Skip to content

Search Results for: monarchical trinitarianism

What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 2

Last time, what I thought I heard from Steve was this (this is my summary):

In sum, the one God is a perfect being, a perfect self, who is the Trinity. He has within himself three parts – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each of these parts fully has the (universal) divine nature, and so, each of the essential divine attributes. Each is a divine self. And these three parts are indistinguishable from one another, or nearly so, though they be numerically distinct.

Steve has now responded twice, here and here. These contain a lot of extraneous material, which I’ll pass by. My question is, what did I get wrong above? Here’s what I hear (bulleted):

  • No, the Persons are not exactly alike. Each has a property the other two lack.
  • “they share a “numerically identical” nature”

Right – “nearly so.”

Because he says this nature is shared, I’m going to infer that it is a universal – something capable of being had by multiple subjects.

  • He wonders why I’m hearing things in terms of part and whole.

Steve, it’s not because you think God has multiple attributes. (Yes, I too reject the classical doctrine of simplicity, though I don’t think God has parts.) Rather, I’m trying to figure out what the relation is, in your view, between God/The Trinity and those three Persons. If it isn’t whole-parts, help me out!

  • The Persons are so alike that any one “represents” either of the others.
  • I don’t know what Tuggy means by “self.”

Sure you do Read More »What is the Trinity? A Dialogue with Steve Hays – Part 2

Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 20 – Resolution by Revision


Three famous Revisers: Socinus, Luther, and Hick.
When it comes to apparently contradictory claims in theology, there’s more than one way to Resolve the apparent inconsistency. The more popular way nowadays among Christian philosophers is what I called Rational Reinterpretation. The other way to Resolve? Revision. We’re faced with P, Q, and if P then not-Q. Solution? Simply deny either P or Q (or both). Problem solved.

Unlike Redirectors, Revisers don’t change the subject. Unlike Resisters, they don’t claim we should just “live with the tension”. Unlike practitioners of Restraint, they don’t think we can put off the issue. Like Resolvers through Rational Reinterpretation, they have a solution. But they don’t think tricky, new, more careful formulations are what is called for. Rather, something must go out on the rubbish heap. Revisers are usually accused of arrogance, lack of respect for tradition, biblical ignorance, idolatry of human reason, not being Christians at all, and of hating babies and cute little puppies.

Open theists are RevisersRead More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 20 – Resolution by Revision

The Latin Trinity Chart 3 – Henry of Ghent to the rescue

“Stand aside, puny moderns. Or postmoderns. Or whatever you are.”

I thought that Scott and Joseph made some really penetrating comments on the first two posts in this series. Here I want to recap them, so we can discuss how Henry of Ghent (c. 1217-93) a.k.a. The Solemn Doctor would interpret our chart (see the first two posts), specifically, the second, modalistic interpretation I offered.

First, Joseph comes in with some weighty objections to that model (summarized and expanded by me from his comments).Read More »The Latin Trinity Chart 3 – Henry of Ghent to the rescue

Christmas Amazement

“Mary cradled the Creator in her arms. ‘I never imagined God would look like that,’ she says to herself.”

Is “Supports” Intelligible?

Building on the substance dualist view that our own individual substance/soul supports one mind (i.e., person), Williams, Craig, and Hasker propose models of the Trinity according to which a single trope of divinity—a divine substance/soul—supports three minds (i.e., persons) in like manner. Craig relies on this claim to flesh out how three persons can be said to compose one being, and Hasker relies on the… Read More »Is “Supports” Intelligible?

Reformed Christian Philosopher Converts to Hinduism

Given my scholarly interests in Hinduism, I had to post a link to this story about the conversion of a Reformed Christian philosopher to a form of Hinduism.

Pictured here are Krishna and his lover Radha. I take it that in Sudduth’s form of Hinduism Krishna is an avatar of Vishnu. Other Hindus consider Krishna to be the high god himself.

There is much art celebrating the love of these two.

The story for me was a bit spoiled when I watched a documentary in which a Hindu, Indian man explained that (at least on some versions) Radha is married to another, and is Krishna’s aunt. Perhaps some would object that I’m not looking at it metaphysically enough. (Update – to be fair, some Hindu sources assert them to be unrelated and married – see comment #11 below.)

In another famous episode, Krishna charms a bunch of cow-herding ladies.

I’m curious to read more about Sudduth’s conversion. How does one get from Calvin’s all-determining triune deity to Vishnu? I wonder if it is by way of fairly mainstream trinitarian modalism…

Myself, as I read Sudduth’s interesting narrative of his conversion I’m not sure where, i.e. with what sort of Christianity, he was starting from. I too have taught the Gita in an academic setting, but I have not had experiences like this:

Around 4:20am (Friday morning) September 16th, I woke suddenly from a deep sleep to the sound of the name of “Krishna” being uttered in some wayRead More »Reformed Christian Philosopher Converts to Hinduism

Trinity Monotheism part 5: “divine”

In what sense, according to Craig and Moreland, are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each “divine”? Well, consider Rover. They’d say that the following four things are canine: Rover Rover’s nose Rover’s tail Rover’s left ear So, just as the parts of a dog are just as canine as the dog, so maybe “we could think of the persons of the Trinity as divine… Read More »Trinity Monotheism part 5: “divine”

The Orthodox Formulas 5: The 4th Lateran Council (1215)

Now, on to the Fourth Lateran Council, convened by Pope Innocent III in 1215. This council, considered the 12th “ecumenical” council, was one of the all-time most important councils, which strongly shaped catholicism in the “high” middle ages. It was called, in part, to get another crusade going, after some crusading failures and set-backs. The resulting “constitutions” were proposed (and to some extent written by?)… Read More »The Orthodox Formulas 5: The 4th Lateran Council (1215)

Tuggy rallies to knockout

Can a unitarian Christian explain why God has the capacity for interpersonal love?

map of America by % evangelical

Mark, evangelicals, and catholics

Fr. Aiden Kimel has a good and thoughtful post on my Mark posts. I think he concedes my main point: … if we were to isolate the Gospel of Mark from the rest of the Bible, and indeed the Christian Church altogether, and read it just as historical artifact, would we come to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth is God? I doubt it. Indeed,… Read More »Mark, evangelicals, and catholics

Jesus and “god” – part 5 – “gods” in the Bible (Dale)


Hello boys and girls. I am “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4)

Last time, you traveled back in time, meeting what you thought were a couple of idiotically confused pagans. These people, you think, have the confusing habit of labeling things “god” or “divine” which are not also the unique and perfect creator of the cosmos. You decide to wash all this polytheistic confusion out of your mind, so you pick up your Bible. In it, you read some interesting things about gods.

I am Yahweh your god, who brought you out of the land of Egypt… Do not have other gods besides Me. (Exodus 20:2-3)

“Hmmm… this doesn’t exactly rule out that there are other gods,” you reflect.Read More »Jesus and “god” – part 5 – “gods” in the Bible (Dale)

karate

The Standard Opening Move

“We’re not saying that God is exactly one A and exactly three As.”

“Sabellianism Reconsidered” Considered – Part 8

In this last post in this series, I want to put out a few critical reactions to Baber’s “Neo-Sabellian” Trinity theory.

My thanks to Harriet for this piece and for her interaction with us here.

No doubt, she’ll argue back; and she will probably say something about how her views have changed since she wrote this piece.

So, in no particular order:

  1. I agree with her that it’s suspicious if some philosophical theory should appeal to us only or mainly because it’ll help us in theology. I also agree with her that it’s interesting to at least try to come up with what is in some sense an acceptable Trinity theory which uses only metaphysical doctrines we have other reasons to believe.
  2. Again, I think it is a good aim to produce an intelligible (seemingly consistent) Trinity theory, assuming some such theory is called for. I think she’s correct to complain about the severe obscurity of traditional claims about “eternal generation” and “procession”.
  3. Picky point: I think “Neo-Sabellian” is a misnomer. It’s “Neo” all right, butRead More »“Sabellianism Reconsidered” Considered – Part 8

Jesus and “God” – Part 7 – What did the Shema originally mean?

I was reading Murray’s and Rea’s new An Introduction to Philosophy of Religion – the Trinity section, of course – and I was struck by this sentence: “… we cannot say that Jesus is the Father, nor can we say that they are two Gods (Deuteronomy 6:4).” (p. 74) I realized some time ago that there are problems in using that famous text as a… Read More »Jesus and “God” – Part 7 – What did the Shema originally mean?