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:
podcast 337 - Chris Date's Search for a Viable Trinity Theory - Part 2
Dialogue with the Maverick Philosopher: God is a being, not Being itself - part 1
Corcoran on the God of Muslims and the God of Christians
Scoring the Burke - Bowman Debate - Intro
podcast 179 – Apologists on how God can die – Part 2
podcast 351 - Thoughts on my Dialogue with Craig on the Trinity and the Bible - Part 2
Identity
podcast 42 - Dr. Stephen R. Holmes on his The Quest for the Trinity
Craig: how Nicene orthodoxy rules out the full deity of Christ
more on Ben Nasmith on monotheism
Pingback: trinities - What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 1 (Dale)
Comments are closed.