Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
In his debate with Muslim apologist Shadid Lewis does Reformed Christian apologist Anthony Rogers establish the consistency of the Trinity and monotheism? That is, does he prove that the Trinity doctrine is not a form of polytheism?
Is this episode, we examine his arguments, and discuss
- the Qur’an, abrogation, and whether it always distinguishes Christians from polytheists
- Rogers’s argument from Genesis 18-19 that Moses taught multiple persons in God
- Rogers’s argument from John 8 and Matthew 28 :19 that Jesus taught the same
You may want to refer to the analyses I gave in this previous blog post.
Next week, in episode 21, we’ll look at Lewis’s side of the debate.
You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on YouTube (scroll down – you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
You can support the trinities podcast by ordering anything through Amazon.com after clicking through one of our links. We get a small % of your purchase, even though your price is not increased. (If you see “trinities” in you url while at Amazon, then we’ll get it.)
Books quoted in this episode:
- Hugh Goddard, A History of Christian-Muslim Relations (Chicago: New Amsterdam Books, 2000), pp. 27-8.
- The Racovian Catechism, trans. Thomas Rees (London, 1818), pp. 37-9.
- The Qur’an, trans. M.A.S. Abdul Haleem (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 118-9.
- Not quoted here, but helpful regarding the topics of abrogation, quranic interpretation, and the historical order of the suras: Neal Robinson, Discovering the Qur’an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press, 2003).
Hi Dale,
I want to start by thanking you for an interresting blog. I have some thought on Rogers argument on the Quran, polytheists and christians. The part of the argument that muslim theologians wouldn’t consent to is that the Quran implies that Christians are not polytheists. The claim that Christians are not seen as polytheists is due to the lack of understanding of quranic terminology and language. The word polytheists (mushrikun) in the quranic vocabulary is used as a name for a certain group, the Arab pagans of the time, whos most recognisable trait is polytheism. This does not mean that there are no other polytheists than the Arab pagans. It doesn’t follow necessarily that all polytheists must be named a polytheists (mushrikun), they can be named and even given special status due to another dimension of their being, that in some sense specify them, in this case being People of Scripture. One could perhaps even argue for translating the word mushrikun to “The paganists” to be more correct.
When it comes to the principle of abrogation in the Quran there is consensus among those that accept the principle that it only concerns legal commands and is due to gradual legal implementation.
Best regards
Hi Dale,
I want to start by thanking you for an interresting blog. I have some thought on Rogers argument on the Quran, polytheists and christians. The part of the argument that muslim theologians wouldn’t consent to is that the Quran implies that Christians are not polytheists. The claim that Christians are not seen as polytheists is due to the lack of understanding of quranic terminology and language. The word polytheists (mushrikun) in the quranic vocabulary is used as a name for a certain group, the Arab pagans of the time, whos most recognisable trait is polytheism. This does not mean that there are no other polytheists than the Arab pagans. It doesn’t follow necessarily that all polytheists must be named a polytheists (mushrikun), they can be named and even given special status due to another dimension of their being, that in some sense specify them, in this case being People of Scripture. One could perhaps even argue for translating the word mushrikun to “The paganists” to be more correct.
When it comes to the principle of abrogation in the Quran there is consensus among those that accept the principle that it only concerns legal commands and is due to gradual legal implementation.
Best regards
Chadi B.
As we can see the Unitarian understanding of this passage does not have merit.
From a non-Trinitarian site concerning 1 Chronicles 29:20:
Worshiping the created instead of the Creator and acknowledging created beings as if they were divine is forbidden by the Torah. So, with the Torah as the background, we can conclude that the people did not consider David to be deity, and thus, worthy of the same level of worship as the Great Heavenly King.
http://messianictorah.org/en/pdf/Chapter6.pdf
Like I wrote earlier, it is not the same level of worship being offered like it is in Genesis 48:16.
Your turn.
Both in 1 Chronicles 29:20 (LXX) and Revelation 3:9 the Greek word (proskynew) does not always have to mean absolute worship in every instance. Worship is a matter of the heart so you can not say with certainty they were offering worship unto the earthly king in equality with God.
What you and others can’t refute though is that absolute worship was rendered unto the Messenger of YHWH IN EQUALITY with God in Genesis 48:16. Unlike with the earthly king both YHWH and this Messenger were not in Jacob’s physical presence.
Nice try though in your attempt to escape the obvious.
@Marc Taylor
I guess that means that Solomon just is God too — 1Ch 29:20
I guess that also means these people just are God as well — Rev 3:9
Ludicrous
Notice the Messenger of YHWH receives worship in Genesis 48:16. This proves the “plurality” of the one God for only God is to be worshiped..
Hi Dale
Just one small point regarding Podcast 20 -please forgive me if I am duplicating what has been said elsewhere!
You mentioned Genesis 19v24 as an example of where Trinitarians attempt to claim the ‘plurality’ of God.
There are other examples of this sort of thing
In 1 Kings 8v1 we have “Solomon gathered the people to King Solomon”
Trinitarians , and others totally ignore the Hebrew idioms.
Asd always such ‘slips’ are always theologically motivated!
Every Blessing
John
Thank you for your encouraging words!
Dale
Hey Dale(Dr. Tuggy?),
I have been reading a tremendous amount of you blog lately as well some of your journal articles. It took me a little while to realize that you were also the author of the Stanford article which I think is a wonderful resource (especially with the supplements). Just wanted to make a comment about how much I value your scholarship and commentary. I was checking frequently to see when you’d post your debate analysis and was glad to listen to it tonight while making supper. Looking forward to part 2.
Comments are closed.