In my comments on his first salvo, I wondered exactly what Trinity doctrine Bowman means to defend. (Some kind of modalism?) After round two, I said that Bowman has owned up to affirming a contradiction – trying to pass it off as a “mystery”, i.e. a merely apparent contradiction. In round 3, Bowman ignores these fundamental conceptual difficulties for his position, and soldiers on with… Read More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Bowman 3
This is a guest post by Mr. Mario Stratta, a frequent commenter on this blog. He works in electronic engineering in Italy, and blogs on theological topics as “Miguel de Servet” at beliefnet. – Dale In the OT we find an obscure reference to the “eternal arms” of God: “The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath [you] are [his] eternal arms …” (Deut 33:27)… Read More »Word and Spirit: the “Everlasting Arms” of God
Thanks to all you excellent commenters! I can’t always keep up.
I see my friend philosophy professor Harriet Baber has been on there asking some provocative questions like some kind of Socratic gadfly. 🙂 I thought they deserved a post. The quotes here are from her comments.
WHAT pre-existed: the 2nd Person of the Trinity or Christ?
Orthodox / catholic-kosher answer: both. The 2nd person of the Trinity is assumed to be personally identical to (and so, identical to) the man Jesus.
What if I hold that the Trinitarian Person was pre-existent but became a human at some time in the late 1st century BC so that, in effect, Christ is a proper temporal part of the 2nd Person of the Trinity. Does this make me an adoptionist?
To all the non-philosophers out there; she is applying the recent metphysical doctrine of temporal parts here, thinking of, e.g. a self as extended across or spread out over time, rather than lasting (entire) though time. In current day metaphysicians’ lingo, people perdure rather than endure. So in this case the one Christ would be that whole four-dimensional, event-like thing, with the early part being the pre-human logos and the latter part being the human Jesus – but as I’m using the terms here (this is tricky – there are no standard terms here) the logos and Jesus would be temporal parts of the one Christ.
I don’t know, Harriet, whether or not this makes you an adoptionist; I suggest we lay aside Read More »Metatheology with Baber
In this post, I’ll take a crack at summarizing a lengthy salvo against Trinity monotheism launched by Daniel Howard-Snyder. Dan is well known and respected for his work on the problem of evil and in theory of knowledge. He has a hard-hitting and thorough style, very Alstonian (which is no accident). Generally, Dan is a nice guy, with a good sense of humor to boot.… Read More »Trinity Monotheism part 6: Attack of the Dan
Equally divine or not? Dr. Craig on generation, procession, and the Logos theologians.
I answer some questions and ask some, in response to this well done book review.
Is it true that most ancients lacked the concept of numerical identity?
Does Aristotle discuss the concept of numerical identity in only one passage?
What is God’s most important commandment? When asked about this, Jesus replied, “‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’” (Mark 12:29-30, NRSV) Notice the last two elements with which we are to love God: mind… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #10 Don’t be afraid to think hard about God
“It seems that Dr. Craig…in his attempt to equalize the persons has not only failed to elevate Jesus to the status of a god but has brought the Father down to his level. It is a reverse homoousion…”
In thinking about the Trinity, 380 and 381 are perhaps the most important dates to remember.
Ably reviewed by Sean Finnegan. I would add a few philosophical comments: White, like many evangelicals, understands “the deity of Christ” as meaning that Jesus and God are numerically one, that is, numerically identical. He argues that various things the NT asserts about Jesus imply this. (e.g. He is worshiped, called “Lord.”) Conveniently, he ignores the many passages which assert or presuppose a qualitative difference… Read More »White vs. Navas – Does the New Testament teach “the deity of Christ”?
Part 1 of a dialogue from December 2019, including opening brief opening statements and a discussion of John 1.
Does the New Testament teach that Jesus’ exaltation changed him from human to divine?
Thanks to reader Peter Tyson, for sending me a copy of The Threefold Art of Experiencing God: The Liberating Power of a Trinitarian Faith. It’s a short book by church growth guru Christian Schwarz, who has made his fortune advising churches on how to become healthier and grow, offering principles like these. Here is his official site. His approach goes by the name Natural Church… Read More »Modalism: the solution to your all of your church’s problems
John 17:1-3, closing statements, and audience Q&A. Which side made the stronger case?
A Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation is an anonymous tract, published in 1693 as the lead-off tract in this famous collection (the successor to this one). Although it is anonymous, I’m fairly sure that it’s by Anglican minister Stephen Nye (d. 1719), author of the most important tracts in both volumes, which are unitarian salvos in a fascinating… Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 17 – More Mysterious Interpretations – Nye’s Vine-Man (Dale)
John Edwards (1637-1726) was an Anglican Calvinist and would-be defender of Christian orthodoxy. Seemingly at the last minute, he tacked on to his Some Thoughts Concerning the Several Causes and Occasions of Atheism (1695) a critique of Locke’s Reasonableness. Guns blazing, he charged Locke (among other things) with promoting “Socinianism” (aka “Racovian” theology, i.e. the type of unitarian theology famously expounded by the Polish Brethren,… Read More »podcast 54 – John Edwards vs. John Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity
