Skip to content

Search Results for: monarchical trinitarianism

10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #2 Get clear about “God”

What sort of being is “God” supposed to be? Your answer to this will constrain your options when it comes to thinking about the Trinity. The “Trinity” (in the primary sense of the term) is supposed to be none other than the triune God, the tripersonal God of officially catholic traditions since the late 4th century. In other words, the Trinity and God are supposed… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #2 Get clear about “God”

The Orthodox Formulas 4: The Council of Toledo (675)

Skipping ahead a little, here’s a little council that is sometimes mentioned in recent trinitarian discussions. I understand that this council was attended by all of 17 Bishops. So it was a regional council, remembered only, I take it, for its trinitarian statement. It isn’t thought to have the kind of authority that a larger meeting would have. Nonetheless, I thought it worth putting on… Read More »The Orthodox Formulas 4: The Council of Toledo (675)

Linkage: a Muslim challenge (Dale)

The Trinity Challenge, from a Sufi Muslim blog. The comments there are wild and wooly. There’s a charge of polytheism, and some non-trinitarian Christians weigh in. The challenge, of course, cannot be met. But it seems to me he’s carelessly overlooking the options that the Trinity doctrine is: (1) implicitly taught in the Bible (i.e. it is deducible from what is there, though not explicitly… Read More »Linkage: a Muslim challenge (Dale)

“almost impossible to verbalize”?

Can “the doctrine of the Trinity” or “the deity of Christ,” as Dr. Craig understands them, be expressed in New Testament Greek?

Pastor J. Dan Gill on the real Jesus

Here’s a sermon by my friend Pastor J. Dan Gill, expounding the important New Testament theme of the exaltation of Jesus. He discusses texts including Psalm 110 and Acts 2. You can download the audio of this sermon here. Dan and his wife Sharon run the 21st Century Reformation website, an important resource for biblical unitarians (aka unitarian Christians, one God believers, non-trinitarian Christians). Their… Read More »Pastor J. Dan Gill on the real Jesus

No Trinity, No Job – Part 1

The latest Christianity Today magazine features an article entitle “Faith-Based Fracas”, by free-lance reporter Bobby Ross Jr. The main interest of the piece is whether or not it will remain legal for religious organizations to hire and fire on the basis of religious beliefs.

For the record: I support that right.

But the piece is occasioned by a current lawsuit against evangelical charity World Vision brought by three recently fired employees.

It strikes me that there are human and theological angles to this story which have yet to be told.

Here are the relevant bits from Ross’s story in CT:

Both [Sylvia Spencer and Vicki Hulse] signed statements affirming their Christian faith and devoted a decade to World Vision… But in November 2006, they and colleague Ted Youngerberg were fired. Their offense, as determined by a corporate investigation: The three did not believe that Jesus Christ is fully God and a member of the Trinity. (Bobby Ross Jr., “Faith-Based Fracas”, Christianity Today, June 2010, 17-21, p. 17, emphases added)

No doubt the reporter here was hindered by the fact that a lawsuit is underway. But the story has many obvious, yawning gaps:Read More »No Trinity, No Job – Part 1

10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #4 “same ousia” – Part 1

The innovative and (then) controversial language introduced at a meeting of catholic bishops in the year 325 was that the Father and the Son are homoousion, literally “same ousia.” But what is an ousia? This question continues to haunt trinitarian theology. Until we understand the meaning of a sentence, we can’t agree or disagree with it, or even go looking for evidence for our against it.… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #4 “same ousia” – Part 1

Trinity vs. Oneness vs. unitarianism Youtube shootout

As we all know, the ideal medium for theological debate is a music video posted on youtube. In the past, we’ve seen the mighty Winterband strking a blow for Oneness Pentecostalism. Trinitarians rapped back with some impressive rhymes. Now, unitarians enter the fray. If I had to pick a theology based solely on the musical quality of these entries (which of course is a great… Read More »Trinity vs. Oneness vs. unitarianism Youtube shootout

St. Patrick’s bad analogies

Quite funny! This fellow has real comedic talent. It is remarkable, when you step back to consider it, that this video is by a trinitarian. It’s main point is: no one really knows what these traditional words mean (those of the “Athanasian” Creed); we just say them. Trying to understand those words is futile. A striking amount of trust, for a Protestant, in an anonymous… Read More »St. Patrick’s bad analogies

Origen: the Son is not the Father

Of all the ancient catholic “fathers” I’ve read, Origen (c.185-254) is the most impressive as a scholar.

It’s not that I usually agree with him – any non-Platonist is going to choke on many of the dishes he’s serving, and I think that most today would take issue with some his ways of interpreting the Bible. But he has vast knowledge, he makes pretty careful distinctions, he knows how to argue, and is just a much more developed and original thinker than most. Any contemporary who was going to square off with him either did or should have considered him a formidable opponent.

He wrote, or rather dictated, a vast amount – evidently, he did little else. Some think he may have been the most prolific person in antiquity. We still have a fair number of texts from him.

He’s historically important for many reasons, but for this post, what’s most important is that in the 3rd century he was considered a stalwart of mainstream (“catholic”, or “proto-orthodox”) Christianity.

Lately I’ve been reading Origen’s Commentary on John, as translated by Ronald E. Heine, who by way, I have found very helpful. He too is a first-rate scholar.

Evidently, passage here is directed against certain monarchians who thought (or at least, were alleged to think) that the Father = the Son, i.e. that the Son is the Father himself and vice versa. This passage struck a nerve with me, as it reminded me of conversations I’ve had.

The references in brackets are from Heine’s footnotes.Read More »Origen: the Son is not the Father

SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 4 PART 3 – BURKE

In round 4, Burke urges that his views about God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit provide a simpler explanation of the texts. Whereas trinitarians must argue from implications of the text,

By contrast, I argue that the Bible provides us with explicit doctrines about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which… I have shown to be firmly rooted in OT theology.

Burke has a point here, although it can be overstated. Burke’s theology allows him to stick more closely to the words of the NT and the message as preached, e.g. in Acts. Surely, considered by itself this is an advantage. Trinitarians will argue that it is outweighed by the fact that the unitarian message leaves out other essentials, if somewhat implicit ones. Burke complains that Bowman hasn’t defined “implicit“, but this is a general philosophical issue outside the realm of the debate. Burke emphasizes that his approach is “Hebraic” whereas Bowman’s is “Hellenic”. In some sense this may be true, but I don’t think it advances the debate. It is surely possible that God providentially used Greek philosophy to help uncover the true implications of the NT. Further, both debaters are to some extent using Greek-philosophy-originated concepts and logic. Another place in which they’re talking past one another is this issue of the importance of what is and is not explicit in the NT, and specifically in the preaching of the apostles. Bowman is surely right that, e.g. Peter need not assert every element of the apostolic teaching in one sermon, and that Luke’s summary of that sermon surely wouldn’t include all of it. But Burke is right that if it is an essential part of the faith, and necessary to believe for salvation, that e.g. the Holy Spirit is a fully divine person in God distinct from the Father and Son, then we would expect this to be explicitly taught by the apostles, up front, prior to baptism. And we do not find this. But I don’t believe that Bowman has said that one must believe this to be saved. But if he affirms it, and holds that the apostles teach it, then Burke has a strong argument against him. This is surely a pressing, practical question that should be raised.

It is striking that Acts 2 does not contain Read More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 4 PART 3 – BURKE