new published paper: Craig’s Contradictory Christ
Has Dr. William Lane Craig put forward what is plausibly a biblical and possibly true two-natures theory about the Lord Jesus?
Has Dr. William Lane Craig put forward what is plausibly a biblical and possibly true two-natures theory about the Lord Jesus?
I explain my view that arguments from truth are a greater threat to human freedom than are arguments from foreknowledge, and I argue against the all-false view about statements about future events that (as of now) may or may not occur.
Most Orthodox theologians agree with Catholics and most Protestants that the one God is the Trinity.
With this episode we continue our series on the 4th-century creed-producing councils of catholic bishops.
0.75x 1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 0:0000:38:41 podcast 53 – John Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity, Part 2 Apple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsPlayer EmbedShare Leave a ReviewListen in a New WindowDownloadSoundCloudStitcherSubscribe on AndroidSubscribe via RSSSpotify This week I start with a long and insightful listener comment. Among other things, he asks how one’s theology as unitarian or trinitarian affect one’s discipleship, or how one follows Jesus as Lord. I… Read More »podcast 53 – John Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity, Part 2
A deep dive on divine attributes, processions, and “social” trinitarianism.
I have gone through all six. Which stage are you at, and what is keeping you from moving to the next?
In the New Testament “God” is nearly always the Father. But what follows from that, exactly?
Discussing trinitarian vs. unitarian Christian theologies with Dr. William Lane Craig.
Here’s a long but engaging interview by Sean Finnegan at his Christian Monotheism website. (Podcast RSS feeds here.) The subject, a young man named Christopher Amelung, underwent the change of theology noted above. He doesn’t recount all of the relevant arguments and exegesis; it’s rather a narrative of his own thoughts, emotions, and relationships. This is not a deconversion story, but a story of a… Read More »Reformed trinitarian to unitarian Christian
Two common uses of “Trinity,” but one came first…
Not all engagement is good engagement.
Did fourth century Christians come to a consensus about “the doctrine of the Trinity”?
Does the Bible say in the fourteenth Psalm that atheists are fools? And what about Paul’s critiques of the Gentiles in Romans and Ephesians – do these teach that atheism is caused, in all cases, by willful rejection of God, preferring sin to acknowledging him?
Professor Swinburne: we can argue from reason alone that the one God is a Trinity.
Dialogue with an apologist about changes of tritheism and “the doctrine of the Trinity.”
If there’s at least one, there must be exactly three. Q.E.D.
The installment before the last, we saw that Richard Swinburne’s social trinitarian theory is very carefully built so as to satisfy multiple demands of orthodoxy. There is, he argues, a contradiction-free, reasonable trinitarian theory, which fits well with the classic creeds. But we can do even better than that. In Swinburne’s view, there’s a plausible argument for the Trinity based on reason alone. Don’t believe it? Oh, ye of little faith reason. Have ye not read the earlier Richard on this?Read More »Swinburne’s Social Trinitarian Theory, Part 5 – Yes, we can prove it by reason alone
“Do you believe in the leadership of Mike?” “Yes?” I muttered unconvincingly. But I didn’t know what I believed. I was new in town, and had never lived in a place with such rabid, overactive basketball fans. The season hadn’t started yet, so I’d never seen the team play. But the fans were already working themselves up into a frenzy. Our team was the Wisconsin… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #7 – the deity of Christ vs. the Trinity
In the recent and ongoing series, I have been showing that famous early “fathers” are not, contrary to popular accounts, trinitarians at all, once we carefully define the term. They are unitarians, again, carefully defining the term.
But these recent comments by reader “Villanovanus” got me thinking.
He finds it outrageous that I call people like Irenaeus and Origen “unitarians,” even though I also call them “subordinationists.” Isn’t a subordinationist by definition a trinitarian? (When one reads the trinitarian authors of histories of theology, they are usually a little more modest, saying that these folks are sort of, kind of, maybe trinitarians, if not good ones, or fully developed ones, etc.) Am I not grammatically challenged, or perversely unwilling to look up terms in a dictionary? If a “subordinationist” is by definition a trinitarian, then “subordinationist unitarian” is a contradiction in terms.
He cites a number of dictionary type definitions of “subordinationism”, e.g.
The second definition is too narrow. But making “subordinationism” Read More »“Subordinationism”
Evaluating Dr. Craig’s unique take on “two natures” christology, his “Neo-Apollinarian” theory.