
Here: Logic Matters: Philosophy of Religion 3: The Trinity Philosopher/blogger/Analysis editor Peter Smith of Cambridge discusses his reading of this book by Rea and Murray, which I’ve been looking forward to seeing. He’s, um, not terribly sympathetic, and tends towards a harsh and dismissive tone. But, he does (I assume, accurately) summarize their conclusions, and their main lines of argument. So the reviews are at least useful for that.
Also relevant: his take on the chapters on Incarnation, and the Liar, Lunatic, Lord argument for the divinity of Jesus. See the lively and lengthy discussion on this last one, with substantial contributions by Mike Rea, Mike Almeida, Victor Reppert, and others.
It’s very interesting to read another philosopher’s take on one’s colleague’s new textbook. It’s a sort of book review with the gloves off. On the other hand, I don’t relish the thought of my own work getting this kind of treatment, especially if it should be for a student or popular audience.
Related posts:

podcast 304 - The Absolute Basics of the Christian Faith

Dr. James N. Anderson on Paradoxes in Theology

podcast 121 - Do Christians and Muslims worship the same god? Part 2

Hyer on trinitarian confusion

podcast 114 - the recycled creed (342-359)

podcast 330 - Dr. Joshua Sijuwade on the monarchy of the Father

"Subordinationism"

podcast 389 - The Cost of Truth: Stories of Biblical Unitarian Christians

Credo House Ministries' Inaccuracies about the Trinity and the Council of Nicea

