Skip to content

Search Results for: THE ORTHODOX FORMULAS

Defining the concept of a unitarian

Last time I offered a definition of the concept of a trinitarian.

This time, I will try to define the concept of a unitarian.

Many definitions of this concept are unacceptably polemical.  It is unacceptable to define a unitarian as an anti-trinitarian.  This violates requirements 3 and 5 – it doesn’t tell us what a unitarian is, but only what a unitarian is against.  And this is part of a common slashing rhetorical strategy which I have recently mentioned.  For the same reasons we must reject defining the concept unitarian as one who “denies the Trinity” or “has heretical beliefs about the Trinity,” etc. Equally, it is unacceptable to define a unitarian as one who holds the correct or biblical view about Jesus and God. Whether or not that’s so, it’s trying to sneak an argument for a thesis into a pseudo-definition of that thesis.

One common definition is,

Definition 1: someone who believes in exactly one unipersonal God.

I think this is on the right track, but the term “unipersonal” is obscure, and so this definition violates requirement 6 (and possibly also 3).

I have been working with this definition of the concept:

Definition 2: someone who believes that the one God just is (is numerically identical to) the Father.

I now think that this isn’t quite right.

First the definition is arguably too narrow.  Read More »Defining the concept of a unitarian

Guest Post: Stephen Kershnar on The Mystery of the Trinity

 

Extra, extra - dueling philosophers column.
Philosophical theology in a small-town newspaper. Yes, really!

My other blog gig is as the Theist on Objectivist v. Constructivist v. Theist. This blog was begun to post the newspaper columns (in our local paper) in which my collegues Bruce Simon (liberal, aka “Constructivist”) and Steve Kershnar (libertarian, aka “Objectivist”) debated points of politics and morality. When Bruce no longer had the time, I stepped in as the Theist, and debated Steve mostly on moral and religious questions in a series of sort of debate style opinion columns. Steve is a good friend and colleague, and we’ve frequently butted heads on all sorts of things since I was hired at Fredonia in 2000. He’s sharp, well-read, funny, and has a winning personality. To say he’s well-published would be an understatement – see his whopper c.v.  He’s written on many questions of justice, public policy, ethics, and philosophy of religion. His work is original, rigorous, and informed by relevant empirical research. In addition his his philosophy PhD (he’s a proud, proud Cornhusker) he holds a law degree from Penn. In his inimitable trouble-making style, he decided to write a column on the Trinity leading up to Christmas, which we’re please to cross-post from here.  – Dale


THE MYSTERY OF THE TRINITY

The Objectivist [Steve Kershnar]

Dunkirk-Fredonia Observer
December 21, 2008


The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is interesting. It holds that God exists as three persons:Read More »Guest Post: Stephen Kershnar on The Mystery of the Trinity

Reader Question About Modalism


Ice, ice, baby. (image credit)

A reader emailed me this question, and I thought others would be interested in my (attempt at) an answer. Also, this is a good chance to review and summarize some of my previous postings on modalism.

I was wondering if you could read [the following] and tell me what I was believing? (I think it might have been a form of Modalism) Also, I search everywhere and find that Modalism is wrong, but no explanations specifically why. Can you help me out on some links explaining that?

…I used to believe there was one God. He sometimes is called Father, sometimes called Jesus, and sometimes called the Holy Spirit. And sometimes called all at the same time. Read More »Reader Question About Modalism

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

SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Bowman 2

In round 2, Bowman descends to close combat on a few central texts. But first, he makes the methodological point that it is too easy to claim simply that your preferred texts are clear, whereas the ones central to your opponent’s case are obscure or ambiguous. I think that’s right, and that it is also correct that “academia… encourages revisionism”. He says, In the end,… Read More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Bowman 2

SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Final Reflections

Congratulations to both debaters on a fight well fought. (Here’s all the commentary.) Plenty of punches, thrown hard, relatively few low blows – two worthy opponents. Certainly, the fight must be decided on points, as there was no decisive knockout. Both debates are in different ways very impressive, and I learned a lot from both.

Kudos to C. Michael Patton and Parchment and Pen for hosting the debate.

I hope you readers out there enjoyed my commentary on the debate. I sometimes got naggy or nerdy, and always expressed myself with typical lack of tact, but I tried to be helpful, and to show the helpfulness of philosophy and logic in thinking through these things.

In this last post in the series, a few concluding reflections on the debate.

Looking back on this debate, I see that I’ve ended up where I began: wondering what Bowman thinks the Trinity doctrine is. This, after all the debate was about whether or not the Bible teaches that.

Burke argued that the Bible teaches what I call humanitarian unitarianism (he calls it “biblical unitarianism”) – roughly, that the one God of Israel is the Father, whereas the Lord Jesus is a human being and his unique Son, and the Holy Spirit is God’s power. I understand what Burke argued for, and if it is true, then nothing that can claim to be an orthodox Trinity theory is true. But I don’t, in the end, understand Bowman’s view.

I flagged this issue at the start. As the debate wore on, I settled on the interpretation that each of the Three just is (is numerically identical to) God, and yet each of the three is not identical to either of the other two. I stuck with this interpretation, all the way to the bitter end. And yet, I never did like this interpretation Read More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – Final Reflections

against despising analytic theologians

I recently read this somewhat disturbing post by our friend Fr. Aiden Kimel. Though he lightens things up with humor a couple of times, it is a pretty thorough condemnation of analytic theologians. A charge he makes by implication against analytic theologians (i.e. those trained in analytic philosophy who work on topics in Christian theology) is that like the “Arians” of old, we suffer from… Read More »against despising analytic theologians

some thoughts on heresy

In evangelical Protestant circles – to the highest degree in apologetics, followed by theology and Christian philosophy, it is popular to denounce theological views as “heresy”. For a while now, this has struck me as a little odd, and in this post, I’ll explain why. The concept of heresy arose within Catholicism, and on traditional Catholic assumptions, it makes perfect sense to decry something as… Read More »some thoughts on heresy

On a Rebuttal to my “How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament” – Part 5

Finally, the last part of this long, five-part series. Our friend Annoyed Pinnoy continues, Now there are varieties of gifts, but the SAME Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the SAME Lord; and there are varieties of activities, but it is the SAME God who empowers them all in everyone.- 1 Cor. 12:4-6 Notice how Paul uses the word “SAME” three times. Once… Read More »On a Rebuttal to my “How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament” – Part 5

10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #2 Get clear about “God”

What sort of being is “God” supposed to be? Your answer to this will constrain your options when it comes to thinking about the Trinity. The “Trinity” (in the primary sense of the term) is supposed to be none other than the triune God, the tripersonal God of officially catholic traditions since the late 4th century. In other words, the Trinity and God are supposed… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #2 Get clear about “God”