Skip to content

Search Results for: Trinity Monotheism

root, trunk, branch

Moses Stuart on Nicea

A trinitarian evangelical Bible scholar comments on the subordinationist theologies both of Arius and of his accusers.

“Sabellianism Reconsidered” Considered – Part 4

The theory, then, is that God is an everlasting, temporally extended thing with three temporal parts, each of which is a god. But, they’re the same god as God. Yet as we saw last time, how can the Three be gods at all, as each exists at some times but not others?

Without going into the arguments for this controversial thesis, Baber appeals to the claim made by Derek Parfit and others, that “identity is not ‘what matters’ for survival”. (p.6) Thus, a future thing can count as my surviving, though it is not (numerically) identical to me.

Suppose (I’m stealing this thought experiment from Richard Swinburne) some mad scientists, such as Pinkie and the Brain, are going to cut my brain in half, and put the left half in one body, and the right in another. The body which gets the left half will be tortured to death, while the body getting the right half will be given lifetime passes to all NFL games and a lifetime supply of good beer. If I’m to undergo this experiment, I want to know which of these resulting people will be (numerically identical to) me: the unlucky one, the lucky one, or neither.

Baber (following Parfit) wants to say that depending on how exactly the resulting people are related to me, both may count as the continuation of or survival of me. Specifically, she suggests that psychological continuity is enough – it is enough that the later people have the same or nearly the same beliefs, desires, and so on that I have.

I don’t think this is right, but back to the Trinity: In her view, the god which is a God-stage (temporal part of God) called the Father would, just before the Incarnation, be mistaken to think Read More »“Sabellianism Reconsidered” Considered – Part 4

Dear interviewee,

Thank you for agreeing to an interview! There are two ways we can do this: I record you over the phone. This is easiest for you, but your side does sound like a phone call. You record yourself, using your own smartphone, tablet computer, or computer, and upload the resulting .mp3 (OK) or .wav file (best) here. Here one episode (Ipad) and another (Android smartphone).… Read More »Dear interviewee,

Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 2 – Redirection (Dale)


The smell of this will get you off the trail…

Last time we briefly distinguished four ways Christians respond to apparent contradictions in theology. Here, we look at what I call Redirection. When confronted with an apparently contradictory doctrine X, the Redirector changes the subject. She says something to direct your attention away from X, or at least away from the apparent inconsistency of X. The Redirector is either not arguing in defense of X at all, or she’s committing a red herring fallacy.

An example:

Doubting Don: What’s this Incarnation business? Jesus was God and a human? But isn’t that saying that he is and isn’t God?

Redirecting Rebecca: Isn’t it amazing that God loved us so much, that while we were yet sinners, he sent his only Son to redeem us?Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 2 – Redirection (Dale)

Lash: “modes” or “ways”, not “persons”

Here are some brief comments on a book review of Nicholas Lash‘s A Reading of the Apostles’ Creed. (Full ref: Robert P. Imbelli, “Believing Three Ways in One God: A Reading of the Apostles’ Creed”, Commonweal, Jan 28, 1994, 121:2, p. 24. – accessed online through Infotrac.) (my emphases added) Lash rightly insists upon God’s incomprehensible nature and advocates a welcome modesty of speech in… Read More »Lash: “modes” or “ways”, not “persons”

Are all religions the same?

I have been working through Alvin Plantinga’s excellent (but frustrating) book Warranted Christian Belief, and I am particularly intrigued by his critique of the work of theologian John Hick. Hick began his spiritual odyssey as a traditional, orthodox Christian, accepting what I have been calling ‘Christian belief’. He was then struck by the fact that there are other religions in which the claims of orthodox Christianity—trinity,… Read More »Are all religions the same?

Dialogue with the Maverick Philosopher: God is a being, not Being itself – part 2

Continuing the discussion with the Maverick (Bill)… “Being itself,” I take it, is something like a universal property, an abstract and not a concrete object. (Or at least, it’s not supposed to be concrete; maybe he thinks that it is neither abstract nor concrete.)  I’m not sure if Bill would accept those characterizations, but if not, I invite him to say a little more about… Read More »Dialogue with the Maverick Philosopher: God is a being, not Being itself – part 2

Derivation vs. Generic Theories – part 5: The Generic View (JT)

“Gee Hank, it sure is swell that communism won out.
This house belongs to all of us!”

In the last post, I pointed out some of the problems faced by an Athanasian sort of derivation view. If you found such problems to be decisive, then alternatively you could opt for a generic view. In this post, I would like to introduce the generic view.

As I mentioned in the first post, the generic view claims that Divinity belongs equally to the three persons, similar to how three people might jointly own the same house. Divinity thus belongs to no one divine person any more than another. The generic view (let’s call this GV) rejects DV in favor of this:

(GV) Divinity belongs equally to each divine person.

For both the derivation and the generic views of the trinity, Divinity is an entity that’s shared by the persons. On (the Athanasian version of) the derivation view, this shared entity just is the Father, but on the generic view, this shared entity is not the Father. The Father isn’t shared, Divinity is.

Read More »Derivation vs. Generic Theories – part 5: The Generic View (JT)

Farewell to Tuggy’s Divine Deception Argument

In “Divine Deception, Identity, and Social Trinitarianism” Dale argues that if Social Trinitarianism (ST) were true, the Father, Son, and Spirit would be guilty of a blameworthy act of deception. But because the Father, Son, and Spirit are ex hypothesi morally perfect, ST must be false. By offering a moral objection to ST, Dale’s argument has the lovely virtue of sidestepping the tired tri-theist objections… Read More »Farewell to Tuggy’s Divine Deception Argument

podcast 65 – Dr. Joshua Blander on John Duns Scotus on Identity and Distinction

John Duns Scotus (d. 1308), nicknamed by tradition “the Subtle Doctor,” was one of the most important medieval Christian philosophers, and was notorious for the difficulty of his thought. In this episode, we hear a specialist in medieval philosophy give a conference presentation on Scotus’s views on identity (sameness) and distinction (difference). Nowadays most philosophers and logicians recognize qualitative sameness (aka similarity), which comes in degrees,… Read More »podcast 65 – Dr. Joshua Blander on John Duns Scotus on Identity and Distinction

Arius and Athanasius, part 9 – How do the Father and Son share properties? (JT)

The Father and Son look just alike!
The Father and Son look just alike!

In the last two posts, I looked at Athanasius view that the Father begets the Son much like how human fathers beget human sons. But Athanasius’ view raises some interesting questions.

One of the things Athanasius likes about natural procreation is that sons get their natures from one of their ingredients, namely the substance they get from their fathers. For example, in God’s case, the Father is an ingredient in the Son, and the Son inherits his divine properties from that ingredient. However, the Son is not identical to the Father, and it’s not clear to me how the Son is supposed to ‘inherit’ properties from something he’s not identical to.

Read More »Arius and Athanasius, part 9 – How do the Father and Son share properties? (JT)