Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
In this episode, the final half of my debate with Roman Catholic apologist Mr. William Albrecht. The question: was Tertullian a trinitarian? (Part 1 is here.)
First, we take turns cross-examining one another, and then the closing arguments. I’ve shortened the audio here, but have not cut any meaningful content at all.
Who makes the better case? As Fox News says, we report, you decide.
Thanks again to Mr. Albrecht and to the moderator Mr. Austacio for this debate.
You can also listen to this episode on youtube.
You can hear the caller’s questions and our answers here at the original broadcast, starting at 1:30.
Know how to make a recording on your smart phone or voice recorder and then upload it from your computer? Then you can leave audio feedback, to be included in a future episode of the trinities podcast. (Any audio format should be OK.)
I like Hurtado’s admission:
“So, if a “return of YHWH” isn’t evident in Paul (our earliest evidence) as a central factor, and if Messiah isn’t a sufficient category, then how to account for the remarkable “dyadic” devotional practice in question? My own proposal has been that earliest believers treated the risen/exalted Jesus as they did only because they felt required to do so by God. Note that the typical way that reverence of Jesus is justified in various NT texts is to invoke God’s action of exalting him and requiring that he be reverenced: E.g., Philippians 2:9-11; 1 Cor 15:20-28; Hebrews 1:1-4; Acts 2:36; John 5:22-23, et alia).”
I’m not fond of Hurtado in general, but the admission above is good.
Thanks, Ben, for the tip on Hurtado’s blog. I too have been reading some Wright. I hope too to catch up with responding to some of your blog posts. God bless, Dale
My seminary is multi-denominational so I’ve found people open to interesting questions, thankfully. After all, they take people like Larry Hurtado seriously and he seems to clearly maintain that the early church regarded the Father as the one God and the Son as his principle agent. Speaking of which, you might consider writing something about Hurtado’s critique of NT Wright’s monotheism presented in Paul and the Faithfulness of God (see his recent blog posts). All the best,
I really enjoyed this debate Dale. Well done! I’m about to take a class on the patristic fathers and I’m looking forward to the class with fresh eyes to watch for potential unitarian passages and theologies.
Thanks, Ben. I can tell you that if you’re taking that class at a conservative seminary, it is very likely that they will present all the early theology as marching inevitably, step by step, towards Constantinople / Chalcedon orthodoxy. This is wrongheaded, and usually blinds people to the obvious. Traditions, the predominance of views, change over time – but doctrines – understood as claims, propositions, do not, strictly speaking, change. e.g. dualism about humans, compatibilism about free will, moral realism, trinitarianism. Many in theology find it convenient to ignore this, so freely think of doctrines evolving – so it takes one thing to be a “trinitarian” in the year 230, and something very different in 550 or 1330.
Dale, Sean
I have just realised that the ‘theos’ in Romans 9 v 5 has no definite article – so your interpretations are quite possible.
I should have picked that one up!
Blessings
John
Good comments, guys.
“Not only is the proper translation of Romans 9:5 uncertain, but I don’t see any reason why Unitarians should object to the idea that Paul may have referred to Jesus “god over all””
I agree. Nothing too much hinges on the verse.
About the Word being the pre-existent son – Yes, I was only making a point about Tertullian. For him (following the early “logos theologians”) the Logos often means the pre-human Jesus, but it also in him sometimes mean’s God’s eternal reason or wisdom – a divine attribute. He associates this with (the later) Word/Jesus, but of course it is nonsense to think that an attribute should literally turn into a self.
https://trinities.org/blog/archives/1137
This is partly why, out of charity, I read Tertullian as thinking the Son came into existence before creation. The other reasons are a number of things he explicitly says.
Hi Sean,
Thanks for that!
I guess that the thing which intrigues me is that Trinitarians are resorting to
‘arguable’ verses in a last-ditch attempt to support their clearly unscriptural doctrine!
The many clear and unarguable scriptures all support the Unitarian position!
The aploogist James White appears to do well in debates by laying a ‘trail of confusion’ which most
adversaries cannot ‘digest’ in time before his next onslaught.
This may give the superficial appearance that the Trinitarian apologist is doing well, but there are millions of Monotheists out there who are not ‘bamboozled’ by these ‘gymnastics’ – and are steadily assembling their ammunition and gaining ground.
I appreciate your comments
Every Blessing
John
Hi John,
Not only is the proper translation of Romans 9:5 uncertain, but I don’t see any reason why Unitarians should object to the idea that Paul may have referred to Jesus “god over all”. After all, this was a time during which a monotheistic Jew, Philo, could refer to Moses as “god and king” of the whole Hebrew nation (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book24.html). The question, of course, is What did Paul mean?, and since there’s no compelling evidence that Paul thought that Jesus was the same God as the Father, I don’t see a problem with allowing that he may have called Jesus QEOS at Rom 9:5.
~Sean
Hi Dale
I like Sheila Rea was surprised to hear you say that .”the word is Christ’ – when at other times you clearly enunciated that the ‘word’ is possibly ‘an attribute of God’
Maybe you were suggesting that the former was Tertullian’s view?
As you observe, Trinitarians frequently resort to ‘difficult’ verses to’prove’ a Trinity -when there are so many clear and explicit verses of scripture which support the Unitarian view.
In this case we have Mr. Albrecht using Romans 9 v 5 to ‘support’ his Christology.
This scripture is very controversial and as the footnote to the verse in the NAB Bible
states –
“Paul’s point is that God, who is over all, aimed to use Israel, who had been entrusted with every privilege , in outreach to the entire world through the Messiah'”
Readers will note that the NAB Bible has placed a ‘full-stop’ (I think Americans call it a ‘period’)
between ‘Messiah’ and ‘God’
I’dlike to congratulate you on an excellent debate .!
The more of these events, the more we get to understand each other!
Every Blessing
John
Comments are closed.