Come one, come all. You can always tell what’s true by taking a vote, right? 😉
Tell your friends to come and vote too – the more, the merrier.
Then, if you like, say in the Comments section why you voted as you did.
Related posts:
Some clarifications: a reply to McManus - Part 1
Qureshi vs. Ally - Trinity vs. Tawhid
podcast 354 – Dr. Steven Nemes on Trinity theories - Part 1
Arius and Athanasius, part 8 - Athanasius on begetting the Son (JT)
podcast 157 - Listener Questions 2
Do the Gospels disagree about Jesus and God? Part 2 – Counting the Costs
podcast 182 - White's case for the Trinity - Part 2
Linkage: Dialogue at Triablogue
podcast 137 - Daniel Whitby's "Mystery and Revelation Inconsistent"
apologist commits to actual Trinity theory, faceplants - Part 2
Pingback: trinities - Linkage: a Muslim challenge
Tomorrow morning, on The Narrow Mind audio program will feature guest Greg Stafford. Greg Stafford is a an apologist for the Jehovah’s Witnesses and has written such books as Jehovah’s Witnesses Defended: An Answer to Scholars and Critics, with a third edition of this volume schedule to release in 2007. Greg has debated James White and Robert Bowman on the identity of Jesus (God or a god). Greg is very familiar with the Greek language and is a formidable opponent.
I would encourage everyone to tune in and even call the program if you can. The program will air live 9-10am PST on The Narrow Mind (see link above) and the numbers to call are 1-800-466-1873 or 619-793-5180.
Thanks,
Jeff Downs
PS. If you receive this tonight, R.K. McGregor Wright is scheduled to be on the program from 5-7pm PST to discuss Trinitarian Theology.
Some poll comments:
1. I suggest that the option that the doctrine of the Trinity is explicitly in the NT is simply mistaken, and everyone who’s thought much about it should agree. It can’t be explicitly there, as the terms used to express it are not there. (hypostates, ousia, etc.)
2. Those who voted that the doctrine is the best explanation of what is in the NT, are basically also conceding that it is NOT in there. So while at first glance, the poll results look pretty conservative and traditional – adding the “explanation” voters to the “not” camp, then (as I write this), the vote is 18 vs. 18 whether or not the doctrine is implicitly in the NT. That is a big cleavage in opinion, and it will come back up later, when we get around to discussing standard apologetics arguments that the doctrine is “biblical” (presumably, implicitly contained in the NT). Note that this divided opinion does not correspond cleanly to the trinitarian / antitrinitarian divide, for many whole-hearted, traditionalist trinitarians agree with the anti-trinitarians that the doctrine ain’t “in there” – they just hold that it is the uniquely best way to understand what is in there.
3. In connection with 2, I assume that the people who voted the “not” option hold that not only that it isn’t in the NT, but also that it can’t be properly inferred from what is. If I did this sort of poll again, I’d make this clearer in the options.
4. Does “taught” imply that the author intended to teach it? I don’t think so, as if it is implicitly taught in the NT, it’s not something that would be inclined to assert outright, though they do assume it, or assume and assert things which imply it.
Thanks for voting! Any other comments out there?
Dale,
I’m impressed! I never thought you would provide the option of voting that “the doctrine of Trinity is NOT taught in the New Testament.
I’m still trying to work out if there’s a trick in there somewhere…hmmm…
Dale,
“Inquiring minds want to know”: what did you mean by the verb “taught”?
I suppose if you had the statement, “The doctrine of the Trinity is the best explanation of how God is depicted in the NT”, then I would have affirmed that statement unequivocally.
But, the verb “taught” is a snag. Maybe you mean something else here that is more refined than author’s intention.
Great poll question, though! 🙂
Mike
Comments are closed.