podcast 297 – Assessing Craig’s “Trinity Monotheism” – with Dale Glover – Part 2
Does it make sense to say that God is a soul with three cognitive and volitional faculties – but is nonetheless not a self?
Does it make sense to say that God is a soul with three cognitive and volitional faculties – but is nonetheless not a self?
Review of a learned and insightful yet deeply flawed book.
A conversation on Dr. William Lane Craig’s unique take on the Trinity.
Do Genesis 48, 1 Samuel 3, and Jeremiah 1 refute biblical unitarian views on God and Jesus?
He said this to Jesus. But was he also addressing the God in Jesus?
Ten basic questions that need to be answered, and ten more advanced questions.
In the reign of Constantius II yet another council offered language to replace Nicea…
An interview about my background, Philosophy, the evolution of my views.
0.75x 1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 0:0000:29:30 podcast 56 – Richard Swinburne on his life and work Apple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsPlayer EmbedShare Leave a ReviewListen in a New WindowDownloadSoundCloudStitcherSubscribe on AndroidSubscribe via RSSSpotify In September of 2014 I was privileged to attend a conference in honor of the greatest living natural theologian. For the uninitiated, this is what “natural theology” is (also here). The initiated hold Swinburne in… Read More »podcast 56 – Richard Swinburne on his life and work
In my view, the fourth has been the most misunderstood gospel.
I have gone through all six. Which stage are you at, and what is keeping you from moving to the next?
Is the “Granville Sharp Rule” + 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 “fatal to unitarianism”?
Some critical thinking about Craig’s Trinity theories: his Trinity monotheism and his minimal tripersonal monotheism.
Finally, the last part of this long, five-part series. Our friend Annoyed Pinnoy continues, Now there are varieties of gifts, but the SAME Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the SAME Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the SAME God who empowers them all in everyone.- 1 Cor. 12:4-6 Notice how Paul uses the word “SAME” three times. Once… Read More »On a Rebuttal to my “How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament” – Part 5
This reply of his, honestly, is too danged long, as is this series. Future critiquers – remember, brevity is the soul of wit. But here is part 4 of 5. I’m going to skip a few tangents. Picking up his critique, …irrespective of whether the doctrine of the Trinity is true, it’s not formally contradictory. Depends on the version, but my post doesn’t anywhere claim that… Read More »On a Rebuttal to my “How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament” – Part 4
Continuing to work through this critique of my post (part 1, part 2) – our friend Annoyed Pinoy writes, Yet, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are repeatedly associated with Yahweh/Jehovah. See, for example, my blog: Identifying Jesus with Yahweh/Jehovah Associated, sure, and in various ways. This is a common equivocation, I find, with theologians. We say “identify with” to mean “associate (in some way) with”.… Read More »On a Rebuttal to my “How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament” – Part 3
Continuing from last time, on the multiplicity of interpretations of the old catholic formulas – quoting David Waltz, our friend Annoyed Pinoy comments on the diversity of Trinity theories: [Waltz:] Now, when we look at “the” Evangelical doctrine of the Trinty, one is forced to conclude that it is “doctrines”, not “the doctrine”, for the following are but a few examples of the different forms… Read More »On a Rebuttal to my “How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament” – Part 2
The rebuttal is to this blog post of mine, and it is by a Blogger user named “Annoyed Pinoy,” with whom I briefly discussed these things in the comments here. I take it that he is an evangelical Christian who is interested in theology – that’s all I know about him, other than that he is a Filipino in Illinois who is smart, curious, and… Read More »On a Rebuttal to my “How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament” – Part 1