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:

a conversation with two trinitarian apologists

Derivation vs. Generic Theories -- part 1 (JT)

podcast 291 - From one God to two gods to three "Gods" - John 1 and early Christian theologies

podcast 160 - Dr. Graham Oppy on the Conflict between Christianity and Philosophy

Philip Jenkins on Philo's theology

Major Theological News

Allah = God?

podcast 202 - Gregory of Nazianzus vs. Noah Worcester on subordinationist texts

Tom Belt on the Trinity


Pingback: trinities - What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 1 (Dale)
Comments are closed.