Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
In this second part (first part here) we hear the rest of this podcast by Cold Case Christianity apologist and former cold case detective J. Warner Wallace.
In this part he tries to define “the doctrine of the Trinity” by quoting a portion of the so-called “Athanasian Creed.” He then argues that this doctrine is necessary for understanding the atonement, and gives his version of the philosophical argument that God could not be a single someone because then he would fail to be perfect in love.
I critique these arguments, then share four of the many facts which led me to reconsider my position on the Bible and “the doctrine of the Trinity.” I end by recommending four good sources for a student of Scripture who is trying to figure out whether or not the Bible teaches a Trinity doctrine: biblicalunitarian.com, the REV translation, and Dr. Dustin Smith’s Biblical Unitarian Podcast. I also discuss Mr. Wallace’s habit of referring to “the triune nature of God,” explaining why some trinitarians affirm and others deny that divinity implies tripersonality.
Has Wallace shown that the Trinity is an essential Christian doctrine? Let us know what you think in the comments below or in the trinities podcast Facebook Group.
Links for this episode:
podcast 2 – the “Athanasian Creed”
J.N.D. Kelly, The Athanasian Creed
Tuggy, “Antiunitarian Arguments from Divine Perfection” – a general refutation of a whole range of arguments from divine perfections, e.g. love, against unitarian theologies.
podcast 286 – Is the Trinity Essential? – Three Views
podcast 63 – Thomas Belsham and other scholars on John 8:58 – Trinities
McIntosh, Ed., One God, Three Persons, Four Views – a four way debate between Branson, Craig, Hasker, and Tuggy.
Kermit Zarley on “My Lord and my God.”
This week’s thinking music is “Bad Guys” by Dirk Dehler.
Can’t say I’m surprised that he’s trotting out these arguments, but I suspect you hit the nail on the head when you suggested he might have heard them from other sources and figured they were slam dunks. His investigative attitude is strangely unwilling to consider all possible alternatives before narrowing them down to the most probable one. He never even discusses other possibilities, not really.
For example, when he claimed that God needed to be triune to perfectly express love, where is he getting that? Let’s suppose he’s right that, for some reason, God has to be “actively loving” in order to be perfectly loving, notwithstanding the obvious problems with that. Where is he getting the number three from as the perfect relationship? I know Swinburne has an actual argument for that specific number, but Wallace apparently doesn’t know about it. Why not conclude Binitarianism (one other person sufficient for active love with the “spirit of love” between them a mere relational description), or an infinite number of divine persons (if perfect love is actively loving as many persons as possible)? Sure, there could be reasons these are not the best explanation vs. exactly three persons, but Wallace doesn’t actually do the work on this to prove it.
I’m also confused at his assertion that the Son and Spirit are increate. Really? They’re EXACTLY as increate as the Father? I don’t think that’s correct. If something is “generated” or “begotten” or “spirated,” it’s created; quibbling over it being a different “kind” of creation is just playing word games with causal language. To be increate, one needs to not be describable in causal terms at all. That’s supposedly true of the Father, but it’s certainly not of the Son or Spirit. And if some of God isn’t increate, then it seems like we can’t say “God is increate,” only “the divine person of the Father is increate.” But how is the Father something that God isn’t, especially something that important?
If I remember correctly, it was the claim that Jesus is God that motivated J. Warner Wallace to investigate Christianity. He thought it would be a slam dunk to prove this false. However, even with Jesus is God as his main target he eventually was convinced of the historicity of the gospel accounts, the reliability of scripture, and the resurrection of Jesus. Believing from the start that Jesus claimed to be God, and that the resurrection proves this claim, he has done much excellent apologetic work. But I think the initial claim that “Jesus is God”, which challenged his scepticism, was able to bypass the logical analysis he applies to most other subjects. Hopefully Dale’s analysis will prompt him to take a second look at the key foundation of his whole life and see that there is an even stronger foundation for his faith in the biblical Jesus now exalted to the right hand of his God and Father (John 20:17) — as opposed to the gradually developing philosophical and religious speculations that only resulted in Trinitarian language more than three centuries after Jesus prayed to the Father, whom he called “the only true God.” (John 17:3)