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:
Blue Babies Pink: from evangelical Christian to liberationist
Tim Pawl: a God-man is possible
What kind of philosophy should theologians study?
"trinitas" in Tertullian's On Modesty (De Pudicitia)
podcast 162 - Dr. Timothy McGrew on the Convergence of Philosophy and Christianity
Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 18 - Mysteries and the Bible (Dale)
What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays - Part 3
podcast 143 - Dr. Timothy Pawl's In Defense of Conciliar Christology - Part 1
podcast 56 - Richard Swinburne on his life and work
Trinitarian-Unitarian Debates - 1 Bosserman vs. Finnegan, 2008 - Part 2
Pingback: trinities - What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 1 (Dale)
Comments are closed.