podcast 233 – Dr. James R. Gordon on the extra Calvinisticum – Part 1
The “extra Calvinisticum” and the coherence of Chalcedonian christology.
The “extra Calvinisticum” and the coherence of Chalcedonian christology.
Over at Faith and Theology a theologian lists what he views as the ten most important latter-day books on the Trinity. An interesting thing about this list is that it shows the radical divide between philosophers (philosophy of religion specialists, philosophical theologians) like me, and (theologically trained) theologians. None of these books has been big topic of discussion among the former, and I’ve read pretty… Read More »Linkage: 10 Important books?
Is God “outside of time”? What does this claim mean, and should a Christian affirm it?
Kudos to the team at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, for
Missing in #2 are references to, if not summaries of, Tom Senor’s work, particularly his criticisms of the Stump/Leftow property-borrowing approach, and of the hoary qua-move. Maybe a couple of references to Hick would be appropriate as well, e.g. his criticism of two-minds theories. Positively, maybe a reference to van Inwagen on relative identity. But on the whole, I thought it was well done – congrats to David. And I hope we see more philosophical theology in the IEP.
One quick reflection:Read More »“Incarnation” @ the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Dale)
Philosophy Compass is a unique philosophy journal which only publishes survey articles, pieces which aim to summarize recent work. Its aim, as editor Brian Weatherson explains, is to enable people to keep up with a vast, overspecialized, fast-moving, and only somewhat accessible world of philosophical research. What’s more exciting – they sell the pdfs of the articles for $1.99. They’re trying to be the iTunes… Read More »Robin Le Poidevin on metaphysics and the Incarnation @ Philosophy Compass
Here’s a long but engaging interview by Sean Finnegan at his Christian Monotheism website. (Podcast RSS feeds here.) The subject, a young man named Christopher Amelung, underwent the change of theology noted above. He doesn’t recount all of the relevant arguments and exegesis; it’s rather a narrative of his own thoughts, emotions, and relationships. This is not a deconversion story, but a story of a… Read More »Reformed trinitarian to unitarian Christian
A leading Christian philosopher explains his “Social” Trinity theory.
“Fools say in their hearts, “There is no God.”” (Psalm 14:1) This says that all atheists are fools, right? Pastor John Hagee says that “Atheism is bankrupt and empty. It’s brain dead!” Others have said that all atheists because they hate God and want to sin with impunity. Is this what the Bible teaches? Is this true?
The more you think about hard stuff, the more opinions you get. I’ve taught philosophy of religion, modern philosophy, logic, and metaphysics courses, and so I have some fairly developed views. Based on theoretical (and non-theological considerations), here are some things I don’t believe in, because I think they’re impossible:Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 11 – One last problem for Rational Reinterpretation
Theologians say that God is everywhere, which is to say omnipresent or ubiquitous. But why do that say this, and what does the claim mean?
Here are a few observations on my co-blogger Dr. Scott Williams‘s recently published article in the Journal of Analytic Theology, called “Indexicals and the Trinity: Two Non-Social Models.”
There’s a lot going on in the piece – some terminology, some history of theology, and some interesting dialectic with one of the best philosophers working on this topic, Brian Leftow, which centers around the concept of an “indexical” term.
But in this post, I want to narrowly focus on the theory which Dr. Williams suggests to us. This comes in his section 4, pp. 84-8. He calls it “soft LT” (to contrast it with Leftow’s “hard LT”) and I would expound it with the chart here, which I made.
f, s, and h are, respectively the divine persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. d is the divine nature which they share, and which is one component in each of them. The other component in each is some “incommunicable personal attribute” (p. 84), respectively: begetting (b), being begotten (g), and being spirated (p). The ovals show the two parts or components of each divine person. (I take it that the model is committed to denying any classic doctrine of “divine simplicity.”)
None of f, s, h is identical to the divine nature, but each isRead More »Scott Williams’s “soft Latin” theory of the Trinity
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’m very pleased to introduce Joseph Jedwab, who has some interesting comments on Moreland’s and Craig’s understanding of the Trinity. I haven’t had the privilege of meeting him, but given how he spells “center”, I gather he’s English. 🙂 Joseph is currently teaching philosophy and finishing his dissertation at Oriel College of Oxford University, on the metaphysics of the Trinity and the Incarnation. And he’s working under the supervision of one of the greatest living philosophers of religion, Richard Swinburne. Hiring committees take note – he goes on the job market next year! – Dale
I agree this is a clear account. I’m a bit worried about how the discussion might influence terminology. Moreland and Craig describe their view as Social Trinitarian and contrast this with an Anti-Social Trinitarian view. This is a mistake. Leftow’s title indicates his paper is against Social Trinitarianism (ST). It’s not supposed to be the name of a Trinitarian view. As you know, the name of the view Leftow defends is ‘Latin Trinitarianism’ (LT). Further, they say that the main commitment of ST is that there are three centres of consciousness, but it’s not clear what a centre is.Read More »Guest Post: Jedwab on “Trinity Monotheism”
Ten basic questions that need to be answered, and ten more advanced questions.
A Wesleyan ministry tells new Christians about “The Absolute Basics of the Christian Faith.”
Over at Aporetic Christianity Paul has had a worthy post on a major new tome of systematic theology, which he says whiffs it on the contributions of analytic philosophers of the last 40 years or so. I agree with all the examples Paul gives of philosophers / analytic theologians whose work should not be ignored by any serious investigator – not because they’re my peeps –… Read More »Ignored Analytic Theology
Swinburne sez: Two thumbs up for the social analogy!
Richard Swinburne is an Emeritus professor at Oriel College, Oxford University, and is widely considered one of the greatest living Christian philosophers. He’s done original work in philosophy of science, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and general metaphysics, but is perhaps best known for his work in philosophy of religion and philosophical theology. He has a way of squarely facing tough issues, and treating them in original and principled ways. He’s particularly well known by philosophers for his arguments for mind-body dualism, for his cumulative case for the existence of God, and for his bold social trinitarian theory, which I’ll cover in this series. Read More »Swinburne’s Social Trinitarian Theory, Part 1
In this episode we hear Mr. James Lee (PhD student in Philosophy at Syracuse University) present his paper “His Ways (of Being) Are Not Our Ways” at the Society of Christian Philosophers meeting on November 8, 2014 at Niagara University.
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
Most theologians, even ones who focus on the Trinity, seem completely uninformed about important work in philosophical theology.