Skip to content

Search Results for: monarchical trinitarianism

podcast 14 – One God, One Lord, Two Interpretations

The apostle Paul famously says, …for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Corinthians 8:6) Is this passage a radical transformation of, or a redefinition of Jewish monotheism? Is it an insertion of Jesus into the Shema confession, that… Read More »podcast 14 – One God, One Lord, Two Interpretations

podcast 114 – the recycled creed (342-359)

This “Fourth Creed” was offered as a non-controversial, “big tent,” ecumenical summary of faith. And surprisingly, given its initial reception, its language ended up being re-used several times after, as catholics struggled to replace the language of Nicea with something more widely acceptable.

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 1 – setup

What, if anything, is wrong with this argument? 1. Only God should be worshiped. 2. Jesus should be worshiped. 3. Therefore, Jesus is God.     (1,2) Before you answer, be sure you understand the claims fully. The “only” in 1 makes a claim of quantification, which we all understand in terms of identity. In standard logic, it would be analyzed as: Wg & (x)(Wx… Read More »Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 1 – setup

Trinity Monotheism Part 4: parrying Leftow

In the words of Moreland and Craig,

We turn finally to Trinity monotheism, which holds that while the persons of the Trinity are divine, it is the Trinity as a whole that is properly God. If this view is to be orthodox, it must hold that the Trinity alone is God and that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while divine, are not Gods. (589, their section 3.2.2)

Leftow, in the essay we mentioned last time, gives a complicated objection to this whole approach, which Moreland and Craig represent in the following helpful chart. (p. 590)

Leftow’s point is that no matter how you develop Trinity monotheism, you end up with an unacceptable theoryRead More »Trinity Monotheism Part 4: parrying Leftow

SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 6 Part 2 – Bowman

In his sixth and final installment of the debate, Bowman turns in his finest performance, making a number of interesting moves, and getting some glove on Burke. First, he tweaks his formula (here’s the previous version): The doctrine of the Trinity is biblical if and only if all of the following propositions are biblical teachings: One eternal uncreated being, the LORD God, alone created all… Read More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 6 Part 2 – Bowman

the “same god” controversy and Christian commitment – Part 1

My friend Dr. William Vallicella has yet another long and interesting post on the “same god” controversy. Along the way he makes a number of good points. Philosopher-style, I’ll hone in on the points I disagree with, in this and a follow-up post. Bill says, in part: 3. Now consider these conflicting beliefs: God is triune; God is not triune. Please note that it would… Read More »the “same god” controversy and Christian commitment – Part 1

Credo House Ministries’ Inaccuracies about the Trinity and the Council of Nicea

I’ve blogged about these folks before. I do not enjoy criticizing apologists, because I think Christian apologetics is important. And the folks at Credo House Ministries seem like good-hearted and hard working Christians who are doing their best to help Christians love God with their minds. And I think Patton is an excellent blogger and writer. But I feel compelled to correct some of their… Read More »Credo House Ministries’ Inaccuracies about the Trinity and the Council of Nicea

SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Burke 2

There’s a lot of meat in Burke’s second round, and both his and Bowman’s second rounds were cleaner, more free of stray punches than round 1. Here I offer some summaries and brief comments on Burke.

  • In a lot of the piece, Burke lays out his positive views about Jesus. This should give a lot of people pause; it is often assumed, contrary to the long but largely forgotten history of this minority report, that unitarians are mere “deniers”, or that they can be lumped together with the amorphous “skeptics” who appear in apologetics writings, or that they are theological “liberals”, or that they are Unitarian Universalists. Not so – arguably, Burke affirms all the really obvious doctrines of the New Testament – messiah, mediator, resurrection, atonement, etc. – roughly, all the items in the “Apostles'” Creed. Burke defends what used to be called a “humanitarian” christology – that Jesus was a human, and did not exist before his miraculous conception in Mary. It would be misleading to describe his position as being that Jesus was “just a man”. In Burke’s view, he’s far from being just a “great teacher” among many, with peers like the Buddha  and Muhammad, or even being merely a prophet.
  • It is striking to what degree Burke simply ignores some influential (but now largely forgotten) patristic ideas, to wit: the Jesus’ ministry obviously manifested the divine nature (through, e.g. his miracles), that Jesus must be divine so as to be able to divinize humanity, that Jesus and not the Father was the one who interacted with the Jews in OT times, that the title “Son of God” implies having the divine nature, that what is “divine” must be absolutely unchanging and simple. I say this more by way of observation than criticism. With the exception of the first, I expect that Bowman will largely ignore them as well.
  • Flag: Burke says that the risen, glorified Jesus isRead More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Burke 2

Where did Jesus claim to be God?

At the Stand to Reason blog (this is the apologetics ministry founded by the inimitable Greg Koukl) I’ve been interacting with a few people on the question: Where Did Jesus Claim to Be God? In the current evangelical style, the poster Melinda Penner seems to understand this as equivalent to claiming to be God himself, to saying “I am God.” Never mind whether or not… Read More »Where did Jesus claim to be God?

podcast 338 – What John 1 Meant

The original meaning of John 1, disentangled from later speculations about Trinity and two natures christology.