Catholic Theologian Hans Küng on New Testament theology
“For the New Testament, as for the Hebrew Bible, the principle of unity is clearly the one God…”
“For the New Testament, as for the Hebrew Bible, the principle of unity is clearly the one God…”
From time to time, I’m going to set up some simple polls for ya’ll to vote in. I’ve decided to set them up outside of WordPress (this blog’s software), so as to avoid various complications. Here’s praying that I don’t run into technical difficulties that are over my head! I’ve shamelessly stolen the four claims – the inconsistent tetrad – from a posting by Jeff… Read More »first Poll – worship
Princeton philosopher Thomas Kelly in a paper on the epistemology of disagreement (i.e. what the reasonable response when we find the people just as smart and informed etc. as us disagree on some important matter):
In principle, we ought to be able to give due weight to the available reasons that support a given view, even in the absence of actual defenders of the view who take those reasons as compelling. But in practice, the case for a view is apt to get short shrift in the absence of any actual defenders. The existence of actual defenders can serve to overcome our blindspots by forcefully reminding us just how formidable the case is for the thesis that they defend… But the case for a given view itself is no stronger in virtue of the fact that that view has actual defenders…
Thomas Kelly, ” The Epistemic Significance of Disagreement,” p. 31 (in pre-print).
At first this reminded me of a proverb I’ve often thought of when reading some catholic theologian who has evidently never put the slightest effort into understanding the overall case for unitarianism:
“The first to speak in court sounds right–until the cross-examination begins.” Proverbs 18:17 (NLT)
But this is actually a different point than Kelly’s. A better courtroom analogy for Kelly’s point is:Read More »Arguing against no one
A prominent Christian scholar is criticizing some of his peers for their discussions of Jesus-era Jewish monotheism: [these blokes work] with only two possibilities: monotheism could either have remained intact or been broken. Commendably, [one of the blokes] pictures developments stretching or even distending Jewish monotheism, but he too seems not to consider the possibility of significant reformulations and new adaptations of a religious commitment… Read More »Don’t think/write like a contemporary theologian – Part 4 – rubber doctrines
Rebuttals are the hardest parts of a debate – the hardest part to perform, and the hardest to listen to.
Steve Hays provides a stellar example of how not to do apologetics.
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
Thanks to reader Mike Gant for his question about my last post. As of now I think I’ve got a solid definition of the concept unitarian: someone who believes that the one God just is (i.e. is numerically identical to) a certain self and not to any other self. But I then tried to define the more specific concept of a Christian unitarian: someone who believes that… Read More »Defining the concept of a Christian unitarian
Does John start his gospel at the same “beginning” as Mark 1:1?
These two. Atheist blogger Hemant Mehta explains how this happened. (H/T James McGrath) And he makes an interesting point about it. Yes, I would be shocked too. (Read to the end of his post.) But, I think Christians and Christians publishers should promote debate. Anyone who is confident in their case is all for debate. Update: Justin Brierley’s show Unbelievable has put up part 1 of a… Read More »Pro and Con books published at once – How’d that happen?
Fr. Aiden Kimel has a good and thoughtful post on my Mark posts. I think he concedes my main point: … if we were to isolate the Gospel of Mark from the rest of the Bible, and indeed the Christian Church altogether, and read it just as historical artifact, would we come to the conclusion that Jesus of Nazareth is God? I doubt it. Indeed,… Read More »Mark, evangelicals, and catholics
Just got this in the mail; a very thorough symposium on Dr. Keith Ward’s Christ and the Cosmos,
Chad occasionally talks in ways that suggest that I’ll actually alleging divine deception.
At his blog An Open Orthodoxy. In (of course) three parts: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3. I demur in some comments. Check out their posts and comment there. Tom Belt and Dwayne Polk are open theists. I take it that the title of the blog emphasizes that they are truly catholic – that on the things that really matter, they agree with mainstream Christians.… Read More »Tom Belt on the Trinity
Three World Vision employees are fired because according to World Vision they don’t believe in that Jesus is “fully God” or that he’s a member of the Trinity.
But inquiring minds want to know: what did they believe, what statement or statements of faith did they sign, and are the beliefs therein necessary and sufficient for being a real Christian? This time, we’re digging a little deeper.
Their website saith,
World Vision U.S. hires only those who agree and accept to its Statement of Faith and/or the Apostles’ Creed. (source)
Interesting! Note the “and/or” – employees must affirm either one or both. As we’ve noted before here at trinities, nothing in the so-called Apostles’ Creed requires belief in either the “full deity” of Christ (whatever that may mean) or any sort of trinitarian theory.Read More »No Trinity, No Job – Part 2
A trinitarian evangelical Bible scholar comments on the subordinationist theologies both of Arius and of his accusers.
Though he’s the first on record to use the Latin word “trinitas,” he was in fact a sort of unitarian.