{"id":39039,"date":"2017-06-07T14:47:11","date_gmt":"2017-06-07T18:47:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/?p=39039"},"modified":"2019-10-27T10:12:07","modified_gmt":"2019-10-27T15:12:07","slug":"mclatchie-argues-that-acts-is-trinitarian","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/trinities.org\/blog\/mclatchie-argues-that-acts-is-trinitarian\/","title":{"rendered":"McLatchie argues that Acts is “trinitarian”"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Over at the “Answering Muslims” blog, evangelical apologist Jonathan McLatchie <\/strong>tries his hand at refuting<\/strong> <\/a>part 1 of of my series <\/a>on Luke on what’s essential to the gospel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, it is not well-argued.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Tuggy’s argument fails for a number of reasons.<\/strong> For one thing, Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 also makes no mention of Christ’s death being an atoning sacrifice<\/strong> for our sins. Extending Tuggy’s logic further, therefore, would require also abandoning that doctrine as definitional to the gospel.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I assume he means here something like a substitutional theory of atonement. That’s right, I don’t think anyone has to believe that in order to be saved. A person doesn’t have to believe any developed theory about the mechanics of forgiveness, i.e. a theological atonement theory, in order to be saved. That is as it should be. All Peter tells them in Acts 2, is if they repent and get baptized, they’ll be forgiven.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second problem is that, while Peter’s sermon (being addressed to a Jewish audience) does not use the philosophical categories<\/strong> that would be developed later to convey the idea of the Trinity, Peter’s sermon is thoroughly Trinitarian<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here Mr. McLatchie introduces a red herring, a distraction<\/strong>. The use of “philosophical categories” (i.e. terms) is irrelevant. I would count it here if in any way<\/em>, the tripersonal God were mentioned as such, or the “deity of Christ” or the two natures of Jesus were taught. The terms needn’t have time-traveled back from Constantinople (381) or Chalcedon (451). Any<\/em> sort of explicit statement or clear implication would do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Unfortunately, Mr. McLatchie also introduces a weasel word<\/strong> here, on which the rest of his piece depends: “trinitarian<\/strong>.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n