents and purposes leaves us with two Gods:

    1. God the Father, also called YHWH, created heaven and earth and spoke to his people through prophets and messengers in the Old testament.
    2. Jesus Christ, was not God originally, he was born in Bethlehem, and was singled out as God’s anointed and God’s own son. But after his death God rose his son Jesus from the grave, gave him a supernatural body, elevated him to be a cosmic authority only second in command to God himself, and moreover game him all power in heaven and earth. Jesus now speaks to people in many of the same ways as YHWH did in former days, and he receives and responds to prayer and worship very much like only YHWH did before. For all intents and purposes, Jesus has become a god.

    Here is a definition of “god” from Miriam Websters dictionary:
    “god: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality “


  2. Dale Tuggy’s Trinitarian challenge | The Skeptical Zone
    May 25, 2017 @ 3:56 pm

    […] Tuggy’s argument, which he propounded in a podcast last year, and revisited more recently, runs as follows (the bracketed comments are my paraphrases of Tuggy’s more detailed […]


  3. Matt13weedhacker
    May 21, 2017 @ 1:13 pm

    Justin Martyr’s answer was that Jesus (the Son) was a ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? the Father, full stop.

    The Son (Jesus) was not ?????? counted numerically as one and the same “being” or “nature” or “God” or “Lord” at all, but ?????? ?????? and ??? in comparison to the Father.

    A ??? “subordinate” and/or “inferior” un-articular ???? ??? ?????? “god and lord” ?????? “numerically” of ?????? a “different kind” and/or “different nature”.

    * This is the opposite to ?????? “numerically” one and ????? the same “kind” theology.
    * This is the opposite to ?????? “numerically” one and ????? the same “nature” theology.
    * This is the opposite to ?????? “numerically” one and ????? the same “God” theology.
    * This is the opposite to ?????? “numerically” one and ????? the same “Lord” theology.
    * This is the opposite to ?????? “numerically” one and ????? the same “being” theology.
    * This is the opposite to ?????? “numerically” one and ????? the same “substance” theology.

    The pagans accused the Christians of “madness” (according to Justin 1 Apol. 13.3) because they ??????? “honored” the Son (Jesus) ?? ??????? ???? “in second place”, and ????? “rank”, but not just the second “place” and “ranking,” but further defined and theologically qualified as ???????? ????? ???? “second place AFTER” the Father.

    The pagans DIDN’T accuse the Christians of “madness” (according to Justin 1 Apol. 13.3) because they considered the Son (Logos/Jesus) ??? ??? “equal to God”, no, they held him to be ontologically ??? “inferior” ???? “after” ?????? ?????? “numerically” of a totally “different” nature and kind to the Father.

    That is the answer in the earlier (pre-Nicene) Christian strata.


  4. Rivers
    May 18, 2017 @ 6:06 pm


    If you get the opportunity to debate James White, I think you should have the sound effects ready to cue up during the cross-examinations. 🙂


  5. Vance
    May 18, 2017 @ 2:54 pm

    Hi Dale,

    Thanks for your podcasts and website. Through them, I’ve learned a lot, especially about the church fathers and historic councils.

    The following is a summary of thoughts I’ve had for a long time. If you have time and wish to comment, I would appreciate it. If not, I understand; no problem…

    For the moment, let’s assume these two propositions are true:
    1. The Father = God.
    2. The Son = God.

    Does this mean that the Father = the Son? Not necessarily. It depends on whether or not 1) the Father’s *nature*, not just his *person*, can be rightly defined as “God,” and on whether 2) the Father shares his nature with the Son.

    If 1) the divine nature = God and 2) the Son has the divine nature, then 3) isn’t there a sense in which the Son is God?

    A good many years ago, Anthony Buzzard explained that the human Jesus, by virtue of the virgin birth and his having the fullness of the Spirit, was “invested with the divine nature.” The question that immediately came to mind was, *Just what is the divine nature?* I wondered, *Is the divine nature “other than God”?*

    It seems to me that the NT affirms that God really is the father of Jesus—that the human Jesus is the unique Son, not a son by adoption or a son in some metaphorical sense, but the actual Son of God. If this is true, does it not suggest that Jesus, from his conception onward, has had two natures—one human and one divine? If this is so, then isn’t it appropriate to think of Jesus as the God-Man?

    For the moment, let’s forget about “persons in the Godhead” and focus on what John 1 actually implies. The Word was with the Deity (the Father), and the Word was deity (or “God”). The Word is not merely God’s plan; it is God. It is not a “second God,” but is simply “God.” Changing the first “God” (of John 1:1) to “the Deity” and the second “God” to “deity” helps us make sense of the verse. This is not about two Gods; nor is it about “God and his divine blueprint.” I believe both these ideas are wrong. Here’s the point I wish to make, and I believe John 1 supports it: The *person* of the Father is not all there is to “God.” In John 1, the Word, defined as “God,” is *enfleshed*. It seems to me that this could be nothing less than the union of the human and divine natures—the Incarnation, or “enfleshment” of deity. And I don’t think this is speaking of a temporary arrangement; it is who Jesus is.

    It is not at all illogical to think that the NT writers believed that Jesus had the Father’s nature as much as he had his mother’s nature. The title “Son of God,” as applied to Jesus, implies far more than “adopted son.”

    If we can agree with the above,or at least consider it plausible, then I think we’re prepared to explore other possibilities regarding the origin of the Son, or at least be able to see how the above understanding may have contributed greatly to the early emergence of the concepts of preexistence and personal distinctions within the Deity.


  6. James Goetz
    May 17, 2017 @ 1:22 am

    Hi Dale,

    I appreciate your podcast. I foresee that I will need a Part III on your inconsistent triad because you reject the viability of relative identity models of the Trinity and evidently the medieval Shield of Trinity based on biblical grounds. I have casually described why the New Testament would sometimes refer to the Father as the God of the Lord Jesus Christ, not that I can quickly find that. But I want to make this a focus for a blogpost, especially if your only grounds for rejecting my impure relative identity ontology of the Trinity and two-nature Christology are on biblical grounds.

    Have you written a blogpost that focuses on the these Scriptures? Or have you listed your favorite Bible verses that supposedly refute the possibility of a relative identity model of the Trinity? I faintly recall seeing one or two of those verses on your blog, but I cannot easily find that in a search. If you do not have any links with those verses, in the short term, could you please merely list those verses?




Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Solve : *
17 − 8 =