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.

5 Comments

  1. Keefa
    November 15, 2017 @ 12:36 am

    Dr. Dale Tuggy Concerning the doctrine of two natures. There is no clear articulation and/or indication of it in the Christian Greek Scriptures. One does violence to the biblical texts when they import such semi-gnostic concepts. Trinitarian christology reduces the personality of Jesus to a metaphysical abstraction! The two-natures are nothing more than a cop-out to avoid dealing with irrefutable texts. All Gregory of Nazianzus did, was aggrandized christological issues and further subjected himself to irreconcilable notions. What is transparent is that Jesus did not possess divine omniscience. Mark 13:32 was a text that embarrassed many theologians in the patristic era. Honest theology demands that we admit when theories try to circumvent putative contradictions.The solution is to declare that the two-nature theory is untenable.

    Reply

    • Aaron
      November 16, 2017 @ 1:47 am

      Keefa,

      It would be ideal to avoid impugning the motives of people without grounds to do so. I disagree with a lot of what you said simply because you assume insincere intentions in those who hold the two-nature theory. This isn’t necessary, but usually comes as a package deal when a Trinitarian or Unitarian disagrees with someone on the other side.

      “The solution is to declare that the two-nature theory is untenable.”

      That’s exactly what Dale does. It is doubtful you listened to the podcast in its entirety or his other blog posts or podcasts.

      Reply

      • Keefa
        November 20, 2017 @ 3:40 am

        Greetings Aaron

        [you said] It would be ideal to avoid impugning the motives of people without grounds to do so.

        [reply] Where did you get the idea that I didn’t have grounds to question to their motives? Do you feel that I don’t have empirical evidence at my disposal? Shall I indict them on charges of not only corrupting the biblical texts, but extracting middle platonic philosophy? What sources do have to counter the arguments that I would be able to delineate? Also I don’t mind having a friendly chat about the patristics ( i.e. Arian controversy) but I have certain requirements that need to be met so that I don’t waste my time. I debate for edification not sport.

        with regards

        Reply

        • Rivers
          November 20, 2017 @ 2:36 pm

          Aaron,

          I agree. I think most Trinitarians (and Biblical Unitarians) have sincere intentions and good motives. Even as a Biblical Unitarian myself, I find that many non-Trinitarians also make logical mistakes, commit exegetical fallacies, and fail to adequately articulate their positions (including many of my fellow BUs).

          Thus, I dont’ think it’s worthwhile to question motives are act as if pointing out few apparent mishaps or contradictions would make any position seem more tenable.

          Rivers 🙂

          Reply

        • Aaron
          November 21, 2017 @ 12:15 am

          “Where did you get the idea that I didn’t have grounds to question their motives? Do you feel that I don’t have empirical evidence at my disposal? Shall I indict them on charges of not only corrupting the biblical texts, but extracting middle platonic philosophy”

          When assuming sincere motives as a default, I was referring to the everyday Christian Trinitarian one would encounter, not the individual or small group which originated the comma Johanneum, for example. Come on now, that is ridiculous and obviously not what I was talking about. That you have no grounds for generalizing the insincere motives of Trinitarians in general is self-evident. That there is evidence which reveals a lack of pure intentions from certain individual Trinitarians does not change this fact. I agreed with Noah Worcester’s words in the beginning of his work which is quoted in this podcast where he makes a general statement clearing Trinitarians of ill will or impure motive. As a former Trinitarian, he understood the sincerity which one could hold to as a Trinitarian despite disagreeing with their conclusions. I am like Worcester in this very same way and experience.

          As to middle platonic philosophy, well, perhaps it does fail. Many think it does. But just because it is Greek philosophy that does not make it wrong. As Dale has noted before, Greeks and pagans get some things right, don’t they? Of course they do. It could be that some of the early Christians were using this philosophy while others were simply influenced by it although not even entirely aware of it. Again, assuming insincere motives isn’t justified. We do see clearly enough exegetical attempts of the Biblical text to arrive at theological conclusions. And also again, it would be wise to not credit too much to this philosophical framework as perhaps they were sincerely trying to surmise the truth from the scriptures themselves while the philosophy may have been an intentional or unintentional backdrop to their reading of it. Or perhaps it wasn’t a backdrop at all for a few of them. I believe there to be many a compelling point scripturally for some of their conclusions.

          You brought up the Arian controversy…Would you describe your view of the Father, Son and Spirit as “Arian?” If not, how would you describe your view?

          I hope this is not too big of a waste of time for you to answer.

          Reply

Leave a Reply

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

Solve : *
39 ⁄ 13 =