Trinities: Recent Episodes
Dale Tuggy
Photo credit: Jerry Wierwille.In this second episode you’ll hear the second half of the debate: rebuttals, open discussion time, audience questions and answers, and closing statements.
Subjects discussed include:
- traditional, Chalcedonian views about Christ’s two natures and whether these imply one too many persons
- the worship of Jesus
- which claims are essential to the gospel
- whether an immortal being can die
- the meaning of theos (god or God) as applied to Jesus in a few New Testament passages
- whether it is coherent to suppose anyone is both human and divine
- John 8:58
- Jesus’s faith in God
- whether a Protestant should trust the “ecumenical” councils
- practical and spiritual consequences of viewing Jesus as God’s human Messiah vs. as a Godman
Some of the arguments for Jesus’s full deity deployed by Dr. Bird here are addressed in my UCA Conference presentation in Sydney, about a week after this Melbourne debate.
And many of the topics are also covered in my newly released book Monotheism, Heresy, and the Bible (UK)–such as the meanings of theos in the New Testament (ch. 1).
Links for this episode:
Tuggy, Monotheism, Heresy, and the Bible
Dr. Michael Bird’s YouTube channel
Dr. Bird’s blog, Substack
Exposing The Council of Nicaea with Dr. Dale Tuggy (UCA UK Conference 2025)
Dale Tuggy – What John 1 Meant (UCA Conference 2021)
Dale Tuggy and James White debate: “Is Jesus YHWH?”
Dale Tuggy vs James White | John 1 Is Not Trinitarian
podcast 291 – From one God to two gods to three “Gods” – John 1 and early Christian theologies
Bock and Loke on Jesus’s “blasphemy” in Mark 14 – Part 2
a reading of Philippians 2:5-11
podcast 227 – Who Should Christians Worship?
A letter from the Lord Jesus: About God and Me (Revised)
https://youtu.be/l_ZeKzAvaYg?si=4DXENxVYIQIqTkZpHurtado on the early worship of Jesus
Larry Hurtado on early Christians’ worship of Jesus
podcast 333 – The Arguments of “God’s Death”
Kermit Zarley on “My Lord and my God.”
Tuggy, “Craig’s Contradictory Christ,” TheoLogica, 2023
podcast 343 – Craig’s Contradictory Christ – Part 1
podcast 344 – Craig’s Contradictory Christ – Part 2
Jesus’s argument in John 10
podcast 143 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Conciliar Christology – Part 1
podcast 144 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Conciliar Christology – Part 2
podcast 63 – Thomas Belsham and other scholars on John 8:58
podcast 235 – The Case Against Preexistence
Romans 9:5 @ biblicalunitarian.com
podcast 146 – Jesus as an Exemplar of Faith in the New Testament
Will Barlow – The “Throne Room Problem” – Responding to Trinitarian Claims about John 12:41
Scott Williams, “Discovery of the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s Trinitarian Theology: Historical, Ecclesial, and Theological Implications”
podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”
podcast 11 – Tertullian the unitarian
Thomas Gaston – Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology (book)
This week’s thinking music is “Ship of Theseus (Instrumental)” by Lemon Knife.
This episode consists of our opening statements. In my opening statement (slides here), I first briefly explain why a trinitarian should not want to identify Jesus and God. I assume that when my opponent says that “Jesus is God” he means that Jesus is fully divine/has the divine nature. I then explain a terrible problem of the official Christology of the Council of Chalcedon in 451: the implication that the divine nature of Christ is a someone (self, person) and the human nature of Christ is another someone (self, person). They try to fix this by asserting that there is only one someone there, but that’s no real solution.
I then explain how later, the fully developed Chalcedonian catholic tradition does solve this problem by saying that Christ’s “complete human nature” (human type of body + human type of soul), is not, because of its “assumption” by the divine nature/eternal Son/Word, a human person. But this clashes with the clear New Testament teaching that Jesus is a man/human person. It is no help to say there there is a “human” person here, meaning a divine person who now bears some mysterious relationship to a human type of soul and a human type of body which don’t compose a human person. The problem is only exacerbated by the sixth ecumenical council in 681 at Constantinople, which seems to make each of Christ’s natures a person/self/someone by saying that each has a will (an ability to choose).
Against this messy, catholic Christology I set out the clear New Testament teachings that the one God is (only) the Father himself, and that Jesus, his Messiah/Christ, is a miraculously conceived man, a human person born to Mary who did not have a biological human father. Properly trinitarian (tripersonal-God-involving) ideas seem to have originated in the latter half of the 300s, and so are alien to the thought world of the New Testament. Against various later speculations, the New Testament Jesus is the Messiah (a.k.a. the Son of God), a man, not an additional, lesser god to the one true god (the Father), or the same god as the Father, or a “divine Person” in an imagined triune god. I then explain five qualities which according to the New Testament Jesus has which rule his being fully divine.
About Dr. Bird’s claim in his book Jesus Among the Gods that the New Testament Jesus is an ungenerated or unbegotten god, I point at that this is contrary to catholic traditions that say the Father “eternally generates” the Son. He also says there that the New Testament Son is supposed to “a Jewish god,” but, I object, that would make him the Jewish god, and so, the Father/Yahweh. I then lay out four lines of evidence that the New Testament authors did not think Jesus to be fully divine, and rebut Dr. Bird’s claim that early Christian theology should be seen as “incipient trinitarianism.”
Dr. Bird says that he holds Jesus to be the second Person of the Trinity because this is what best makes sense of all of Scripture. The Bible teaches monotheism, that there is, strictly speaking, only one god, the creator, Yahweh. He points out that the Alexandrian Jewish philosopher-theologian Philo rejected the possibility of a human becoming a god and the possibility of God becoming a human. He suggests that if Philo had read John 1:1-14 he would have accepted all but the final verse. The author of the Fourth Gospel, Bird says, believes that Jesus in the eternal, divine Son, the Word–not (only) a man attested by God. The one God is known through his actions and is said in the Old Testament to create by his word and by his wisdom. Also, “the angel of the LORD” seems to be both God himself and someone else–a contradiction, or maybe a merely apparent one, a paradox. New Testament authors, he suggests, did not consider Jesus to be only human. In particular, the give him religious worship. They all thought Jesus to be “divine”–the only question was: In what sense? As Thomas said (John 20:28), Jesus is his god. Jesus is worthy of our worship. Paul closely associates together Jesus and God, often mentioning them together. Engaging with Jesus is engaging with the divine.
Jesus in the New Testament doesn’t claim to be God, Bird argues, but texts like Mark 1:1-3, where the author applies a Yahweh text to Jesus, imply that he is Yahweh returning to Zion. Again, in Mark 2 we see Jesus forgiving human sins, which only God can do. And in Mark 14, before the high priest, Jesus claims that he will be co-enthroned with Yahweh, so that Jesus has divine authority. And John 1 teaches that God’s Word is one and the same with the man Jesus. Philippians 2 teaches the full deity of Jesus and says Jesus is worthy of worship–and so we see that Jesus participates in the divine identity.
In 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Bird says, Paul gives a revised, duality-including version of the Shema. And in Hebrews 1:3 Jesus is a representation of God’s own being, not a mere man. This Jesus has a unique relationship with the Father, enabling us to have a relationship with him. His opponents understood (John 10:33) that he was claiming ontological equality with God. Thus in Revelation 5 we see the Lamb getting the same worship that was given to God Almighty in the vision of Revelation 4. But Jesus does not deserve that worship unless he is fully divine. It would be blasphemy to worship Jesus if he were a creature. Jesus’s full divinity is also implied by prayer to Jesus. Of course, it took mainstream tradition a few centuries to work it all out. But Bird cites Eusebius the historian, Melito of Sardis, the Sibylline Oracles, Justin Martyr, and Ignatius of Antioch as early recognizers of the deity of Christ. He also mentions two pagan testimonies of the early worship of the Son–yet more support for “early high Christology.”
Bird says that he’s not impressed with analytic theology, but at any rate, many analytic theologians are trinitarians, such as Oliver Crisp. He says that he is an exegete, historian, and theologian, suggesting that he is more qualified to answer historical questions about early Christianity. In his view early Christians closely associated Jesus with God and thought Jesus was “from the same source of divinity.” Trinitarian theology, he suggests, is not so much taught in the Bible as it is a hermeneutic, a way of reading it, a way of making sense of what the Bible as a whole affirms and denies. He points out that it does better, for instance, than modalism when it comes to reading the accounts of Jesus’s baptism.
Contrary to what I said it my opening, Dr. Bird says we should think and take comfort in the fact that God was and is one of us, mentioning this 1990s song. In this way, he says, God moved from empathy to sympathy. This was far greater, he says, than sending “a super-human Messiah” to help us.
Finally, while conceding that some early Christians may have thought something like what I presented, he suggests that the closest analogue to the Christology I presented was the Christology of the pagan Neoplatonist and critic of Christianity Porphyry, who acknowledged Jesus as (only) a pious and wise man. Bird’s Christology, he suggests, far better fits the Bible and the facts of history.
Which side put forward the better opening case, and why? Leave us a comment below.
Here below is the UCA-produced video. Special thanks to Canterbury Christadelphian Hall for hosting and recording this debate, and to UCA Podcast host Mark Cain for his expert help in producing the audio for this episode and for the video.
https://youtu.be/tJKFqF7lYKY?si=KIfP2ez2tekxkztHLinks for this episode:
Dr. Michael Bird’s YouTube channel
Dr. Bird’s blog, Substack
Bird, Jesus Among the Gods (interview on Transfigured)
Bird, Evangelical Theology, 2nd ed.
Ehrman, Bird, and Stewart, When Did Jesus Become God?
podcast 270 – Origen’s “one God”
podcast 348 – Novatian’s On the Trinity – Part 2 – Two Thieves and Three Arguments
podcast 277 – Was Christ tempted in every way?
podcast 391 – Jesus’ Temptations and Ours – Part 1 – Luke 4
podcast 392 – Jesus’ Temptations and Ours – Part 2 – Things Apologists Say
podcast 384 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the Late 100s – Early 200s and Early Trinitarian “Fool’s Gold”
podcast 381 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the year 240: What Trinitarian Apologists Don’t Know
Tuggy, Nicaea at 1700: Myths vs. Reality
podcast 291 – From one God to two gods to three “Gods” – John 1 and early Christian theologies
biblicalunitarian.com
Catholic Theologian Hans Küng on New Testament theology
This week’s thinking music is “Ignite! (instrumental)” by Lemon Knife.
In this short video apologist Wes Huff confidently dishes out a bunch of mostly standard apologetics “answers” designed to sooth worries about “the doctrine of the Trinity.”
In this reaction video I interact with Huff’s claims, clarifying what he’s saying and why, pointing out what he’s doing and not doing, and how he fails to engage with the seemingly non-trinitarian theology of the New Testament.
He’s right that it is Christians and not only non-Christians who have various worries about what is imagined to be one single doctrine. But as I discuss, his answers should not soothe Christians concerned about (1) how one can supposedly derive a Trinity doctrine from the Bible, and (2) how Trinity speculations seem incompatible with the theology of the Bible.
Links for this episode:
Video version of this episode
podcast 397 – Debunking Wes Huff’s Viral Trinity Moment with Michael Temperato
podcast 107 – Dr. Robert M. Bowman Jr. on triadic New Testament passages – part 1
podcast 62 – Dr. Dustin Smith on the preexistence of Jesus in the gospel of John
podcast 260 – How to Argue that the Bible is Trinitarian
podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation
podcast 248 – How Trinity theories conflict with the Bible
Dale Tuggy – Trinitarian “Fool’s Gold” – Mainstream Christian Theologies – Late 100’s to Early 200’s
Dale Tuggy – Christian theologies in the year 240
podcast 2 – the “Athanasian Creed”
fulfillment fallacy: the Bible teaches that David is God
fulfillment fallacy: the Bible on another previous life of Jesus
This week’s thinking music is “Slinky” by Mr. Smith.
A befuddled student asked apologist Wes Huff about how to make sense of the Trinity. Huff’s answer has gone viral (also here and here).
Obviously, Christians are enjoying and sharing Huff’s answer. But how helpful of an answer is it? Is this an answer that is going to help a thinking Christian love God with all her mind? Does it point her to the relevant biblical teachings?
Unfortunately, as Michael and I explain, for a number of reasons Huff’s answer is not helpful to the informed, Scripture-loving truth-seeker.
Just after the 48 minutes mark (52 minutes in the video below) I challenge Wes Huff to a debate on whether the one God in the New Testament or the Father alone. For these reasons, he probably will not debate me. But the Christian public who relies on Huff’s Trinity “answers” needs some better information, and to hear the unitarian Christian side of the case. If he does decide to accept the challenge, here is my recently updated starter pack for understanding my views.
As we recorded this video, I thought that perhaps it’s unfair to critique Huff’s Trinity thoughts based on an off-the-cuff answer. So in the next two episodes I’m going to interact with two other videos where he states his views at length and fully rehearsed. Perhaps those will fare better?
Here’s the video version:
https://www.youtube.com/live/6Ipw3TUSVyE?si=X81aJZpvMt36OmMhLinks for this episode:
Michael Temperato’s YouTube, Tiktok, Instagram
Tuggy, What is the Trinity?
Stanford Encyclopedia, “Trinity”
What Would It Take To Convert You Back To Trinitarianism? ?
R. T. Mullins’s interview of William Lane Craig on his own Trinity theory
Gaston, Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology?
Unitarian Christian Alliance Youtube channel
Unitarian Christian Alliance
Unitarian Christian Alliance – Conference near Sydney, Australia, March 2026
podcast 137 – Daniel Whitby’s “Mystery and Revelation Inconsistent”
The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel – Dale Tuggy, Benjamin D. Sommer
on Gregory of Nyssa’s On Not Three Gods
podcast 302 – The Stages of Trinitarian Commitment
podcast 262 – The Trinity before Nicaea?
podcast 249 – Tuggy vs. Brown debate – The God of the Bible is the Father alone
McIntosh, ed. One God, Three Persons, Four Views
podcast 388 – Yes, “the Trinity” is a Problem – Part 2
podcast 387 – Yes, “the Trinity” is a Problem – Part 1
The Standard Opening Move
Why I’m Not a Buddhist – Dr. Dale Tuggy
podcast 76 – Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho – Part 3
podcast 75 – Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho – Part 2
podcast 74 – Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho – Part 1
This week’s thinking music is “Going Rogue” by Grumplefunk.
Other videos in this UCA series:
https://www.youtube.com/live/d0nXXVtuU3c?si=gCfoT5pqfw_3_pR9https://www.youtube.com/live/1lkBSlYRa3E?si=WpCjMtSPndZE4gqm
This final installment includes the cross-examination times, audience Q & A, and our closing statements, of course with my commentary.
The cross-examination times are revealing. As we heard in part two, I presented Dr. White with an argument that his interpretation of John 1 implies that there are at least two gods and so should be rejected. In the cross-examination here, I ask which premise he rejects and why, and he says that he rejects this one, because it assumes unitarianism, or that God can be only one Person:
- To have the divine essence is to be a god. (true by the definition of “divine essence”)
But as I explain in this episode, that premise doesn’t assume unitarianism at all, and in fact some trinitarians agree with it, holding that the Father is a god, the Son is a god, and the Spirit is a god, but also that they’re the same god. Really, White’s favorite “assuming unitarianism” argument is just an irrelevant ad hominem.
Also, the lexicons exchange in my cross-ex time has to be heard to be believed.
I wrap this series up by explaining which side won this debate and why.
Here are the images I refer to in my closing statement which summarize three clashing narratives about Trinity doctrines: what apologists say, what theologians say, and what historians say, that is, what one learns from a deep dive into all the primary sources up to about the year 400 (in other words, the truth). (Thanks to Mark Cain for creating these!) If you want to hear more about these pre-trinitarian theologies check out podcasts 381 and 384 linked below.
Links for this episode:
- James White and fans take note: here are six places in which I obviously do not merely assume that God can only be one Person: podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation, book chapter: “The Unfinished Business of the Reformation,” podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”, opening statement here: podcast 377 – Debate: Is Jesus Yahweh? White vs. Tuggy – Part 1, my opening statement in this debate book, podcast 372 – Book Session Identity Crisis – Part 1
- podcast 384 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the Late 100s – Early 200s and Early Trinitarian “Fool’s Gold”
- podcast 383 – New Zealand Conference Church History Q and A with Sean Finnegan and Dale Tuggy – Part 2
- podcast 382 – New Zealand Conference Church History Q and A with Sean Finnegan and Dale Tuggy – Part 1
- Transfigured podcast interview on the debate book
- podcast 381 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the year 240: What Trinitarian Apologists Don’t Know
- This week’s thinking music is “Gemini Instrumental” by Pipe Choir.
In this second of three episodes, we’ll review the rest of Dr. White’s opening statement and the two rebuttals. In several cases I push the discussion past what we were able to do in the confines of the debate.
Topics covered include:
- White’s claim that the correct text of John 1:18 is “unique God” rather than “unique Son” and how his interpretation but not mine requires a decision about the correct text here
- White’s claim that the words ho on in John 1:18 support his interpretation
-
White’s claim that the author uses the past imperfect tense of “is” to communicate the timeless existence of the Word
-
White’s inability to understand what it could mean for God’s word to be embodied in the man Jesus
- White’s many misunderstandings of the interpretation of John 1 I argued for in my opening statement and why this made the debate less useful for the audience.
- Whether the opening of 1 John 1 supports White’s interpretation of John 1 or mine
- Why I spent so much time discussing 2nd-3rd c. interpretation of John 1 in my opening.
- White’s convenient skepticism about early Christian theologies.
- The misguided idea that competence in New Testament Greek is sufficient to reveal the correct interpretation of John 1.
- White’s appeal to John 17:5 as obviously presupposing Jesus literal pre-human existence.
- How something which isn’t literally a self can be said to be with (pros) God.
- What is meant by “the beginning” in John 1:1.
- Jesus’s argument in John 10
- White’s neglect of the misunderstanding motif in the fourth Gospel
- My argument (below) that White’s interpretation logically implies that there are two gods, and so should be rejected.
- whether in the Bible God exists timelessly or at all times
- White’s irrelevant ad hominem that I only have ever “assumed unitarianism.”
Here’s the argument which I gave against White’s interpretation of John 1 which I give in my rebuttal. The point is that White is committed to 1-3 and that 4 is true by the definition of “divine essence.” The rest follows. My response is to deny premise 2. What is White’s response?
- The Father has the divine essence. (assumed in Jn 1:1b)
- The Son has the divine essence. (Jn 1:1c, since Word = Son)
- The Father ? the Son. (Jn 1:1b, since Father & Word differ and Word = Son)
- To have the divine essence is to be a god. (true by the definition of “divine essence”)
- The Father is a god. (1, 4)
- The Son is a god. (2, 4)
- There are (at least) two gods. (3, 5, 6)
(Note: on my debate slide there was a typo at the end of the last line – it cited 7 not line 6.)
Links for this episode:
Brent Nongbri’s blog Variant Readings (articles)
God’s Library: The Archaeology of the Earliest Christian Manuscripts
“Reconsidering the Place of Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV (P75) in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 135 (2016), 405-437.
[on P66:] “The Limits of Palaeographic Dating of Literary Papyri: Some Observations on the Date and Provenance of P.Bodmer II,” Museum Helveticum 71 (2014), 1-35.
podcast 62 – Dr. Dustin Smith on the preexistence of Jesus in the gospel of John
podcast 61 – Dr. Dustin Smith on preexistence in ancient Jewish thought
This week’s thinking music is “Gemini Instrumental” by Pipe Choir.
https://youtu.be/h4pBIb9cjVg?si=Tssf6mS-4rHkjQss
I make an exciting announcement at the start of this episode!
In this and the following two episodes, I present and comment on my recent debate with Dr. James White. This episode contains my opening statement and part of his.
Here is an interpretive paraphrase which summarizes the interpretation I argue for in my opening statement:
John 1:1–5 The Early Career of God’s Word
When the world was created, God’s Word was with him—not that “he” was someone else. All things came into being through him; not a single thing came into being apart from God’s Word. He was the source of life, a guiding light for all people. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness didn’t overcome it.
1:6–9 Interlude: The Word Didn’t (Fully) Arrive in the Great Prophet John the Baptist
God sent a man named John [the Baptist], who came as a witness to testify to that light, so that all might trust in God through his Word. John came to testify to the light but wasn’t himself the Light. The True Light which enlightens everyone was yet to come.
1:10–13 The Further (Pre-Jesus) Career of God’s Word
God’s Word was in the world, which came into being through him, yet the world didn’t know him. He came to his own people, the Jews, but they didn’t fully accept him. Of course, he enabled those who received him, trusting him, to become God’s children, born of God, not merely of human blood, will, or flesh.
1:14–16 God’s Word Arrives Fully in the Man Jesus
Then God’s Word became a man and lived among us. And we’ve seen Jesus’ glory, that of the unique Son of the Father, one who is full of grace and truth.
1:17–18 – Jesus is an Even Greater Revealer of God than the Great Prophets John and Moses
(John the Baptist testified to him: “It was about him that I said, ‘The one coming after me surpasses me, because all along he’s out-ranked me.’ ”)
All of us have benefitted from Jesus’ fullness, grace on top of grace. God gave us the law through Moses, but now he’s given us grace and truth through Jesus the Messiah. You can’t see God, but his unique Son who’s close to his heart has shown him to us.
If you don’t want to download all of my opening statement slides, the following images should be enough to help you follow my opening statement in this audio version.
Links for this episode:
How John 1 was intelligible in the first century
Dale Tuggy – What John 1 Meant (UCA Conference 2021) (podcast)
the host of the debate: Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
Jeremiah Nortier’s Apologetics Dog channel
Matthew 16:13-20
anachronism
St. Patrick’s Bad Analogies [for the Trinity]
Gaston, Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology?
podcast 259 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 2
podcast 258 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 1
John A. T. Robinson on “the Word” of John 1
Debating John 1: Eusebius vs. Marcellus
John 12:48 – Jesus personifies God’s word (as someone else)
Jesus Christ as “The Word of God” in Revelation 19:11-16
Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God
Do the Gospels disagree about Jesus and God? Part 1 – Three Options
our previous debate: Dale Tuggy and James White debate: “Is Jesus YHWH?” (best quality, with slides)
This week’s thinking music is “Gemini Instrumental” by Pipe Choir.
In this lecture, given at the amazing Converge event in Ohio in August of 2025, I first explain the three varieties of early Christian theologies, which I have also discussed here, here, and in my recent debate with James White.
I then explain the fully developed catholic views which replaced them over the years 381-681, as the “ecumenical” councils innovated in Christology and theology. Noting the enormous gap between this sort of catholic orthodoxy and what we read in the New Testament, a number of evangelical scholars in the last 40 years or so have developed what I called “Fauxthodox” language, which seems to be intended to be saying what orthodoxy was always asserting, but in simpler language which they argue reflects what is actually taught in the Bible. The main ones I discuss are Larry Hurtado, Richard Bauckham, and N.T. Wright.
The problems are: this language seems carefully calibrated to be ambiguous, it is not obviously biblical, and there is no reason to think that this language is equivalent to the official “catholic” or “orthodox” views, which I summarize like this:
Christ is a fully divine Person in God the Trinity who is eternally caused to exist by (but not created by) the Father (a different divine Person in God), sharing his divinity. When Incarnate Christ is one Person with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature which are unchanged by their union. He got his human nature from his mother; before that there was no more to him than his divine nature—strictly, he is the divine nature. It is his human nature which suffered and died on the cross; his divine nature is incapable of either suffering or dying. Christ, in his divine nature, is incapable of doing any action which is not also the action of the Father and of the Spirit. Christ’s human nature (a human-type of soul plus a human-type of body) is not a human person because, somehow, of its union with the divine nature, i.e. with the Second Person of the Trinity. Thus Christ is now “man” but is not a man (human person). Each nature has its own will and power of choosing, but the human will always submits to the divine one.?
If you want to see all my slides, here is the fully produced video from the UCA’s YouTube channel:
https://youtu.be/YGdekoOsRLs?si=SBUx6Hn5LdmTTdPNLinks for this episode:
Catholic Theologian Hans Küng on New Testament theology
podcast 384 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the Late 100s – Early 200s and Early Trinitarian “Fool’s Gold”
podcast 381 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the year 240: What Trinitarian Apologists Don’t Know
John 1 Is Not Trinitarian | Dale Tuggy vs James White LIVE Debate! – (livestream: the fully edited video will be out soon on the UCA’s YouTube channel).
Hurtado on the early worship of Jesus
Larry Hurtado on early Christians’ worship of Jesus
podcast 100 – Dr. Larry Hurtado on God in New Testament Theology
podcast 228 – Buzzard and Hurtado on God and Jesus – Part 1
podcast 229 – Buzzard and Hurtado on God and Jesus – Part 2
podcast 13 – On Bauckham’s Bargain
podcast 214 – Has Bauckham clarified his “divine identity” theory? – Part 2
podcast 213 – Has Bauckham clarified his “divine identity” theory? – Part 1
podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists
This week’s thinking music is “Soul of Tacoma” by LOPKERJO.
Both of the arguments below are valid. But which one is sound? (By the definition of validity it’s impossible that both are sound.)
Argument #1:
- God can’t be tempted.
- Jesus was tempted.
- Therefore, Jesus is not God
Argument #2:
- God can’t be tempted.
- Jesus is God.
- Therefore, Jesus was not tempted.
In this talk I argue that Scripture requires that we endorse the first argument as sound.
I then interact with a bunch of standard, what I call “canned,” answers that apologists dish out on these topics.
Here is the video version from 21stcr.org.
https://youtu.be/MuDXEZyA0Bw?si=-_1BgmLOkcl9g5xYLinks for this episode:
- A letter from the Lord Jesus: About God and Me
- The biblical Jesus is not fully divine
- Debate – “Is Jesus Human and not Divine?” – Dr. Dale Tuggy vs. Chris Date
- Trinities podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”
- Trinities podcast 277 – Was Christ tempted in every way?
- Trinities podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies
- Restitutio Podcast
- This week’s thinking music is “My Town” by Ketsa.
In this talk I answer three questions:
- Was Jesus tempted?
- What is it to be tempted?
- What can Jesus’ temptations teach us?
You are invited to reflect on your own calling (if you know it) and on what temptations are barriers to your walking that path God has put before you.
If you prefer the video here is the version produced by Sharon Gill at 21st Century Reformation:
https://youtu.be/jU71GAWB1Nc?si=yAe_7lHSoLlkWpU1Links for this episode:
podcast 277 – Was Christ tempted in every way?
Jesus’s temptations and ours
a conversation about the differences between God and Jesus
podcast 339 – Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is truly divine? – Loke vs. Tuggy – Part 1
podcast 340 – Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is truly divine? – Loke vs. Tuggy – Part 2
This week’s thinking music is “Take it Out” by Ketsa.
In this episode I open by briefly explaining the gap this year in my podcasting. Then you’ll hear my presentation from the first ever New Zealand UCA Conference.
Longstanding catholic traditions teach that Jesus is both fully divine, having the sort of divinity enjoyed by the Father Almighty, and fully human, being “like us in all things but sin.” The problem with this is that the godman idea they’re selling implies numerous contradictions. Since no contradiction (statement of form P and not-P) can be true, even one implied contradiction shows a godman to be impossible. In this lecture I spell out fourteen contradictions between divinity (having all the essential divine attributes) and what the New Testament teaches about the Lord Jesus Christ.
Listen all the way to the end, and I’ll tell you what has happened with this lecture since I presented it in New Zealand: I will share some exciting news!
| Divine attribute | Attribute of the New Testament Jesus | When discussed | | Essential Immortality? | Died | 7:05 | | Essentially Untemptable? | Was tempted | 9:16 | | Essentially Perfect in Virtue | Grew in virtue | 11:15 | | Essentially Omnipresent | Moved | 15:15 | | Essentially Unlimited Knowledge | Limited Knowledge of | 18:35 | | Essentially Unable to Trust God as Someone Subject to God | Put his Trust in God | 20:27 | | Essentially Unable to Sleep | Slept | 22:33 | | Essentially not under (subject to) Anyone | Under (subject to) God | 25:51 | | Essentially Unable to be Obligated to Worship Anyone | Obligated to Worship God | 31:38 | | Essentially Unable to Pray | Prayed | 34:44 | | Essentially Unable to be Obligated to Obey God | Obligated to Obey God | 37:28 | | Essentially Uncreated | As a Human, Part of God’s Creation | 39:40 | | The Ultimate Source Creator | Not the Ultimate Source Creator | 41:26 | | Essentially Perfectly Good | Non-Essentially Various Degrees of Good | 44:15 |
If you want to see my slides, here is the UCA’s video version:
https://youtu.be/l_ZeKzAvaYg?si=eRbRUNyw1q4C2IjLLinks for this episode:
A letter from the Lord Jesus: About God and Me (Revised)
Adam Pelser, “Temptation, Virtue, and the Character of Christ“
podcast 277 – Was Christ tempted in every way?
Jesus’s temptations and ours
podcast 277 – Was Christ tempted in every way?
podcast 146 – Jesus as an Exemplar of Faith in the New Testament
Tuggy, “Jesus as an exemplar of faith in the New Testament“
Kapusta, Scripturae Contra Trinitatem – The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Anthology of Quotations, Alternative Expositions, and Critical Commentaries on Common Trinitarian Proof-Texts
Gaston, “Why does Hebrews 1:10-12 cite Psalm 102:25-27?“
a reading of Philippians 2:5-11
podcast 259 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 2
podcast 258 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 1
podcast 235 – The Case Against Preexistence
Restitutio podcast 612 Colossians 1.16: Old Creation or New Creation? (Sean Finnegan)
Trinity to One God: Dr. Dale Tuggy’s Journey
“Trinty,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
“Samuel Clarke,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
This week’s thinking music is “Crunch” by Beat Mekanik.
When you’re from a trinitarian Christian tradition, whether or not a doctrine of the Trinity is really in the Bible is more than an intellectual question. For one thing, there is the fear: am I angering God by asking these questions? And another huge factor is the peer pressure: it’s part of catholic traditions to harshly exclude, with little to no discussion, people who will not pay lip service to “the doctrine of the Trinity.”
On the other hand, there are Christians who’ve always had the blessing of being in a biblical unitarian group like the Christadelphians or the Church of God General Conference.
And then there are those who are blessed to be in a unitarian Christian group, but it is a high-control one, and they have to carefully work their way free from it.
In this new book, you’ll read the testimonies of eight unitarian Christians, each with a unique story. If you’re on any of these journeys, you’ll find things to relate to here. This episode is my interview with contributor and instigator Seneca Harbin, my wife Candise Tuggy, who contributed a chapter, and Anna Brown, who helped in the publication of this book for Living Hope International Ministries.
The subject is heavy, but as you’ll hear Seneca and his co-authors approach it with faith, hope, love, and a good sense of humor.
Links for this episode:
The Cost of Truth: Stories of Biblical Unitarian Christians
Unitarian Christian Alliance
UCA 2025 UK International Conference
Converge
Restitutio Podcast 569 The Cost of Truth (Seneca Harbin)
Church of God General Conference
Seth Ross @ Church of God General Conference
Christian Centered Counseling
UCA Podcast 33 My Trinitarian Best Friend – Amanda Dunn (Part 1)
UCA Podcast 34 My Homeschooling Nail-biter – Amanda Dunn (Part 2)
podcast 357 – Seminary student takes Trinity class, becomes unitarian – Part 2
podcast 356 – Seminary student takes Trinity class, becomes unitarian – Part 1
podcast 333 – The Arguments of “God’s Death”
Susanne Lakin – Biblical Anthropomorphism – Evidence of a Unipersonal God
Anna Brown – No Mere Man: Biblical Anthropology as Response to Psilanthropism – UCA Conference 2022
John Schoenheit @ Spirit & Truth
podcast 232 – Trinity Club Orientation
https://youtu.be/9LA9Uq-8xMc?si=RehuBxIlI-GO8dpkBill Schlegel’s blog Land and Bible
Bill Schlegel’s podcast: The One God Report
Compass Christian Church in Louisville, KY
Pastor Will Barlow’s blog Study Driven Faith blog
Restitutio 313 Questioning Way International Doctrines (William Barlow)
https://youtu.be/_SPL7To0M3Y?si=oy93SLos_WX80JLPLiving Hope Community Church in Latham, NY
Dale Tuggy – 10 Ways to Kill Unitarian Christianity
This week’s thinking music is “Peaceful” by Mr. Smith.
In this second part (part 1 here) I interact with the rest of this discussion between Dr. Sean McDowell and Dr. Fred Sanders.
I do register some significant agreements with them, but on the whole, my criticism from last time stands: their apologetic defense of “the doctrine of the Trinity” is not anywhere near sufficient to rebut or refute the arguments presented by today’s unitarian Christians.
I also explain some historical problems with various things they’re saying. Detailed knowledge of early Christian theologies and Christologies disrupts a number of common trinitarian narratives and assumptions.
Questions addressed include:
- Was the doctrine of the Trinity copied from pagan religions and/or Greek philosophy?
- Can one read pretty much any pre-Nicene written source and find that the author is trinitarian?
- Was the doctrine of the Trinity established at the council at Nicea in 325?
- Was new creedal language produced by the council at Nicea a breakthrough in theological clarity?
- Why is there no clear “Trinity passage” anywhere in the Bible? And is this actually a good thing?
At the end I offer to help.
https://youtu.be/XEr7Em9wkV8?si=OnRHO39R_GPuMUWxLinks for this episode:
Tuggy, “When and How in the History of Theology Did the Triune God Replace the Father as the Only True God?“
podcast 115 – the aborted council at Serdica in 343
podcast 114 – the recycled creed (342-359)
podcast 113 – the council at Antioch in 341
podcast 31 – Dr. William Hasker on the “Arian” Controversy
podcast 30 – The Council of Nicea
podcast 29 – Arius
Prestige, God in Patristic thought
https://youtu.be/KxYtTQDo1dA?si=hfjRj1o8CYy44pdspodcast 270 – Origen’s “one God”
Tuggy, What is the Trinity?
10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity
Clarke, The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity
Biddle, The Apostolical and True Opinion Concerning the Holy Trinity
podcast 348 – Novatian’s On the Trinity – Part 2 – Two Thieves and Three Arguments
Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God
Unitarian Christian Alliance
Church of God General Conference
Spirit and Truth
podcast 357 – Seminary student takes Trinity class, becomes unitarian – Part 2
podcast 356 – Seminary student takes Trinity class, becomes unitarian – Part 1
https://youtu.be/4OgtkJe5AyI?si=9pTEHjSxB6zeF7C0Dustin Smith’s The Biblical Unitarian Podcast
Sean Finnegan’s Restitutio Podcast
McIntosh, ed. – Craig vs. Hasker vs. Branson vs. Tuggy – One God, Three Persons, Four Views: A Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Dialogue on the Doctrine of the Trinity
This week’s thinking music is “Discipline” by Mr. Smith.
In this episode I, a Biola University alum (B.A., Philosophy) interact with this video by two current Biola University professors, Dr. Fred Sanders, and Dr. Sean McDowell.
Their goals are to show that the doctrine of the Trinity is coherent (not self-contradictory) and that it fits well with Scripture.
Issues they discuss include:
- What about the fact that the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible?
- Does the Old Testament support the doctrine of the Trinity?
- If the Father eternally generates the Son, does this imply that the Son is not fully divine, since he lacks the divine attribute of aseity (independent existence)?
- If the Father is divine, the Son is divine, and the Spirit is divine, and those are truly three–none is identical to either of the others–isn’t that tritheism?
- Understanding “who God is” through salvation history.
- Biblical language about God’s “Spirit” or “spirit” or “Holy Spirit.”
In my commentary I point out that Dr. McDowell and Dr. Sanders are for the most part avoiding harder objections and issues pressed by unitarian Christians like me. When harder objections are brought up, their answers are lacking. In particular, the biblical problems are much, much harder then they are assuming. How does the Bible teach that the one God is the Trinity when it seems to clearly teach that the one God is the Father, the one formerly called “Yahweh”? How does the Bible teach the full deity of Jesus when it straightforwardly presents him as having limitations which God must lack?
They also ignore that different, incompatible doctrines, such as one-self and three-self Trinity theories all offer the same traditional language–thus, repeating that language does not suffice to clearly communicate a trinitarian theology. Their talk of “the doctrine of the Trinity” mistakenly presupposes that theologians loyal to trinitarian traditions are teaching the same things. They are not.
In the next episode I interact with the remainder of their presentation.
Links for this episode:
podcast 252 – Fred Sanders on Seeing the Trinity in Scripture, and his Secret
podcast 193 – Review of Sanders’s The Deep Things of God – Part 2
podcast 192 – Review of Sanders’s The Deep Things of God – Part 1
podcast 194 – God: One Person or Three? Sanders vs. Buzzard debate
Dustin Smith’s The Biblical Unitarian Podcast
Sean Finnegan’s Restitutio Podcast
Sanders, The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything (2nd ed.)
Tuggy, “Trinity,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Baber, “Trinity,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Dustin Smith – The Plural of Majesty
podcast 11 – Tertullian the unitarian – Trinities
Cartwright, “On the Logical Problem of the Trinity”
Date and Tuggy, Is Jesus Human and Not Divine?
Tuggy, “When and How in the History of Theology Did the Triune God Replace the Father as the Only True God?“
podcast 330 – Dr. Joshua Sijuwade on the monarchy of the Father
McIntosh, ed. – Craig vs. Hasker vs. Branson vs. Tuggy – One God, Three Persons, Four Views: A Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Dialogue on the Doctrine of the Trinity
podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation
Craig, “Is God the Son Begotten in His Divine Nature?”
podcast 248 – How Trinity theories conflict with the Bible
How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament
Loke-Tuggy debate: Does the NT Teach that Jesus is Truly Divine?
The Tuggy-Brown debate: Dale’s opening statement
podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”
podcast 260 – How to Argue that the Bible is Trinitarian
podcast 384 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the Late 100s – Early 200s and Early Trinitarian “Fool’s Gold”
podcast 381 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the year 240: What Trinitarian Apologists Don’t Know
the concept of a triune God an anachronism in the first three centuries
podcast 26 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 2
podcast 25 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 1
https://youtu.be/ky2SaHscSIo?si=l398QxWRUvix9o1lpodcast 271 – Does your Trinity theory require relative identity?
the apologetics blind-spot on numerical identity
This week’s thinking music is “Ridgeway Drive” by Mr. Smith.
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.
https://youtu.be/6YHjvkTbJuI?si=3d_cwIm4x0rm2GBk
In this and the next episode I engage with an episode by Cold Case Christianity apologist J. Warner Wallace called “Why is the Trinity an Essential Doctrine?“ (Also here. Alternate title: “Is the Trinity Contradictory?“)
We first hear him explain how crime-solving police detectives reason using Inference to the Best Explanation, or what some call abductive reasoning. This is an approach I endorse; among other places I have made use of it here and here and here. But as you’ll hear, Mr. Wallace abandons this method entirely when it comes to “the doctrine of the Trinity.”
Topics in this first part include:
- The objection that the word “Trinity” isn’t in the Bible, and the much stronger objection that the idea of tripersonal God isn’t there.
- Inference to the best explanation, and how that method of reasoning would be done regarding “the doctrine of the Trinity.”
- In the New Testament do we see Jesus worshiped as God?
- The Jewish background of the New Testament and Jesus’ own Jewish monotheism.
- The Old Testament idea of the creator as being the ultimate source of the cosmos and how this is not compatible with being the instrument through which the one creator acted.
- His argument that the Bible obviously implies that the one God is a Trinity based on Yahweh-only qualities: omnipotence (really: being the creator), omniscience, omnipresence, omnibenevolence, and being referred to with the word “God.”
- Whether the New Testament authors believe the Holy Spirit to be to be a divine person in addition to the Father and the Son.
Links for this episode:
Cold Case Christianity
God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe
What is the Trinity?
the evolution of my views on the Trinity
Dale’s publications at PhilPapers, Academia.edu, and Google Scholar
podcast 126 – What is an evangelical? With Kermit Zarley
“Trinity,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Dale Tuggy and James White debate: “Is Jesus YHWH?”
McIntosh, ed., Branson, Craig, Hasker, and Tuggy: One God, Three Persons, Four Views
podcast 232 – Trinity Club Orientation
Dale Tuggy – Trinitarian “Fool’s Gold” – Mainstream Christian Theologies – Late 100’s to Early 200’s
Dale Tuggy – Christian theologies in the year 240John 17 posts
podcast 227 – Who Should Christians Worship?
Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?: The New Testament
proskuneo
podcast 259 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 2
podcast 258 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 1
podcast 26 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 2
podcast 25 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 1
What John 1 Meant lecture (blog post)
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
Scriptures discussed include: Acts 5:3-5; Mark 12:28-34; Deuteronomy 6:4; John 8:40; John 17:1-3; Matthew 2:11; Isaiah 44:24; John 1:1-3; Job 33:4; Mark 13:32; Matthew 24:36; John 4:25; John 16:30; 2 Samuel 20:14; 1 Corinthians 2:10-11; 1 Kings 8:27; Matthew 18:20; Psalm 139:7-12; Romans 15:30.
This week’s thinking music is “Bad Guys” by Dirk Dehler.
In this episode you’ll hear my presentation from the October 2024 UCA Conference in Little Rock, Arkansas. In it I explain the theological landscape from the late 100s through the early 200s using the words of some writers in that era: the author of the Refutation of All Heresies (attributed by some to Hippolytus), Theodotus of Byzantium (as quoted by Epiphanius), Noetus of Smyrna and Zephyrinus (as reported in the Refutation).
I discuss gnostic “possessionist” Christologies, Dynamic Monarchianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, and Logos Theories, a.k.a. unitarian subordinationism, and the fallacy committed by trinitarian apologists who appeal to pre-Nicene authors as being trinitarian. I then discuss the views of some “early” authors which trinitarian apologists often appeal to: Athenagoras of Athens and Melito of Sardis.
I show you how to refute any claim that some early author is a trinitarian using these three requirements for being trinitarian:
- T1. The one God and the Trinity are one and the same.
- T2. Each of these by himself is fully divine: Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
- T3. None of these just is either of the others: Father, Son, Spirit.
Each and every known theologian in this period fails to have at least one of these requirements for being trinitarian. That is why the trinitarian “gold” projected onto these early texts by trinitarian apologists ends up being non-trinitarian “fool’s gold.”
Finally, when you realize that our surviving sources from this era are by Logos theorists, you may infer that most Christians in this era were Logos theorists. I explain why this is a mistake.
Here is AI-image-riddled video version at the UCA YouTube channel:
https://youtu.be/KxYtTQDo1dA?si=Ytbd5dOPrpfVtlRILinks for this episode:
podcast 381 – Mainstream Christian Theologies in the year 240: What Trinitarian Apologists Don’t Know
Video version of podcast 381: Dale Tuggy at the 2024 UK International Conference
https://youtu.be/d9W_KjktIdk?si=MIvrjjVeg4Phod8jGaston, Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology?
Litwa, trans., Refutation of All Heresies
Thomas Gaston, at the 2024 UK International Conference: “Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology”
https://youtu.be/UsbRKiw6Jmc?si=0XFCO06bUcdHXEt8Sean Finnegan at the 2024 UCA Conference in New Zealand: “An Honest Evaluation of Evidence for the Deity of Christ”
https://youtu.be/tHsG7T0gNZw?si=tIo-dX58IRhfBNSOSusanne Lakin at the 2024 UCA Conference in Arkansas: “Biblical Anthropomorphism – Evidence of a Unipersonal God”
https://youtu.be/JsOBFbUcB98?si=vUkpsymqNxGZ5BL5Sean Finnegan at the 2024 UCA Conference in Little Rock: “Isaiah 9:6 Explained: A Theophoric Approach”
https://youtu.be/mtJxn39zPVM?si=zjfBZpDQgzjbEl3FThis week’s thinking music is “I Got to Go Now (Instrumental)” by Anthem of Rain.
Another day, another round of excellent church history questions from conference attendees.
A wide-ranging Q&A session with excellent questions from New Zealand conference attendees.
In videos like this one and this one, trinitarian apologists continue to push false narratives about the history of mainstream Christian theologies, like these (ordered from least to most plausible):
In this historical presentation, focusing on passages from Tertullian, Origen, and Novatian, I explain the actual early history of mainstream Christian theologies. Each of these three authors is a logos theorist, and I explain how they think God and the Logos (aka “the second god”) differ. “Subordinationism” is a feature, not a bug of these theologies; it is how they stay monotheistic despite positing multiple “divine” beings–only one “god” is strictly speaking a god. Each writer implies that logos theory was in their day a minority view; it seems that logos theories were at first popular among the “elite” and were widely rejected by other Christians. Each of these writers describes Christians who disagree with their Logos speculations. Since Harnack historians have called these Dynamic Monarchians and Modalistic Monarchians. Using the stick figures first deployed here, I explain the differences between these three mainstream Christian theologies, and between each of them and the trinitarian theology that was demanded by the mainstream starting in 381. Finally, I take a stab out outlining the actual early history of Christian theologies, starting with Dynamic Monarchianism and ending with the hegemony of trinitarianism.
Because of the many slides (and stick figures) I recommend the video version:
https://youtu.be/d9W_KjktIdk?feature=sharedThanks to Brandon Duke for editing the video and to Mark Cain for expertly cleaning up the lecture audio! Finally, my sincerest thanks to the tireless UK International Conference committee whose hard work made this encouraging meeting possible. Watch the UCA blog for an announcement of the next UK international conference!
Links for this episode:
Thomas Gaston, Dynamic Monarchianism: the Earliest Christology?
Unitarian Christian Alliance
podcast 281 – Introducing the Unitarian Christian Alliance
Clarifying Catholic Christologies
podcast 270 – Origen’s “one God”
von Harnack on logos theories and mystery
Evolution of the Trinity – with Bill Schlegel
podcast 262 – The Trinity before Nicea?
Hurtado on the early worship of Jesus
Craig: how Nicene orthodoxy rules out the full deity of Christ
Origen on the Challenge to Jesus is God Apologists
trinitarian or unitarian? 7 – Origen uncensored
Origen, Paul, and Peter: Christians worship the Jews’ god
Rufinus’s corruption of Origen’s On First Principles – Part 1
Rufinus’s corruption of Origen’s On First Principles – Part 2
podcast 24 – How to be a Monotheistic Trinitarian
This week’s thinking music is “Blood (Instrumental)” by Anthem of Rain.
To understand a book as its author intended, you don’t look to its future, but rather to its past. What has this author read, and what could he presuppose his audience to have read? These other pieces of literature are like tools in the author’s hands.
The biblical book of Proverbs famously features a vivid personification, Lady Wisdom. She pleads with people to seek and find her, and she even appears alongside God when he is creating. As Dr. Dustin Smith explains, this character appears in a number of later ancient Jewish writings in various ways, and can even be described as “incarnate” in certain people. Many of these would have been accessible both to the author of John and his audience.
Paul famously writes that Christ is “the wisdom of God” (1 Corinthians 1:24). But as James Dunn has observed, this idea of Christ as God’s wisdom is more prominent in John than in any other New Testament book. Drawing on an impressive array of recent scholarship, in Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John Dr. Dustin Smith argues that “the Johannine Jesus is incarnate Wisdom and that this christological presentation permeates all twenty-one chapters of the Fourth Gospel” (p. 213).
In this new discussion we focus on the basics of “wisdom christology” and on how that idea sheds light on the famous opening to the fourth gospel, John 1:1-18.
Links for this episode:
Smith, Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John
Smith, The Son of God: Three Views of the Identity of Jesus
Transfigured: Dr. Dustin Smith – Wisdom Christology in the Gospel of John
previous trinities podcast episodes with Dustin Smith
Unitarian Christian Alliance
podcast 301 – Dr. Daniel Boyarin on John 1
podcast 295 – James Martineau on John 1
John A. T. Robinson on “the Word” of John 1
How John 1 was intelligible in the first century
podcast 338 – What John 1 Meant
This week’s thinking music is “Spacedust” by airtone.
The way to evaluate a debate is to actively chart and compare the arguments made by each side. Debaters call this “flowing” a debate.
I sat down and did this, working carefully all the way through my recent debate with James White on the question “Is Jesus Yahweh?”
In this episode I’ll give you my evaluation of the debate, with an assist from the cutting edge Chat Debate Beta AI. She and I even go so far as to declare a winner!
Do you agree? Why or why not? How would you have argued one side or the other differently
I’ve been interviewed several times about the debate; see the videos below.
https://youtu.be/BYmerZbCTLI?si=-PdxYVrxihx8OsYrhttps://youtu.be/rL69HKlnnPE?si=K7JNhUnQRyepeGvfhttps://youtu.be/aCtTBJPsPwc?si=LmF-J_PAAiC-h4QHLinks for this episode:
the fully produced video of the debate
Who Should Christians Worship?
Microsoft Copilot
Identity
Restitutio 451 Wisdom Christology in Hebrews 1.10-12 (Jerry Wierwille) July 8, 2022
Restitutio 450 Seven Interpretive Options for Hebrews 1.10-12 (Jerry Wierwille) June 30, 2022
Restitutio 449 Intertextuality and Interpretation of Hebrews 1 (Jerry Wierwille) June 23, 2022
This week’s thinking music is “Dit it and Quit It” by Van Loon.
In this episode: mutual interrogations, closing statements, and audience questions and answers.
- Which side put forward the stronger opening case?
- Which did a better job in rebuttal?
- What if anything was revealed by the mutual interrogations?
- What if anything was added by the brief closing statements?
- And which answers to audience questions did you think were important, and why?
You be the judge.
In the next episode I’ll share some of my thoughts about this debate.
Thanks to James White and to the co-sponsors of the debate: First Lutheran Houston and the Unitarian Christian Alliance.
Links for this episode:
podcast 377 – Debate: Is Jesus Yahweh? White vs. Tuggy – Part 1
Restitutio 539 Dale Tuggy’s Thoughts on the James White Debate: Is Jesus Yahweh?
UCA Podcast
the fully produced UCA version of the debate video
Alpha & Omega Ministries
Restitutio 450 Seven Interpretive Options for Hebrews 1.10-12 (Jerry Wierwille)
This week’s thinking music is “Badoobap” by Van Loon.
This episode contains the Pro and Con opening statements and rebuttals from the debate on March 9, 2024 between James White and Dale Tuggy in Houston, Texas. The debate question is “Is Jesus Yahweh?”
Which side makes the stronger opening arguments? Which side does a better job at rebutting the other’s opening arguments?
Because of our many slides, the fully edited video version below is recommended. (However, the above podcast audio-only version above has some groovy Thinking Music in between the segments.)
https://youtu.be/ky2SaHscSIo?si=6NmO6gpnDzrjC1oaMy thanks to the host Pastor and Moderator Evan McClanahan of First Lutheran Houston, James White, the UCA Podcast‘s host and producer Mark Cain, who masterfully cleaned up the source audio, and UCA Board Member Brandon Duke, who produced the video above.
Links for this episode:
pdf of Tuggy’s opening Con statement
A letter from the Lord Jesus: About God and Me (Revised)
podcast 344 – Craig’s Contradictory Christ – Part 2
podcast 343 – Craig’s Contradictory Christ – Part 1
podcast 341 – Reflections on my debate with Dr. Andrew Loke
podcast 340 – Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is truly divine? – Loke vs. Tuggy – Part 2
podcast 339 – Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is truly divine? – Loke vs. Tuggy – Part 1
podcast 87 – Kermit Zarley on the deity and preexistence of Jesus
podcast 332 – Emlyn’s Humble Inquiry
Debate – “Is Jesus Human and not Divine?” – Dr. Dale Tuggy vs. Chris Date
podcast 144 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Conciliar Christology – Part 2
podcast 143 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Conciliar Christology – Part 1
This week’s thinking music is “Tuff” by Van Loon.
This is the final part of my response to some recent podcast episodes by Dr. William Lane Craig here and here.
Dr. Craig accuses me of being disingenuous in claiming that his minimal, so-called “biblical” doctrine consisting of two sentences is not enough to count as a trinitarian theology. I stand by that claim, and point out that it is unclear why Dr. Craig thinks that those sentences say anything about a tripersonal God.
I also discuss his claim that his rival hypothesis, that the New Testament authors assumed those two sentences, explains the 20 facts I build my case on in the forthcoming debate book. I don’t discuss all 20 facts here, but I describe the 5 facts that I presented in the recent book panel session, and point out that Craig’s hypothesis in fact doesn’t explain any of those, in contrast to the hypothesis I call “U,” that the New Testament authors assume that the one God just is the Father and that neither the Son nor the Spirit are fully divine.
In his recent podcast Dr. Craig also seems to suggest that I think there is one doctrine of the Trinity, and that in the debate book I attacked a straw man theology which no trinitarian holds. I point out that both claims are mistaken. I also discuss the two different Trinity theories he has presented, pointing out that one could be true while the other is false.
Finally, I summarize the shortcomings of our recent interactions and I challenge Dr. Craig to a full-length, face to face public debate, suggesting four topics:
- The New Testament teaches that the one God is tripersonal.
- The Gospel According to John teaches that Jesus and the Father are equally divine.
- The Chalcedonian doctrine of a divine and human Jesus is coherent.
- The New Testament teaches that Jesus and the Father are equally divine.
Links for this episode:
podcast 375 – The Trinity, the Deity of Christ, and the Best Craig – Part 1
podcast 374 – Book Session Identity Crisis – Part 3
podcast 373 – Book Session Identity Crisis – Part 2
podcast 372 – Book Session Identity Crisis – Part 1
Reasonable Faith Podcast: Trinitarianism vs Unitarianism Part One
Reasonable Faith Podcast: Trinitarianism vs Unitarianism Part Two
“Craig’s Contradictory Christ”
“Trinity,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
This week’s thinking music is “Hi as Hats” by Van Loon.
In this episode I first explain what I mean by “the best Craig” and why in my view we’re not getting that in some recent responses to my arguments. I then respond to some recent podcast episodes by Dr. William Lane Craig here and here, where Craig is not engaging with my arguments, instead dismissing me as a fringe kook who can be safely ignored.
I note how quickly he jumps from the Trinity to the Incarnation, and I challenge him to explain why, on biblical grounds, a doctrine of the Trinity is essential for Christianity. I also point out some mistakes and misunderstandings, as well as his failure to engage with my published critique of his Neo-Apollinarian christology and my views on the fourth gospel.
We again revisit what Craig calls “the modern relation of identity” (really: a modern understanding of identity) and I point out what is now an area of agreement about the concept of identity. Yet based on his recent remarks, Craig doesn’t understand what I think about the identity of God and the Father in the New Testament.
I refute his recent allegation that no New Testament scholar thinks that nowhere in the New Testament is Jesus taught to be fully divine; my counterexample is the famous and influential James Dunn. I then offer a few thoughts on his fallback objection that the vast majority of New Testament scholars would disagree.
Lastly, I respond to his brief argument from divine providence and the fourth gospel. Am I committed to God failing in his promised post-resurrection revelation?
Links for this episode:
podcast 374 – Book Session Identity Crisis – Part 3
podcast 373 – Book Session Identity Crisis – Part 2
podcast 372 – Book Session Identity Crisis – Part 1
Reasonable Faith Podcast: Trinitarianism vs Unitarianism Part One
Reasonable Faith Podcast: Trinitarianism vs Unitarianism Part Two
Craig, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration
Craig and van Inwagen, Do Numbers Exist?
4 views on the Trinity – William Lane Craig, Dale Tuggy, Beau Branson, William Hasker
the arguments Dr. Craig didn’t want his podcast audience to hear
UCA YouTube channel
podcast 270 – Origen’s “one God”
Does God Exist? William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens – Full Debate
Gaston, Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology?
Restitutio Podcast 528 Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology (Thomas Gaston)
podcast 176 – Photinus of Sirmium
podcast 286 – Is the Trinity Essential? – Three Views
podcast 291 – From one God to two gods to three “Gods” – John 1 and early Christian theologies
podcast 338 – What John 1 Meant
“Craig’s Contradictory Christ”
podcast 344 – Craig’s Contradictory Christ – Part 2
podcast 343 – Craig’s Contradictory Christ – Part 1
the pythagorean theorem
How much did Aristotle understand about numerical sameness (identity)?
Debating Dale Starter Pack
James Dunn
Dunn, Christology in the Making
Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus?
SEP “Trinity” 1.4 The Trinity as Incoherent
Molinism, a.k.a. Middle Knowledge
A letter from the Lord Jesus: About God and Me
This week’s thinking music is “Lan Voon” by Van Loon.
This episode is the final portion of the EPS session devoted to the forthcoming book, One God, Three Persons, Four Views, edited by Dr. Chad McIntosh. You’ll hear the entire Q&A portion of the session, plus my commentary thereupon. Topics include:
- Jesus and the “one like a son of man” in Daniel 7
- Jesus’ claim in Mark 2 and in Matthew 9 to be authorized to forgive sins
- the accusation of blasphemy lobbed at Jesus in Mark 14:61-64.
- the “worship” of Jesus in Matthew 2 and elsewhere
- how Revelation 1 describes the exalted Jesus in similar terms to the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7
- the title “Alpha and Omega” which is used in Revelation for both God and Jesus
- whether John 15:3 implies that it must have been God who died for our sins
- whether Romans 10:9 shows that in Paul’s view Jesus is Yahweh
- whether being begotten by God implies being God, and the charge in John 10 that Jesus is “making himself God”
- John 17:5 and the issue of Jesus’s pre-human existence in the New Testament
- whether John 12:41 implies that Jesus is Yahweh
- John 1 and the deity of Christ
- that the Hebrew echad can refer to non-simple, complex unities
There is also a question about and some more discussion of Dr. Craig’s controversial claim that it is an anachronism to suppose that New Testament authors could make claims involving the concept of numerical identity. I point out that any normal adult, then or now, can wonder, after twice referring, if they’ve referred to the same thing twice or rather to two things in succession. I also point out that the anti-modalist plank of trinitarian confessions, even ancient ones, employs the concept of same-thing-as when it denies that any “Person” of the Trinity is numerically the same with any of the others (i.e. that all of these are false: f = s, s = h, h = f).
For his part, Dr. Craig asks me if I accept a Socinian account of atonement, and you’ll also hear the humorous end of this panel session, as the editor Dr. McIntosh hands out clever gifts to each of the four authors.
In the final segment I critique some answers Dr. Craig has recently given on his podcast to some listener questions about the Bible and “the Trinity,” also offering my own answers.
Links for this episode:
podcast 373 – Book Session Identity Crisis – Part 2
podcast 372 – Book Session Identity Crisis – Part 1
Reasonable Faith Podcast: Questions on Morality, the Trinity, and Retirement, December 11, 2023
1 Chronicles 20:29; Philippians 2:9-11; Romans 5; Matthew 1:23; John 1:1; Mark 12:28-34; Deuteronomy 6:4; Deuteronomy 4:35; John 14:28; John 1:18; John 20:28; John 20:17; John 10:31-36; John 20:30-31; John 14:9; Acts 17:11.
Identity
How much did Aristotle understand about numerical sameness (identity)?
Craig, Atonement and the Death of Christ
fulfillment fallacy: the Bible teaches that David is God
fulfillment fallacy: the Bible on another previous life of Jesus
Jesus’s argument in John 10
podcast 235 – The Case Against Preexistence
podcast 338 – What John 1 Meant
podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”
podcast 70 – The one God and his Son according to John
https://youtu.be/GJCZervdJEk?si=ZEXG17kAqVYRiDEGpodcast 146 – Jesus as an Exemplar of Faith in the New Testament
podcast 92 – Dr. Joshua Thurow on objections to atonement theories
podcast 91 – Dr. Joshua Thurow on theories of the atonement
podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation
This week’s thinking music is “Run Hard” by Mr. Smith.
In this second part (part 1 here) you’ll hear the mutual interrogation portion of the EPS session on book One God, Three Persons, Four Views, with plenty of commentary by me and some extra relevant audio. This portion of the session contains a number of interesting exchanges. Among them:
- Hasker (via McIntosh) asks me whether my views entail that God’s spirit has failed to lead the Church into all truth (John 16:13).
- Branson asks Craig how, if most ancient people lacked the concept of numerical identity, they were able to count.
- Branson asks me how many saviors (or “saviors”) I think there are.
- Craig asks me how I could totally miss his point in the book.
- Craig asks Branson if Branson is committed to the controversial thesis of numerical sameness without identity.
- I ask Craig how he can talk about a tripersonal god while also saying that “the Trinity” is a plural referring term, not referring to any one, individual thing.
- I ask Craig how he could possibly show that Jesus “is God” is the second-highest use of the term “God,” where it doesn’t imply being a god.
- I ask Branson whether creedal orthodoxy, rightly understood, rules in or rules out people who identify the only god with the Trinity (i.e. the triune god).
Craig urges, as he did in part 1, that most ancient people either lacked a concept of numerical identity (represented in modern logics by the symbol =) or at least that they did not have a modern grasp of that concept, so that they could explain it like this. You will hear in this episode how he came to this conviction. In his view this is a simple argument by which to show that any unitarian interpretation of the New Testament (i.e. any one on which the authors hold that the unique God and the Father are one and the same), is an historical anachronism, and so needn’t be taken seriously.
I push back both in the session and in the commentary here, urging via a thought-experiment and via examination of a couple of New Testament passages (John 7:41-42 and Luke 24:13-35), that ordinary ancient people did have a concept of same-thing-as or numerical identity. I also show, using some additional conference audio, that Craig is committed to their having that concept by the view he attributes to the authors of Scripture and to the Pre-Nicene “fathers” that God is the creator of absolutely everything else.
Links for this episode:
Part 1
Reasonable Faith podcast episode: Dr. Craig’s Health Update
Tuggy, “Antiunitarian Arguments from Divine Perfection“
podcast 248 – How Trinity theories conflict with the Bible
McIntosh review of Craig, God Over All and Craig, God and Abstract Objects (website)
Craig, Cadbury Lectures: “God Over All” (2015) playlist
Papers by Peter van Inwagen
This week’s thinking music is “Cardboard Engineering” by Jesse Spillane.
In this episode you’ll hear the four opening speeches in a book session at the Evangelical Philosophical Society conference in San Antonio, Texas in November of 2023. The book is One God, Three Persons, Four Views, edited by Chad McIntosh, forthcoming probably deep into 2024. (See UCA podcast #77 for the back story about the book.)
The speakers are the co-authors William Hasker (his paper presented by Dr. McIntosh), Beau Branson, William Lane Craig, and Dale Tuggy. Each one is supposed to explain what is distinctive about his approach to the Trinity. Dr. Hasker presents the basics of his three-self theory, focusing on his claim that the “Persons” really are “centers of consciousness” (selves). Dr. Branson explains his “Monarchical Trinitarianism,” focusing on a number of linguistic distinctions, such as different meanings of “god.” Dr. Craig briefly explains what he claims is a minimal and biblical Trinity theory and what he claims is an unproblematic model of the doctrine of the Trinity amounts to. He also urges that I have failed to rebut his case that Jesus “is God” (i.e. not identical with God, but rather that he has divine-Person divinity, as opposed to god-divinity). Finally, I present my unitarian Christian view, focusing on five of my twenty facts which favor the thesis that the New Testament authors are unitarian over the thesis that those authors are trinitarian.
I provide an opinionated running commentary on the presentations . . . and a few sound effects.
Next time: interactions between the four panelists, and some extra information about Craig’s claim that the New Testament authors had no concept (or no clear grasp of the concept) of identity, which is how he hopes to refute any understanding of New Testament theology on which the one God and the Father are one and the same.
Links for this episode:
Tim Stratton and Free Thinking Ministries
Reading comprehension quiz: Johann 17:1-3
podcast 227 – Who Should Christians Worship?
podcast 28 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 2
podcast 27 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 1
podcast 78 – Mr. Chad McIntosh on the Trinity as a Functional Person
God as a functional Person
Kapusta, Scripturae Contra Trinitatem – The Epistle to the Hebrews: An Anthology of Quotations, Alternative Expositions, and Critical Commentaries on Common Trinitarian Proof-Texts
podcast 351 – Thoughts on my Dialogue with Craig on the Trinity and the Bible – Part 2
podcast 350 – Thoughts on my Dialogue with Craig on the Trinity and the Bible – Part 1
podcast 349 – Craig-Tuggy dialogue on trinitarian vs. unitarian theologies
Mahaparinibbana Sutta
podcast 246 – Response to Branson Part 4 – the shortcomings of “monarchical trinitarianism”
podcast 245 – Response to Branson Part 3 – Dueling Definitions
podcast 244 – Response to Branson Part 2 – Early Orthodox Trinitarians
podcast 243 – Response to Branson Part 1 – The Orthodox Doctrine of the Trinity
This week’s thinking music is “Into the J” by Admiral Bob.
(Image credit)In this episode Dr. Nemes and I discuss chapter 6 of his new book Trinity and Incarnation: A Post-Catholic Theology.
Clearly the Jesus of the New Testament is supposed to be special, indeed, unique, and in some sense he must be “divine.” But in what sense, exactly? And what if anything does this have to do with God’s giving Jesus his spirit?
Topics include:
- whether the full deity of Christ is an obvious New Testament teaching
- Spirit Christology
- what Dr. Nemes calls the basic argument for Christ having two natures and how this compares to analyses given in my debate book, pp. 17-24
- traditional partitive exegesis and Dr. Neme’s objections to this
- whether only God (or only a divine Person) can forgive sins
- Jesus as a “deified” human being
- the New Testament’s portrayals of Jesus as having various human limits
- A trilemma based on the question: Exactly who did God the Father empower to forgive sins and to perform miracles?
- Whether a non-divine Jesus should be called “a mere man” and how this tradition originated in the 2nd Christian century.
- The ancient Dynamic Monarchians within the Christian mainstream.
- “Kenosis” and the modern suggestion that the Incarnate Christ, even though divine, nonetheless had to do miracles though the power of God’s Spirit, rather than using his own divine powers.
- Opera trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt.
- divine simplicity and immutability
- Why John 3:13 doesn’t presuppose Jesus’ literal pre-human existence.
- The significance of Jesus’ baptism by John.
- How Philippians 2 and 2 Corinthians 8:9 are about the man Jesus
- why Paul says in Galatians 1:1 that he’s not an apostle “through man”
- Why John 17:5 doesn’t presuppose Jesus’ literal pre-human existence.
Links for this episode:
podcast 370 – Dr. Steven Nemes’s formal challenge to Trinity theories
Trinity and Incarnation: A Post-Catholic Theology
Dr. Nemes’s homepage
A letter from the Lord Jesus: About God and Me
podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”
podcast 338 – What John 1 Meant
podcast 291 – From one God to two gods to three “Gods” – John 1 and early Christian theologies
Racovian Catechism
podcast 188 – Dr. Paul W. Newman’s Spirit Christology – Part 2
podcast 187 – Dr. Paul W. Newman’s Spirit Christology – Part 1
Clarifying Catholic Christologies – by Dr. Dale Tuggy
podcast 235 – The Case Against Preexistence
a reading of Philippians 2:5-11
podcast 268 – Another look at Philippians 2 with Dr. Dustin Smith
podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!
Date & Tuggy, Is Jesus Human and Not Divine?
This week’s thinking music is “Blood (Instrumental)” by Anthem of Rain.
The thing about objecting to Trinity theories is that they are many and different, and generally speaking mutually inconsistent, so that an objection which applies to one Trinity theory will not apply to others.
But in chapter 3 of his new book Trinity and Incarnation: A Post-Catholic Theology, Dr. Steven Nemes gives a destructive tetralemma argument which applies to Trinity theories generally. This argument appeals only to the idea of ontological priority, then asking questions about the one ousia (substance, essence, nature) and the three hypostases (“Persons”): is (1) the ousia prior to the hypostases, or (2) are the hypostases prior to the ousia, or (3) are these all distinct but none is “before” or “after” any other, or (4) are the ousia and the hypostases not distinct (and so none is “before” or “after” any other)?
These are arguably all the options. But whichever way the trinitarian turns, it looks like his choice results in inconsistency with something else he’s committed to, such as divine simplicity or divine “processions.”
Dr. Nemes in effect is issuing a challenge to catholic theologians: how can you pick one of those four options and yet not contradict other theses to which you’re committed?
At the end of the episode, we discuss another argument, which is a 2-case dilemma. Does the divine nature imply or include tripersonality, or not? Either way, there would seem to serious problems for the trinitarian!
Links for this episode:
Dr. Nemes’s homepage
Trinity and Incarnation: A Post-Catholic Theology
Orthodoxy and Heresy
Theological Authority in the Church: Reconsidering Traditionalism and Hierarchy
Theology of the Manifest: Christianity without Metaphysics
Eating Christ’s Flesh: A Case for Memorialism
podcast 355 – Dr. Steven Nemes on Trinity theories – Part 2
podcast 354 – Dr. Steven Nemes on Trinity theories – Part 1
Brower and Rea, “Material Constitution and the Trinity“
Tuggy, “Constitution Trinitarianism: An Appraisal“
Tuggy, “Divine deception, identity, and Social Trinitarianism“
Tuggy, “Antiunitarian Arguments from Divine Perfection“ (on arguments that if there is one divine Person then there must be exactly three)
This week’s thinking music is “PHENIX” by Koi-Discovery.
In a thought-provoking recent episode released before this Easter, analytic theologian Dr. R.T. Mullins suggested three reasons God would have to become incarnate, building on work by Swinburne and McConnell.
The one he focuses the most on in the idea that God would be obligated to become incarnate so that he can suffer along with us, his beloved creatures.
In this episode I evaluate those three reasons using Scripture and reason. I argue that we can have the theological goods Dr. Mullins wants at a better price.
Which case did you find more convincing, and why?
Links for this episode:
Dr. Mullins’s website
The Reluctant Theologian Podcast Ep. 118. Why Did God Become Incarnate?
The Reluctant Theologian Podcast
his publications
Richard Swinburne @ trinities
Swinburne, The Resurrection of God Incarnate
Swinburne, Was Jesus God?
Francis J. McConnell, The Diviner Immanence
three–self Trinity theories
one–self Trinity theories
podcast 226 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 3 – post-biblical uses of biblical words, and new words
podcast 225 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 2 – Old “Lord” vs. New “Lord”
podcast 224 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 1 – God and “God” in the Bible
podcast 277 – Was Christ tempted in every way?
TheoLogica
podcast 344 – Craig’s Contradictory Christ – Part 2
podcast 343 – Craig’s Contradictory Christ – Part 1
“What John 1 Meant”
a reading of Philippians 2:5-11
podcast 264 – Tuggy vs. Date debate – Jesus is human and not divine – Part 2
podcast 263 – Tuggy vs. Date debate – Jesus is human and not divine – Part 1
podcast 323 – Did God die on the cross?
podcast 333 – The Arguments of “God’s Death”
podcast 146 – Jesus as an Exemplar of Faith in the New Testament
“Jesus as an exemplar of faith in the New Testament”
podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!
John 1:1-14; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Colossians 2:9; Hebrews 12:2; Revelation 5:1-14; Romans 5:1-10; Hebrews 2:17; John 3:34; Philippians 2:6-10; 1 Corinthians 15:12-58; Colossians 1:18; Revelation 1:5; Isaiah 41:8; 1 Timothy 2:5; Hebrews 4:15; Hebrews 5:1-10; Matthew 10:29; Matthew 3:17; Matthew 17:5; Romans 1:18-32; Revelation 5:9; Ephesians 3:12; John 8:40; John 1:29.
This week’s thinking music is “What’s on my Mind” by Ivan Chew.
In this episode we get into the depths of Dr. Hollingsworth’s new article “Mere Social Trinitarianism, the Eternal Relations of Origin, and Models of God.”
Topics include:
- divine timelessness
- creation ex nihilo
- the divine processions (the Father’s eternal generation of the Son and spiration of the Spirit)
- the DERO’s lack of biblical support
- why DERO entered into mainstream Christian tradition
- divine aseity
- John 1 and Philo’s views about God’s Logos
- 2nd century logos theorists
- the “Cappadocian fathers” on DERO
- Dr. Joshua Sijuwade‘s views on the processions
- some reasons why it is problematic to combine divine temporality with DERO
- Hasker vs. Mullins on processions and subordinationism
- comparing and contrasting processions with creation
- divine immutability
- divine impassibility
- divine simplicity
- God’s desire to be reconciled to his creatures
- God’s real relations to the cosmos
- divine temporality
- divine simplicity & some of its absurd implications
- how simplicity implies the other “classical theism” divine attributes
- whether a whole depends on its parts
- how God can have multiple properties and not in any undesirable way depend on them
- divine attributes which are compatible or incompatible with Social trinitarianism
- that Social trinitarianism is committed to one model of God
- so-called “classical theism” vs. neoclassical theism (a.k.a. “theistic personalism”)
- why Dr. Hollingsworth believes in a Social trinitarian theology
- Aquinas’s claim that Jesus’s divine and human natures engage in one “theandric act”
- the influence of Platonism and Origen on mainstream catholic theologies in ancient times
- the practice of employing what one considers to be the best philosophical theories in the service of theology
- why a Protestant should not say that we can’t interpret the Bible without reliance on extrabiblical Christian traditions
Links for this episode:
podcast 362 – Dr. Andrew Hollingsworth on “mere” social trinitarianism and eternal relations of origin – Part 1
Dr. Andrew Hollingsworth @ Brewton-Parker College
Dr. Hollingsworth @ Academia.edu
Dr. Thomas McCall
Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology (review)
Origen
Psalm 2:1-9; John 17:5; Exodus 3:14.
This week’s thinking music is “bluenotes” by airtone.
In this episode we’ll meet analytic theologian Dr. Andrew Hollingsworth and discuss his interesting forthcoming article “Mere Social Trinitarianism, the Eternal Relations of Origin, and Models of God” in the Journal of Analytic Theology. Topics include:
- “mere” social trinitarianism – the core claims which any “social” trinitarian is committed to
- the concept of a self
- the idea that God has multiple first-person points of view
- why “social” trinitarianism has been popular recently among Christian philosophers and analytic theologians
- whether “social” trinitarianism is found in Christian history before the 20th century
- what “classical” trinitarianism was, in contrast to “social” trinitarianism
- in what sense a “Person” of the Trinity “is God” according to “social” trinitarians
- the concept of constitution in Trinity theories and how this relates to worries about tritheism
- Chad McIntosh’s 4-self Trinity theory
- William Lane Craig’s suggestion that a “social” trinitarian should insist there are two ways to be divine – one for God the Trinity and one for the divine Persons & his cat-parts analogy
- analytic theologian Keith Yandell’s social trinitarianism and tritheism objections
- Craig’s analogy for the Trinity as a soul with three complete sets of cognitive faculties and his Cerberus analogy, and how this relates to real-life human conjoined twins
- Dr. Jc Beall’s suggestion that the Incarnation and the Trinity should be understood as involving true (real) contradictions
- the seeming incoherence of the “Athanasian” creed
- the concept of God vs. models of God
- the Doctrine of the Eternal Relations of Origin (DERO) – i.e. a traditional trinitarian doctrine of “processions”
- the nature of these posited relations of origin – that they must be timeless and causal
- whether the divine essence which the Father shares, via these origin relations, with the Son and Spirit is a universal property or a particular property
- the medieval suggestion that the “Persons” of the Trinity are “subsistent relations”
- one-self Trinity theories
In Part 2 we’ll discuss the costs of combining social trinitarianism and DERO.
Links for this episode:
Dr. Andrew Hollingsworth @ Brewton-Parker College
Dr. Hollingsworth @ Academia.edu
Wolfhart Pannenberg (1928-2014)
Umberto Eco
Charles Sanders Pierce
What is “analytic” theology?
Dr. Hollingsworth’s review of Thomas H. McCall. Analytic Christology and the Theological Interpretation of the New Testament
Tuggy, “Divine Deception and Monotheism”
three self Trinity theories
John Philoponus on the Trinity
William Sherlock on the Trinity
Scott Williams, “Discovery of the Sixth Ecumenical Council’s Trinitarian Theology: Historical, Ecclesial, and Theological Implications”
podcast 28 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 2
podcast 27 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 1
podcast 300 – Does the New Testament teach Trinity Monotheism? – with Dale Glover – Part 2
podcast 299 – Does the New Testament teach Trinity Monotheism? – with Dale Glover – Part 1
podcast 297 – Assessing Craig’s “Trinity Monotheism” – with Dale Glover – Part 2
podcast 296 – Assessing Craig’s “Trinity Monotheism” – with Dale Glover – Part 1
the seven “ecumenical” councils
Dr. Ryan Mullins on “the Trinity”
Trinity as Incoherent
podcast 325 – Dr. Jc Beall – The Contradictory Christ – Part 2
podcast 324 – Dr. Jc Beall – The Contradictory Christ – Part 1
podcast 4 – Anglicans vs. “Athanasius”
podcast 2 – the “Athanasian Creed”
The Orthodox Formulas 2: The Council of Constantinople (381)
one-self Trinity theories
This week’s thinking music is “roboduck” by airtone.
In this episode I interact with a video by Lutheran Pastor Joshua Sullivan at Holy Cross Lutheran Church in Kerrville, Texas. A listener asked him for his views on “Socinianism” and this so-called “biblical unitarianism,” and why they contradict the Bible.
He replies with some descriptions and definitions, and then gives some arguments as to why these sorts of views are unbiblical.
I interact with his video, agreeing, disagreeing, and adding a lot of information – historical, theological, and sociological.
Topics include:
- “Socinians” and Socinus
- “Arians”
- “biblical unitarians”
- “unitarian Christians”
- Whether unitarian Christianity can be defined by a “rationalistic” methodological stance.
- Whether unitarian Christians think Jesus is in any sense “divine.”
- Traditional catholic views on generation and procession, and why most unitarian Christians don’t accept these – like some present-day trinitarians!
- unitarian views on atonement and salvation
- unitarian views on “the holy spirit”
- Characterizations of unitarian Christians as “deniers” of various things.
- How anti-Calvinistic today’s unitarians are
- 18th-19th British and American unitarian Christianity
- Traditional catholic appeals to “mystery” in the face of theological problems.
- So-called “classical theism”
- Various traditional catholic claims which are neither self-evident nor taught in Scripture, but which are widely assumed in trinitarian circles.
- How to prove an impossibility claim, e.g. it would be impossible for a non-divine Jesus to “fully” reveal God.
- Whether worshiping a non-divine Jesus is the sin of idolatry.
- 2 (literal) definitions of “idolatry”
- Whether Scripture teaches that it is wrong to worship anyone unless they are fully divine.
- The implications of Jesus’ exaltation to God’s right hand.
- Whether Jesus claims essential equality with the Father.
Pastor Sullivan argues that if unitarian Christian views were true then:
- the Father wouldn’t be a real father and the Son wouldn’t be a real son
- the Son wouldn’t be the brightness of God’s glory or a true image of God
- God would have changed, so would not be essentially immutable
- the Son wouldn’t be able to “fully” reveal God
- Jesus couldn’t truly say that if you’ve seen him you’ve seen the Father
- Jesus would basically be like other prophets, and not in a class of his own
- Jesus would have been unable to do any miracles.
- Jesus could not truly be called our “savior.”
- It would be wrong for us to worship Jesus
I explain why, for various reasons, these are not powerful objections to the views of unitarian Christians.
Links for this episode:
Pastor Sullivan’s video
The Racovian Catechism
An Interview With Dr. Dale Tuggy – by J. Dan Gill
Biblicalunitarian.com
podcast 357 – Seminary student takes Trinity class, becomes unitarian – Part 2
podcast 356 – Seminary student takes Trinity class, becomes unitarian – Part 1
podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation
The Tuggy-Brown debate: Dale’s opening statement
podcast 358 – Baptist Justice: Samuel Eddy on Scripture, Church Discipline, and the Trinity
Clarifying Catholic Christologies – by Dr. Dale Tuggy
podcast 235 – The Case Against Preexistence
Debate – “Is Jesus Human and not Divine?” – Dr. Dale Tuggy vs. Chris Date
podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!
The aloneness argument against classical theism
podcast 227 – Who Should Christians Worship?
podcast 167 – Lamson’s History of The Unitarian Congregationalists
Biblical Unitarian Podcast 204: An Introduction to the Theme of Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John
Biblical Unitarian Podcast 211: Jesus’ Misunderstood Father (John 8)
What John 1 meant
podcast 70 – The one God and his Son according to John
podcast 52 – John Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity, Part 1
podcast 286 – Is the Trinity Essential? – Three Views
What is essential to the gospel, according to Luke?
John 17:1-3, 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; Ephesians4:4-6: John 10: John 20:17; John 5:23; Phil 2:10-11; Act 2:22; John 14:10; John 3:34; Malachi 3:6; Revelation 5; Exodus 20:4-6; Matthew 4:10; John 8:40; John 5:15-47.
This week’s thinking music is “I dunno” by grapes.
This episode is a short interview of Dale Tuggy by Tyler Hummel for his podcast The AntiSocial Network. He asked questions which a lot of people have about unitarian Christianity, such as:
- What is unitarian Christianity?
- How does unitarian Christianity differ from the UU (Unitarian Universalism) religion?
- What is the Unitarian Christian Alliance?
- What are the core theses of any unitarian Christian theology?
- Why do some think that “unitarian Christian” is an oxymoron?
- How does unitarian Christianity relate to the Protestant Reformation?
- How far back does trinitarianism go back in the history of Christian theologies?
- What sort of people to unitarian Christians tend to be?
- Is “the doctrine of the Trinity” so popular now because it (or at least “the deity of Christ”) is taught in the Gospel according to John?
- What is “the canon within the canon” when it comes to traditional theologies?
- How can one say that Christ isn’t divine given that he’s risen from the dead, ascended to heaven, and has since appeared to or visited various people?
- Doesn’t the worship of Jesus we see in the New Testament presuppose that Jesus is God?
- Doesn’t the reaction of some of Jesus’ contemporaries show that he was claiming to be divine?
- Why is unitarian Christianity currently such a small minority view among Christians?
- Why were there a lot of unitarian Christians in early America (late 1700s – mid 1800s)?
- Why did 19th c. American Congretationalist unitarianism practically die out?
For more on the historical development of mainstream Christian views about God, his Son, and his spirit, see these two episodes with Bill Schlegel.
https://trinities.org/blog/evolution-of-the-trinity-with-bill-schlegel/For more on the historical transition for the one God as the Father to the one God as the Trinity, see this interview of me by Carlos Xavier or the linked published paper.
https://youtu.be/DwmgUjxS1yUFor more on the odd situation of “the doctrine of the Trinity” in Christianity today, check out this presentation “The Six Stages of Trinitarian Commitment.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEr7Em9wkV8For more on the Trinity and the Bible, here’s an interview by apologist and Philosopher-Theologian Dr. Randal Rauser.
https://youtu.be/esarCM1vmpsLinks for this episode:
The AntiSocial Network podcast
Higher Ground Church
Church of God General Conference
Unitarian Christian Alliance (FAQ)
podcast 281 – Introducing the Unitarian Christian Alliance
Unitarian Universalism
podcast 168 – The Death of Unitarian Congregationalism
podcast 167 – Lamson’s History of The Unitarian Congregationalists
Restitutio 439 The Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement (Eric Miller)
podcast 309 – Channing’s “Unitarian Christianity” – Part 2
podcast 308 – Channing’s “Unitarian Christianity” – Part 1
What is the Trinity?
What John 1 Meant
podcast 76 – Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho – Part 3
podcast 75 – Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho – Part 2
podcast 74 – Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho – Part 1
podcast 11 – Tertullian the unitarian
podcast 270 – Origen’s “one God”
Clarifying Catholic Christologies
podcast 335 – Pastor Jeff Deuble’s Christ Before Creeds
podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”
A letter from the Lord Jesus: About God and Me
podcast 248 – How Trinity theories conflict with the Bible
How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament
podcast 70 – The one God and his Son according to John
Jesus’s argument in John 10
The Biblical Unitarian Podcast 204: An Introduction to the Theme of Misunderstanding in the Gospel of John
podcast 235 – The Case Against Preexistence
Worship and Revelation 4-5
podcast 227 – Who Should Christians Worship?
Bock and Loke on Jesus’s “blasphemy” in Mark 14 – Part 1
podcast 260 – How to Argue that the Bible is Trinitarian
podcast 226 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 3 – post-biblical uses of biblical words, and new words
podcast 225 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 2 – Old “Lord” vs. New “Lord”
podcast 224 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 1 – God and “God” in the Bible
podcast 164 – On Counting Gods
This week’s thinking music is “Into the J” by Admiral Bob.
This episode is a slightly updated version of my opening address to the second annual Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference in October 2022.
In it, I describe the Reformation context of today’s unitarian Christian movement. Increasingly, Christians are trading in traditional confusions for New Testament clarity when it comes to the one God and his Son.
After briefly outlining a unitarian Christian theology and christology using the words of Scripture, I discuss what typically happens when trinitarians thus reform their thinking. Generally, they are in the market for a new church. I then explain how the UCA helps to network believers and fellowships using its website.
I then briefly describe our 2022 Conference Partners: Church of God General Conference, Spirit and Truth, Living Hope International Ministries, Allegiance to the King, Williamsburg Christadelphian Foundation, Lord’s Harvest International, Compass Christian Church, Integrity Syndicate, TruthBorn, Christian Centered Counseling, Yahweh-TV, and the trinities podcast.
Then I highlight the awesome efforts of two UCA Board members: these videos (and the one below) and the UCA Podcast.
Finally, I mention some things which are coming up for the UCA and for me in 2023.
https://youtu.be/vLqhxwV7Z8cLinks for this episode:
Here’s a printable pdf of this talk “Where We Stand: 2022.”
a survey of competing Trinity theories
podcast 302 – The Stages of Trinitarian Commitment
podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation
podcast 248 – How Trinity theories conflict with the Bible
A letter from the Lord Jesus: About God and Me
What John 1 Meant
The official UCA Twitter account
Theophilus Press
Living Hope International Ministries
Church of God General Conference
Spirit and Truth
Allegiance to the King
Williamsburg Christadelphian Foundation
Lord’s Harvest International
Compass Christian Church
Integrity Syndicate
TruthBorn
Christian Centered Counseling
Yahweh TV
Higher Ground Church
Thomas Emlyn, An Humble Inquiry into the Scripture-Account of Jesus Christ
Thomas Gaston, Dynamic Monarchianism: The Earliest Christology?
Dale Tuggy, Monotheism, History, and Heresy
podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!
Judges 12; John 15:15; Mark 12:30; Matthew 6:9; John 17:1-3; John 8:40; Acts 2:22; John 20:17; Revelation 3:12; Ephesians 1:17; Colossians 1:15; John 14:9; 1 Timothy 2:5; seen the f; 1 Timothy 2:5.
This week’s thinking music is “High Above the Darkness (My Star)” by Admiral Bob.
Samuel Eddy (1768-1839) was at the height of his career Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the state of Rhode Island. He was also a prominent member of the First Baptist Church in Providence. Like others, he’d just assumed that the doctrine of the Trinity is both true and taught in the Bible. Yes, he’d heard talk of unitarians, but those aren’t Christians, right? So he never bothered to hear their side of the argument. He tells us that what finally caused him to investigate these matters were faulty arguments he encountered on the trinitarian side for the underived power and full deity of Christ.
Not having read any unitarian literature, he decided, like a good Protestant, that the answer to these debates must be in Scripture, so he went through the whole New Testament and wrote out every text that was relevant to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. He tells us that the “result was a full conviction that the Father was the only true God, and that Christ was not the Father, that is, that being whom Christ asserts to be the only true God.”
In this episode you’ll hear a statement Eddy presented to the leadership committee of his church when they demanded an account of his theology, which later became a widely-read and often-reprinted tract called: Reasons Offered by Samuel Eddy, LL. D., Late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, for His Opinions to the First Baptist Church in Providence, from which He was Compelled to Withdraw for Heterodoxy.
On both theology and procedure, he confronts his Baptist brethren for choosing post-biblical traditions over clear biblical teachings. Eddy makes what are at first glance some radical claims about what the New Testament teaches. Are you persuaded? Why or why not?
Links for this episode:
The text presented here is my modernized version of the 1855 reprint of Reasons Offered in this interesting book.
The First Baptist Church in America
First Unitarian Church of Providence
Samuel Eddy @ wikipedia
Samuel Eddy’s tombstone in Providence
podcast 357 – Seminary student takes Trinity class, becomes unitarian – Part 2
podcast 356 – Seminary student takes Trinity class, becomes unitarian – Part 1
podcast 191 – Ware’s Outline of the Testimony of Scripture Against the Trinity
podcast 309 – Channing’s “Unitarian Christianity” – Part 2
podcast 308 – Channing’s “Unitarian Christianity” – Part 1
podcast 201 – Kermit Zarley on Reformation – Part 2
podcast 200 – Kermit Zarley on Reformation – Part 1
podcast 349 – Craig-Tuggy dialogue on trinitarian vs. unitarian theologies
podcast 168 – The Death of Unitarian Congregationalism
podcast 167 – Lamson’s History of The Unitarian Congregationalists
Luke 4:16; 1 Peter 2:21; John 16:2; Acts 18:21, 24; Acts 11:3; Acts 1:5, 12, 21, 27; 1 Corinthians 15:12, 34; 1 Corinthians 1:2, 6, 11, 15, 34; Acts 8:37; Romans 10:9, 14; Romans 4:17-18; Philippians 3:15-16; Romans 15:7; 1 Corinthians 7:19; Ephesians 5:20; Colossians 3:16-17; Hebrews 13:15; John 18:37; 2 Timothy 1:10; John 17:3; Acts 19:2; Matthew 3:11; Acts 24:14, 18, 13; John 17:3; 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10; Luke 10:21, 23, 46; John 20:17; Matthew 27:4; Mark 9:36; Mark 12:29, 32; John 5:18-19, 30; John 10:30, 36; Mark 12:32; Mark 10:18; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Ephesians 4:5-6; Ephesians 1:17; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 3:23; Romans 6:10; 2 Corinthians 13:4; John 6:57; 1 Corinthians 15:28; 1 Timothy 6:15-16; Jude 4; Acts 4:24, 26-27; Acts 17:24, 29; Luke 10:21; Mark 13:19; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 44:12; 1 John 5:20; Hebrews 1:2, 4 ,6 ,9; Hebrews 2:9, 17; Colossians 1:15, 19; John 1:18; John 4:10; Matthew 16:16; Revelation 3:4; Acts 2:36; Acts 5:31; Acts 17:31; Ephesians 1:22; Philippians 2:9; Jude 4; 1 Timothy 6:15-16; 1 John 2:22-23; Matthew 9:8; John 20:23; Exodus 23:20-21; Luke 5:17; Luke 2:40; Acts 2:22; Acts 10:38; Matthew 12:28; Luke 21:20; John 14:10; Matthew 6:6, 9; John 16:23; John 4:22, 24.
This week’s thinking music is “Bluenotation” by Ezra Skull.
You say you've looked into the biblical credentials of "the doctrine of the Trinity." But have you actually read anything by unitarian Christians?
Some critical thinking about Craig's Trinity theories: his Trinity monotheism and his minimal tripersonal monotheism.
At his resurrection and ascension, was Jesus promoted from humanity to divinity? Well, what are humanity and divinity?
Evaluating Dr. Craig's unique take on "two natures" christology, his "Neo-Apollinarian" theory.
Does Dr. Craig's "Neo-Apollinarian" theory about Christ show how one person can be both divine and human?
In the New Testament, is the Father God himself, or does the Father rather represent the one God?
In saying "my Lord and my God" does Thomas confess that Jesus is truly divine?
Opening statements and rebuttals.
The original meaning of John 1, disentangled from later speculations about Trinity and two natures christology.
Could each divine "Person" of the Trinity be either an attribute of God or God together with an attribute?
Is there a Trinity theory which is both orthodox and coherent? One apologist's suggestions, with commentary.
"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials liberty; in all things, love." So far, so good. But, what does Scripture say is essential teaching about Christ and about God?
What would we expect to find in the New Testament writings if the authors thought Jesus was a man, a god, or a godman?
A humorous puppet-show about a serious subject: properly understanding what the New Testament teaches about Jesus and God.
Is E.J. Lowe's four-category ontology the key to solving the multiple-natures and multiple-modes problems?
Does a doctrine of divine processions entail that the Son is less divine than the Father?
Is the idea of essence the key to understanding Bauckham's christology of divine identity?
Many are moving from a trinitarian understanding to a unitarian understanding of Christian theology. But not all of their reasons are good reasons...
Can we establish on historical grounds that the historical Jesus thought that he was God?
Dr. Mike Licona argues that the real, historical man Jesus considered himself to be God.
In this episode Dr. Beall explains why he doesn't accept five consistency-preserving ways to understand the divinity and humanity of Christ.
If God is essentially immortal, the answer must be: No. But the human Jesus of the Bible was then mortal.
Can one prove that the biblical Jesus is Yahweh based on his being savior or creator, or his being worshiped?
"...the doctrine of the Trinity is not in Scripture per se, but is the result of the Church's interpretation of Scripture."
"For all its complexity, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity can be stated in seven simple propositions."
Does unitarian Christianity "deny the Divinity of Christ," preach "morality," and teach salvation by works?
Does the Gospel According to Mark contain as hidden messages the deity of Christ and the Trinity?
What sort of book is the gospel according to Mark, and what does it really claim about Jesus?
A Wesleyan ministry tells new Christians about "The Absolute Basics of the Christian Faith."
I have gone through all six. Which stage are you at, and what is keeping you from moving to the next?
Is God's spirit in the New Testament supposed to be a self in addition to God and his Son?
Does it make sense to say that God is a soul with three cognitive and volitional faculties - but is nonetheless not a self?
A conversation with the author of the Paideia John commentary on Jesus and God in the fourth gospel.
Is this "beginning" when the cosmos was created by God, or when it was "newly created" through the man Jesus?
If Jesus is referred to using the word "theos" (God) in the New Testament, does this imply that he is fully divine?
Does the famous "Great Commission" passage at the end of Matthew teach that the one God is a Trinity?
Part 1 of a dialogue from December 2019, including opening brief opening statements and a discussion of John 1.
Why did Roman rulers and polemicists find early Christianity so alarming, rather than just another religion?
Dr. Hurtado explains the term "early high christology" and what it means when applied to his own work.
The key to understanding the innovative New Testament usage of "Lord" is the much cited Psalm 110:1.
Do Genesis 48, 1 Samuel 3, and Jeremiah 1 refute biblical unitarian views on God and Jesus?
Origen sez: you must say that Father and Son are "one God." But does he think they are?
Why he dismissed biblical unitarian theology and why he decided to give it another look.
Andrew Davis on the church fathers, the Bible, and finding his way through clashing theologies.
Arguing about what is essential to a trinitarian theology, and about a seemingly incoherent Trinity theory.
Most Orthodox theologians agree with Catholics and most Protestants that the one God is the Trinity.
"What bothers me most is the rhetorical move you're making with this claim that everyone before Nicea (or so) was a 'Unitarian.'"
Some friendly disagreements about the prodigal son, women in Luke, and the deity of Christ in Luke.
Some reasons why we should think that the New Testament writers don't believe that Jesus literally existed before his time in the womb.
When a NT author claims that Jesus fulfills an OT text which is about God, is that his way of saying that Jesus is God?
Is Jesus referred to as "God" in the Bible, and if so, does this mean that Jesus is the one God himself?
Can these obvious truths pop the bubbles of various theological and christological speculations?
Does Calvinism make God the "author of evil"? Dr. Bignon argues that this charge will not stick.
Have either of two philosophically astute bloggers refuted the Challenge to "Jesus is God" Apologists?
Is saying that the NT "includes Jesus in the divine identity" clearer than saying in the NT "Jesus is God"?
If only trinitarian scholars majored in consistent, intelligible, fully informed answers!
Responding to YouTube videos by Dr. James White, Mrs. Qureshi, and "The Friendly Banjo Atheist."
"Of myself, I can do nothing." Is this claim about Jesus's self/person, or only about his "human nature"?
Did Christ die in order to display God's love for us, rather than his wrath towards us?
Which does the Bible teach, that the one God just is the Father, or that the one God is Father, Son, and Spirit?
What, according to Dr. Sanders, is the crisis in contemporary trinitarian systematic theology, when it comes to the Bible?
Do the NT authors assume that God is the Trinity, or the Father... or are they confused?
"Then Jesus, filled with the power of the Spirit, returned to Galilee... He began to teach in their synagogues and was praised by everyone."
In the reign of Constantius II yet another council offered language to replace Nicea...
In 344 a meeting of Eastern bishops sent a statement to the West explaining their theology.
What should we think of Athanasius's ferocious condemnations of those he termed "Arians"?
In this episode we hear the rest (chapters 4-7) of On the Nicene Council (aka Defence of the Nicene Definition, De Decretis) by Athanasius of Alexandria.
With this episode we continue our series on the 4th-century creed-producing councils of catholic bishops.
In this episode we hear a voice from 1852 describing a lost species of American Christianity:
All Christians have always believed that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, right?
The terms "atheism," "monotheism," and "polytheism" seem straightforward enough... BUT important ambiguity lurks in the root term "theism."
We find miracle-reports in many religions. Does this undermine Christian appeals to miracle-reports?
"... and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us."
A tightly knit religious group can ignore outsiders' criticisms indefinitely. But when insiders...
In this second part of my conversation with Dr. Larry Hurtado about his book Destroyer of the gods: Early Christian Distinctiveness in the Roman World, we discuss the distinctive "bookishness" of early Christianity
Pastor J. Dan Gill was a third-generation Oneness (aka "Jesus only") Pentecostal, but he started to notice a disconnect between their ways of talking about Jesus and what we read in the Bible.
In this talk from the 2016 Theological Conference, Pastor Sean Finnegan discusses the biblical data about why Jesus died, and lays out seven options for understanding Jesus's unique atonement.
Should we defend what we think are biblical, yet unintelligible or seemingly incoherent claims as "mysteries"?
This time, Dr. Smith's thoughts on the debate. He argued for the minority view that the New Testament doesn't teach Jesus's literal pre-human existence.
Has "Science" shown that all causes are natural? Philosopher of science Dr. Jeffrey Koperski doesn't think so.
Is “Science” at war with “Religion”? Philosopher of science Dr. Jeffrey Koperski says that this is myth and not reality.
Trinitarian theology is not served by sophistry, cheerleading, or ignoring relevant work. In this episode, I discuss five more apologetics face-plants about the Trinity.
Apologetics is hard, because it's hard be an expert on more than a few subjects. There's a strong pressure to just recycle bad arguments and wrongheaded claims propounded by other apologists.
Does chapter one of the earliest gospel (Mark) portray Jesus as the God of Israel, as Yahweh himself? This is part of what Dr. Michael Bird argues in this second half of the debate.
In this episode I review the first portion of a recent debate/discussion between Dr. Bart Ehrman and Dr. Michael Bird, held at the at the 2016 Greer-Heard Point Counter Point Forum in February 12-13, 2016 at the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.
"I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
According to recent research, about 3 in 10 Americans are evangelical Christians. But what exactly is an evangelical?
In this episode I respond to the interesting article “What about This View? How to Defend an Anti-Trinitarian Theology,” by evangelical apologist Dr. Robert M. Bowman Jr.
What if the official god of your theology isn’t the one who actually gets his way in your life?
I say that we should distinguish between four questions which have arisen in this “same god” controversy.
In this second part of my discussion with Dr. William Vallicella, I give an argument that when Muslims use the word "Allah" they are referring to the same being Christians refer to when they say "God," namely, the god of Abraham.
In this episode I’m joined by Dr. William Vallicella, aka “The Maverick Philosopher” to discuss the recent controversy
In this last of three interviews with the authors of The Son of God: Three Views of the Identity of Jesus, we talk with Dr. Dustin Smith of Atlanta Bible College.
Many Christians in the 2nd to the 4th centuries, and many since, have read the famous opening of the gospel according to John like this: In the beginning [i.e. at the Genesis creation, but not necessarily before] was the Word [i.e. the pre-human Jesus], and the Word was with God [i.e. the Father], and the Word was divine.
Dr. Lee Irons on his contribution to the new book The Son: Three Views of the Identity of Jesus, interview by Dr. Dale Tuggy for episode 117 of the trinities podcast.
The eastern emperor and the western emperor agreed: there needed to be a new ecumenical council to somehow solve the theological disagreements festering from the controversy over Arius in 324-5.
This "Fourth Creed" was offered as a non-controversial, "big tent," ecumenical summary of faith. And surprisingly, given its initial reception, its language ended up being re-used several times after, as catholics struggled to replace the language of Nicea with something more widely acceptable.
What happened after the famous council at Nicea in 325? Was there rejoicing and peace, now that the "Arian" controversy had been definitively settled? Sadly, no.
In this second philosophical conversation with Dr. Joseph Jedwab we discuss some of his reasons for thinking that God is strictly aspatial but loosely spatial and present at all places.
Theologians say that God is everywhere, which is to say omnipresent or ubiquitous. But why do that say this, and what does the claim mean?
What does it mean to say that God is triune? Is this to say that the one God is a loving community of three divine selves? Or is there but one self common to the Trinity?
Dr. Keith Ward is a prolific and influential theologian, philosopher, and scholar of religions. He’s also an Anglican priest. In this first of two interviews on his 2015 book Christ and the Cosmos: A Reformulation of Trinitarian Doctrine, we discuss his christology, how to understand what is unique about the man Jesus.
In this episode Dr. Bowman and I continue our discussion from last week, about some of the New Testament passages he discusses in his “Triadic New Testament Passages and the Doctrine of the Trinity.”
At the end of the gospel according to Matthew, Jesus is portrayed as saying, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..."
Does the Bible say in the fourteenth Psalm that atheists are fools? And what about Paul's critiques of the Gentiles in Romans and Ephesians - do these teach that atheism is caused, in all cases, by willful rejection of God, preferring sin to acknowledging him?
In his 2010 book The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief, Dr. James Spiegel, professor of Philosophy and Religion at Taylor University, argues that unbelief results more from the will than from the mind. Drawing on the Bible, Plantingian epistemology, and contemporary psychology, in this book he builds a theory of the source of atheistic belief.
In this final part of our discussion Dr. Rauser and I continue to discuss his interesting new book: Is the Atheist My Neighbor? Rethinking Christian Attitudes toward Atheism.
"Fools say in their hearts, "There is no God."" (Psalm 14:1) This says that all atheists are fools, right? Pastor John Hagee says that "Atheism is bankrupt and empty. It's brain dead!" Others have said that all atheists because they hate God and want to sin with impunity. Is this what the Bible teaches? Is this true?
If we accept that God is the greatest being there could possibly be, this will guide our theorizing about God. As Dr. Leftow explains, the method can be uncertain and hazardous. Still, it seems an indispensable tool in Christian thinking about God.
Since 2002, Dr. Brian Leftow has been the Nolloth Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion at Oriel College, Oxford University. He taught for many years at Fordham University in New York City before moving to Oxford. Dr. Leftow has written over 90 professional articles and book chapters on metaphysics, medieval philosophy, and philosophical theology.
According to Dr. Michael S. Heiser, we see "two Yahweh figures" in the Old Testament: Yahweh and the "angel of the Lord". He holds that the Jewish idea of "two powers in heaven" arose from reading these texts, which sort of set the stage for the more radical idea of God becoming incarnate, becoming a man, which he sees in the New Testament.
In this recent book, Dr. Winfried Corduan re-opens the case for “original monotheism,” the view that the forms of human religion which are probably the oldest, are mostly monotheistic, which is what one would expect if the earliest human religions were all or mostly monotheistic.
Dr. Winfried Corduan is emeritus Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Taylor University, and has been a blogger since before it was cool. His scholarship is thorough, multi-disciplinary, insightful, and informed by his own travel and conversations. He's well known among students of apologetics for his informed engagement with members of other religions.
Trinitarian theologies are a major barrier to Muslims accepting Christianity. In this episode we hear how Mr. Qureshi changed his view that the Trinity is a patently ridiculous doctrine.
In the first portion of this episode Dr. Thurow offers objections to subjective theories, and to penal substitution, ransom, and christus victor theories of atonement. Dr. Thurow then sketches his own, original approach to understanding atonement, which focuses on the collective sin of the human race.
"Jesus died for our sins. Jesus provided atonement, to reconcile God and humans. Jesus paid a debt we could never pay ourselves. Jesus was willingly a sacrifice for our sins." How should a thinking Christian understand these claims? In this episode I discuss atonement with Dr. Joshua Thurow.
When a human suffers, we can think of how at least some suffering may be good for him or her. Perhaps suffering is the best way to develop virtues like perseverance and compassion. But what about animals?
In this episode Dr. Trent Dougherty of Baylor University tells us about his spiritual journey from secular, to evangelical, to Roman Catholic. Then we then discuss his general approach to what philosophers call "the problem of evil." If God is perfect, and perfectly good, then why do so many terrible things happen?
In this second conversation, Mr. Kermit Zarley and I discuss a number of themes from his book The Restitution of Jesus Christ, including the evangelical tradition of saying that "Jesus is God" or "Jesus is divine," the biblical phrases "Son of God" and "the Son of God," the texts commonly read as teaching that Jesus existed before his conception in Mary.
Mr. Kermit Zarley is a retired professional golfer and Christian author, having written books on christology and eschatology. In this episode he describes being born again as a teen, his evangelical identity, and his discovery that in the New Testament, Jesus and God are two, namely the human Son of God (Jesus) and the one true God, Yahweh (aka the Father).
What is heresy? Sometimes "heresy" is the name of a sin. More often, it is supposed to be a certain sort of belief, claim, or teaching. In this talk, I outline four different Christian approaches to thinking about heretics and heresy - to dropping such "H-Bombs."
Dr. William Vallicella, aka the Maverick Philosopher, believes that existence exists. In this semi-autobiographical episode, we continue our discussion from last week, this time focusing on Dr. Vallicella's views on existence, naturalism, and God. We also touch briefly on monism and Advaita Vedanta Hinduism.
Dr. William Vallicella discusses his relation to the Roman Catholic faith of his youth, his idea of what philosophy is all about, the concept of God, the utility of meditation, blogging, and his views on faith and reason.
Can a Calvinist consistently believe that humans have what philosophers call "libertarian" freedom? In his Deviant Calvinism, Dr. Crisp suggests that a Calvinist can, although he doesn't himself believe in libertarian freedom. And what about universalism?
In his 2014 book Deviant Calvinism, Dr. Oliver Crisp explores the boundaries of Reformed theology by way of various historical theologians.
I explain my view that arguments from truth are a greater threat to human freedom than are arguments from foreknowledge, and I argue against the all-false view about statements about future events that (as of now) may or may not occur.
If all and only people whom God eternally and unconditionally chooses are saved, then why aren’t all people saved? In this episode I interact with Dr. John Piper’s answer, which focuses on Romans 9:22-23
The Social Trinity may be more social than you thought. In this episode I talk with trinities contributor Mr. Chad McIntosh about his new twist on a "social" Trinity theory - that not only are there three divine persons or selves, but in another but related sense, the Trinity is a person, what he calls a functional person.
In this episode we meet new trinities contributor Mr. Chad McIntosh, a PhD student in Philosophy at Cornell University. We discuss his interest in the Trinity, the Trinity as a "holy mystery," the concept person, why thinking about this issue is important, William Lane Craig's Cerberus analogy, and whether the Trinity is found in the Bible or only in later tradition
How does Justin argue from Genesis that even when the world was created, there were two Lords?
When it came to christology, what did Justin Martyr consider essential, as in, you're not a Christian unless you believe it? The answers may surprise you. In this episode we explore the christology of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho.
Has anyone ever seen God himself? The Bible seems to both affirm and deny this. In Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho, Justin claims that the "God" seen in any Old Testament theophany was not the one God, the Creator (i.e. the Father)...
Do our earliest surviving post-New-Testament writings interpret Proverbs 8 as being about the pre-human Jesus?
"The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago." Is this famous passage in Proverbs 8 about the pre-human Jesus?
In this episode we hear Mr. James Lee (PhD student in Philosophy at Syracuse University) present his paper "His Ways (of Being) Are Not Our Ways" at the Society of Christian Philosophers meeting on November 8, 2014 at Niagara University.
Is it a sin to celebrate Christmas, because Christmas is pagan in origin? In this episode I discuss this disputed question, and what I believe the apostle Paul would have to say about this ongoing dispute between Christians.
“Before Abraham, I am.” What did Jesus, or the author of the fourth gospel, mean here? In this episode we hear how some ancient authors interpreted John 8:58, including the famous North African bishop Augustine of Hippo.
John Duns Scotus (d. 1308), nicknamed by tradition "the Subtle Doctor," was one of the most important medieval Christian philosophers, and was notorious for the difficulty of his thought. In this episode, we hear a specialist in medieval philosophy give a conference presentation on Scotus's views on identity (sameness) and distinction (difference).
Nowadays most philosophers and logicians recognize qualitative sameness (aka similarity), which comes in degrees, and numerical sameness (aka numerical or absolute identity), which doesn't come in degrees, and which is a symmetrical, transitive, and reflexive relation. This latter, numerical identity, is a relation which a thing can only bear to itself.
If these are all we have to work with, then we get apparent contradictions from trinitarian claims. For instance, consider this triad of claims:
The Father is God. The Son is God. The Father is not the same as the Son.
If the Father is numerically identical to God (1), and so is the Son (2), then it follows (because the relation is symmetrical and transitive), that the Father and Son are numerically identical. (So, 3 is false) The above three claims, so understood, are an inconsistent triad - if any two are true, the remaining claim is false. But arguably, the "Athanasian Creed" requires them all.
That is, interpreting the above triad in terms of numerical identity, there would be this valid argument:
f = g s = g g = s (from 2, symmetricality) f= s (from 1 and 3, by transitivity)
But 4 is a disastrous conclusion. We know that a thing can't, at the same time and in the same way, differ from itself. But according to the New Testament, the Father and Son have differed. To put it differently, numerical sameness forces indiscernibility. If any A just is some B, then A and B can't differ in the smallest way. But the Father and Son do differ, and so they must be non-identical, which is to say, numerically distinct. What does it mean to say, then, that each of them "is God." Perhaps the statements simply mean that each is divine, that each has the divine attributes or a divine nature. Father and Son would then be not numerically identical, but rather similar - that is, like one another, in respect of being divine. But then we have two beings, each of which is divine; this would appear to be two gods. What now?
One response is to make additional distinctions, to argue that our concepts of numerical and qualitative sameness are not enough. This is the course pursued by John Duns Scotus. He holds that we must consider sameness and difference both in the mind, and as it were "on the side of things" in the world, and then he goes on to make further distinctions, which he thinks are relevant not only to theology, but also to more general metaphysics.
Our presenter is Dr. Joshua Blander, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at The King's College in New York City. His paper is called "Being the Same without Being the Same: Duns Scotus on Identity and Distinction." Here is his handout from the presentation, which will help you to follow along.
You can also listen to this episode on stitcher or itunes (please subscribe and rate us in either or both). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
Links for this episode:
Dr. Joshua Blander John Duns Scotus
at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy at the Franciscan Archive
previous trinities posts
on identity on the indiscernibility of identicals (and another) on the minority view in present-day philosophy that there can be numerical sameness without identity
pro con
episodes on "Before Abraham was, I am." (John 8:58): episode 62, episode 63 The Apostolic Fathers
St. Anselm was the Roman Catholic archbishop of Canterbury, and an important medieval Christian philosopher. He defined the concept of God as "that than which no greater can be thought." Using this concept, he argues that there must actually be such a being; this is his famous "ontological" argument for God's existence. And he also deduces that this being must be eternal, and omnipotent (etc.) - otherwise, he would not be that than which no greater can be thought. Present-day philosophers call this sort of reasoning "perfect being theology."
But what is the key concept? Is it the concept of the greatest being there could possibly be? Or should we argue from the concept of an absolutely perfect being? Or should we start with the concept of a being who is truly worthy of human worship?
In this episode, Dr. Mark C. Murphy, professor at Georgetown University, discusses these deep issues. He argues that the important concept for the Anselmian is absolute perfection.
Here are Dr. Murphy's slides; it is recommended that you view this episode on youtube, as the video there syncs his slides with his talk.
You can also listen to this episode on stitcher or itunes (please rate us there). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
Links for this episode:
Dr. Murphy's home page
"Does morality depend on God?" and "Why Philosophy of Religion?" Short 2013 videos by the Center for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Notre Dame "God and Moral Law" - Dr. Murphy's 2012 Plantinga Fellow Lecture "God Beyond Justice" - Dr. Murphy's 2012 lecture at the My Ways Are Not Your Ways conference God and Moral Law: On the Theistic Explanation of Morality Philosophy of Law: The Fundamentals Natural Law in Jurisprudence and Politics An Essay on Divine Authority Natural Law and Practical Rationality (kindle) Dr. Murphy's papers at PhilPapers
the philosophy of Anselm Dale's introductory screencasts on two analyses of Anselm's ontological argument The Society of Christian Philosophers Peter van Inwagen Yujin Nagasawa Jeff Speaks John Keller trinities podcast interviews with Dr. Stephen Holmes: part 1, part 2
Does the fourth gospel teach that Jesus existed long before his conception, even before the creation of the cosmos?
Most readers think so.
But in this episode Dr. Dustin Smith argues that rightly understood, this gospel neither assumes nor teaches that Jesus "preexisted," that is, existed before he was a human. He argues that we should read the gospel according to John in light of Jewish assumptions about human beings and the Messiah, taking care to understand the author's distinctive language and his "misunderstanding motif."
We discuss a number of passages which people often read as implying Jesus's preexistence, including John 1 ("In the beginning was the Word..." and "he was before me"), John 3 ("the one who descended"), John 6 ("ascending to where he was before"), John 8 ("Before Abraham was, I am."), John 16 "I came from the Father and have come into the world"), and John 17 ("the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed...").
This discussion builds on episode 61, in which Dr. Smith explains the Jewish habit of describing important things like the Messiah, the Torah, or the Garden of Eden as having existed before creation.
You can also listen to this episode (and all others) on youtube (scroll down), stitcher, or itunes (please rate us there).
Dr. Smith's blog: Dustin Martyr Blog “The Nature of Preexistence in the Gospel of John: A Case Study of John 8:58 and 17:5? (pp. 45-61)
If a native English speaker says "you have a frog in your throat," this means that your voice doesn't sound normal, but is low, broken, "croaky." It is a mistake to think that he is saying that you literally have a frog in your throat!
What about when the author of Revelation refers to the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world and the Babylonian Talmud says that Seven things were created before the world was made... Torah, repentance, the Garden of Eden, Gehenna, the throne of glory, and house of the sanctuary, and the name of the Messiah. Are we to take this sort of talk literally or not? If it's not meant literally, what is the point of this (to us) confusing way of talking? In this episode, Dr. Dustin Smith explains the ancient Jewish habit of describing important things or people as having always existed, or at least, having already existed.
Also, be sure to check out Dr. Smith's ongoing series of blog posts on pre-existence.
You can also listen to this episode (and all others) on youtube (scroll down), stitcher, or itunes (please rate us there). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
Dustin Martyr Blog "The Nature of Preexistence in the Gospel of John: A Case Study of John 8:58 and 17:5" (pp. 45-61) Paradoxical Conquering in the Apocalypse of John Atlanta Bible College
Does the Bible ever speak of redeemed humans as "gods"?
Many Jews and Christians have thought so.
In this episode Dr. Carl Mosser takes us on a journey through this theme in the Bible, including Psalm 82, the New Testament epistles, and the book of Genesis.
You'll have listen to see why I chose a picture of Joseph in his career as the Pharaoh's right hand man.
Links for this episode:
"The Earliest Patristic Interpretations of Psalm 82, Jewish Antecedents and the Origin of Christian Deification" Dr. Mosser’s other papers at Academia.edu podcast episode 59 – Dr. Carl Mosser on salvation as deification podcast episode 49 – 2 interpretations of Philippians 2 – part 2
When a Christian is saved, is she thereby deified? This is how Eastern Orthodox theologians describe Christian salvation, and it is a common saying that this is distinctive of Eastern Christian theology, but not of Western.
In this episode, Dr. Carl Mosser (Associate Professor at Eastern University, on leave, and a Visiting Scholar at the Center for Philosophy of Religion at the University of Notre Dame) challenges this assumption, taking us on a fascinating journey through the ancient and recent history of Christian theology. He's working on two books on this topic - one historical, the other theological.
He argues that people now make this assumption in large part because of super heavyweight German scholar, Adolph von Harnack (1851-1930). But in Dr. Mosser's view, we shouldn't just take von Harnack's word for it, but we should read the historical sources for ourselves.
Next week I'll talk with Dr. Mosser about the idea of salvation as deification in the Bible.
Links for this episode:
Dr. Mosser's papers at Academia.edu
a handout by Dr. Mosser: "Biblical, Western, and (Even) Reformed: Correcting Misconceptions about Deification" The Gospel of John and Christian Theology The Mormon World The New Mormon Challenge (kindle)
Adolph von Harnack
his works at CCEL encyclopedia entry
To the contrary, it seems possible that there be just one perfect being, one self who is all-knowing, all-powerful, completely good, and so on.
In September of 2014 I was privileged to attend a conference in honor of the greatest living natural theologian. For the uninitiated, this is what "natural theology" is (also here). The initiated hold Swinburne in awe because of his writings. Richard Swinburne has produced an unparalleled string of carefully argued, in many cases ground-breaking books in philosophy of religion and in analytic theology (see the links below).
Many "big guns" of philosophy of religion came out to present at the conference, and to a person they related how Swinburne had inspired them to think deeply and carefully about various philosophical and theological issues. For my part, his The Christian God was the book that inspired and provoked me to look deeply into the issue of the Trinity. Professor Swinburne has a manly way of taking a stand on hard issues, fashion be damned. You may agree or disagree, but you will think.
The conference was called Faith and Reason: Themes from Swinburne, and it was hosted by Purdue University. On a warm September day-after-the-conference, Professor Swinburne and I sat outside on a bench on Purdue's lovely campus. In this episode, I interview Professor Swinburne about his life and work. How has he been so productive? What advice does he have for aspiring analytic theologians? How has his work influenced academic theology?
You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on YouTube (scroll down – you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
You can support the trinities podcast by ordering anything through Amazon.com after clicking through one of our links. We get a small % of your purchase, even though your price is not increased. (If you see “trinities” in you url while at Amazon, then we’ll get it.)
Next episode: an interview with Professor Swinburne on his views on the Trinity.
Links for this episode:
Professor Swinburne's home page an encyclopedia entry which partially analyzes his work Conference organizers Dr. Jeffrey Brower and Dr. Michael Bergmann, and the conference website (lecture videos coming soon) Swinburne's books on philosophy of religion and analytic theology
The Coherence of Theism (1st edition - 2nd, substantially re-written edition out shortly) The Existence of God, 2nd ed. (kindle) Faith and Reason, 2nd ed. (kindle) The Evolution of the Soul, 2nd ed. (kindle) Revelation: From Metaphor to Analogy, 2nd ed. (kindle) Responsibility and Atonement (kindle) The Christian God (kindle) Providence and the Problem of Evil (kindle) Is There a God?, 2nd ed. (kindle) Was Jesus God? (kindle) The Resurrection of God Incarnate (kindle) Mind, Brain, and Free Will (kindle)
debates
Unbelievable Radio Show / podcast debate with Dr. Bart Ehrman on "God's Problem" - evil and belief in God 2006 debate: Does God exist? vs. R. Joseph Hoffmann 2012 Amsterdam Veritas Forum debate: Is there a God? vs. Herman Philipse 2011 panel discussion: Is there a ghost in the machine?
lectures
2011 lecture at Notre Dame - What does the Old Testament mean?
2011 Cambridge on Simplicity, Complexity, Science, Dawkins and God 2014 on The Probability of the Resurrection of Jesus
2012 Biola interviews
on atonement on arguments for God's existence with Dr. Timothy O'Connor on Neuroscience and the Soul on doubt and faith on the future of philosophical theology on the defense of Christian doctrine on creedal Christianity on the "new atheists"
Closer to Truth interviews with Robert Kuhn (all of them)
arguments for atheism Is God perfect?
other interviews
2014 interview by Total Philosophy: part 1, part 2, part 3 2008 Brazil interview by Desiderio Murcho
Locke fired back twice against Edwards's criticisms of Locke's The Reasonableness of Christianity.
John Edwards (1637-1726) was an Anglican Calvinist and would-be defender of Christian orthodoxy. Seemingly at the last minute, he tacked on to his Some Thoughts Concerning the Several Causes and Occasions of Atheism (1695) a critique of Locke's Reasonableness. Guns blazing, he charged Locke (among other things) with promoting "Socinianism" (aka "Racovian" theology, i.e. the type of unitarian theology famously expounded by the Polish Brethren, aka the Minor Reformed Church of Poland in the 17th c.), with despising the epistles of the New Testament, and so promoting biblical ignorance, perhaps, speculated Edwards, in service to Roman Catholicism! After a somewhat unsatisfying reply by Locke, Edwards followed with Socinianism Unmask'd (1696), in which he objects that if Locke is right, every Muslim is automatically a Christian - which, of course, is absurd.
In this episode, we hear from Edwards's books, and I point out some shortcomings of Edwards's arguments. He can't seem to stop himself from arguing ad hominem - against the man, criticizing Locke's character - rather than sticking to the topic of dispute. And Edwards assumes that because Locke doesn't mention all the things Edwards would put into a summary of Christian belief, then Locke either denies or simply doesn't value them.
In truth, probably Locke did deny some, and consider others as speculations, while believing others as firmly as Edwards. But what's important is that Edwards is missing the point. Of course, Locke agrees that Christians must believe whatever is divinely revealed (and he's far more concerned than Edwards about Christian disputes about the contents of revelation).But Locke is not listing what Christians should believe, but rather, what one must believe (or as I suggested in episode 53, must confess) in order to join the club. This latter list should be a lot shorter than the former list, lest there be a high barrier to entry into God's kingdom; it would be unwise for God to want to save many, and then to require beliefs which only a few are capable of. This is one of Locke's main points (and he thinks God has acted exceedingly wisely), but Edwards doesn't grapple with it.
You can also listen to this episode (and all others) on youtube (scroll down), stitcher, or itunes (please rate us there). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
Next week, in episode 55, we'll hear some of Locke's A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, & etc., where Locke calls out some shortcomings of Edwards's case, and makes some important points the ethics of belief, and about disagreements between informed, sincere, humble, and biblically literate Christians. We'll also discuss some shortcomings of Locke's responses.
Links for this episode:
John Locke: The Reasonableness of Christianity as Delivered in the Scriptures. A reprint edition, which also includes reprints of two follow-up books in which Locke defends himself. Includes helpful introduction by philosopher Victor Nuovo. John Locke: Vindications of the Reasonableness of Christianity. The definitive scholarly edition of the two follow-up books, edited with extensive notes by Victor Nuovo. Extracts of numerous writings relevant to Locke’s book and the ensuing controversy. John Locke and Christianity: Contemporary Responses to The Reasonableness of Christianity, ed. Victor Nuovo. Includes partial versions of Edwards's Some Thoughts Concerning the Several Causes and Occasions of Atheism and his Socinianism Unmaks'd - quoted in this episode. podcast episode 52 – John Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity, Part 1 podcast episode 53 – John Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity, Part 2
This week I start with a long and insightful listener comment. Among other things, he asks how one's theology as unitarian or trinitarian affect one's discipleship, or how one follows Jesus as Lord. I give a short answer from my own experience here, confessing how my own confusions hindered my spiritual life.
The listener also asks: doesn't Locke require too little? In particular, mustn't a Christian also, minimally, believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, and that he is now ruling as Lord?
I argue that Locke, correctly, thinks that belief in Jesus as Messiah implies those beliefs as well, and I argue that he doesn't properly separate matters of belief (to what one must be committed in one's mind) from the issue of confession (what one must be willing to sincerely and publicly assert). Of course, to sincerely confess Jesus as Lord (or as Messiah) requires having certain beliefs, and I go through a long, and surely not exhaustive list of those here. Then we briefly compare this list to the famous "Apostles' Creed".
Finally, we hear more from Locke, including the last portion of his book, a well-crafted plea that we should believe that God must have revealed as required for salvation only beliefs which ordinary folk are capable of understanding, and so, believing.
Next week, we'll hear the very words of Locke's vehement critic, the Calvinist Anglican divine John Edwards. (1637-1716) We'll also hear a little of Locke's replies.
You can also listen to this episode on youtube.
Links for this episode:
Part 1 - podcast episode 52 My main discussion of "negative mysterianism" about the Trinity. (See also here.) A previous post on the negative mysterian approach to the Trinity. podcast episode 12, on the "Apostles's creed" my interviews with William Hasker my interviews with Stephen Holmes
Dr. Ravi Zacharias is a popular, Indian-born, evangelical apologist, the author of many books and articles, a frequent public speaker, and a veteran of Christian radio.
Recently here at the trinities blog I received a reader question about an answer Dr. Zacharias gave about the Trinity in a recent public talk. In this episode, I review and critically examine that answer, and a few other of his statements on the Trinity which can be found on youtube (links below).
In the end, I find it hard to discern just what Dr. Zacharias thinks the Trinity doctrine is.Tweet This Some of his statements seem to imply that the Trinity is a self, and others seem to imply that it is a group of three selves. I don't find persuasive his argument that if God is perfect, then he must not be a single self. On the other hand, I find myself in agreement with him when he's preaching in a biblical mode.
You can also listen to this episode on youtube.
Links for this episode:
Ravi Zacharias International Ministries (bio, youtube channel) Ravi Zacharias explains the Trinity Ravi Zacharias Q & A: The Contradiction of the Trinity and DesCartes Ravi On The Trinity (The final sermon quoted here has been removed from all online video sites at the demand of the church at which he preached.) My discussion of three-self vs. one-self Trinity theories is free here and available in print form here. Preprint of my paper "On the Possibility of a Single Perfect Self".
Dr. Laurence Brown is an opthamologist, author, and Muslim apologist. In this episode of The Deen Show ("Deen" is Arabic for "religion" or "religious practice."), he gave his "Top 10 Reasons Why The Trinity Is Invalid." Does he disprove or undermine trinitarian theology? In this episode, I interact with and evaluate his reasons.
You can also listen to this episode on youtube.
This this 50th episode of the trinities podcast? Do you like the podcast, or have suggestions? Which were the best episodes? Upload some audio feedback here, for possible inclusion in a future episode.
Links for this episode:
The Deen Show Dr. Laurence Brown's home page podcast episode 11 - Tertullian the unitarian podcast episode 30 - The Council of Nicea Who Should Christians Worship? - Is worshiping Jesus idolatry? God and his Son - the logic of the New Testament - on John 10 How Trinity Theories Conflict with the New Testament
Jesus was "in the form of God," but chose to empty himself, becoming like us. What do these famous statements by Paul mean?
In episode 48, I examined a common evangelical interpretation of this text and found it lacking.
In this episode, I compare scripture with scripture, to try to come up with a plausible, understandable, well-motivated interpretation.
Can the authors of Genesis, Isaiah, Hebrews, and Revelation, along with other texts by Paul, help us to understand what Paul is and is not asserting in the second chapter of his letter to the Philippians? Here I argue for the affirmative. Are you convinced by my case?
You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on YouTube (scroll down – you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
You can support the trinities podcast by ordering anything through Amazon.com after clicking through one of our links. We get a small % of your purchase, even though your price is not increased. (If you see “trinities” in you url while at Amazon, then we’ll get it.)
Links for this episode:
Helpful commentary on Philippians 2 from biblicalunitarian.com. An informative article by Ray Faircloth on Philippians 2, from christianmonotheism.com. Our "Paul" has a new single - and it's good!
Does Paul's letter to the Philippians, chapter 2 teach that Jesus is God himself, and that at certain point in time about 2,000 years ago, Jesus became a man, letting go of his equality with God, and thereby divesting himself of his glory, or the use of his attributes, to become a human like us, but obedient to the point of death?
In this episode we hear this interpretation, as preached by Dr. Timothy J. Keller, author and pastor of the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City, in his sermon "Imitating the Incarnation."
I lodge some objections against this interpretation, focusing on the passage's theology, and on the meaning of two crucial Greek terms.
Next week, I'll present a different understanding of what Paul means in this famous passage.
The commanding voice of Paul in this and previous episodes is Mr. Dominick Baldwin of Industry Audio. Be sure to contact him if your business or church is looking for an impressive voiceover.
You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please subscribe, rate, and review us in either or both – directions here). It is also available on YouTube (scroll down – you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.
You can support the trinities podcast by ordering anything through Amazon.com after clicking through one of our links. We get a small % of your purchase, even though your price is not increased. (If you see “trinities” in you url while at Amazon, then we’ll get it.)
In this episode we hear the audio of Dr. Padgett's talk “Informal Reason and the Idea of a Christian Philosophy” of April 25, 2014 at Claremont McKenna College, at the retirement conference in honor of Stephen T. Davis.
In this wide-ranging talk, Dr. Padgett discusses human reasoning (with special reference to science), and 20th century debates about the idea of a Christian philosophy.
You can also hear this episode on youtube.
Links for this episode:
Dr. Padgett's professional home page the problem of induction informal logic classical [formal] logic Jacques Maritain Etienne Gilson Alvin Plantinga's "Advice to Christian Philosophers" D.Z. Philips, "Advice to Philosophers Who Are Christians" The Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity Christianity and Western Thought, Vol. 3
In this episode I talk with Professor Timothy Winter (a.k.a. Shaikh Abdal-Hakim Murad), an Islamic theologian at Cambridge University. He's the author of a chapter called "The Trinity is Incoherent" in the 2013 collection edited by J.P. Moreland, Chad Meister, and Khaldoun A. Sweis, Debating Christian Theism. It was paired with a chapter by Dr. Tom Senor, a Christian philosopher from the University of Arkansas, called "The Trinity is Coherent."
These chapters are very different; Senor's is entirely philosophical and apologetic, whereas Winter's is biblical and pastoral. Senor argues: it is not contradictory. Winter argues: it's not in the Bible, it's not an idea of Jesus's, and it is a barrier to spiritual life.
Here I summarize Dr. Senor's chapter before conversing with Professor Winter about his. We talk about his Christian background, his views on the gospels, and his reaction to Dr. Senor's chapter.
You can also listen to this episode on youtube. (Or: itunes.)
Some relevant links:
Timothy Winter's personal homepage. Dixon's Nice and Hot Disputes - on some of the late 17th c. trinitarian-unitarian debates Professor Winters mentions. Christian theologian Geoffrey Lampe's God as Spirit. A 2010 article where Professor Winter discusses his conversion to Islam. The text of a 1996 talk by Professor Winter, " The Trinity: A Muslim Perspective". A video of Professor Winter in a mosque or madrasah teaching Muslims about the Trinty. A piece of an academic lecture by Professor Winter on Jesus in the Qur'an. And on Christianity.
In this less biographical episode, Sir Anthony and I discuss various Christian mistakes: obsession with Hebrew names for God and for Jesus, keeping kosher food laws and Jewish holidays, the doctrine of tithing, and even the avoidance of doctors (as if that showed a lack of faith in God).
Another mistake was discarding the simple, messianic gospel preached by Jesus, including his Jewish theology of one God, the Father. Jesus, Sir Anthony has argued, was not a trinitarian, and we, as his disciples, shouldn't be either. He suggests that the apostle's (Jesus') creed should be ours.
Another mistake: the widespread unwillingness by conservative, and especially Protestant Christians to think critically about trinitarian traditions, and specifically the 4th c. catholic consensus I discussed with Dr. Holmes in episode 42.
Finally, how could divine providence allow The Church to go so wrong, for so long, on such a central matter as the doctrine of God?
And if unitarian theology is true, then why 19th century unitarianism fail, morphing into a non-Christian movement. One reason (among many), we agree, is some early modern unitarians' wrongheaded denunciation of worship of and prayer to Jesus as "Christian idolatry."
You can also listen to this episode on youtube.
Links:
Jesus was not a Trinitarian Jesus Wars by Philip Jenkins - on the process leading up to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 On the issue of the worship of Jesus, Sir Anthony agrees with this presentation (and paper) of mine. My reprints of some early modern unitarian and trinitarian books.