Skip to content

Search Results for: trinitarian or unitarian? Irenaeus

Pastor J. Dan Gill on the real Jesus

Here’s a sermon by my friend Pastor J. Dan Gill, expounding the important New Testament theme of the exaltation of Jesus. He discusses texts including Psalm 110 and Acts 2. You can download the audio of this sermon here. Dan and his wife Sharon run the 21st Century Reformation website, an important resource for biblical unitarians (aka unitarian Christians, one God believers, non-trinitarian Christians). Their… Read More »Pastor J. Dan Gill on the real Jesus

SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Bowman 1

I take it the purpose of the debate is whether or not “the” doctrine of the Trinity is derivable from the Bible. What is this doctrine, exactly? The burden falls on Bowman to be clear about just what doctrine is in view; he’s making the positive case. Here’s what he says: 1. There is one (true, living) God, identified as the Creator. 2. This one… Read More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Bowman 1

Cross-Cultural Dialogue: Theologian and Philosopher

A while back I posted on a short, popular piece by Biola theologian Fred Sanders. He’s now responded. I’m going to continue the conversation, I hope shedding light on the differing assumptions and methods of present-day academic theologians and philosophers. I agree with Fred that responses-to-responses are usually boring. Here’s a greater crime: a (long) response to a response to a response. 😛

I guess what set me in motion was his claim, which struck me as unreasonable, that it’s a good thing that there’s no “Trinity verse” in the Bible – i.e. one which explicitly and clearly  states the doctrine.

In fact, up until I think some time in the late 19th c., trinitarians thought they had something pretty close:Read More »Cross-Cultural Dialogue: Theologian and Philosopher

podcast 33 – Albrecht vs. Tuggy debate – Was Tertullian a trinitarian? Part 1

On March 29,  I debated Catholic apologist William Albrecht on whether or not Tertullian was a trinitarian. In this episode, our opening statements, and rebuttals, slightly edited (“cleaned up”) from the original audio (“in studio” for me, unfortunately, just over the internet for his side – but I did my best to make the whole thing listenable.) You can also listen to this episode on… Read More »podcast 33 – Albrecht vs. Tuggy debate – Was Tertullian a trinitarian? Part 1

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!

Jesus’s Jewish error?

Here is a guest post by Sir Anthony Buzzard. In it, he discuses what many would consider an obvious point, though some ignore or deny it: that the theology of Bible-era Judaism is monotheistic in a way that implies that the one God just is a certain mighty self. In Mark 12, Jesus simply affirms that theology.   It is standard information in all the… Read More »Jesus’s Jewish error?

Are persons essentially relational?

Dallas Willard is one of my favorite authors, and I don’t normally go in for criticizing what he writes. But I found a great example in this (good) book (p. 122) of an idea that is fairly widespread, and which underlies a lot of social trinitarian speculation. This brief passage got me to thinking. He says, …God is love and sustains love for us from… Read More »Are persons essentially relational?

Constitution Trinitarianism Part 5: Ambiguous God-talk

 

 


Like about everything else these days.

In this post I want to explore what to me is the oddest and hardest part to grasp of the constitution trinitarianism. When I first read their paper, I thought they thought God was a stuff – that is, that the term “God” referred to a certain thing, that immaterial stuff they call “the divine essence”. That was wrong on two counts. For as we’ve seen, “the divine essence” isn’t supposed to be a thing (although they think it wouldn’t be a catastrophe if they admitted it was a thing – see their footnote 10). Hence, it can’t be a thing which is identical to God. Second, they don’t think that “God”, say, when used in a Psalm, refers to that stuff. So, what do they think it refers to? It depends. They hold that it’s a systematically ambiguous term. Why is that?Read More »Constitution Trinitarianism Part 5: Ambiguous God-talk

two new papers published online

At the Journal of Analytic Philosophy, and at the Journal of Biblical Unitarianism. Thanks to the editors of both journals for their good work. The first paper continues the discussion with Hasker of my “Divine Deception” arguments against three-self Trinity theories. I discuss there the monotheism of Isaiah. Then I get into interesting arguments by historical unitarians, such as Nye, Clarke, and Worcester, even comparing… Read More »two new papers published online