Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
On July 11, 2022 I had the privilege of dialoguing for about an hour with Dr. William Lane Craig on Jordan Hampton’s Analytic Christian YouTube channel. Our official topics were (1) Dr. Craig’s Trinity theory and my objections to it, and (2) my unitarian Christian view of the one God, and Dr. Craig’s objections thereto. In this short but spirited exchange, I lodge biblical and philosophical objection to his Trinity theory, and he urges that my views are refuted by rather obvious deity of Christ texts.
Topics include:
- What Dr. Craig calls “the biblical doctrine of the Trinity” as opposed to later and more complicated, creedal Trinity theories (he only wants to defend the former)
- Dr. Craig’s own model of “the Trinity,” which he now calls “tripersonal theism”
- God as “soul” with three sets of cognitive faculties – and Dr. Craig’s claim that this one soul clearly makes the view monotheistic.
- The “Persons” of the Trinity as selves and God/the Trinity as not a self.
- Dr. Craig’s claim that despite not being a self God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent – which I object entail being a self, and his reply that a being with those qualities need only be “personal.”
- His claim that the biblical authors are trinitarians and my objection that it is then baffling why there are no trinitarians in church history from Justin to Eusebius! And my objection that this shows that the NT books do not obviously imply the full deity of Christ, contrary to his assertions.
- My objection that one soul with three cognitive faculties each sufficient for personhood would be a single self over-determined to be so, not three persons.
- Whether Dr. Craig’s theology requires the “Persons” of the Trinity to be proper parts of it.
- Why Dr. Craig calls God the Trinity “he/him” and not “them” or “it” despite his denial that God the Trinity is a self/person.
- My observation that there seemingly were no controversies in the New Testament era about whether or not God is multipersonal – which seems to be good evidence that the early Christians were not implying any such claims.
- How the New Testament authors portray Jesus as having limits that a divine Person would not have – without embarrassment, warning, qualification, or explanation, e.g. limited knowledge, mortality, being a mediator.
- My claim that the NT authors never assert or assume or imply that Christ is the one true God and Dr. Craig’s claim that a few passages do imply or even state that.
- My observation that his Persons must be substances, i.e. individual entities, and his doubts about that.
- That in the New Testament writings lack any word or phrase which was then understood to refer to a tripersonal god, which seems strong evidence that these authors did not believe in a tripersonal God.
- My objection that God did not, in the first century, reveal himself as a Trinity – as evidenced by no one believing it then.
- Dr. Craig’s objection to my understanding of New Testament theology that ancient people did con have the concept of numerical identity.
- Dr. Craig’s claim that any unitarian will be driven to “extreme views” about the meaning of scriptural texts.
- Dr. Craig’s claim that New Testament authors never identify either the Father or Son with God, but only predicate divinity of each.
- How a Logos-theory reading of John 1 is not consistent with trinitarianism
In the next episode I’ll share some reflections on the discussion and even give a few corrections.
Links for this episode:
Dr. Craig’s ministry Reasonable Faith
God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament
podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation
podcast 70 – The one God and his Son according to John
podcast 248 – How Trinity theories conflict with the Bible
podcast 302 – The Stages of Trinitarian Commitment
On Numerical Sameness / Identity / “Absolute” Identity
a reading of Philippians 2:5-11
podcast 224 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 1 – God and “God” in the Bible
Passages discussed in this episode: John 10:34-36; Philippians 2:5-11; John 17:1-3; Revelation 4-5; 1 John 5:20; John 20:17; John 20:31-32; John 1:1-18; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:8-9; Psalm 45.
This week’s thinking music is “Green Monster” by Jesse Spillane.
Pingback: Why you can ignore “Sharp’s Rule” – Trinities
Pingback: podcast 351 – Thoughts on my Dialogue with Craig on the Trinity and the Bible – Part 2 – Trinities
Pingback: 453 Dale Tuggy Comments on Debate with William Lane Craig - Restitutio
Pingback: podcast 350 – Thoughts on my Dialogue with Craig on the Trinity and the Bible – Part 1 – Trinities
I heard Dr. Craig invoke the Granville Sharp rule twice during the discussion. I’m sure there are exceptions to it — just as there are to most rules. At the same time, I don’t doubt that patterns are sometimes observed and turned into “rules” when, in fact, there are too many counter instances to justify such a move. I’m wondering whether Greek scholars generally accept or reject the Granville Sharp rule of grammatical construction.
Great question, Paul. As I discuss in the follow up episode, that “rule” was concocted by an apologist in early modern times, and seems to have clear counterexamples, and as best I can tell, the real grammarians do not accept it. Now, among apologists . . .
You were in fine form, shame it was only one hour.
Thanks!
The hermeneutics selected, in the video, is questionable from the very outset since the approach to Look at Thomas’s statement from Thomas’s perspective is simply strategic.
The quote must be seen from the perspective of the writer of the Biblical revelation.
Another hermeneutical concern raised in the video becomes apparent when the effort to ignore Thomas’s address to Jesus as God is enclosed in an obviously narrow view of context while ignoring the wider context of the Major themes of John’s gospel. John clearly builds on the theme of Jesus as the eternal word stated in the opening verses.
A third problem, with the video, becomes apparent where the effort to associate a select portion of John 14 is utilized to colour Thomases confession where he addresses Jesus as God.. Logically this method is self contradictory since nowhere in the passage is there any indication given to suggest that the passage should be explained by John 14.
The point is that if Thomas could not be addressing Jesus as God because the narrow context doesn’t make the explicit claim then the same should apply in the reference to a select portion of John 14.
Thanks for the comment. Seems to me that the interpretation suggested in the video is well-motivated, and builds on John’s theme that God is working in and with the man Jesus. Looking at the writer’s point of view – sure. Why would he have have Thomas say that Jesus is the one God himself, and then end the book shortly thereafter by telling you its thesis statement, which is the MUCH lesser thesis that Jesus is God’s Messiah. That’d be a big surprise, to fumble the ball like that one inch short of the goal line. Sorry, but I think you’re just table-pounding, insisting that John must be saying that Jesus “is God.” But even if that’s right, consider my point in the dialogue that in this very book, ch 10, Jesus makes the point that beings much less great than God may be referred to using “theos.” IF Thomas is calling Jesus “God,” it could be in the lesser sense, like we see in Heb 1:8, of one who is under the one God.
Dr Dale,
what are your responses to this ?
https://old.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/vy3gqg/did_jesus_really_claim_the_divine_name_when_he/ig0m046/?context=3
In brief, it’s a wild, theologically-motivated over-reading. See some previous trinities podcast episodes for more sober takes on John 8:58.
i dont get the god is 1 soul and 3 business
One soul with three faculties? Yeah, as I explain in the follow-up episode, no one can see how that would somehow result in three selves who are somehow “in” God.
is debate going to be reviewed soon?
I will be discussing it in my next podcast episode, probably out next week.
See my next two episodes, or this: https://youtu.be/zc3FLO8_fXo
Comments are closed.