Skip to content

Search Results for: origen unitarian

Rufinus’s corruption of Origen’s On First Principles – Part 2

In this follow-up post, three factors that make Rufinus’ corruption of Origen’s On First Principles all the more egregious. First, after recklessly changing anything he doesn’t like in translating Origen’s book, absurdly claiming that anything Origen says that doesn’t comport with the (then) new Nicene orthodoxy must have been changed by heretics, and lyingly (or idiotically) claiming to have filled things in only with Origen’s other words or ideas… Read More »Rufinus’s corruption of Origen’s On First Principles – Part 2

You’re another!

“You’re another” – that’s what tu quoque means – it’s the name of an informal fallacy, often called a fallacy of relevance. For example, if I argue that your theory is self-contradictory, suppose you retort that my theory is too. Well, so…? It’s irrelevant to the point that the first theory mentioned is self-contradictory (so, self-refuting).

Cornell grad student Chad McIntosh argues that if the social trinitarian God – or rather: the three divine persons  posited by clear “social” Trinity theories – would be deceivers, then so would the perfect self in whom I believe, being a unitarian Christian. So granting that an ST is implausible, for similar reasons unitarian Christian theology is implausible (because it has a perfect being doing what appears a wrongful deception).

Is this a defense of ST?

I’ve already argued in that paper than a Swinburne-type ST implies what looks like wrongful deception by at least one of the three divine persons. This hasn’t been disputed.

I don’t grant that if God is a single self, then Read More »You’re another!

10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #6 get a date – part 1

Some reference sources will tell you that Christians have always believed in the Trinity. This claim is misleading at best. Rather than dating trinitarian theology to the start of Christianity, if we carefully examine the history of theology, we can see a relevant series of dates, as elements of belief in a triune god emerge. Yes, Christians have always believed in one God, but in… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #6 get a date – part 1

SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 5 – BURKE – Part 3

Were there any “biblical unitarians”, or what I call humanitarian unitarians in the early church?

Buckle your seatbelts – this post isn’t a quickie.

First, to review – in this whole debate, Burke has argued that all the NT writers were humanitarians. But if this is so, one would expect there to be a bulk of humanitarian unitarians in the times immediately after the apostles. Here, as we saw last time, Bowman pounces. All the main 2nd century theologians, he urges are confused or near trinitarians. (Last time, I explained that this is a dubious play on the word “trinitarian”. My term for them is non-Arian subordinationists.) There’s not a trace, Bowman urges, of any 1st c. humanitarians – with the exception of some off-base heretical groups, like the Ebionites.

We’re talking about mainly the 100s CE here, going into the first half of the 200s. The general picture, as I see it, is this. Early in the century, we find the “apostolic fathers” basically echoing the Bible, increasingly including the NT (the NT canon was just starting to be settled on during this century). However, some of them seem to accept some kind of pre-existence for Christ (in God’s mind? or as a divine self alongside God?), and they’re often looser, more Hellenized in their use of “god” (so even though as in the NT the Father is the God of the Jews, the creator, Jesus is more frequently than in the NT called “our God” etc.) But clearly – no equally divine triad, no tripersonal God, and in most, no clear assertion of the eternality of the Son. In the second half of the century, starting with Justin Martyr, we find people expounding  a kind of subordinationism obviously inspired by Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish Platonic theologian Read More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 5 – BURKE – Part 3

“paterderivationism,” monotheism, and “mono-theos-ism”

A question from the Facebook group a few weeks ago: …One model of the Trinity that I’ve heard articulated–call it “paterderivationism”–says that the way in which the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are homoousios is the same way in which Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus may be called “homoousios”: they share the same kind of nature, though… not the same instance of that nature. According to… Read More »“paterderivationism,” monotheism, and “mono-theos-ism”

von Harnack on logos theories and mystery

Here’s one reason why some theologians love to appeal to “mystery.” Regarding the second half of the second Christian century, the great church history von Harnack observes, …an urgent impulse necessarily made itself felt to define the contents and value of the Redeemer’s life and work, not, primarily, from the point of view of the proclamation of the Gospel, and the hopes of a future state,… Read More »von Harnack on logos theories and mystery

Hurtado on the early worship of Jesus

“…earliest believers treated the risen/exalted Jesus as they did only because they felt required to do so by God.”

7 Weird Theologians

Daniel Calder surveys the Top 7 weirdest Christian theologians. Of these, how many are atheists? Consider, for example, John Scotus Eriugena (c.800 – c.877). The author gives an encyclopedia quote which rings true to me. In general, the system of thought just outlined is a combination of neo-Platonic mysticism, emanationism, and pantheism which Eriugena strove in vain to reconcile with Aristotelean empiricism, Christian creationism, and theism.… Read More »7 Weird Theologians