Skip to content

Complaints

the apologetics blind-spot on numerical identity

Here’s part of a conversation I had recently with a guy in a Facebook group who when it comes to theology consumes almost only evangelical apologetics sources. I’m going to call him “Tim” here. The conversation illustrates a blind spot that I often run into, a blind spot which results from people who study apologetics being insufficiently trained in logic. All the non-theological points I… Read More »the apologetics blind-spot on numerical identity

three dancers - click for image credit

An eternal dance of Three?

Perhaps the greatest issue for Social Trinitarians with respect to the Holy Spirit is “his” personhood.

10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #3 Take the mystery out of appeals to “mystery” – Part 4

For a few of the most serious and clever among us, mystery-mongering dies hard. They will stubbornly resist my previous attack on positive mysterianism about the Trinity, kicking back hard. I knew all along that the Trinity was going to be mysterious. And so now that I’ve discovered one way in which it is mysterious, well, I do celebrate it. You can rub my face… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #3 Take the mystery out of appeals to “mystery” – Part 4

10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #3 Take the mystery out of appeals to “mystery” – Part 2

Continuing our survey from last time, fifth, sometimes “the Trinity is a mystery” means that the doctrine of the Trinity is unintelligible, or nearly so. Some ancient “church Fathers” hold that the doctrine of the Trinity can’t be literally understood, so that we’re forced to use analogies to describe it, all of which are very bad analogies. But, they seem to think, piling bad analogy upon… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #3 Take the mystery out of appeals to “mystery” – Part 2

10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #3 Take the mystery out of appeals to “mystery” – Part 1

Equivocal terms are the enemy of clear thinking. It is common to hear that the Trinity is “a mystery.” But what does “mystery” mean here? Sometimes all that is meant is that the triune God is a great, wonderful, and complicated reality. Call this the honorific sense of “mystery.” It’s not unlike calling a book or movie “profound” or “deep.” The non-trinitarian Christian will agree… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #3 Take the mystery out of appeals to “mystery” – Part 1

a case of progressive revelation

Thanks to Dr. James Anderson for his further reply to my reply to his initial answer to the Challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists. His new post does clarify his position for me. Perhaps later, I’ll reply more straightforwardly, but for now… story time! The story concerns premise 4 of the Challenge… The new kid at the high school seemed somehow different. “He seems… spiritual,” mused… Read More »a case of progressive revelation

another Doc Hawk / “one god” Wheaton controversy round-up

Awhile back I provided links to some good, thought provoking commentary by Christian philosophers. Now, some other excellent pieces I’ve read, by philosophers and not. I think Christian philosopher Dr. Kelly James Clark hits the nail on the head: …many Christians mistakenly assume that two people worship the same God only if they have identical or nearly identical descriptions of God. This assumption, which may… Read More »another Doc Hawk / “one god” Wheaton controversy round-up

Wheaton Inquisition

some thoughts on the Hawkins-Jones discussion

I think that Dr. Larycia Hawkins did the right thing in making public her theological discussion with her boss at Wheaton College. Here are some brief thoughts on reading it. After affirming that she agrees with Wheaton’s creed, including its very vague (but typical) affirmation of “one sovereign God, eternally existing in three persons,” she engages a challenge by her boss Dr. Stan Jones. (You can read… Read More »some thoughts on the Hawkins-Jones discussion