Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
In this episode we hear the rest of Andrew Davis’s journey from trinitarian to “Arian” to biblical unitarian whistleblower.
We discuss why he had dismissed biblical unitarian theology and why he decided to give it another look, what the New Testament says you must believe to be saved, how trinitarian traditions discourage thinking about Trinity theories, and how most Protestants assume some degree of Catholic traditions about the Trinity.
And at the end of the episode he offers advice to Christians who are starting to work their way into these issues.
Links for this episode:
- Andrew Davis’s blog Contra Modalism
- Is the Trinity Necessary For Salvation?
- John 10:30 Commentary
- Origen on the One God Being the Father
- podcast 52 – John Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity, Part 1
- Tuggy, “The unfinished business of Trinitarian theorizing“
- podcast 235 – The Case Against Preexistence
- John 10:30; 1 Corinthians 3:8; John 14:28; Mark 13:32;
- podcast 2 – the “Athanasian Creed”
- The Canons of the Fourth Lateran Council, 1215
- podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!
- podcast 262 – The Trinity before Nicea?
- This week’s thinking music is “Improvisation On Friday…” by Alex.
Related posts:
podcast 192 - Review of Sanders's The Deep Things of God - Part 1
some additional thoughts about my demon-puppet objection
Did Jesus have faith in God? – Part 3
What is essential to the gospel, according to Luke? Part 4
podcast 25 - Pastor Sean Finnegan on "the Holy Spirit" - Part 1
One-self Trinity theories
podcast 244 – Response to Branson Part 2 – Early Orthodox Trinitarians
Dallas Willard: God is Happy
The Maverick Philosopher: Are the divine persons parts of the triune God?
podcast 328 - 13 bad reasons to switch from trinitarian to unitarian
My main concerns with “Biblical Unitarianism” (BU) are the “lump” of other doctrines that tend to go with its followers: they primarily deny human dualism, most deny the gifts of the Spirit, their talk of the kingdom tends to lean towards a “works based righteousness”, & lastly many carry the attitude that they only ones who are right – implying that their ultra small groups are the only ones who are saved.
These observations greatly concern me. If one does follow the BU belief, he/she is destined to conform or at least be surrounded with all those beliefs and attitudes. Since when one declares as a BU, he/she is cutoff or isolated from other believers.
Brian – thanks for your comment. My experience is that BU people differ just as other Christians do. So me, I’m a dualist, and I deny cessationism. Don’t know what you mean really by “works based righteousness” – have not seen that among BU people, unless you have in mind the Torah-keeping crowd. Or maybe you just mean any view of grace that is not Calvinist? Exclusive or sectarian attitude – yep – that is a real problem, I think. But I wouldn’t say that most BU people have that problem. Ambivalence about the status of other Christians is more than norm, rather than the conviction that we’re the only ones saved. Me, I take a generous view, based on the fact that other groups do teach the very basics of the NT gospel.
Thank you for replying back! By “works based righteousness”, I was referring to Sir Anthony’s focus on the “gospel of the kingdom”. I get and agree with his point that the NT’s future eschatological focus is on the coming resurrection and not heaven. Nevertheless, he talks as if people have missed the mark – if they just preach the message of 1 Cor. 15:1-4. I see people who focus on the death/burial/resurrection (DBR) and they do later (after the initial conversion) teach/focus on the teachings on Christ.
Maybe, I made the wrong assumption. I was thinking that most BUs think/believe like Sir Anthony. He seemed to be quite influential .
It is a relief to know that there are BUs who are different. To me it is scary and a warning sign, if everyone in a group agrees on every point.
To be sure, many of us have read his books, etc., but that doesn’t mean we agree with him on all controversial topics. He does think it is leaving out something important if you don’t preach the coming kingdom – but I don’t see what that has to do with the idea of earning one’s salvation by works. BTW this upcoming gathering will include BUs of several different kinds. https://convergefest.com/ I will be there, and I think over 200 others and counting.
did early christians believe that holy spirit is not a person ?
Stal,
My knowledge is limited, but from what I know of the early views of the Holy Spirit (first couple or three hundred years after Jesus) there were many views on the Holy Spirit. Some said the Spirit was an angel, some said he was God, some just said they didn’t know what the Holy Spirit was but wanted to just affirm they believed in God’s Spirit. It isn’t hard to see why this is the case. The Bible doesn’t exactly explain what the Spirit is and the Spirit is mentioned in several ways, sometimes as an “it” and sometimes as a “he.” Sometimes it seems as if the Spirit just is God’s personal presence in a certain place, and other times it seems as if it is God’s power in action. So there is a divide between people about it. Of course, the view which in time became orthodox was the view that the Spirit was the third person of the Godhead, eternally spirated out from the Father, through the Son. This view was not a standard view until probably the 360s or 370s, maybe Dale can confirm that. Hope that helps.
All sorts of views about the Holy Spirit / holy spirit in early Christianity – this was still disputed in 381 when the emperor forced an end to the long “Arian” dispute.
So did early christians never believed that holy spirit is not a person ?
Because andrew davis says that clement of rome believed that holy spirit is a person
Comments are closed.