First, I suggest we stick with “SER-ber-us” because pronouncing it “Ker-ber-us” fills some people’s heads with images like these. And we can all agree, that is not a good thing. 🙂 Last time, I mentioned Bill Craig’s recent public assertion of his Cerberus analogy for the Trinity. Here’s a remix by an Islamic apologist, with snickering commentary by Reformed Christian apologist James White. I take… Read More »Craig, White, and Cerberus
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
Review of Thomas McCall’s Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism?
A new debate book with four analytic theologians on clashing views of the Trinity.
Last time we looked at Daniel Howard-Snyder’s published attack on Moreland’s and Craig’s Trinity theory they call “Trinity Monotheism“. Bill Craig, never one to duck a fight, fired back. (“Trinity Monotheism Once More,” Philosophia Christi 8:1, 2006, 101-13) First, he complains that Dan “fusses terribly over the analogies” they use (e.g. a human, Ceberus) while not saying much about the actual proposal. This is a… Read More »Trinity Monotheism part 7: Bill fires back, part 1
Some critical thinking about Craig’s Trinity theories: his Trinity monotheism and his minimal tripersonal monotheism.
Time to close out this long series with a brief summary of my own observations on and objections to Trinity Monotheism. These aren’t all the one’s I’ve mentioned, but only the ones I think are the most relevant. And I should say that Joseph has raised some others as well, both in his guest post and in his comments. The whole parts issue is a… Read More »Trinity Monotheism Part 9: Some final thoughts and objections
A conversation on Dr. William Lane Craig’s unique take on the Trinity.
Is the “Granville Sharp Rule” + 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 “fatal to unitarianism”?
Does it make sense to say that God is a soul with three cognitive and volitional faculties – but is nonetheless not a self?
Here. On the whole, a well done piece. Craig is indeed a fearsome debater, and a bold and insightful scholar. His devotion to apologetics makes him a bit uncool among professional philosophers. But I would guess that his work is probably read by more average people – Christians, atheists, Muslims, and who-knows-what – than any living philosopher. The reason is that it has many good… Read More »William Lane Craig in the Chronicle of Higher Education
I thank Fr. Aiden Kimel for reminding me of Richard Bauckham’s chapter on kinds of monotheism. I read it years ago, and thought there was something that was not quite right about it. Kimel says, summarizing Bauckham, Inclusive monotheism declares the God is the highest being within the class of deities to which he belongs. “He is unique,” Bauckham explains, “only in the sense of… Read More »Kimel and Bauckham on monotheism
Another interesting and intelligent podcast by Dr. William Lane Craig. Is the so-called “mitochondrial Eve” a problem? How about “chromosomal Adam“? He and his co-host Kevin Harris comment on a recent article by the always charming Jerry Coyne. To my knowledge, this is the only episode of the Reasonable Faith podcast in which the word “Jeebus” is discussed.
Check out this excellent podcast by Bill Craig and Kevin Harris at Reasonable Faith. I really liked this discussion. I would only have suggested two additional topics: So, we should deny the “classical” doctrine of divine impassibility, right? And, if someone were perfectly disposed to feel and act in the ways described in this episode, in ways compatible with all other perfections, that one would… Read More »Craig and Harris: a mistaken view of love
The “Flying Spaghetti Monster” was born as an inept parody of intelligent design arguments. About this, philosopher William Lane Craig is right on the money. The FSM is more than this, though. It is thought by many village-atheist-type young males (roughly 12-29) to be an oh-so-clever-and-naughty parody of monotheism in general, apart from any design-creation controversies. The thing is, the FSM is not clever – only naughty… Read More »Craig on Flying Spaghetti Monster Mockery
Check it out. I think this is all excellent advice. His website provides this link to more Craig on youtube. To my fellow academic philosophers: grad school teaches you to be over-specialized, overly technical, and overly cautious. If you want to communicate with a popular audience live or in print, about theology or anything else, you’d do well to imitate Craig. Technorati Tags: William Lane… Read More »Linkage: William Lane Craig on doubts
This brings the total of R’s to 6. Wish I could say there weren’t more coming! We’ve looked so far at two ways Christians may respond to apparently contradictory doctrines: Redirection and Restraint. We now move on to a third strategy: Resolution. In brief, the Resolver holds that the apparent contradiction can be banished, made to disappear. She doesn’t change the subject (as the Redirector),… Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 7 – Resolution by Rational Reinterpretation
I’ve been meaning to get back to Ben for a while, to continue our dialogue on biblical monotheism and related matters. (Previous post.) In his reply, Ben says, I gather that Bauckham affirms (in different words) that monotheism involves, (1) A strict partitioning of reality into divine and not-divine portions; and (2) The unity of the divine portion of reality, i.e. the divine reality acts… Read More »more on Ben Nasmith on monotheism
At the blog The Time Has Been Shortened, interviews with Dr. Nathan MacDonald and Dr. Michael S. Heiser. I read most of MacDonald’s Deuteronomy and the Meaning of ‘Monotheism’. I found it helpful, but had some fundamental disagreements with it. Those another time. The two have very different views of the OT and the issue of monotheism. To oversimplfy, MacDonald thinks that for a long… Read More »two scholars on the concept of monotheism
