Skip to content

Search Results for: trinitarian or unitarian?

10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #3 Take the mystery out of appeals to “mystery” – Part 2

Continuing our survey from last time, fifth, sometimes “the Trinity is a mystery” means that the doctrine of the Trinity is unintelligible, or nearly so. Some ancient “church Fathers” hold that the doctrine of the Trinity can’t be literally understood, so that we’re forced to use analogies to describe it, all of which are very bad analogies. But, they seem to think, piling bad analogy upon… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #3 Take the mystery out of appeals to “mystery” – Part 2

Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 10 – Why Care About Rational Reinterpretation?

Whew! That was close!

Many recent Christian philosophers have offered what I call Rational Reconstructions of apparently contradictory doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. Though I’m presently exploring criticisms of such views, let me emphasize that I don’t see anything wrong with what they’re doing, and I think that people with philosophical skills who are Christians ought to use them in any way which is helpful to the Christian community. At bare minimum, these folks are exploring possible views, possible ways to understand the Trinity (etc.). Getting clear about what the options are, and the costs and benefits of each, is an important kind of theoretical progress. Moreover, it shows intellectual integrity and courage, and concern for the truth.

At the end of my last post in the series, I noted that Rational Reconstructors often don’t believe their new version of the Doctrine. In any case, I’ve never seen one that insists that their version is the one which all Christians ought to believe. This latter isn’t surprising – we professors simply don’t have any authority to lay down a theory as required by any Christian community. But it is surprising that these folks are exercising some immense intellectual energy, and writing very involved and difficult pieces expounding views to which they do not commit? What is going on?

Short answer: apologetics. They’re deflecting bullets, as it were, with the theoretical equivalent of Wonder Woman’s super-duper bracelets.Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 10 – Why Care About Rational Reinterpretation?

against despising analytic theologians

I recently read this somewhat disturbing post by our friend Fr. Aiden Kimel. Though he lightens things up with humor a couple of times, it is a pretty thorough condemnation of analytic theologians. A charge he makes by implication against analytic theologians (i.e. those trained in analytic philosophy who work on topics in Christian theology) is that like the “Arians” of old, we suffer from… Read More »against despising analytic theologians

10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #4 “same ousia” – Part 2

In this post – what did the bishops mean when they declared for the first time that Father and Son were the same ousia? You’ll want to have this list of interpretations from part 1 in front of you. Importantly, some of possible interpretations of ousia imply others, most notably, the problematic 1. 3 and 4 imply 1 (though not vice-versa). But 1 should be unacceptable to any… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #4 “same ousia” – Part 2

Francis David: Against Worshiping Jesus

There was a famous dispute between the famous unitarian Socinus and a Hungarian unitarian leader Francis David (a.k.a. Ferenc Dávid, Franciscus Davidis; 1510-79) about whether Christians should worship or pray to Jesus. Both were what I call humanitarian unitarians (Jesus did not exist before his conception, and does not have a divine nature.) This dispute went on for some time both in person and in… Read More »Francis David: Against Worshiping Jesus

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

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

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

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?