Skip to content

Search Results for: trinitarian or unitarian?

Theophilus Lindsey on human stubbornness

…very rarely is there found candour enough in the human breast, for a man to recede from opinions, for the defence of which he has drawn his pen, and been highly applauded, however strong and demonstrative be the evidence to the contrary that is presented to him. (Theophilus Lindsey, An Historical View of the State of the Unitarian Doctrine and Worship, From the Reformation to Our Own Times, p. 175)

Sad but true.

I must add, though, that one should be very careful in wielding this charge. In the context Lindsey is unfair; he makes this remark about a person in a dispute who in my judgment was not simply being stubborn, not ignoring a mass of evidence to the contrary.

We can be too quick to mock politicians (“Flip-flopper!”) who’ve changed their minds about substantial issues. We assume, cynically, that they must be merely saying they’ve changed beliefs to gain political advantage. But how do we know they haven’t really changed their mind, after revisiting the evidence? Case in point: Romney on abortion.

Given how finite and fallible we are, if someone never changes his mind, you can be sure that he just doesn’t think much.

True story: On the day I successfully defended my PhD dissertationRead More »Theophilus Lindsey on human stubbornness

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)

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)

Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 6 – An interesting textual corruption

And we saw, at the climax of the heavenly scene in Rev 4-5, those present in God’s throne room fall down and worship. (5:14) Whom do they worship? Both God, and the Lamb, as the songs said.  (4:11, 5:11-13) But there’s an interesting textual variant. If you look in your old King James Version, which uses an inferior edition of the Greek New Testament, 5:14… Read More »Worship and Revelation 4-5 – Part 6 – An interesting textual corruption

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?

“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
karate

The Standard Opening Move

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

Mark Edwards on Councils and the Trinity

“The” doctrine of the Trinity was established neither at Nicea (325 AD) nor at Constantinople (381 AD). In catholic lore, it is all supposed to hang on the then novel term homoousios – but it does not – that is, not only on that. This one catholic Trinity doctrine is in fact not a fully determinate doctrine at all, but only a template, a set… Read More »Mark Edwards on Councils and the Trinity

Martin Schongauer‚ The Nativity (ca. 1480)

The Incarnation of God’s Logos (John 1:1-18)

In this guest post, our friend Mario Stratta expounds the prologue of the gospel according to John. – Dale I believe that the Prologue to John’s Gospel speaks about the Incarnation of God’s Word (Logos) in/as the “man called Jesus” (John 9:11). Where I disagree with the Trinitarians, Subordinationists and Arians, is that the Word had a personal subsistence (hypostasis), distinct from that of God,… Read More »The Incarnation of God’s Logos (John 1:1-18)