Skip to content

Jesus and “god” – part 3 – analyzing “X is a god” (Dale)

What does it mean to say that this dude is a god (or is divine)?

In this series, we first set out an important argument from Christian theology and apologetics about Jesus. In the second installment, we simplified the argument in two ways, and pointed out that to have valid argument, we need to avoid equivocal terms.

It is important now that we push the “pause” button on our christological interests and theological agendas, and think carefully about the terms “god” and “divine”.

I’ve tried to analyze the meaning of “god” and related terms in western languages. (I’m not sure how this compares, e.g. to the Japanese term kami.) What I’ve come up with is this: “X is a god” (or “X is divine”) means “X is a provident being which must be honored”.Read More »Jesus and “god” – part 3 – analyzing “X is a god” (Dale)

Jesus and “god” – part 2 – equivocation

“Your Butt Is Mine / Gonna Take You Right / Just Show Your Face / In Broad Daylight”

Last time we looked at a famous argument about Jesus. (If you’ve never had a course in logic, or if it’s been a while, you should review the linked definitions there of “valid”, “invalid”, and “sound” before proceeding – this discussion presupposes that you understand their meanings.)

Consider this argument:

1. Michael Jackson is bad.
2. All bad people should be in jail.
3. Therefore, Michael Jackson should be in jail.

This appears to be a valid argument. Is it?Read More »Jesus and “god” – part 2 – equivocation

Question about Gregory of Nazianzus on Divinity, the Son and the Spirit


“This is some writing about that which nothing can be written about. Pretty cool, huh?”

I’ve been reading Gregory of Nazianzus lately, his famous Theological Orations (c. 380 CE), wherein he expounds and defends what scholars call the pro-Nicene consensus about the Trinity – a viewpoint which developed in the latter half of the 4th c. by bishops rallying around the new homoousios term.

In the second oration, he hits this theme hard: God’s essence (the divine nature, the Godhead/deity) is unknowable. What does he mean by this? Only that it isn’t completely knowable (by us, in this life)? He does think that, but he’s saying more than that.Read More »Question about Gregory of Nazianzus on Divinity, the Son and the Spirit

Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 20 – Resolution by Revision


Three famous Revisers: Socinus, Luther, and Hick.
When it comes to apparently contradictory claims in theology, there’s more than one way to Resolve the apparent inconsistency. The more popular way nowadays among Christian philosophers is what I called Rational Reinterpretation. The other way to Resolve? Revision. We’re faced with P, Q, and if P then not-Q. Solution? Simply deny either P or Q (or both). Problem solved.

Unlike Redirectors, Revisers don’t change the subject. Unlike Resisters, they don’t claim we should just “live with the tension”. Unlike practitioners of Restraint, they don’t think we can put off the issue. Like Resolvers through Rational Reinterpretation, they have a solution. But they don’t think tricky, new, more careful formulations are what is called for. Rather, something must go out on the rubbish heap. Revisers are usually accused of arrogance, lack of respect for tradition, biblical ignorance, idolatry of human reason, not being Christians at all, and of hating babies and cute little puppies.

Open theists are RevisersRead More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 20 – Resolution by Revision

Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 19 – Review of Antognazza on Leibniz

Maria Rosa Antognazza teaches at King’s College London, where she also directs the Centre for the History of Philosophical Theology. She has written a highly praised forthcoming intellectual biography of the great Leibniz. Below is my review of her book pictured here. The review is forthcoming in Religious Studies. Bottom line: Leibniz employs positive and negative mysterian moves, as well as rational reconstruction of the… Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 19 – Review of Antognazza on Leibniz

Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 18 – Mysteries and the Bible (Dale)


Hombre…RUN!!!!

Enthusiastic positive mysterians tend to be complacent traditionalists about Bible interpretation – that is, people who are pretty sure that their Christian group (e.g. Catholicism, Reformed Christianity, or maybe simply small-c catholicism) has got the Bible (generally) right. There is a reason for this.

The reason is that if you’re trying to reason your way towards the correct interpretation of some passage, rather than rest on the laurels of hoary precedent, then it looks like a show-stopper if your proposed interpretation seems self-contradictory (positive mysterianism), or unintelligible (negative mysterianism).Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 18 – Mysteries and the Bible (Dale)

Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 17 – More Mysterious Interpretations – Nye’s Vine-Man (Dale)

A Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation is an anonymous tract, published in 1693 as the lead-off tract in this famous collection (the successor to this one). Although it is anonymous, I’m fairly sure that it’s by Anglican minister Stephen Nye (d. 1719), author of the most important tracts in both volumes, which are unitarian salvos in a fascinating… Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 17 – More Mysterious Interpretations – Nye’s Vine-Man (Dale)

Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 16 – Mysterious Interpretations

“When the LORD finished speaking to Moses on Mount Sinai, he gave him the two tablets of the Testimony, the tablets of stone inscribed by the finger of God.” Ex. 31:18 Once upon a time, there was a smallish branch of Christians, now nearly forgotten to history, called the Fingerites, inhabitants of Obscurantia (formerly part of the Roman Empire). Although they put their point in… Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 16 – Mysterious Interpretations

trinities bloggers abroad

I discuss mystery-epistemology and Bible interpretation with James and Andrew at City of God. And Scott (previous trinities posts) goes to town on Augustine, Henry of Ghent, and John Duns Scotus at Per Caritatem, where they’re having a Augustine Blog Conference.

Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 15 – Positive vs. Negative Mysterianism


Why that’s positively negative!

If you defend a problematic doctrine as a Mystery, you’re asserting that it to some degree lacks what I call “understandable” content. “Understandable” content is a proposition (thought, claim) that positively seems consistent to you. A claim may fail to be understandable for one of two reasons.Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 15 – Positive vs. Negative Mysterianism

Heretical “trinitarians” – evolution of a word

Following up on the previous post – the word “trinitarian” may be an adjective or a noun. The Oxford English Dictionary lists four adjective meanings: (here’s my editing of relevant parts of their entry, emphasis added) 2. Theol. Relating to the Trinity; holding the doctrine of the Trinity (opp. to Unitarian). In early use, Trinitarian heretic, one holding heretical views as to the Trinity: 1656… Read More »Heretical “trinitarians” – evolution of a word

banning the word “trinitarian”

Thanks to reader Mike K. for this hilarious link. They beat me to the punch – I’ve been sitting on a post for some time on this exact theme. (Stay tuned.) I posted a comment asking about this bit: It’s interesting to note that the English term “Trinitarian” was first used, in the 16th and 17th centuries, as a pejorative description of anti-trinitarians; the heretics… Read More »banning the word “trinitarian”

Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 13 – Mysterian Resistance


Roll up, folks.

We now move one the fourth R – what I call Mysterian Resistance (or Mysterianism). The Resistor is resisting the pressure to resolve the apparent contradiction, i.e. changing one of the apparently contradictory beliefs. Unlike the Redirector, the Resister doesn’t ignore the apparent inconsistency. And unlike the Resolver, he doesn’t think there’s a reasonable way to make the apparent contradiction go away. So the Resistor resists – he makes his stand – he comes up with a rationale for keeping his apparently contradictory beliefs.Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 13 – Mysterian Resistance

Another “image” of the Trinity, courtesy of The Shack (Dale)

Father, Son, Holy Spirit? A professor friend emailed me recently: I’ve lately been reading a book (at a student’s request) …a piece of bad Christian fiction called “The Shack” by William P. Young. … it might interest you in light of your trinitarian research. The persons of the Trinity make an appearance in the story: God the Father as a large black woman, God the… Read More »Another “image” of the Trinity, courtesy of The Shack (Dale)

Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 11 – One last problem for Rational Reinterpretation

Can’t we all just get along?
One last problem for Resolution through Rational Reconstruction: the new-fangled theory (or if you like, way of understanding the Doctrine) is invariably controversial, in the following sense: it involves metaphysical claims such that some thinkers will consider them false and impossible, and others not.

The more you think about hard stuff, the more opinions you get. I’ve taught philosophy of religion, modern philosophy, logic, and metaphysics courses, and so I have some fairly developed views. Based on theoretical (and non-theological considerations), here are some things I don’t believe in, because I think they’re impossible:Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 11 – One last problem for Rational Reinterpretation

Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 10 – Why Care About Rational Reinterpretation?

Whew! That was close!

Many recent Christian philosophers have offered what I call Rational Reconstructions of apparently contradictory doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation. Though I’m presently exploring criticisms of such views, let me emphasize that I don’t see anything wrong with what they’re doing, and I think that people with philosophical skills who are Christians ought to use them in any way which is helpful to the Christian community. At bare minimum, these folks are exploring possible views, possible ways to understand the Trinity (etc.). Getting clear about what the options are, and the costs and benefits of each, is an important kind of theoretical progress. Moreover, it shows intellectual integrity and courage, and concern for the truth.

At the end of my last post in the series, I noted that Rational Reconstructors often don’t believe their new version of the Doctrine. In any case, I’ve never seen one that insists that their version is the one which all Christians ought to believe. This latter isn’t surprising – we professors simply don’t have any authority to lay down a theory as required by any Christian community. But it is surprising that these folks are exercising some immense intellectual energy, and writing very involved and difficult pieces expounding views to which they do not commit? What is going on?

Short answer: apologetics. They’re deflecting bullets, as it were, with the theoretical equivalent of Wonder Woman’s super-duper bracelets.Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 10 – Why Care About Rational Reinterpretation?

Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 9 – Rational Reinterpretation, cont.


Yes, this is the real thing. Really.
And it can be yours for a mere $50.

Last time we highlighted one problem with Resolution through Rational Reinterpretation – often, only a metaphysician could love the new-fangled (but precise and seemingly consistent) version of the Doctrine in question. A second concern is that many believers think this “new version of” the Doctrine just ain’t that doctrine at all, but a knock-off – something similar, but different, and moreover, not genuine.

Consider these pronouncements of the First Vatican Council of 1869-70:

…that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding.Read More »Dealing with Apparent Contradictions: Part 9 – Rational Reinterpretation, cont.