I’ve been commenting at Triablogue, in typical long-winded fashion, on posts by Steve Hays.
There’s some heat in addition to light, but it gets better as it goes on, and the inimitable James Anderson weighs in.
We discuss probably the favorite unitarian proof-text, John 17:3, as well as contradictions and methodological things.
Perhaps the most interesting point is Steve’s & James’s desire to somehow separate concern with consistency from exegesis. I think that isn’t, can’t, and ought not be done.
Check it out.
Update: some 4 posts so far. Have left lengthy comments.
Update: next to last installment.
Update: last.
Related posts:
Jude 4, John 17:1-3, and "only" arguments
podcast 98 - Dr. Michael Heiser on Old Testament binitarianism
Roger Olson asks: How important is the doctrine of the Trinity?
Rufinus’s corruption of Origen’s On First Principles – Part 2
podcast 356 - Seminary student takes Trinity class, becomes unitarian - Part 1
Feser's Negative Mysterian Defense of the Trinity
podcast 50 - Muslim apologist Dr. Laurence B. Brown on the Trinity
James McGrath on the Gospel of John and Christology
"trinitarians," trinitarians, and me
Who was born on the first Christmas?
Pingback: trinities - What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 1 (Dale)
Comments are closed.