Skip to content

Search Results for: swinburne's social trinitarian part

What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 1

Prolific blogger (at Triablogue) Steve Hays and I have recently been discussing various things.

At the end of a recent exchange, I basically said: Dude, I don’t know what you think “the” doctrine of the Trinity is. What, in your view, does it mean to say that God is a Trinity?

He’s now responded here.

In this post, I try to understand just what he’s claiming, in other words, what he takes trinitarianism (rightly understood) to be.

This is a bit risky, because I think he’s confused about the concept of identity, and I’m trying to hear a self-consistent view here.

The first job in critical thinking is carefully listening to what the source at hand is saying. Here I listen carefully, editing out a lot of his methodological musings and terminological quibbles, trying to get to the meat of his view.

I think the meat starts here:Read More »What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 1

Islam-Inspired Modalism – Part 1

A bit of background: Once upon a time, Islam seemed unstoppable. Coming out of nowhere, it had quickly spread over what seemed like much of the world. They had a vigorous culture, formed around a relatively simple and appealing theology, and a book, the Qur’an, about the length of the New Testament. Further, they were leaders in many areas of human culture, including philosophy. Many… Read More »Islam-Inspired Modalism – Part 1

2015: the trinities podcast in review

2015 was a good year for the trinities podcast! Many thanks to those who supported it via PayPal or Amazon. Here are some highlights, month by month: January: podcast 70 – The one God and his Son according to John February: podcast 74 – Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho – Part 1 March: podcast 81 – Dr. Oliver Crisp on the breadth of Reformed tradition April: podcast 83 – The Spiritual… Read More »2015: the trinities podcast in review

Defining the concept of a unitarian

Last time I offered a definition of the concept of a trinitarian.

This time, I will try to define the concept of a unitarian.

Many definitions of this concept are unacceptably polemical.  It is unacceptable to define a unitarian as an anti-trinitarian.  This violates requirements 3 and 5 – it doesn’t tell us what a unitarian is, but only what a unitarian is against.  And this is part of a common slashing rhetorical strategy which I have recently mentioned.  For the same reasons we must reject defining the concept unitarian as one who “denies the Trinity” or “has heretical beliefs about the Trinity,” etc. Equally, it is unacceptable to define a unitarian as one who holds the correct or biblical view about Jesus and God. Whether or not that’s so, it’s trying to sneak an argument for a thesis into a pseudo-definition of that thesis.

One common definition is,

Definition 1: someone who believes in exactly one unipersonal God.

I think this is on the right track, but the term “unipersonal” is obscure, and so this definition violates requirement 6 (and possibly also 3).

I have been working with this definition of the concept:

Definition 2: someone who believes that the one God just is (is numerically identical to) the Father.

I now think that this isn’t quite right.

First the definition is arguably too narrow.  Read More »Defining the concept of a unitarian

Islam-inspired Modalism – Part 4

One final example, this time from veteran evangelical apologist Norman Geisler. In chapter 12 of his Answering Islam: The Crescent in Light of the Cross, Geisler gives a sort of standard exegetical argument for “the” doctrine of the Trinity. But he also addresses some Islamic concerns, and when he does, his modalism jumps to the foreground. Here, he tells us what is wrong with “modalism”.… Read More »Islam-inspired Modalism – Part 4

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

Is God a Self? Part 2 – Flint

Tom Flint is an excellent philosopher and a winsome human being. He’s teaches Philosophy at Notre Dame, and is the current editor of Faith & Philosophy – arguably the most important philosophy of religion journal. The interviewer suggests, and Flint agrees, that it is a “strange” question whether or not God is a person. Why? They don’t say – but I would guess that people… Read More »Is God a Self? Part 2 – Flint

Tawhid or Trinity - the Qureshi-Ally debate

Qureshi vs. Ally – Trinity vs. Tawhid

This should be interesting. Mr. Qureshi (a PhD student in theology) is the author of the fascinating book Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus (kindle). He’s a convert from Ahmadiyya Islam to evangelical Christianity. He is bold, smart, and clear. Dr. Ally is an erudite and well-spoken Islamic apologist and an experienced debater. In the press release for this live-streamed, April 8, 2015 debate, Mr. Qureshi says that My goal… Read More »Qureshi vs. Ally – Trinity vs. Tawhid

Nothing New Under the Sun – Part 1

Now for another historical interlude – I’ll get back to current philosophy shortly. Regular readers will note that I’ve been insinuating for a while now that the way many people understand the mainstream, so-called “Latin” trinitarian position amounts to a certain variety of modalism (which entails S-modalism, to which I’ve objected). Some of you know that I also work on what philosophers call “early modern”… Read More »Nothing New Under the Sun – Part 1

You’re Foolin’ Yourself and You Don’t Believe It – Part 2

Last time, I mentioned a well done book by evangelical philosopher Gregg Ten Elshoff on the topic of self-deception and the Christian life. He noted that one may easily have a false belief about what one believes, and he noted that there can be strong social pressures to believe that one has beliefs one doesn’t (and that one lacks beliefs one in fact has). As… Read More »You’re Foolin’ Yourself and You Don’t Believe It – Part 2