Our friend Fr. Aiden has responded to my post defending analytic theology (and analytic theologians). This bit, I think, advances the discussion: …my concern is not false teaching per se but the subjection of God’s self-revelation as Father, Son, and Spirit to the quest for philosophical precision. And this brings me to the heart of my concern. As far as I can tell, the theological… Read More »more on despising analytic theologians
Pastor-theologian Greg Boyd has been theologizing about the Incarnation recently. He tips his hand right at the start – he’s going kenoticist. Boyd’s reasoning, I think, can be illustrated like this. Consider this inconsistent triad: A fully divine being is essentially omniscient. A human being is not essentially omniscient. A fully divine being can be a human being. Why believe 1? Perfect being theology, and… Read More »Boyd on Incarnation
Another good post by Kermit Zarley on his blog. It is most significant that neither the witnesses nor Sanhedrin members accused Jesus of ever claiming to be God. Jews had so accused Jesus twice in his career; yet both times he denied their accusation (John 5.16-47; 10.30-38). Apparently, they accepted his denial. John A.T. Robinson rightly maintains that if Jesus had ever claimed to be… Read More »Zarley: Did Jesus Tell the Sanhedrin He Was God?
I recently read this somewhat disturbing post by our friend Fr. Aiden Kimel. Though he lightens things up with humor a couple of times, it is a pretty thorough condemnation of analytic theologians. A charge he makes by implication against analytic theologians (i.e. those trained in analytic philosophy who work on topics in Christian theology) is that like the “Arians” of old, we suffer from… Read More »against despising analytic theologians
Fr. Aiden Kimel has a good and thoughtful post on my Mark posts. I think he concedes my main point: … if we were to isolate the Gospel of Mark from the rest of the Bible, and indeed the Christian Church altogether, and read it just as historical artifact, would we come to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth is God? I doubt it. Indeed,… Read More »Mark, evangelicals, and catholics
Pastor Greg Boyd, on the theme of Jesus being forsaken by the Father (and Spirit?) on the cross: If God’s eternal essence is the perfect love of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as I believe, then any suggestion that this perfect love was severed, even for a moment, would, by definition, entail that God ceased to exist. Such a conclusion is, to my way… Read More »Boyd: a broken Trinity?
At his blogs Ben Nasmith has been writing so very good posts weighing trinitarian vs. unitarian theologies, and in particular thinking about Richard Bauckham and Samuel Clarke. In Monotheism and the unitarian-trinitarian dilemma he concludes, I think rightly: to answer this question we need a clear understanding of the monotheism of the Bible. That links to a post at his other blog, THE “HERESY OF CLARITY” –… Read More »Ben Nasmith on ancient Jewish monotheism
Theologian Roger Olson asks, How important is the doctrine of the Trinity? He seems to hold, with many others, that …the doctrine of the Trinity is crucial, essential, indispensable to a robust and healthy Christian view of God. But, The problem is, of course, that many, perhaps most, Christians have little or no understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity. And they couldn’t care less. Indeed.… Read More »Roger Olson asks: How important is the doctrine of the Trinity?
The Bible is poorly labeled as any single genre. It is a library, and it certainly contains fiction. But some of it is pure fiction, and some of it is historical fiction, and some of it needs other labels than those. Dr. James McGrath, stirring the pot as usual, raising some big questions, and providing a bunch of interesting links. Relatedly, here’s a helpful chart… Read More »McGrath asks: What’s a Bible?
Lutheran theology grad student Matthew Frost reflects on The Doctrine of the Trinity, and Scripture. Some insights: …because this doctrine is built on a scriptural foundation, we also have a tendency, in every generation, to read the doctrine as it stands back into the texts on which we have built it. And there’s a problem with that, namely: none of the authors of scripture, or their… Read More »Frost on Trinity and Scripture
Daniel Calder surveys the Top 7 weirdest Christian theologians. Of these, how many are atheists? Consider, for example, John Scotus Eriugena (c.800 – c.877). The author gives an encyclopedia quote which rings true to me. In general, the system of thought just outlined is a combination of neo-Platonic mysticism, emanationism, and pantheism which Eriugena strove in vain to reconcile with Aristotelean empiricism, Christian creationism, and theism.… Read More »7 Weird Theologians
Dr. James McGrath has responded to my post on belief in “God” where this amounts to an ineffable Ultimate – which, I claimed, is a variety of atheism. He seems to think that thinking that God resembles humans to any degree or in any way counts as “anthropomorphism.” I think that’s a goofy use of the term, but why quibble about words? So, in James’s… Read More »more thoughts on “God,” atheism, and panentheism
Suppose you want to really study my entry “Trinity“ in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If you’re like me, when you want to really read something, you’ll print it out (and then proceed to destroy it with a pencil and a highlighter). And if you do print it all out, it’ll make your printer burst out in tears. The whole thing, with supplementary discussions, comes… Read More »“Trinity” in paperback form
Minister Jeremy Myers asks: “Did Jesus Learn?“ (HT: James McGrath on Facebook)
Great post. One favorite bit:
At one point in our discussion, I said, “Well, it seems logical that if Jesus was fully human, then He had to learn.” Their response was, “I don’t use logic. I just use Scripture.” I just about broke out laughing. It seemed pretty obvious to me that logic was not being used. Ha! One guy also kept saying, “I don’t speculate about Scripture. I just believe what it says.”
Oh, “logic” (really, human reasoning ability) was being used… just not well! 😉
In any case, he answers the question of the post affirmatively.
I agree with Jeremy that according to the New Testament, Jesus learned. Any theory about Jesus must incorporate this fact. And while he was doing that, there were truths he did not know.
But that gives rise to this argument:
I would say, in evaluation of this argument:Read More »Jeremy Myers asks: “Did Jesus Learn?”
At his blog An Open Orthodoxy. In (of course) three parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. I demur in some comments. Check out their posts and comment there. Tom Belt and Dwayne Polk are open theists. I take it that the title of the blog emphasizes that they are truly catholic – that on the things that really matter, they agree with mainstream Christians.… Read More »Tom Belt on the Trinity
My “On Baukham’s Bargain” has drawn a response from my biggest fan, the Reformed brawler Steve Hays. I reply in the comments there.
Given how many evangelicals have jumped on the Bauckham Bandwagon, I hope that it’ll get some serious discussion in the journals or elsewhere.
Here’s my first reply to his post:
Steve, it’s odd to spend so many words sniping at my summary of what Bauckham holds forth as advantages of his theory. e.g. After the seventh point (of Bauckham’s!) you object, “That’s a diversionary tactic.” Is that an objection to Bauckham?
Read all the way through, then think, and then, finally start objecting.
About the “fatal concession”, I’m afraid you’re mistaken. The time-explicit version of the indiscernibility of identicals is all I need to make the point.Read More »My diabolical “ruse” exposed – drat!
This was updated last two Fridays ago. I put a lot of work into this revision. I’ll do a podcast some time discussing some of the changes and additions. Most changes were to the main entry, rather than to the Supplementary Documents. I hope that people find it useful. I owe a special thanks to Brian Leftow, who patiently helped me to avoid some serious… Read More »update to “Trinity” in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Theology blogger / author / golf pro Kermit Zarley asks: Is Jesus Divine Because He Was Worshipped?
He answers in the negative. As usual, he highlights some important scholarship. In part,
When the gospel Evangelists report that someone performed proskuneo toward Jesus, Bible translators invariably reveal their Christological bias by rendering it “worship,” suggesting that that person thought Jesus was “divine” or “God.” But when the Evangelists relate that a person performed proskuneo toward someone other than Jesus, they translate it “bowed down,” “bend the knee,” or “prostrate.” So, they translate it “worship” when done to Jesus, but a physical act when done to someone else.
I agree that it is important that Christians should worship Jesus too, and not only God. The New Testament, in my view, clearly teaches this; it is a consequence of his being raised to God’s right hand. I also agree that this is not at all the sin of idolatry.
Keep in mind that the passages he’s discussing above concern Jesus before his resurrection and exaltation. He is clearly worshiped in the fullest religious sense after. e.g. Philippians 2, Revelation 5, as well as prayed to.
Contrary to Mr. Zarley, I do think it is technically a violation of the command, now made out of date by the one who issued it, to worship only Yahweh (i.e. the Father). I would add that it’s simply not correct to define the sin of idolatry as worshiping anyone other than God.
I don’t think we can make much progress distinguishing kinds of (religious) worship. To say there are kinds of worship is one thing, but to display the differences is another. But we can distinguish indirect from direct worship, as the New Testament does in several places. We worship God (indirect object) by worshiping his Son (direct object).
Here’s another angle. In the NT, the justification given for worshiping Jesus is that this is our obeying the God who vindicated, raised, and exalted Jesus. Now, if we should worship Jesus because he’s fully divine, or because he’s God himself, or because he shares a divine nature with the Father… wouldn’t that be their main reason?
Below the fold, much better music than we usually feature on this blog. Read More »Zarley on “worship” of Jesus in the New Testament
H/T Oliver Crisp on Facebook. From the fun theologygrams. Seems there is no rest for the weary. Only one way out: a big, comfortable, ground-hugging, smokescreen of mystery. Make it really big, wait till it spreads, and then make your getaway, before it dissipates. Quickly!
In a recent BBC documentary, Story of the Jews, we are told: Born a Jew, like his saviour, was Paul who, within a few years of Jesus’ death began the process of liberating Christianity from the claims of Jewish ritual. Christianity was either universal or it was nothing. So Paul aggressively de-Judaizes the Christian message and there was no surer way of doing that than… Read More »Don’t believe everything you hear in BBC documentaries