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:
John 8 brought to life
podcast 349 - Craig-Tuggy dialogue on trinitarian vs. unitarian theologies
10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #2 Get clear about "God"
"trinitarians," trinitarians, and me
podcast 97 - Dr. Michael Heiser on The Unseen Realm
Jesus: not an entirely fictional character
2 Holy 2 Say?
podcast 379 - AI and I evaluate my debate with James White
podcast 206 - Florian Fischer - A Slightly Opinionated Introduction to Philosophy of Time
The Maverick Philosopher: Are the divine persons parts of the triune God?
Pingback: trinities - What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 1 (Dale)
Comments are closed.