“Well OF COURSE they distinguish the Son from the Father!”
How Trinity theories cause a “blind spot” when reading the New Testament.
How Trinity theories cause a “blind spot” when reading the New Testament.
“I do not know what the Christians mean, and am as much puzzled as you; but Father Verbiest is of that opinion.”
“For all its complexity, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity can be stated in seven simple propositions.”
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
Which parts of Channing’s thought do and don’t hold up today?
Reading the gospel of John in its first-century context is eye-opening!
Man, if I don’t love youtube. Never thought you’d here the words “modalistic monarchianism” in a rap?
Yo. Check it out this rap “Godhead” by Flame. Comes with bonus sermon excerpts.
My favorite rhyme, from verse 3: “Pentecostalism” with “cost of living”. That was a hard one! Well played. 🙂 Second best: “Sabellius” with “belly is”. (Verse 2) He really should’ve worked in “Nestorianism” towards the end of verse 3, but I guess that would tax the rhyming skills of Snoop Dog himself.
The concern here is to refute “Oneness” folk. Take that, Winterband!!! Indeed – Sabellius was trippin.
After the break, the lyrics in all their glory, as posted on the youtube page, with the best bits bolded by me.
Read More »Refutation of “Oneness” Theology in Rap Form (Dale)
Many are moving from a trinitarian understanding to a unitarian understanding of Christian theology. But not all of their reasons are good reasons…
The so-called Athanasian Creed (also known by the Latin words it begins with, Quicunque vult) is considered by many to be the very definition of “the” orthodox doctrine. It is of uncertain origin, although many readers think it has a strongly Augustinian flavor (which if true shows it is not from Athanasius himself, who died before Augustine was converted). It has long been considered authoritative… Read More »The Orthodox Formulas 3: the “Athanasian” Creed
This time, some questions that may occur to you about Clarke’s views on the Trinity.
I’ve blogged about these folks before. I do not enjoy criticizing apologists, because I think Christian apologetics is important. And the folks at Credo House Ministries seem like good-hearted and hard working Christians who are doing their best to help Christians love God with their minds. And I think Patton is an excellent blogger and writer. But I feel compelled to correct some of their… Read More »Credo House Ministries’ Inaccuracies about the Trinity and the Council of Nicea
A trinitarian ought to say No. But why? Doesn’t he accept “the deity of Christ”?
“The Gospel is Trinitarian.” What does this mean, and is it both true and non-trivial?
Thanks to Robert Bowman for his reply to my off-target criticisms. I thought I understood what he was doing, following in the steps of many a theologian, but evidently I was mistaken in my inferring that he holds to a one-self Trinity. In this post, I make a clarification, then ask two questions. He says that in trinitarian doctrine, the term [“person”] was and is… Read More »continuing the conversation with Robert Bowman – different selves, same being?
At long last, we’ve reached the 25th and last chapter of book three of Richard of St. Victor’s De Trinitate! (Here are the other Richard-related posts here @ trinities.)
Richard starts off with the point that for the Persons of the Trinity, unlike the case of any other persons, there is “individuality without plurality” – each is what it is without any plurality of any kind – and “unity without inequality” – I’m not sure what he means by this second phrase. (p. 396)
In contrast, any other person, such as you or me, can be “unequal to himself”, in that we can become greater or lesser over time. (e.g. I’m smarter and morally better now than when I was 14.) And persons like us have multiple properties (we’re not simple). (p. 396) And of a human person, say Barak Obama, we can say that “his power alone is dissimilar to itself… [since] one thing is easy for him, another is difficult and a third is impossible.” (p. 397)
Then he says, “one and the same nature… in one respect is less, in another it is greater, and [so is]… dissimilar and unequal to itself.” (p. 397) So, the same point he made about persons, can also be made about natures. Thus,Read More »Richard of St. Victor’s De Trinitate, Ch. 25 (Dale)
Review of Thomas McCall’s Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism?