Skip to content

Search Results for: swinburne's social trinitarian part

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!

The Orthodox Formulas 3: the “Athanasian” Creed

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

Reply to Hasker re: My Divine Deception Arguments

After my 2004 piece in which I gave three arguments against “social” trinitarianism, I had the privilege of being taken to Hask refuted twice by the excellent veteran Christian philosopher William Hasker. This last summer, I finally got around to replying. I wrote a long piece and sent it to Religious Studies, who had published my original article and one of Hasker’s replies. They generously… Read More »Reply to Hasker re: My Divine Deception Arguments

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)

trinitarian or unitarian? 10 – Hippolytus on the identity of the one God

hippolytusIncredibly, in 1551 they discovered an intact statue of Hippolytus (pictured here). This may exist because he was revered as a martyr shortly after his lifetime.

In the previous post, we saw that in his theology, the divine (but less divine than God) Logos came to exist from God a finite time ago, so that God could create the cosmos by means of him. On two counts, then, this makes him not a trinitarian – that the “persons” are neither co-equal nor equally divine. But is he a unitarian?

In the most important work we have from him, he says,

The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all, had nothing coeval with Himself… Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity, by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first… Him alone He produced from existing things; for the Father Himself constituted existence, and the being born from Him was the cause of all things that are produced. The Logos was in the Father Himself, bearing the will of His progenitor, and not being unacquainted with the mind of the Father. For simultaneously with His procession from His Progenitor… He has, as a voice in Himself, the ideas conceived in the Father. …when the Father ordered the world to come into existence, the Logos one by one completed *each object of creation, thus pleasing God.   …[God, via the Logos] formed the ruler of all [creation, i.e. Adam]… The Creator did not wish to make him a god, and failed in His aim; nor an angel… but a man. For if He had willed to make thee a god, He could have done so. Thou has the example of the Logos. Read More »trinitarian or unitarian? 10 – Hippolytus on the identity of the one God

trinitarian or unitarian? 8 – Origen on “God” vs. “a god”

wordOrigen, many other ancient catholics, takes the Word (logos) of John 1 to be the pre-human Jesus.

For the record, I don’t think that is correct. But I won’t contest it here.

In the quotes here, he’s commenting on “And the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This is from an long commentary on John, this portion of which was probably written in 231-2 AD.

Many people who wish to be pious are troubled because they are afraid that they may proclaim two Gods and, for this reason, they fall into false and impious beliefs. They either deny that the individual nature of the Son is other than that of the Father by confessing him to be God whom they refer to as “Son” in name at least, or they deny the divinity of the Son and make his individual nature and essence as an individual to be different from the Father. (Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel According to God, trans. Robert E. Heine, p. 98, bold added)

Permit me to paraphrase: people think that this Word who is with God and yes is God must be another God, a second God. But that seems wrong – isn’t monotheism true? Thus, they either think Father and Son to be numerically one (the same God) or they deny that the Word, that is, the pre-human Jesus to be divine – to be such that the word “God” applies to him.

Immediately following the passage above, Origen gives his solution.

Their problem can be resolved in this way. Read More »trinitarian or unitarian? 8 – Origen on “God” vs. “a god”

continuing the conversation with Robert Bowman – different selves, same being?

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?

DANIEL WATERLAND ON “THE FATHER IS THE ONLY GOD” TEXTS – PART 2

The Clarke-Waterland duel went on for many, many pages in several books, getting increasingly snippy.

Last time I said that I thought Waterland was a social-mysterian-trinitarian. But I’m not so sure about the “social” part! He’s very unclear on whether the “Persons” are selves. They’re different somethings, in any case. But in this series, I’m sticking to an exegetical issue.

Here are excerpts of Waterland’s second salvo about the “only God” texts.

[Clarke] had produced John 17:3, 1 Cor. 8:6, Eph. 4:6, which prove that the Father is styled, sometimes, the one God, or only true God; and that he is the God of the Jews, of Abraham, etc. I asked how those texts proved that the Son was not? You say… “very plainly… Can the Son of the God of Abraham (Acts 3:13) be himself that God of Abraham, who glorified his Son?” But why must you here talk of that God, as if it were in opposition to this God, supposing two Gods; that is, supposing the thing is question. …I tell you that this divine Person is not that divine Person, and yet both are one God… (A Second Vindication of Christ’s Divinity in Waterland’s Vindications of Christ’s Divinity, 422-3, original italics, bold added, punctuation slightly modernized)

This is wheel-spinning. Clarke does, and Waterland does not take the passages in question to identity (assert to be numerically identical) the Father and Yahweh.

Clarke had asked whether Waterland thought that the term “Father” in these texts actually includes, i.e. refers to, the Son as well. Waterland clarifies,Read More »DANIEL WATERLAND ON “THE FATHER IS THE ONLY GOD” TEXTS – PART 2

White and Brown

Brown vs. White on the Trinity

How can they respond to an argument which shows that they collapse the Father/Son distinction?

trinities turns 5

We had our first post here or 6 / 19 / 06 – over 350 posts ago! Thus, we are 5. Ready for Kindergarden, evidently! 😉 Many thanks to J.T. Paasch, Scott Williams, and Joseph Jedwab for their excellent posts! And thanks to the many great commenters here; we’ve had some vigorous discussions, and only very rarely have things gotten a bit too “hot.” You folks are awesome. A… Read More »trinities turns 5

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

trinitarian or unitarian? 9 – Hippolytus’s two-stage logos theory

lonely tree in the snow Hippolytus (c. 170-236) is an interesting, if obscure character. He was a presbyter in Rome, and on some reports, was a bishop of Rome – either a pope on an anti-pope, depending on how you look at it (he would have been a rival bishop, if this is true, to either Zephyrinus or Callistus). (See the entry on him in this book, pp. 164-5)

He was especially concerned to combat “monarchian” theology. In my view, it is a huge undertaking to get clear what on just what “monarchian” theology was all about. In any case, it is clear that the Hippolytus re-asserts the two-stage logos theory against it, the same sort of theory we saw  in Ireneaus. He may have been a disciple of Irenaeus.

God, subsisting alone, and having nothing contemporaneous with Himself, determined to create the world.Read More »trinitarian or unitarian? 9 – Hippolytus’s two-stage logos theory

Farewell to Tuggy’s Divine Deception Argument

In “Divine Deception, Identity, and Social Trinitarianism” Dale argues that if Social Trinitarianism (ST) were true, the Father, Son, and Spirit would be guilty of a blameworthy act of deception. But because the Father, Son, and Spirit are ex hypothesi morally perfect, ST must be false. By offering a moral objection to ST, Dale’s argument has the lovely virtue of sidestepping the tired tri-theist objections… Read More »Farewell to Tuggy’s Divine Deception Argument

Leftow 2: “A Latin Trinity” – Part 1

Brian Leftow’s “A Latin Trinity” (Faith & Philosophy 21:3, July 2004, 304-33) is a theory of the Trinity which aims to be squarely in the tradition of “Augustine, Boethius, Anselm and Aquinas”. (304) He also cites the Athanasian creed and the one from Toledo in 675 as well. I’m going to treat this challenging article in parts, and do some simplifying and summarizing in order… Read More »Leftow 2: “A Latin Trinity” – Part 1

Linkage: 10 Important books?

Over at Faith and Theology a theologian lists what he views as the ten most important latter-day books on the Trinity. An interesting thing about this list is that it shows the radical divide between philosophers (philosophy of religion specialists, philosophical theologians) like me, and (theologically trained) theologians. None of these books has been big topic of discussion among the former, and I’ve read pretty… Read More »Linkage: 10 Important books?