First, I suggest we stick with “SER-ber-us” because pronouncing it “Ker-ber-us” fills some people’s heads with images like these. And we can all agree, that is not a good thing. 🙂 Last time, I mentioned Bill Craig’s recent public assertion of his Cerberus analogy for the Trinity. Here’s a remix by an Islamic apologist, with snickering commentary by Reformed Christian apologist James White. I take… Read More »Craig, White, and Cerberus
There was a famous dispute between the famous unitarian Socinus and a Hungarian unitarian leader Francis David (a.k.a. Ferenc Dávid, Franciscus Davidis; 1510-79) about whether Christians should worship or pray to Jesus. Both were what I call humanitarian unitarians (Jesus did not exist before his conception, and does not have a divine nature.) This dispute went on for some time both in person and in… Read More »Francis David: Against Worshiping Jesus
First, a few clarifications. By “modalist” I do not mean “Sabellian” or “monarchian.” (Those ancient catholics probably did hold to various forms of modalism, but the term is not a historical one, and can refer to other views which probably no ancient person held.) Nor do I mean modalism by definition to be heretical relative to orthodox/catholic creeds. What I mean is that at least one of these – Father, Son, Spirit – is a mode of the one God, in some sense a way that God is. That last phrase is deliberately ambiguous.
In his recent Christmas sermon the Pope said:
In all three Christmas Masses, the liturgy quotes a passage from the Prophet Isaiah, which describes the epiphany that took place at Christmas in greater detail: “A child is born for us, a son given to us and dominion is laid on his shoulders; and this is the name they give him: Wonder-Counsellor, Mighty-God, Eternal-Father, Prince-of-Peace. Wide is his dominion in a peace that has no end” (Is 9:5f.). … A child, in all its weakness, is Mighty God. A child, in all its neediness and dependence, is Eternal Father. …
God has appeared – as a child. It is in this guise that he pits himself against all violence and brings a message that is peace. (emphases and link added)
This last phrase, X has appeared as S, is ambiguous. It could mean Read More »Is the Pope a Modalist?
Daniel Waterland (1683-1740) was by all accounts the most important disputant of Samuel Clarke about the Trinity.
Waterland spent his career at Cambridge, where he rose through the ranks, eventually becoming Vice-Chancellor, and also serving as a Chaplain to the King, and as an Anglican clergyman in a number of cities.
He had a good reputation, and was an energetic, but normally cool-headed controversial/polemical writer (aganist Clarke, and other other theological topics, against other respected men), and he gained somewhat of a reputation in Anglican circles as a defender of catholic orthodoxy.
Many, including himself, contemplating his becoming a bishop, but in 1740 he died after complications, seemingly, from surgeries on an ingrown toenail in one of his big toes! He was survived by his wife of 21 years. (His only children were his books.)
I’d describe Waterland’s views on the Trinity as social, with a liberal dose of negative mysterianism. Like Clarke, he insists that his is the ancient catholic view, and much of the dispute concerns pre-Nicene fathers. Like Clarke, he wants to stick to those fathers and to the Bible, and takes a dim view of medieval theology.
About the pre-Nicene catholic “fathers,” I’d say both Clarke and Waterland somewhat bend the material to their own ends (I mean, they tend to see those authors as supporting their view, and being perhaps more uniform than they were), but I think Waterland bends the materials more. In his view, catholics had always believed the Three to be “consubstantial” in a generic sense, yet which, somehow, together with their differences of origin, makes them but one god. Like Swinburne and Clarke, he agrees that the Father is uniquely the “font of divinity.” He continually hammers Clarke with the claim that there’s no middle ground between the one Creator and all creatures.
In this series, I’ll examine the way he deals with some favorite unitarian proof-texts, which, unitarians think plainly assert the numerical identity of the Father with the one true God, Yahweh. According to Waterland, these unitarians are making a mistake like the one I made.
You [i.e. Clarke] next cite John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Eph. 4:6, to prove, that the Father is sometimes styled the only true God; which is all that they prove. Read More »Daniel Waterland on “The Father is the only God” texts – Part 1
Yet another round from Steve Hays. This is my last entry in the discussion; I may or may not comment, but no more posts. Again, this is what I hear from him: Yes, the divine nature is a universal, shared by the Three. But let’s not make any Platonic assumptions about forms/universals being in some other realm than what has them, or being more fundamental.… Read More »What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 3
Long ago Arius said that there could be only one God because the distinctive attribute of God is to be ungenerated. In turn, Arius devised a neat syllogism. (i) God is ungenerated. (ii) The Son is generated. (iii) Therefore the Son is not God.
The way that the catholic Athanasius addressed this syllogism was to ask what might we mean by saying ‘ungenerated’. Perhaps we mean ‘does not come into existence’. If that is what we mean by ‘ungenerated’, then (says Athanasius) we can say that the Son is ‘ungenerated’ in just this sense. Hence, the syllogism doesn’t go through.
Read More »That Difficult Question: “Is God a self?” (Scott)
I’ve been commenting at Triablogue, in typical long-winded fashion, on posts by Steve Hays. Here, and here. 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… Read More »Linkage: Dialogue at Triablogue
A while back I posted on a short, popular piece by Biola theologian Fred Sanders. He’s now responded. I’m going to continue the conversation, I hope shedding light on the differing assumptions and methods of present-day academic theologians and philosophers. I agree with Fred that responses-to-responses are usually boring. Here’s a greater crime: a (long) response to a response to a response. 😛
I guess what set me in motion was his claim, which struck me as unreasonable, that it’s a good thing that there’s no “Trinity verse” in the Bible – i.e. one which explicitly and clearly states the doctrine.
In fact, up until I think some time in the late 19th c., trinitarians thought they had something pretty close:Read More »Cross-Cultural Dialogue: Theologian and Philosopher
Call me late to the party. As someone who usually has his nose in a book, I didn’t run out to see The Da Vinci Code. From what I knew of the Bible and Christian history, along with reviews of the book and movie, I could tell that it was ludicrous. Just recently, out of morbid curiosity, since it’s available free online, I watched all… Read More »Three Hours of Stupid: The Da Vinci Code movie
The most controversial word up to that date in Christian theology was the Greek homoousios, enshrined at the Nicea council called and presided over by the first Christian (?) Roman emperor, Constantine, in the year 325. This council said that we must confess that the Son is homoousion with the Father. What did it mean? Same ousia. Does that clear it up? OK, here’s more:… Read More »“One in Being” out, “Consubstantial” (back) in
Over at Parchment and Pen Michael Patton has posted a chapter on the Trinty, part of a forthcoming book called The Discipleship Book, intended to instruct new Christians.
Dear new Christians – beware. Patton is sincere, but misinformed. He thinks the Bible obviously teaches what he’s asserting, and reasons that any prior Bible-loving Christians must’ve thought likewise.
But having studied a vast amount of historical writings by Christians, I can assure you that this is demonstrably not so, even if we stick to “mainstream” Christians (so ignoring, e.g. “Arians”, Marcionites, etc.) I take no pleasure in pointing this out, and I wish it were as simple as Patton says. But facts are facts.
I’ve discussed his sort of take on the Trinty before. It is not, as Patton says in a comment, “what the Bible teaches and Christians for 2000 years have believed.” It is what (some? many?) theologians at Dallas Theological Seminary think about the Trinity. How widespread these views are, I’m not sure. But the many evangelical and other theologians riding the “social trinitarian” bandwagon would not agree with what Patton says.
Regarding what Patton holds forth as “the best we can do”, take care lest you fall into inconsistency.
You should know that some of the most brilliant Christian thinkers in the last 100 years have held many different views on just how “the” doctrine should be understood. Unfortunately, these theories are, for the most part, not consistent with one another.
Patton asserts thatRead More »Warning to New Christians
Over at Biola’s alumni magazine, Winter 2011 issue, theologian Fred Sanders has a piece in which he argues,
The Trinity is a biblical doctrine, but let’s admit it: There’s something annoying about how hard it is to put your finger on a verse that states the whole doctrine.
The Bible presents the elements of the doctrine in numerous passages, of course: that there is only one God; that the Father is God; that the Son is God; and that the Spirit is God. We can also tell easily enough that the Father, Son and Spirit are really distinct from one another, and are not just three names for one person. If you hold all those clear teachings of Scripture in your mind at one time and think through them together, the doctrine of the Trinity is inevitable. Trinitarianism is a biblical doctrine and all the ingredients are given to us there: Just add thought and you have the classic doctrine. (emphases added)
Hmmm…. I would have thought that the elements of “the” doctrine included that the three are same substance or essence (homoousios). And that the there are co-equal, and co-eternal, uncreated, though the Father timelessly generates the Son, and the Spirit proceeds from him (or if you’re Western/Latin – from both Father and Son). Maybe something about their having one “divine nature” as well.Read More »No “Trinity Verse” – A Good Thing?
Richard Swinburne is one of the greatest living Christian philosophers, who has made immense contributions to philosophy of religion and philosophical theology. It is only idolatry of the past that prevents people from seeing him as great a Christian intellectual as Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, or Leibniz. In my view, he’s plainly a better, clearer, more well-rounded philosopher than any of them. “A prophet is honored… Read More »Is God a Self? – Part 7 – Swinburne
Many of you know that I’ve argued in several ways, in print, against “social” Trinity theories, and particularly the sort which holds that Father, Son, and Spirit are a group/community/quasi-family. On such theories, it turns out that the one “God” is a group – a group of equally divine selves (aka gods – though they don’t like that term in the plural). This is surprising… Read More »Is God a self? Part 1
A paper on the rationality of believing apparent contradictions in theology.
Last time, I mentioned a well done book by evangelical philosopher Gregg Ten Elshoff on the topic of self-deception and the Christian life. He noted that one may easily have a false belief about what one believes, and he noted that there can be strong social pressures to believe that one has beliefs one doesn’t (and that one lacks beliefs one in fact has). As… Read More »You’re Foolin’ Yourself and You Don’t Believe It – Part 2
I’ve been reading I Told Me So (review) by Gregg Ten Elshof, a USC PhD who who teaches and chairs the Philosophy Department at my undergraduate alma mater. He’s been thinking about this topic for a long time (part 2) and so far, I really like the book. It is clearly written, insightful, and he trains his guns on self-deceptions by Christians in particular. Some of… Read More »You’re Foolin’ Yourself and You Don’t Believe It – Part 1
Three World Vision employees are fired because according to World Vision they don’t believe in that Jesus is “fully God” or that he’s a member of the Trinity.
But inquiring minds want to know: what did they believe, what statement or statements of faith did they sign, and are the beliefs therein necessary and sufficient for being a real Christian? This time, we’re digging a little deeper.
Their website saith,
World Vision U.S. hires only those who agree and accept to its Statement of Faith and/or the Apostles’ Creed. (source)
Interesting! Note the “and/or” – employees must affirm either one or both. As we’ve noted before here at trinities, nothing in the so-called Apostles’ Creed requires belief in either the “full deity” of Christ (whatever that may mean) or any sort of trinitarian theory.Read More »No Trinity, No Job – Part 2
The latest Christianity Today magazine features an article entitle “Faith-Based Fracas”, by free-lance reporter Bobby Ross Jr. The main interest of the piece is whether or not it will remain legal for religious organizations to hire and fire on the basis of religious beliefs.
For the record: I support that right.
But the piece is occasioned by a current lawsuit against evangelical charity World Vision brought by three recently fired employees.
It strikes me that there are human and theological angles to this story which have yet to be told.
Here are the relevant bits from Ross’s story in CT:
Both [Sylvia Spencer and Vicki Hulse] signed statements affirming their Christian faith and devoted a decade to World Vision… But in November 2006, they and colleague Ted Youngerberg were fired. Their offense, as determined by a corporate investigation: The three did not believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and a member of the Trinity. (Bobby Ross Jr., “Faith-Based Fracas”, Christianity Today, June 2010, 17-21, p. 17, emphases added)
No doubt the reporter here was hindered by the fact that a lawsuit is underway. But the story has many obvious, yawning gaps:Read More »No Trinity, No Job – Part 1
Congratulations to both debaters on a fight well fought. (Here’s all the commentary.) Plenty of punches, thrown hard, relatively few low blows – two worthy opponents. Certainly, the fight must be decided on points, as there was no decisive knockout. Both debates are in different ways very impressive, and I learned a lot from both.
Kudos to C. Michael Patton and Parchment and Pen for hosting the debate.
I hope you readers out there enjoyed my commentary on the debate. I sometimes got naggy or nerdy, and always expressed myself with typical lack of tact, but I tried to be helpful, and to show the helpfulness of philosophy and logic in thinking through these things.
In this last post in the series, a few concluding reflections on the debate.
Looking back on this debate, I see that I’ve ended up where I began: wondering what Bowman thinks the Trinity doctrine is. This, after all the debate was about whether or not the Bible teaches that.
Burke argued that the Bible teaches what I call humanitarian unitarianism (he calls it “biblical unitarianism”) – roughly, that the one God of Israel is the Father, whereas the Lord Jesus is a human being and his unique Son, and the Holy Spirit is God’s power. I understand what Burke argued for, and if it is true, then nothing that can claim to be an orthodox Trinity theory is true. But I don’t, in the end, understand Bowman’s view.
I flagged this issue at the start. As the debate wore on, I settled on the interpretation that each of the Three just is (is numerically identical to) God, and yet each of the three is not identical to either of the other two. I stuck with this interpretation, all the way to the bitter end. And yet, I never did like this interpretation Read More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Final Reflections