Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
It’s been awhile since we featured a debate on the trinities podcast. This one is a follow up to our two-part review of Dr. Fred Sander’s The Deep Things of God (here and here). As Dr. Sanders explains, this debate was held on Friday, April 25, 2003 at the Norco Campus of Riverside Community College. You also read Dr. Sanders’s transcript of the debate at that same link.
I’ve improved the sound and edited the whole thing for length, removing the intros, dead air, false starts, and a few rabbit trails, but nothing of substance. It clocks in now at just over two hours. Apologies to the moderator Danny Dixon, whose intro ended up on the cutting room floor.
The debate is very informal, and starts slow, but it gets better as it goes along. If you’re trying to think through this difficult issue, it is helpful to hear someone make a case for each side.
Here’s a tip. One must actively listen to a debate. List out the arguments or main points of each speaker. Then, cross out the ones which are undermined or refuted by that guy’s opponent, or which you can rule out on other grounds. See what’s left.
After you listen, let us know below who you think won, and why.
[spp-tweet tweet=”Trinitarian Sanders vs. biblical unitarian Buzzard: full debate”]
Links for this episode:
- Dr. Sanders’s website
- Dr. Sanders’s blog Scriptorum Daily
- Dr. Sanders’s blog post on and transcript of the debate
- Buzzard’s Restoration Fellowship
- Colin Brown
- excerpts from “Trinity and Incarnation: In Search of Contemporary Orthodoxy,” Ex Auditu, 7, 1991, 83-100.
- Dr. Colin Brown on The Trinity (2004)
- Millard Erickson, Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions
- Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah
- But what about John 1:1?
- podcast 71 – Is Proverbs 8 about Jesus? Part 1
- Maurice Wiles, Archetypal Heresy
- Who Should Christians Worship?
The debate between Buzzard and Sanders was enjoyable. Thank you for making it available. Although Sanders felt he had scriptural support for his Trinity, he really only delved into John 1.1 and even that was limited. The scriptures he used may in some instances prove that Jesus was Theos but never ha Theos. And I never did hear of one that supported the 3 in one consubstantial unity of the three. He tried a little with John 10.30 and the oneness there coupled with the oneness in the Shema (Deut.6.4) but falling way short. The oneness in the Shema is a singular oneness, and an elevating of YHWH’s supreme uniqueness and grandeur over all. Buzzard had a lot to say on Ps.110.1 and Jesus’ having a beginning in his fleshly birth, something I do not believe the Scriptures support totally. I do think that Buzzard won the debate. Sanders really had no substantial argument against Ps 110.1. What I wish would have happened in this debate is cross examination by each of the debaters. Make them answer the hard questions from each other. Thank you again, for making this available. I have listened to every one of your podcast and follow your Trinities Website.
Thanks again;
Dokimazo
Dokimazo,
Good observations. I was disappointed that there was no cross examination as well. It helps a lot (and is usually the best part of a debate).
Rivers 🙂
The frustrating thing about the debate to me was that it was so wide-ranging. Buzzard brings up Psalm 110 and Sanders does not engage the argument. Sanders brings up the “meta-narrative” of the orthodox view of salvation history, but I did not hear Buzzard engage with it at that “meta” level. as mentioned by Tuggy at the beginning, the chief value may be that of an introduction to the points of contention.
Sound is good, Dale. Vintage Prof Buzzard. Excellent,
Comments are closed.