Skip to content

Search Results for: monarchical trinitarianism

A Lesson in Christological Rhetoric

“I believe in the divinity of Christ.” Perfect. Like a Rorschach test, people can read it however they want.

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

Reader Question About Modalism


Ice, ice, baby. (image credit)

A reader emailed me this question, and I thought others would be interested in my (attempt at) an answer. Also, this is a good chance to review and summarize some of my previous postings on modalism.

I was wondering if you could read [the following] and tell me what I was believing? (I think it might have been a form of Modalism) Also, I search everywhere and find that Modalism is wrong, but no explanations specifically why. Can you help me out on some links explaining that?

…I used to believe there was one God. He sometimes is called Father, sometimes called Jesus, and sometimes called the Holy Spirit. And sometimes called all at the same time. Read More »Reader Question About Modalism

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

Leftow 2: “A Latin Trinity” – Part 1

Brian Leftow’s “A Latin Trinity” (Faith & Philosophy 21:3, July 2004, 304-33) is a theory of the Trinity which aims to be squarely in the tradition of “Augustine, Boethius, Anselm and Aquinas”. (304) He also cites the Athanasian creed and the one from Toledo in 675 as well. I’m going to treat this challenging article in parts, and do some simplifying and summarizing in order… Read More »Leftow 2: “A Latin Trinity” – Part 1

On the corruption of 1 John 5:7-8, the “Comma Johanneum”

Just recently on Facebook, I’ve been quoted a famous text, verses which for hundreds of years were a favorite trinitarian proof text, seemingly the “smoking gun” verse that was needed – 1 John 5:7-8. Here’s how it reads in the King James Bible: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.  And there are… Read More »On the corruption of 1 John 5:7-8, the “Comma Johanneum”

podcast 27 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 1

In the last thirty years or so, many Christian philosophers have become “social” trinitarians. Not only do they “use the social analogy” for the Trinity – that is, compare the Trinity to three humans – but they also, generally, affirm that the Trinity really does contain or consist of three selves- three beings capable of thought, action, and personal relationships. Dr. Hasker did this before… Read More »podcast 27 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 1

SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 4 PART 2 – BOWMAN

In part 1 I argued that Bowman attributes a non-existent fallacy to unitarians. After this faltering start, things get better. Continuing his pre-emptive rebuttal, Bowman argues that there is nothing about the roots of the Hebrew and Greek words translated “spirit” that requires them to mean a force or energy. Surely, this is correct, and his examples show this.

In the end of his pre-emptive rebuttal, Bowman attributes this argument to unitarians:

  1. The Bible contains no progressive revelation concerning God.
  2. The OT does not reveal the Holy Spirit as a distinct divine person.
  3. Therefore, the NT does not reveal the Holy Spirit as a distinct divine person.

I suspect that some current day unitarians do endorse this argument. (Does Burke?) Christians of any stripe who believe in any sort of Hell, in souls, or that the NT more clearly reveals the character of the Father, would probably reject 1. For these sorts of reasons, I reject it myself. In my view progressive revelation is different from the Islamic idea of “abrogation” (later Quranic verses contradicting and cancelling out or over-ruling earlier ones). Progressive revelation doesn’t involve contradiction of something earlier asserted, but rather clarifying something previously unclear, and contradicting things one might have inferred from what was formerly asserted. But back to Bowman.

Bowman opines that the OT unclearly hints at the Spirit being a distinct divine person, but he wants to say that this truth is only first clearly revealed in John 14-16. I think this puts him far off of patristic exegesis, btw – but maybe that’s a good thing.

The real meat of Bowman’s case is his exegesis of the books of John and Acts. His first positive argument is essentially this. Jesus promised that after leaving, he’d send “another Paraclete”Read More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 4 PART 2 – BOWMAN

“You’re gonna burn, burn, burn, ’cause you would not learn.” (Dale)

Since I’m posting mildly entertaining nonsense lately, here’s a video from the, ahem, legendary Winterband. (Steve Winter, not Edgar & I assume, no relation), playing to a packed out basement (his own). Click if you dare.

Winterband is a power duo in reality, although Steve plays in three “persons”. (We must use this term, as we have none better.) Steve 1 plays lead and sings. Steve 2 plays rhythm. Steve 3 plays bass. And yet Read More »“You’re gonna burn, burn, burn, ’cause you would not learn.” (Dale)

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