Search Results for: Is God a self%3F
Comment on a Poll – an inconsistent triad
The poll below is an interesting one. (The bogus one to the left is only fun, but not interesting.) As I write this post, it is still current, and is available for voting at the upper right of the main blog page. Which of these is false? The Christian God is a self. The Christian God is the Trinity. The Trinity is not a self.… Read More »Comment on a Poll – an inconsistent triad
Parsing Plantinga: is there such a person as God?
Here’s a very interesting interview with probably the greatest living Christian philosopher. Like many of my peers, I’m a big fan. Read the whole thing to see why I picked a teapot. Here are some relevant bits (with my own bolding): I take atheism to be the belief that there is no such person as the God of the theistic religions. The first being of… Read More »Parsing Plantinga: is there such a person as God?
a reply to Robert Bowman on biblical monotheism, the Trinity, and the Shema
Thanks to Rob Bowman for his thoughtful reply to my previous post regarding the Shema and his argument with Sir Anthony Buzzard. While I sided with Mr. Bowman regarding the meaning of the Shema (as saying that YHWH is unique – who which only presupposes, but doesn’t assert that he is a god), I think Buzzard is correct that ancient Jews thought that YHWH was… Read More »a reply to Robert Bowman on biblical monotheism, the Trinity, and the Shema
10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #5 “Persons” – Part 2
It is impossible to ignore that prominently in the New Testament, two members of the trinity/Trinity interact in I-Thou, Me-You ways, as person to person, self to self. Thus, Jesus prays to his Father, and sometimes, the Father speaks about or to Jesus. This seems to presuppose that both Father and Son are selves. And in a few passages, “the Holy Spirit” is said to speak,… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #5 “Persons” – Part 2
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
podcast 222 – Self-evident truths relevant to Trinity or Incarnation theories – Part 1
Can these trim off the fat of excess speculations?
What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 2
Last time, what I thought I heard from Steve was this (this is my summary):
In sum, the one God is a perfect being, a perfect self, who is the Trinity. He has within himself three parts – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these parts fully has the (universal) divine nature, and so, each of the essential divine attributes. Each is a divine self. And these three parts are indistinguishable from one another, or nearly so, though they be numerically distinct.
Steve has now responded twice, here and here. These contain a lot of extraneous material, which I’ll pass by. My question is, what did I get wrong above? Here’s what I hear (bulleted):
- No, the Persons are not exactly alike. Each has a property the other two lack.
- “they share a “numerically identical” nature”
Right – “nearly so.”
Because he says this nature is shared, I’m going to infer that it is a universal – something capable of being had by multiple subjects.
- He wonders why I’m hearing things in terms of part and whole.
Steve, it’s not because you think God has multiple attributes. (Yes, I too reject the classical doctrine of simplicity, though I don’t think God has parts.) Rather, I’m trying to figure out what the relation is, in your view, between God/The Trinity and those three Persons. If it isn’t whole-parts, help me out!
- The Persons are so alike that any one “represents” either of the others.
- I don’t know what Tuggy means by “self.”
Sure you do Read More »What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 2
Atheistic belief in “God”
Not “inconceivable” – but rather, “God.” Check out this interesting post, The Dread God Roberts, at our friend Dr. James McGrath’s blog Exploring Our Matrix. (Which amazingly, just had its 10th birthday. He was blogging way before it was cool.) Dr. McGrath describes himself as a Progressive Christian. I commented over there, and he’s replied. The part of his post that got me going was this. Tillich’s… Read More »Atheistic belief in “God”
LaBreeska’s right
LaBreeska Hemphill is right. Jesus isn’t God; he’s the Son of God. God is a certain perfect self, the one both we and Jesus call “our Father” and “our God”. Jesus is a man – but by no means a mere man, to wildly understate the case. God is not a man, not, as C.S. Lewis would say, a Son of Adam. She’s not a theologian.… Read More »LaBreeska’s right
Defining the concept of a Christian unitarian
Thanks to reader Mike Gant for his question about my last post. As of now I think I’ve got a solid definition of the concept unitarian: someone who believes that the one God just is (i.e. is numerically identical to) a certain self and not to any other self. But I then tried to define the more specific concept of a Christian unitarian: someone who believes that… Read More »Defining the concept of a Christian unitarian
What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 3
Yet another round from Steve Hays. This is my last entry in the discussion; I may or may not comment, but no more posts. Again, this is what I hear from him: Yes, the divine nature is a universal, shared by the Three. But let’s not make any Platonic assumptions about forms/universals being in some other realm than what has them, or being more fundamental.… Read More »What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 3
the dud of “corporate personality” or group persons
Chad occasionally talks in ways that suggest that I’ll actually alleging divine deception.
Craig’s a priori argument for a three-self Trinity
We’ve covered this before. Craig slurs the argument, making the conclusion a bit unclear. The point is not really that a three-self trinitarian theology is just somehow superior to a unitarian theology. Rather, the point is supposed to be that the concept of a perfect being who is a self collapses into incoherence; it is perfect, yet (the idea is) lacks a feature any perfect… Read More »Craig’s a priori argument for a three-self Trinity
podcast 350 – Thoughts on my Dialogue with Craig on the Trinity and the Bible – Part 1
Some critical thinking about Craig’s Trinity theories: his Trinity monotheism and his minimal tripersonal monotheism.
continuing the conversation with Robert Bowman – different selves, same being?
Thanks to Robert Bowman for his reply to my off-target criticisms. I thought I understood what he was doing, following in the steps of many a theologian, but evidently I was mistaken in my inferring that he holds to a one-self Trinity. In this post, I make a clarification, then ask two questions. He says that in trinitarian doctrine, the term [“person”] was and is… Read More »continuing the conversation with Robert Bowman – different selves, same being?
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
Steve Hays vs. Lexicons, deep thoughts on OT “binitarianism”
More lessons on how not to do apologetics, from a Master.