podcast 136 – Dr. Dustin Smith on debating Jesus’s preexistence
This time, Dr. Smith’s thoughts on the debate. He argued for the minority view that the New Testament doesn’t teach Jesus’s literal pre-human existence.
This time, Dr. Smith’s thoughts on the debate. He argued for the minority view that the New Testament doesn’t teach Jesus’s literal pre-human existence.
At his blog Cognitive Resonance, Ben Nasmith has some observations about the theology and christology of Acts: …according to Acts, the God of Israel is the one who raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him. As such, Jesus is not the God of Israel. He didn’t raise and exalt himself. Rather, the God of Israel is the Father of Jesus. He is the God… Read More »Nasmith on the theology and christology of Acts
Was 381 the dawn of imperially enforced confession of a triune God?
In this last of three interviews with the authors of The Son of God: Three Views of the Identity of Jesus, we talk with Dr. Dustin Smith of Atlanta Bible College.
What are the essential teachings which one must accept to be a Christian?
“If I think of pork-products, is that a self-conscious act of thinking?”
What follows is the first of a two part post.
Part 1: The Divine Word as Divine Practical Knowledge
Part 2: If God Weren’t a Trinity, then Creatures Would Necessarily Be Created.
Part 1
In pre-Nicene days (and post-Nicene days) there was much debate about the ontological status and (narrative) identity of the Son of God. One branch of discussion focused on the Apostle John’s claim that the Son of God is the Word of God. In various places in the New Testament the Son of God is identified as the agent through whom the Father creates the world, which is equivalent with saying the Word of the Father and the Father create creatures.
From these sources a ‘Logos-theology’ was born (that you can read about in the history books). The Logos is that by which creatures are created, have their existence and persistence in existing.
Now, Henry takes up the question as to whether the Word is ‘practical knowledge’. Henry generally gets his definitions of kinds of knowledge from Aristotle. From Aristotle we learn about three kinds of knowledge: speculative knowledge, practical knowledge and productive knowledge.
Dallas Willard is one of my favorite authors, and I don’t normally go in for criticizing what he writes. But I found a great example in this (good) book (p. 122) of an idea that is fairly widespread, and which underlies a lot of social trinitarian speculation. This brief passage got me to thinking. He says, …God is love and sustains love for us from… Read More »Are persons essentially relational?
Last time, I explained that Athanasius has not made it clear how the Son ‘inherits’ divine properties from the Father. Yet even if Athanasius could explain how the Son ‘inherits’ properties from the Father, there’s still another problem. Like Arius, Athanasius believes that the Father is simple, and so anything ‘in’ the Father is, strictly speaking, identical to the Father. If the Son is going to inherit any properties from the Father, then surely he’d have to inherit them all. As Athanasius himself realizes, it’s not a question of the Son inheriting part of the Father. It’s a question of all or none.
However, there are certain properties the Son cannot inherit from the Father, on pain of contradiction. For instance, the Son cannot inherit the Father’s unbegotteness. The Son is begotten, but the Father is not, so the can’t inherit the Father’s unbegotteness without entailing a contradiction.
Read More »Arius and Athanasius, part 10 – The Father and Son can’t share all their properties (JT)
Many Christians in the 2nd to the 4th centuries, and many since, have read the famous opening of the gospel according to John like this: In the beginning [i.e. at the Genesis creation, but not necessarily before] was the Word [i.e. the pre-human Jesus], and the Word was with God [i.e. the Father], and the Word was divine.
A discussion about the fourth gospel with the author of this unique commentary on it.
0.75x 1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 0:0000:23:50 podcast 36 – Interview with Dr. Bart Ehrman about his How Jesus Became God – Part 2 Apple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsPlayer EmbedShare Leave a ReviewListen in a New WindowDownloadSoundCloudStitcherSubscribe on AndroidSubscribe via RSSSpotify Is the author of John confused about Jesus and God? Does he think that two different beings – the Father, and the man Jesus – are numerically… Read More »podcast 36 – Interview with Dr. Bart Ehrman about his How Jesus Became God – Part 2
In evangelical Protestant circles – to the highest degree in apologetics, followed by theology and Christian philosophy, it is popular to denounce theological views as “heresy”. For a while now, this has struck me as a little odd, and in this post, I’ll explain why. The concept of heresy arose within Catholicism, and on traditional Catholic assumptions, it makes perfect sense to decry something as… Read More »some thoughts on heresy
“Mary cradled the Creator in her arms. ‘I never imagined God would look like that,’ she says to herself.”
Not all engagement is good engagement.
Over at Parchment and Pen Michael Patton has posted a chapter on the Trinty, part of a forthcoming book called The Discipleship Book, intended to instruct new Christians.
Dear new Christians – beware. Patton is sincere, but misinformed. He thinks the Bible obviously teaches what he’s asserting, and reasons that any prior Bible-loving Christians must’ve thought likewise.
But having studied a vast amount of historical writings by Christians, I can assure you that this is demonstrably not so, even if we stick to “mainstream” Christians (so ignoring, e.g. “Arians”, Marcionites, etc.) I take no pleasure in pointing this out, and I wish it were as simple as Patton says. But facts are facts.
I’ve discussed his sort of take on the Trinty before. It is not, as Patton says in a comment, “what the Bible teaches and Christians for 2000 years have believed.” It is what (some? many?) theologians at Dallas Theological Seminary think about the Trinity. How widespread these views are, I’m not sure. But the many evangelical and other theologians riding the “social trinitarian” bandwagon would not agree with what Patton says.
Regarding what Patton holds forth as “the best we can do”, take care lest you fall into inconsistency.
You should know that some of the most brilliant Christian thinkers in the last 100 years have held many different views on just how “the” doctrine should be understood. Unfortunately, these theories are, for the most part, not consistent with one another.
Patton asserts thatRead More »Warning to New Christians
Ten basic questions that need to be answered, and ten more advanced questions.
An interesting discussion, with some links, by philosopher Parableman Jeremy Pierce: Muslims Worshiping God But Not Worshiping God. His view, as against some recent pastors and other folks, is that yes, Muslims do refer to the being that Christians acknowledge as the one true God, when they use the word “Allah”. [Saith Jeremy]…it seems completely ludicrous to me to claim that this being that is… Read More »Allah = God?
Last time we looked at an exchange between Christian and Muslim apologists in the early 14th century, in which the Christian side, under pressure from longstanding Muslim accusations of polytheism, spells out the doctrine of the Trinity in a plainly modalistic way. This practice is ongoing, as we’ll see. Thomas F. Michel is a Jesuit priest and scholar who edited and translated the largest response… Read More »Islam-Inspired Modalism – Part 2
Respected Catholic philosopher Alfred J. Freddoso corrects some pervasive baloney about persons which theologians are still repeating, these 22 years later! The asterisk marks his footnote – this whole passage is an aside in a very rich paper of his. Out of politeness, I omit the author of the wrongheaded passage, and I’ve added some bold highlighting to the whole thing. We’ve been over some… Read More »a quote every theology student working on the Trinity or Incarnation should memorize