podcast 167 – Lamson’s History of The Unitarian Congregationalists
In this episode we hear a voice from 1852 describing a lost species of American Christianity:
In this episode we hear a voice from 1852 describing a lost species of American Christianity:
You say you’ve looked into the biblical credentials of “the doctrine of the Trinity.” But have you actually read anything by unitarian Christians?
Is there a plausible and biblical “doctrine of the Trinity”?
Dr. White vs. John on the thesis of the 4th gospel.
Four authors summarize their views on the Trinity.
Last time I offered a definition of the concept of a trinitarian.
This time, I will try to define the concept of a unitarian.
Many definitions of this concept are unacceptably polemical. It is unacceptable to define a unitarian as an anti-trinitarian. This violates requirements 3 and 5 – it doesn’t tell us what a unitarian is, but only what a unitarian is against. And this is part of a common slashing rhetorical strategy which I have recently mentioned. For the same reasons we must reject defining the concept unitarian as one who “denies the Trinity” or “has heretical beliefs about the Trinity,” etc. Equally, it is unacceptable to define a unitarian as one who holds the correct or biblical view about Jesus and God. Whether or not that’s so, it’s trying to sneak an argument for a thesis into a pseudo-definition of that thesis.
One common definition is,
Definition 1: someone who believes in exactly one unipersonal God.
I think this is on the right track, but the term “unipersonal” is obscure, and so this definition violates requirement 6 (and possibly also 3).
I have been working with this definition of the concept:
Definition 2: someone who believes that the one God just is (is numerically identical to) the Father.
I now think that this isn’t quite right.
First the definition is arguably too narrow. Read More »Defining the concept of a unitarian
What does “monarchical trinitarianism” include exactly?
The gripping story of Nabeel Qureshi’s journey from Islam to Christianity.
Is the “Granville Sharp Rule” + 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13 “fatal to unitarianism”?
Dr. Mike Licona argues that the real, historical man Jesus considered himself to be God.
Can one be a trinitarian without believing in a tripersonal God?
In this episode I respond to the interesting article “What about This View? How to Defend an Anti-Trinitarian Theology,” by evangelical apologist Dr. Robert M. Bowman Jr.
In round 5, Bowman aims to show that the “threefoldness” of God is implied by the Bible. At issue is how to explain “triadic” mentions of Father, Son, and Spirit (Or God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, etc.). Bowman mentions his list of fifty such passages. Here he focuses on a dozen passages. But first, his recap of where he thinks the debate is so far:
In the preceding three rounds of this debate, I have argued that the person of Jesus Christ existed as God prior to the creation of the world and that the Holy Spirit is also a divine person. If my argument up to this point has been successful, I have thoroughly refuted the Biblical Unitarian position and established two key elements of the doctrine of the Trinity. Add to these two points the premises that there is only one God who existed before creation and that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the only theological position in the marketplace of ideas that is left is the doctrine of the Trinity. Since these are all premises that Biblical Unitarianism accepts, I have not defended them here. (emphases added)
I’m tired of pointing out the inconsistency of what Bowman is urging. I’m capable of hearing the many ways theorists smooth away apparent inconsistencies (making subtle distinctions), but other than a quick gesture (I think in Round 1), I hear none of these familiar notes from him. This is just to say – he’s a resolute positive mysterian. Briefly, Father, Son and Spirit are numerically three, as they qualitatively differ from one another. But also, Bowman seems to think, each of them is numerically the same as God. This is inconsistent, because the “is” of numerical sameness is transitive – if f = g, and g = s, then f = s (compare: the concept of “bigger than”). Also, it seems that he thinks Father and Son to the same god, and also, since this god just is a person (hence “who” above), they are the same person as each other. And, of course, also they are not. Sigh. Let’s stick with the vague “threefoldness” claim I started with.
Bowman ignores what I call Read More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 5 – BOWMAN – PART 1
Its purpose is to equip you to think through these disputed theological and biblical issues. Appropriately, it’s again available in Three formats.
0.75x 1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 0:0000:25:26 podcast 46 – Professor Timothy Winter’s Islamic perspective on the Trinity Apple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsPlayer EmbedShare Leave a ReviewListen in a New WindowDownloadSoundCloudStitcherSubscribe on AndroidSubscribe via RSSSpotify In this episode I talk with Professor Timothy Winter (a.k.a. Shaikh Abdal-Hakim Murad), an Islamic theologian at Cambridge University. He’s the author of a chapter called “The Trinity is Incoherent” in the 2013… Read More »podcast 46 – Professor Timothy Winter’s Islamic perspective on the Trinity
A podcast listener recently emailed me to ask (emphases added): I won’t hide that I’m a happy Trinitarian and yet that I’m thoroughly enjoying your podcast since it provokes my theology and forces me to actually think about why I believe what I believe. This is a healthy check I think. I am puzzled though about why the numerical issue is so important. If Jesus… Read More »reader question on the Trinity and numerical sameness
“Mary cradled the Creator in her arms. ‘I never imagined God would look like that,’ she says to herself.”
What would we expect to find in the New Testament writings if the authors thought Jesus was a man, a god, or a godman?
Is my definition of the concept unitarian so wide that it would allow in some famous trinitarians?