I’ve been reading Robert Letham’s The Holy Trinity lately. He’s a Reformed kind of guy, and like many contemporary theologians, he’s spent a lot of time thinking about Karl Barth. Now it’s well known that Barth in many places denies that he’s a “modalist” about the Trinity, and yet he says many things like these (these are quoted from Barth’s works by Letham): God is… Read More »yet more on Modes and Modalism: Barth and Letham
Does John start his gospel at the same “beginning” as Mark 1:1?
Dr. Keith Ward is a prolific and influential theologian, philosopher, and scholar of religions. He’s also an Anglican priest. In this first of two interviews on his 2015 book Christ and the Cosmos: A Reformulation of Trinitarian Doctrine, we discuss his christology, how to understand what is unique about the man Jesus.
In this episode, my evaluation of the case made by Shadid Lewis. Does he establish, on grounds which his opponent must affirm, that the Trinity implies polytheism? See Lewis’s arguments as analysed on the post for episode 17. What is the doctrine of the Trinity anyway? Are the persons members of an eternal group of wonderfully unified friends? Or are they aspects or personalities of… Read More »podcast 21 – review of the Lewis-Rogers debate – part 2
Ten basic questions that need to be answered, and ten more advanced questions.
I see trends in this analytic theology literature somewhat towards relative identity theories, and towards “metaphysical madness.”
Up to this point in Book 3 Richard has told us several things about love (caritas). We have wondered at his saying there isn’t a perfectly good person if he doesn’t love. We have sorted through some necessary conditions for love such that we wonder whether a perfectly good person p must love another person q if p is to be perfectly good. You might say we’ve been contemplating some divine ethics, or aesthetics, or whatever.
In the previous post I suggested how we might interpret what Richard means by saying (two) divine persons are equal and similar to one another, namely the divine persons have the same disposition of love and the same acts of love (see [T4’] and [T5’]). In the next part of Richard’s argument he returns to his metaphysics of the divine substance which he discussed in Books 1 and 2.Read More »Richard of St. Victor 7 – The Same Divine Substance (Scott)
In round 2, Bowman descends to close combat on a few central texts. But first, he makes the methodological point that it is too easy to claim simply that your preferred texts are clear, whereas the ones central to your opponent’s case are obscure or ambiguous. I think that’s right, and that it is also correct that “academia… encourages revisionism”. He says, In the end,… Read More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Bowman 2
Applying the methodology… can we answer the question?
Blame a lot of MMM on this guy – the Hip’ster.
I feel some need to explain and justify what is going on here, as I have divided loyalties.
On the one hand, the stated purpose of the blog is to make recent research on trinitarian theories available to the wider public, in relatively brief, understandable, jargon free form.
On the other hand, this blog’s most faithful readers and commenters are specialists in medieval philosophy & theology, or in recent analytic philosophy of religion, and they can really get into dialogging in the way that PhDs (and to-be-PhDs) in these fields do – which is to say – highly abstract, jargon filled, argument-heavy discourse, that only a scholar can love. Being a scholar, of course, I love it, and have no desire to stem their exploration of historic trinitarian theories. They are all, in various ways, doing cutting edge work, and I learn a lot by listening in, and by joining in. And I know that other philosophy profs appreciate these discussions as well.
My solution? Have it both ways. 🙂 I just want to try to build a bridge for non-academic readers, to help them, maybe, be able to get something out of this recent Medieval Metaphysical Mayhem (MMM). So I’m going to try to give some relevant background information.
Here goes: Read More »MMM unleashed @ trinities
Two installments ago, we looked at Brian Leftow’s setup of the issue, and last time we surveyed his distinctive “Latin” trinitarian theory. This time, we’ll wrap it up. A rather obvious and potentially serious objection to Leftow’s theory is that it makes the doctrine of the Trinity out to be modalism, for plainly, in his view, each of the Persons is a mode of God… Read More »Leftow 4: “A Latin Trinity” – Part 3
Marcellus’s theology is a key to understanding the post-Nicea controversies.
Did fourth century Christians come to a consensus about “the doctrine of the Trinity”?
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)
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)
Can “the doctrine of the Trinity” or “the deity of Christ,” as Dr. Craig understands them, be expressed in New Testament Greek?
Have either of two philosophically astute bloggers refuted the Challenge to “Jesus is God” Apologists?
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
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
