Trinities

Did you know that in the field of Christian theology, the following terms are ambiguous, with different sources using them to refer to different (purported) realities?

In this episode, I explain these different meanings, and describe three responses to these ambiguities: correlate, eliminate, and obfuscate.

[spp-tweet tweet="Did you know that the term "Trinity" is demonstrably ambiguous?"]

Because my illustrations make some points clearer, I recommend this screencast version of this episode:

https://youtu.be/io6nrQuglxM

Or, you can view the video of the talk by Sharon Gill:

https://vimeo.com/262681477

Links for this episode:

In this talk, the second of a three part series on ambiguities in words used for God and for his Son, I discuss the words translated in your English Bible as "Lord" or "LORD."

In the Old Testament "the Lord" or "the LORD" is Yahweh himself, the only God. But in the New Testament, we see a new usage of the Greek word kurios ("Lord" or "lord"), based on the most referred to OT text in the NT. Now, "the Lord" can refer either to the one God, or to his human Son, Jesus - someone other than the one God. And it's a bit more complicated than than, for "lord" also has less exalted uses.

Along the way I discuss whether the use of "the Lord" for Jesus implies that he is God, I make a radical suggestion to reduce ambiguities in present-day discourse, and I address whether or not we should strive to use ancient Hebrew names for God and for his Son.

I recommend this YouTube version of this talk, featuring my slides.

https://youtu.be/4voyLpw0egI

Or here is the video, produced by Sharon Gill:

https://youtu.be/nmJRdCnViRU

Links for this episode:

Did you know that in both the Old and New Testament beings other than the one God are referred to as "God" or "gods"? In this first of three talks about disambiguating scriptural terms, I look at the Hebrew word elohim and the Greek word theos, each usually translated into English as "God." I also introduce a new term, "monotheosism," and distinguish this from "monotheism."

I also interact with this informative book by evangelical theologian Dr. Murray Harris. In his view, the follow seven New Testament passages refer to Jesus using forms of theos:

Is he right? And if he is, how does this affect how we view the Lord Jesus?

In this talk I focus on indisputable facts about the texts, avoiding speculations of any kind. Whatever your theological views, you should agree with these facts about word usage.

Because I refer to slides in this talk, I recommend this YouTube version of this episode:

https://youtu.be/LvNyOJBDlwU

Alternately, here is the video version, produced by the inimitable Sharon Gill. Be sure to check out the 21st Century Reformation website, which will often feature my public talks before you can get them anywhere else.

https://vimeo.com/260591379

Links for this episode:

This and the previous episode are based on my conviction that in weighing competing speculations, we must go by more than creativity and seeming coherence. We ought, in my view, to also consider their fit or misfit with common sense, with truths which should be obvious to just about anyone.

Over many years of studying and weighing various theories about the Trinity and the Incarnation, a number of obvious truths have jumped out at me, truths which conflict with various theories. Indeed, especially philosophically trained partisans of Trinity or Incarnations will frequently wield one or more of these against the rival theories. Everyone likes "human" reason, when it's not trying to turn their own sacred cow into hamburger.

I would say to many such objectors: "Well said. But, let's also consider these other truths, which are epistemically on a par with the one you just used to dismember, e.g. some social Trinity theory or some "Latin" theory."

Moreover, if these really are evident to any normal adult who is unprejudiced and who has had the requisite common experiences, then we can bring them even to the reading of scripture, for the writers of scripture were humans too.

As I explain in the episode, these are grouped together as they are relevant to various ideas about Trinity and Incarnation: relative identity theories, mystery defenses, two kinds of Incarnation speculations, and "the deity of Christ."

21. If every F is a G, there are at least as many Gs as Fs.

35. God can authorize a human to do what, otherwise, only God would have the right to do.

Do you agree that these are "obvious" truths? Do you agree that they're truths at all?

Links for this episode:

Not everything should be up for debate. Debates must start somewhere. As Christian philosopher Thomas Reid pointed out, humans are made such that, when we're fully mature, and when we have certain common experiences, we will, on auto-pilot, know certain truths. He called this first principles, or principles of common sense. We can also call the self-evident truths - things that we, so long as our judgement is unhindered by various non-rational factors, can recognize as true, and even know to be true, without mounting an argument for them. Like lamps, they illuminate themselves, in addition to other things. As heard in a previous episode, Reid listed a number of self-evident truths which he had found to be contradicted by various philosophers' speculations. But he didn't directly apply this method to Christian theology.

That is what I try to do here. Over the years, I've thought through a number of ingenious, often highly original Trinity theories, ways of parsing the traditional formulas. Unfortunately, generally one rules the others out! I think that all of them, at one point or another, run up against what strike me as self-evident truths.

Of course, that I say that these things are self-evident, does not make them so. You'll have to judge for yourself whether you know them to be true, and whether you think others ought to acknowledge them as well. For the most part, they have to do with simple conceptual analysis, although some have to do with basic reading comprehension, or points of metaphysics, epistemology, or common language use.

In this first part, I discuss the 20 self-evident truths below. If they really are so, then you can use them in judging between rival speculations about God, his Son, and his spirit.

And if they really are self-evident, then it is not "begging the question" to appeal to them when some Trinity theory or other is at issue, for what is self-evident will typically be more evident overall than some planks of that theory. To sacrifice the less evident in favor of the more evident is to yield to reason. To maintain a pet claim against what is obvious is to stubbornly resist reason.

Of course, as Reid pointed out, we can argue about the principles themselves, whether or not they really are self-evident. It's not an easy argument to have, but it can be done.

As I explain in the podcast, most will be relevant to some Trinity theories but not to others.

Links for this episode:

In this podcast, we hear the end of Essay VI of Thomas Reid's Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man (1785): Chapter 8 "Of Prejudices, the Causes of Error."

Following a scheme concocted by Francis Bacon (1561–1626), Reid divides prejudices into four classes of "idols": idola tribus, idola specus, idola fori, and idola theatri. But don't worry - he explains each group without recourse to any more Latin, and he gives examples where needed.

The Trinity is only mentioned once here, in a illustration of misguided speculation about music - but it is plausible that Reid had Trinity theories and other theological matters at several points in this chapter. Do you agree? And do you think that this scheme is relevant to critical thinking about competing Trinity and Incarnation theories?

Links for this episode:

In this episode, 18th c. Christian philosopher Thomas Reid gives examples of what he calls "first principles," truths which adult humans ordinarily know without having reasoned their way to them, and even without being able to argue for or to defend them. They are part, in Reid's view, of our God-given "common sense."

Many if not all of these self-evident truths which he things any of us ought to know, come from Reid's reflection on the work of other philosophers, such as David Hume, George Berkeley, Benedict Spinoza, W.G. Leibniz, and others. In his view, in different ways these philosophers ignore common sense, speculating too much, and fighting against that base of natural human knowledge that they should instead be building upon.

Do you know all the truths Reid lists? (Note that if you don't believe a thing, you thereby do not know it.) And, do you agree that these are things which all normal human adults should know?

Links for this episode:

Thomas Reid (1710-1796) was the founding figure in what came to be called "the common sense" tradition in philosophy, a tradition which lasted through most of the 19th century, in places such as Scotland, the United States, and France. Many of his ideas about theory of knowledge have been further developed recently by the leading Christian philosopher Dr. Alvin Plantinga (b. 1932).

A Christian minister in the Church of Scotland (1737-52), then a professor at the University of Aberdeen (1752-64), Reid ended his career at the University of Glasgow (1764-81). Reid is perhaps most famous for his theory of "first principles" - the view that given how God has made human beings, we naturally come to know certain truths without reasoning our way to them or constructing arguments for them. Some truths, for us, are self-evident, and don't need arguing for, being the appropriate starting-points for arguments. In Reid's view, we automatically form these beliefs in response to normal stimuli; he describes them as deriving from "our constitution," that is, from how God designed the human race. We can't argue for everything, so this idea of things known but not on the basis of other things we know seems important. Nor are all assumptions equal; it seems perfectly reasonable for us to have and even to rely on certain assumptions. Doubting everything seems neither possible for us nor desirable.

In this episode I present my abridged version of his 1785 Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man, Essay 6 (Judgement), Chapter 2 "Of Common Sense," and Chapter 4 "Of First Principles in General." In these chapter Reid explains what he means by "common sense," and by "first principles," even addressing how to approach disagreements about whether or not a certain claim is a first principle. Most of what I've edited out is his lengthy quotations from various authors.

How is all of this relevant to Trinity theories? I explain at the start of this episode, and I'll say more in a future one.

Next week, Reid will try his hand at listing some important first principles.

Links for this episode:

In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul argues that it is foundational to Christianity that Christ was raised from the dead. In this March 2018 talk called "If Christ be not Raised, If Peter was not the First Pope: Parallel Cases of Essential Doctrinal Foundations," Christian philosopher Dr. Jerry L. Walls argues that similarly, it is foundational to Roman Catholicism that Peter was the first Pope, the first bishop of Rome, universally recognized as the head of the universal church. Dr. Walls establishes this from official Roman Catholic sources. He then argues that these two foundations differ significantly when it comes to our best available evidence.

[spp-tweet tweet="Is it true that Peter was the first pope? What do historians say?"]

Links for this episode:

If a Calvinist view of divine providence and human freedom is correct, which Dr. Guillaume Bignon understands to require compatibilism about human freedom and determinism, does this imply that you and I are not blameworthy for our sins, and that God is? If so, it would seem that any Christian should reject that view of divine providence and human freedom.

In this episode, part two of our conversation (part 1 here) Dr. Bignon summarizes the arguments of each of the ten chapters of his Excusing Sinners and Blaming God: A Calvinist Assessment of Determinism, Moral Responsibility, and Divine Involvement in Evil.

He discusses his contributions to philosophical literature about the "principle of alternate possibilities" and the "consequence argument" against compatibilism, and his analyses of and responses to charges that Calvinism makes God the "author of evil."

Towards the end, he answers a few of Dale's objections from scripture and from common sense.

Are you convinced by his account? Are you satisfied with his answers to Dale's objections? Why or why not?

Links for the this episode: