Trinities

In this nicely done short piece in Christianity Today, analytic theologian Dr. Oliver Crisp discusses a "paradox" (i.e. an apparent contradiction) involving Jesus and temptation. This apparent contradiction is generated by an argument or chain of reasoning like this. (These are my formulations, but I think they roughly capture what he's thinking.)

But this contradiction (the conjunction of 5 and 6) shows that something is wrong with 1-4: they can't all be true, as they imply a falsehood (the conjunction of 5 and 6). At least one of 1-4 must be false, not true.

Another way to see the problem is by formulating an inconsistent triad. This is not an argument with premises and conclusion, but rather a list of three claims which we know can't all be true. It looks like we must deny at least one. But which?

In his insightful discussion Dr. Crisp briefly grapples with this problem, and if you listen closely you'll hear which premise of the above argument he denies, and which member of the inconsistent triad he denies.

Do you agree? Why or why not?

In this episode I go through his piece and explain why I think that on a closer look, it reveals some serious scriptural problems for theories on which Jesus has "a divine nature" and "a human nature."

Links for this episode:

In this short video, Drs. Ligon Duncan, Scott Swain, and Gavin Ortlund tell us how "the doctrine of the Trinity" is central to the good news.

Of course, asking how "the doctrine of the Trinity" is central to the good news is to assume that (1) there is one such doctrine, and (2) obviously this doctrine is central to the gospel, so that any gospel that doesn't include it is incomplete.

Unfortunately, we know that (1) is false, and (2) seems to lack any actual New Testament basis. For instance, the author Luke, in presenting gospel sermons in Acts, never mentions, implies, or assumes any doctrine of a tripersonal God. Not only is "the Trinity" not essential to the New Testament gospel, any Trinity theory conflicts with the clear New Testament teaching that the one just is the Father himself.

Oblivious to the Protestant concern held by countless laypeople today, that "the Trinity" is a later development that misfits the Bible, not an actual teaching of the Bible, these Reformed theologians offer half-baked philosophical speculations deriving from the high middle ages, to the effect that divine perfection somehow requires that God is not unipersonal, not a single self. I critique these arguments, including some slightly fuller versions put out there by Dr. Timothy Keller in other videos.

Along the way I briefly discuss how some, like Keller, project a desired, much later sort of argument on to this brief passage by Augustine, which actually concerns "eternal generation:"

Since God could not beget something better than himself (for nothing is better than God), then the one whom he did beget he had to beget as his equal. For if he had the desire and not the power, then he is weak; if he had the power and not the desire, then he is envious. From this it follows that God has begotten the Son as his equal.

Augustine, Eighty-Three Different Questions, translated by David Mosher (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1982), p. 84)

Bottom line: these Reformed theologians are not reformed enough. Perhaps they should think a bit more about how to argue that biblical theology is trinitarian theology.

Links for this episode:

In episode 292 of his Naked Bible podcast, Dr. Michael Heiser was asked about how biblical unitarian Christians understand Old Testament texts involving "the angel of the LORD" and "the word of the LORD."

He took the opportunity to dump on biblical unitarianism as rationalistic, dishonest, pitifully uninformed, self-inconsistent, not "biblical" in any meaningful sense, and simply inconsistent with the obvious meaning of several Old Testament texts, in Genesis 48, 1 Samuel 3, and Jeremiah 1.

In this episode I respond, exposing Dr. Heiser to how actual (as opposed to imagined) unitarian Christians approach scripture and theology.

Links for this episode:

In this episode I interact with "A Solution to Dale Tuggy’s Argument against Oneness Pentecostal Christology" - a blog post by Skylar McManus.

In this piece he critically interacts with the following argument of mine (from this blog post).

He suggests that a Oneness Pentecostal, who is committed to 1 and 2, might sensibly escape the unwanted conclusion here (9) by denying premise 4.

That's a bold move! But can 4 sensibly be denied?

In arguing for this McManus appeals to the key move made by analytic theologian Dr. Timothy Pawl in defense of the coherence of a two-natures doctrine about Christ. So along the way I explain some problems I have with Pawl's take on incarnation.

Links for this episode:

In this second part of our conversation about his new book, we discuss some of the "extensions" of conciliar christology that Dr. Pawl defends as coherent (contradiction-free).

These include possibilities of multiple incarnations, Jesus's real temptation, and the common medieval doctrine that "in" his human nature Jesus knows all past, present, and future events.

We also discuss a problem which Dr. Pawl encapsulates in this argument in the book (p. 96). The argument starts with five premises and derives a contraction, which shows that one or more of the premises must be false.

This looks like a tough problem for the adherent of two-natures theory, since they would seem to be committed to all of 1-5. Dr. Pawl suggests denying either 1 or 2.

We also discuss my objection that a Jesus who knew the day and hour of his future return has, if the New Testament is to be believed, deceived us.

At one point I mistakenly say the Dr. Pawl and I are in a modus ponens - modus tollens standoff. But that's not right. My modus tollens argument was:

The corresponding modus ponens argument would be:

I'm sure some Christians think this. But that's not what Dr. Pawl thinks. Rather, he would argue:

Of course, all three of these argument are valid. But only one of them can be sound! Which we should accept depends on what evidence we possess.

But the disagreement between Dr. Pawl and me is better represented as two responses to what we would agree is an inconsistent triad of claims - claims such that if any two are true, then the remaining one is false.

I deny the first. I hold the second to be a clear and non-negotiable New Testament teaching. And the third seems evident, given that being divine entails being perfect in power, knowledge, goodness, and independence. But the first isn't actually supported by the New Testament, contrary to a load of dodgy traditional arguments. Thus, we should deny the first.

Dr. Pawl would say that Church tradition requires the first two, so the third should be denied.

What say you? Which of those should be denied, and why?

Links for this episode:

Dr. Timothy Pawl has written the fullest and most carefully-argued defense of "two natures" christology as defined by the ecumenical councils. Now he's also written a book-length defense of those core claims plus some related claims which are advocated by many in the catholic traditions, including St. Thomas Aquinas.

In this first part of our conversation we discuss: what it takes to defend the coherence of traditional "conciliar" christology, reactions to his first book, what genre these books are in, my main objection to his defense, the concept of a supposit, the significance of the Definition from the Council of Chalcedon in 451, whether or not the communication of idioms applies to him and his wife (who are "one"), and whether or not I've ever thrown one of his books across the room.

Links for this episode:

Apologists, this episode is for you. Some of you hold a Trinity theory which will clearly be incoherent unless relative identity theory is true. In this episode, I explain the concept of (numerical) identity, the basic idea behind Catholic analytic philosopher Peter Geach's relative identity theory, and how all of this applies to Trinity theories. It will help you to start to consider whether or not relative identity is a price you're willing to pay.

Along the way I discuss this argument, which I think we should agree must be unsound. But the question is: Why? (Most philosophers agree that it is obviously valid.)

And in the last segment I discuss this challenging argument, which interestingly, both me and some trinitarians would say is sound (i.e. it is valid and the premises are true, so the conclusion is true too).

But what do you say about this argument? That's the point.

(In this episode I don't discuss Brower's and Rea's sort of non-Geachian relative identity theory, on which see this.)

Links for this episode:

I might have called this episode "Origen's two gods and his 'one God.'" Or even: "Origen's two deities, his one god, and his 'one God.'" In it I present the first portion of Origen's interesting Dialogue with Heraclides, from about the year 254 A.D.

The backstory, in a nutshell: somehow concerns were raised about the bishop Heraclides's doctrine; apparently he was suspected of being some sort of "monarchian" (rejector of Logos theories). A meeting was called at his church and the famous scholar Origen was brought in to publicly examine him. Someone was there taking it all down, mostly likely one of Origen's scribes. And this transcript was fairly recently discovered!

Do you think that it has always been agreed mainstream Christian doctrine that the Father and the Son are the same God? If so, this little dialogue is going to surprise you! Also, the nature of Origen's monotheism may surprise you.

Thanks to Leslie, Joshua, and Sean for their voice acting here.

Here is my modified Chadwick translation presented at the end of this episode:

Narrator: Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides and the Bishops with him concerning the Father and the Son and the Soul. After the bishops Present had raised questions concerning the faith of the bishop Heraclides, that he might confess before all the faith which he held, and after each one had said what he thought and asked questions, Heraclides said:

Heraclides: I also believe what the sacred Scriptures say: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him nothing was made.”

Accordingly, we hold the same faith that is taught in these words, and we believe that Christ took flesh, that he was born, that he went up to heaven in the flesh in which he rose again, that he is sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that from there he shall come and judge the living and the dead, being a god and a man. 

Narrator:

Origen: Since once an inquiry has begun it is proper to say something upon the subject of the inquiry, I will speak. The whole church is present and listening. It is not right that there should be any difference in knowledge between one church and another, for you are not the false church. I charge you, father Heraclides: God is the almighty, the uncreated, the supreme God who made all things. Do you hold this doctrine?

H:

O:

H:

O:

H:

O: Was he a god distinct from this god in whose form he existed?

H:

O: Is it true, then, that there was a god, the Son of God, the only begotten of God, the firstborn of all creation, and that we need have no fear of saying that in one sense there are two gods, while in another sense there is one god?

H:

O:

H:

O:

H:

O:

H:

O:

H:

O: Do we confess two gods?

H: Yes… But the power is one.

O: Since our brethren take offence at the statement that “there are two gods,” we must formulate the doctrine carefully, and show in what sense they are “two” and in what sense the two are “one god.” Also the holy Scriptures have taught that several things which are two are “one.” And not only things which are two, for they have also taught that in some instances more than two, or even a very much larger number of things, are “one.”

Our

Accordingly, there are many things which are two that are said in the Scriptures to be one. What passages of Scripture?

Adam is one person, his wife another. Adam is distinct from his wife, and his wife is distinct from her husband. Yet it is said in the story of the creation of the world that they two are one: “For the two shall be one flesh.” Therefore, sometimes two beings can become one flesh. Notice, however, that in the case of Adam and Eve it is not said that the two shall become one spirit, nor that the two shall become one soul, but that they shall become one flesh.

Again, the righteous man is distinct from Christ; but he is said by the apostle to be one with Christ: “For he that is joined to the Lord is one spirit.” Is it not true that the one is of a subordinate nature or of a low and inferior nature, while Christ's nature is divine and glorious and blessed? Are they therefore no longer two? Yes, for the man and the woman are “no longer two but one flesh,” and the righteous man and Christ are “one spirit.”

So in relation to the Father and God of the universe, our Savior and Lord is not “one flesh,” nor “one spirit,” but rather something higher than “flesh” and “spirit,” namely, “one god.” The appropriate word when human beings are joined to one another is “flesh.” The appropriate word when a righteous man is joined to Christ is “spirit.” But the word when Christ is united to the Father is not flesh, nor spirit, but more honorable than these —it’s the word “god.” That is why we understand in this sense “I and the Father are one.”

When

What then do the divine Scriptures mean when they say: “Beside me there is no other God, and there shall be none after me,” and “I am and there is no God but me”? In these utterances we are not to think that the unity applies to the God of the universe … in separation from Christ, and certainly not to Christ in separation from God. Let us rather say that the sense is the same as that of Jesus’ saying, “I and my Father are one.”

Links for this episode:

I've recently participated in a couple of face-to-face debates, one about the Trinity and the other about Incarnation. But not everyone likes debates, or thinks they are overall helpful or important. In this episode you'll hear my brief, informal talk at Converge about debating theology, with some of the Q&A that followed. I address questions including:

Links for this episode:

In Philippians 2 Paul famously holds up Jesus as an example because he traded the "form of God" for the "form of a slave." Is he here, as many readers think, describing an eternal divine Person who decides to become human and be born on the earth? Or is Paul rather praising Jesus's humility as shown in his earthly ministry?

In this episode we take a deep dive into this passage with Dr. Dustin Smith, host of The Biblical Unitarian Podcast.

I think the sort of reading explained here is on the whole better than the one I defended in podcast 49.

Passages discussed include: Philippians 2; Philippians 3:4-11; Philippians 3:15-21; Philippians 3:25-30; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 4:19; 2 Timothy 3:5; Isaiah 52:13-53:12; Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 3:6-8; Psalm 8; Romans 5:12-21; Romans 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:25-28; Matthew 28:18; Zechariah 12.

Links for this episode