too many Jesuses vs. too many “Jesuses”
Deciding to call just one of the three selves in your christology “Jesus” doesn’t fix the fact that your theory has two too many selves.
Deciding to call just one of the three selves in your christology “Jesus” doesn’t fix the fact that your theory has two too many selves.
I see trends in this analytic theology literature somewhat towards relative identity theories, and towards “metaphysical madness.”
Many are moving from a trinitarian understanding to a unitarian understanding of Christian theology. But not all of their reasons are good reasons…
This time, some questions that may occur to you about Clarke’s views on the Trinity.
Not possible. But why? (image credit)
Here are some rough-draft thoughts on another line of thinking associated with social trinitarian theories.
God is perfect. Arguably, an absolutely perfect being could not fail to be “well off” – in classical terminology, a perfect being must be happy, must be in a “blessed” condition. Part of perfection is independence. One kind of independence is the kind which comes up when discussing ontological or cosmological arguments for God’s existence – the idea of aseity, or existing but not because of anything else. But here’s another kind of independence or self-sufficiency: not requiring any thing (i.e. any fact not entailed by your existence) to be well off, to have a good life. Perhaps we could call it the divine property of security, or independent or self-sufficient happiness.
Is God as well off as he could possibly be? Arguably not,Read More »Reflections on the Impossibility of a truly lonely Christian God (Dale)
Today’s letter is “B.” At Bowman’s blog, Bowman and Buzzard battle about the basic building block of Old Testament belief – that YHWH is but one. But who has the better of this bitter brawl? Will Bowman best Buzzard? Or will Buzzard beat Bowman? Bowman’s a bit burned, as he feels he’s been a bit abused. But I think it best to leave that issue… Read More »Bowman vs. Buzzard on the Shema
0.75x 1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 0:0000:25:44 podcast 27 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 1 Apple PodcastsGoogle PodcastsPlayer EmbedShare Leave a ReviewListen in a New WindowDownloadSoundCloudStitcherSubscribe on AndroidSubscribe via RSSSpotify In the last thirty years or so, many Christian philosophers have become “social” trinitarians. Not only do they “use the social analogy” for the Trinity –… Read More »podcast 27 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 1
Can a Christian sensibly say that Jesus is the Father incarnate?
In standard formulations of trinitarian theology nowadays, one says that there is (only) one God “in three Persons.” But what does this mean? We can ask about how these “Persons” relate individually or collectively to the one God. How exactly are they “in” him? But more fundamentally, what is meant by “Person” here? Some trinitarians will tell you that the answer is, basically: nothing. The… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #5 “Persons” – Part 1
Review of Thomas McCall’s Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism?
Dallas Willard’s The Divine Conspiracy – its effect on my thinking.
An apologist spells out “the Trinity” as incoherent monotheistic tritheism.
Real arguments vs. pointed questions combined with incredulous tone.
Ably reviewed by Sean Finnegan. I would add a few philosophical comments: White, like many evangelicals, understands “the deity of Christ” as meaning that Jesus and God are numerically one, that is, numerically identical. He argues that various things the NT asserts about Jesus imply this. (e.g. He is worshiped, called “Lord.”) Conveniently, he ignores the many passages which assert or presuppose a qualitative difference… Read More »White vs. Navas – Does the New Testament teach “the deity of Christ”?
Last time, I explained that Athanasius thinks human fathers procreate sons by giving a part of their substance to the mother, and that bit of substance then becomes an ingredient in the zygote, and the zygote inherits its human nature from that ingredient.
Athanasius thinks this basic model applies to God too, though he is careful to make an important qualification: human fathers beget sons by giving up a part of their substance, but God the Father gives his whole self to his Son, not a part.
Read More »Arius and Athanasius, part 8 – Athanasius on begetting the Son (JT)
The Social Trinity may be more social than you thought. In this episode I talk with trinities contributor Mr. Chad McIntosh about his new twist on a “social” Trinity theory – that not only are there three divine persons or selves, but in another but related sense, the Trinity is a person, what he calls a functional person.
This is your introduction to the statement most Christian philosophers start with.
Applying the methodology… can we answer the question?
A podcast listener recently emailed me to ask (emphases added): I won’t hide that I’m a happy Trinitarian and yet that I’m thoroughly enjoying your podcast since it provokes my theology and forces me to actually think about why I believe what I believe. This is a healthy check I think. I am puzzled though about why the numerical issue is so important. If Jesus… Read More »reader question on the Trinity and numerical sameness