Trinities

In this episode we hear the rest of Andrew Davis's journey from trinitarian to "Arian" to biblical unitarian whistleblower.

We discuss why he had dismissed biblical unitarian theology and why he decided to give it another look, what the New Testament says you must believe to be saved, how trinitarian traditions discourage thinking about Trinity theories, and how most Protestants assume some degree of Catholic traditions about the Trinity.

And at the end of the episode he offers advice to Christians who are starting to work their way into these issues.

Links for this episode:

In this episode we meet Andrew Davis, a dedicated student of the "church fathers" (early writers on Christian theology). We hear about his interesting spiritual journey, from a brush with the faith movement, to atheism, to Buddhism, to Calvinism, to a flirtation with Eastern Orthodoxy. And since his high-school years he's been diligently reading these early Christian authors and with their help rethinking his understanding of biblical theology and christology.

He observes,

I think that most modern trinitarianism is fundamentally modalistic... the conception of the Trinity for most people, I think, is that God is one person who somehow is Father, Son, and Spirit, whether that's manifesting himself as Father, Son, and Spirit, whether it's eternally existing as those three, or they're three names for the one person...

Notice that his point is about how recent trinitarians think, not about what they say. In my view he's right, and not only about ordinary Christians. He's saying that most are what I call "one-self" trinitarians, thought not necessarily of the high-falutin' philosophical sort.

He talks about "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit," his experience as a theology-exploring student at The Master's University, how his reading of patristic literature affected how he thinks about "modalism," his acceptance of the Nicene creed as a subordinationist, and his views on sola scriptura.

Links for this episode:

In this podcast I explain why I am not vulnerable to changes of "begging the question" or "assuming unitarianism" when it comes to the terms "being" and "Person" as used in Trinity theories.

In short, I let the trinitarian define his technical terms and go from there. When I'm pointing out that some Trinity theories collapse the Father and Son into one and the same being/entity/thing, I'm not using "being" in any technical trinitarian sense. Nor do I assume that a "Person" must be a thing/entity such as a self. To the contrary, some trinitarians say that a "Person" in their theory is a self, and others strongly deny it. Each theory must be met on its own ground. Of course, I do insist that in the New Testament, Father and Son are clearly two different selves.

I also award Dr. James White with the prestigious Stevie Wonder Trophy for Willful Blindness to Relevant Scholarship, and explain why Dr. White's assumption of a false yet traditional narrative blinds him to the world of competing Trinity and Incarnation theories that analytic theologians have carefully delineated and evaluated.

The ball is in his court, when it comes to responsibly responding to carefully crafted objections to his speculations.

I also revisit a portion of my debate with Chris Date, and explain why we ran into some communication problems regarding the terms "being" and "Person."

Links for this episode:

In this second half of the Tuggy - Date debate you'll hear mutual interrogations, closing statements, and audience questions posed by moderator Kegan Chandler.

Links for this episode:

In this live debate of May 31, 2019, I argue that according to the New Testament Jesus is a unique man (God's Messiah), but is not divine. My opponent, apologist and author Chris Date, argues that it teaches Jesus to be human and divine.

In this episode you'll hear our opening statements and our rebuttals. The next episode will include our mutual interrogations and our answers to questions from the audience.

Which side presented the more convincing case, and why?

Many thanks to the organizers, Kingdom of God Ministry and Missions, to the host church Pine Grove Bible Church, and to the sponsors: Restoration Fellowship, 21st Century Reformation, Restitutio, House Light Ministries, Minnesota Missionary Society, and Icthus Publications.

Links for this episode:

Were the earliest Christians trinitarian? This episode is pastor Sean Finnegan's presentation "The Trinity before Nicea" recorded at the Theological Conference in April of 2019.

Pastor Finnegan began with a Google search, which led him to this piece by evangelical apologist Matt Slick. Slick asserts that

The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea.

Do they show that? Pastor Finnegan, who has an a Masters in Theological Studies from Boston University's School of Theology, carefully works through these quotes attributed to Polycarp, Justin, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen, using Mr. Slick's own definition of "the Trinity."

My reaction after hearing this presentation? Finnegan: 6. Slick: 0. Game Finnegan. Do you agree? Why or why not?

Links for this episode:

In this episode I reply to Dr. Bowman's critique of my presentation from podcast 160, in this blog post and this one.

I concede a few points to him, but press him on some others. In particular, I press this matter of the seeming incoherence of his own Trinity theory (not of "the Trinity," i.e. any Trinity theory - please note that I have never claimed to show that).

Here below is the argument I promise to give in this episode, in response to what (based or his responses here) I think is his own Trinity theory. I suggest that he needs to wrestle seriously with this clear and destructive little argument. Here is it, in something close to the symbols used in most university logic classes in recent times (The letters f, g, and s are singular referring terms for the Father, God, and the Son, = expresses numerical identity, - means "not," the negation operator of formal logics, and I use & for the "and" operator, instead of the more common ^.) Just skip to the next paragraph for the same thing in English, if all these symbols give you a headache.

Here is the same thing in English, with a bit of explanation out to the right:

Comment: 6 is a contradiction of the form P & -P (that is, P and not-P). This shows that not all of 1-5 are true. But 3 and 4 are conclusions, properly inferred from what went before. So then one of these premises must be false: 1, 2, 5.

5 is undeniable, given that the distinctness of discernibles is self-evident, and that given NT claims (or just any Trinity theory!) there are simultaneous (or eternal) differences between the Father and the Son.

This leaves us with 1 and 2.

But 1 can't be denied by the Christian; it is repeatedly and clearly taught in the NT.

2 is all that's left; a Christian must deny 2, for it is never taught in scripture, and its falsity is clearly implied and always assumed in it. This is my way out of the argument: I deny 2. (It is a further question whether the Son is in some sense "divine.")

Does denying 2 mean one can't be a trinitarian? Interestingly, no! It just means that you must leave the ranks of confused "Jesus is God" apologists, since now you know that Jesus and God should not be confused for one another!

It seems to me that if you work carefully through this argument, and somehow convince yourself that the Father and the Son are each numerically one with God, but not with each other, then you show yourself to be someone who thinks he is not subject to NT teaching and/or someone who thinks he is not subject to reason. You're throwing out at least one of two crucial sources of truth: clear scriptural teaching, or common sense. Don't do it!

If you are a trinitarian apologist, what is your response to the argument above?

Thanks to Dr. Bowman for this thoughtful exchange of views. Whenever he is able, I would ask him to respond to the argument above, saying which premise he denies and why.

Links for this episode:

Many apologists offer simple deductive arguments purporting to show that the Bible rather obviously implies a creedal Trinity doctrine.Are those arguments sound?

This episode is my presentation on April 13, 2019 at the 28th Theological Conference. Because the talk is easier to follow with my slides, I recommend the YouTube version below.

First, I show that this influential argument by Reformed theologian B.B. Warfield is invalid (that is, the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises).

Unfortunately, this argument is unthinkingly recycled by countless later trinitarian apologists! Next, I show why this argument from trinitarian apologist Dr. Robert M. Bowman Jr. is valid but unsound.

Finally, despite these failures I explain how, in principle, a trinitarian apologist might actually show that the Bible is trinitarian. It involves far more work than is usually assumed. To help, I lay out six points which should be acknowledged.

Links for this episode:

What is it to be the creator of the cosmos? And do a few New Testament passages really teach that Jesus created the cosmos (before he was a man)?

Most interpreters now think so. John 1, 1 Corinthians 8, Hebrews 1, and Colossians 1 are the most often cited, and some hold that the plural pronouns in Genesis 1 also demand, or at least suggest, that the pre-human Jesus was involved in the creation of the universe. In ancient times, many would add that Proverbs 8 also portrays the Son's involvement in creation.

In this episode, I argue that each of these passages, read in the context of the New and Old Testaments, as discussed in Part 1, should not be read as attributing the Genesis creation to Jesus. They are either not about Jesus, or they are not about the Genesis creation.

In sum, when it comes to this inconsistent triad of claims, I argue that a Christian ought to deny 2, while affirming 1 and 3.

The NT doctrine of creation is the same as the OT doctrine: creation is ascribed to God (aka the Father) alone.

The YouTube version below is recommended:

Links for this episode:

Many texts in the Bible clearly assert that there is one creator of the cosmos, God himself. It also consistently distinguishes between Jesus and God. Yet some passages, according to catholic traditions, are understood to teach that the pre-human Jesus (or the divine "Person" which eventually united with the man Jesus) created the cosmos. Thus a Bible reader finds himself facing an inconsistent triad of claims, and since they can't all be true, it seems that he ought to deny at least one of them:

Which should be denied? In this talk I lay a groundwork for a principled, Protestant answer to this difficulty. I rule out one options as a non-starter, biblically speaking. I put my relevant presuppositions on the table, and examine clear biblical passages about creation. I also discuss some relevant post-biblical ideas from the history of Christian theology, such as a distinction between a direct and an ultimate creator, or the idea that all the members of the Trinity equally created, and two things this might mean.

Next time, a careful look at the alleged Jesus-created passages, in light of all of this historical and biblical context.

My Christian friend - why of the above three claims do you deny, and why?

Here is the recommended YouTube version of this episode:

Links for this episode: