Trinities

On March 29,  I debated Catholic apologist William Albrecht on whether or not Tertullian was a trinitarian.

In this episode, our opening statements, and rebuttals, slightly edited ("cleaned up") from the original audio ("in studio" for me, unfortunately, just over the internet for his side - but I did my best to make the whole thing listenable.)

You can also listen to this episode on youtube.

Some questions to keep in mind as you listen:

* Just what is Mr. Albrecht's claim about Tertullian's theology - that it is "trinitarian" in what sense, exactly?

* What is his point about the Latin term translated as "portion," (as in, the Son is a portion of the Father's substance).

* Can a portion of matter be older than something it now composes? Can you think of an example of such a situation? How would that my relevant to this debate?

* Why does Mr. Albrecht in his rebuttal bring up the 4th c. "Arians"? What is his argument, and is it a compelling argument?

* If it were shown that Tertullian did think the Son (and Holy Spirit) to be eternal, would that be enough to prove the affirmative side in the debate here?

* In his opening statement Mr. Albrecht asserts that the "Apostles'" creed is trinitarian. I've discussed that creed in episode 12, and argued that it is unitarian and not trinitarian. Who's right, both about that creed, and about the "rules of faith" Tertullian seems to quote in Against Praxeas 2,  On the Veiling of Virgins, ch. 1, and Prescriptions Against Heretics ch. 13?

Thanks to William Albrecht and the show host Mr. Augustin Austacio for this debate. You can hear the whole unedited two hour debate show, with Q & A included, here.

Next week here at the tritities podcast you can hear a "cleaned up" version of our mutual cross examinations and closing statements.

Last night I finally saw the 2014 movie Son of God.

I'm not as down on the movie as this guy! Other reviewers point out some inaccuracies of detail. Others say it's just too compressed.

Me, though I liked the movie, I most noticed what New Testament material they left out, as well as their familiar, confused picture of Jesus and God.

In this episode, my review, and also, some interesting listener feedback. (Got some? Upload your audio file here.)

Click on or download the mp3 file below to play. You can also here this episode on youtube.

Do you listen on itunes? Please rate the podcast here.

Here are some relevant previous posts:

* On the God-as-baby theme. (Here's the saccharine song that ends the movie.)

* On forgiving sins.

* Two posts on Jesus in the Gospel of Mark

Finally, some other movie Jesuses:

* The Best Movie Jesus.

* Smiley Jesus.

* The Ascending on Clouds of Paper Jesus.

* The Old Standby.

* Mormon Jesus.

* Punching-bag Linebacker Jesus. (A rare safe for work scene.)

Was the Council of Nicea (325) a defense and re-affirmation of core catholic theology? And did the Council of Constantinople (381) merely re-affirm Nicea, and slightly clean up its language and the details of its theology?

In this episode, analytic theologian Dr. William Hasker gives his perspective on these fourth century events, reading from his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God (discussed here and here). He contrasts a traditional understanding of these events with a clearer view based on careful historical investigation, such as that in Dr. Lewis Ayres's Nicea and Its Legacy, and the sources I linked last time. And following Ayres, he discusses what "Pro-Nicene" theology is, as exemplified by "the Cappadocian Fathers."

After Hasker's discussion, I share a few thoughts on authority and tradition, sketching for your consideration a "thought experiment" about an imagined future ecumenical council, one which would give a new meaning to paintings like this one.

Thanks to Bill Hasker for his reading, and for his informative, high-quality work on this subject.

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 (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.)

What happened at the famous council of bishops of Nicea, convened by the emperor Constantine in the year 325? What did this group say about the God the Father, and the Son of God, in opposition to Arius and his supporters?

In this episode, we hear their creed, and put it into the historical and theological context of its own time. Thanks to my friend Caroline Roberts for her reading of the Nicene creed.

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 (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.)

You can support the trinities podcast by buying through the links below. Except for Rubenstein, we heard from all of this in this episode.

* R.P.C. Hanson's The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The most comprehensive historical account of the whole controversy before and after the council at Nicea.

* Richard Rubenstein, When Jesus Became God. A readable popular account of the controversy surrounding Arius, and the 325 council.

* Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. An excellent, scholarly but readable historical and theological summary.

* Tanner, ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils - Not merely the first seven, but all those accepted by Roman Catholics. A valuable resource, with both English translations and the original languages.

 

Was Arius the ultimate Judas? Was he an arrogant innovator, a devotee of Greek philosophy, a Judaizer, a hater of mysteries, a phony, a snake in the grass?

In this episode, we look at Arius and his theology, in (as much as is now possible) in his own words.

You can also listen to this episode on youtube.

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 (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.)

Some important scholarly sources on Arius:

* Rowan Williams's Arius: Heresy and Tradition.

* R.P.C. Hanson's The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God.

* Maurice Wiles's Archetypal Heresy: Arianism Through the Centuries.

 

The conversation continues, as we get into to the specifics of Dr. Hasker's "social" Trinity theory.

Dr. Hasker answers many questions, including:

* How is it that these three divine selves are one God, and not three?

* What is "perichoresis"?

* What does it mean to say that their actions respecting the cosmos are "undivided"?

* What role does the contemporary metaphysical concept of "constitution" play in the theory?

* Can a trinitarian convince a Jewish or Muslim theologian that the Trinity really is self-consistently monotheistic?

* In the New Testament, isn't the one God the Father, rather than the Trinity?

You can also listen to this episode on youtube.

Some links for this episode:

* Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God

* Bill Hasker's home page at Huntington University.

* The Brower-Rea Constitution approach to the Trinity. (And my critique.)

* Christian metaphysician Lynne Rudder Baker - much of her work has concerned the constitution relation.

* A published paper where I urge monotheism objections against Hasker's pre-book articles. (And Hasker's reply. And some similar objections by Michael C. Rea.)

In the last thirty years or so, many Christian philosophers have become "social" trinitarians. Not only do they "use the social analogy" for the Trinity - that is, compare the Trinity to three humans - but they also, generally, affirm that the Trinity really does contain or consist of three selves- three beings capable of thought, action, and personal relationships.

Dr. Hasker did this before it was cool, in a 1970 article. This sort of view has been perhaps most famously explored by leading Christian philosopher and analytic theologian Richard Swinburne, in his 1994 The Christian God. Before 2013, I would've said that was the best developed "social" theory.

But it's now been surpassed, by William Hasker's 2013 Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God. This is an important new book, which develops the idea of a three-self Trinity in interaction with a number of recent philosophers and theologians.

In this interview, we discuss his background, how he got started seriously thinking about the Trinity, understanding mysteries, divine simplicity,  and how he interprets the terms "person" and "essence" in the traditional claim that the one God is "three persons in one essence."

You can also listen to this episode on youtube.

In the next episode, we'll continue the conversation, discussing how how, in his view, these three divine selves can amount to one God.

Hasker links (you can support the trinities podcast by buying from Amazon through these links):

* Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God

* Hasker lecture, discussion, and interview at the Center for Christian Thought at Biola University.

* The Triumph of God over Evil: Theodicy for a World of Suffering

* Providence, Evil and the Openness of God

* The Emergent Self

* God, Time, and Knowledge

* The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God

In this episode Sean and I continue our discussion of "the Holy Spirit" in the New Testament, covering such topics as how "the Spirit" relates to worship and prayer in the New Testament, the eternal trinitarian "dance" discussed in recent trinitarian literature, the threefold baptismal formula, and "blasphemy against the Holy Spirit."

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.)

Some relevant links:

* Holmes's edition of the Apostolic Fathers

* Ehrman's Lost Scriptures (with his translation of the Didache, pp. 211-7)

* See the post for episode 25 for Sean Finnegan links.

In this episode Pastor Sean Finnegan and I discuss biblical spirit-talk: "the Holy Spirit," "the Spirit of the LORD," "God's spirit," "the Spirit of Christ," etc.

Sean helpfully distinguishes four types of spirit-talk in the Bible, giving many examples from both testaments.

We also discuss traditional catholic arguments for the Holy Spirit being a third divine person in addition to the Father and the Son, theologically motivated translation problems, and why, in his view, both the catholic and Jehovah's Witness readings of spirit-texts are too simple.

In the next episode, Sean and I continue the conversation, discussing various related matters, including Matthew 28.

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:

* Sean's Christian Monotheism website.

* The Kingdom Ready blog.

* Sean's Christian monotheism podcast, Truth Matters radio program, and other writings and talks.

* The church where Sean is a pastor.

* Sean's informative 2013 presentation on the Holy Spirit and translation bias.

* The New Jerusalem Study Bible.

* My reviews of Sean's 2008 unitarian-trinitarian debate with Brent Bosserman.

*

Do you think unsurpassably "classic" thought about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is from c. 370-460? In this paper, I argue that "Pro-Nicene" theology of that era does not show us Christians how to be self-consistent monotheists, while earlier catholic theologians like Tertullian and Origen (early 3rd c.) do show us how. The most classic source, of course, is the New Testament, which they can help us to see with fresh eyes. (Those thick Nicene goggles block a lot!)

In the fifth century, Christianity had the luxury of not competing with Islam. As I discuss in the paper, Muslims can make a simple, and at first glance compelling argument against Christian theology.

* A claim which strongly and steadily seems contradictory, unless it can be re-stated in a seemingly consistent way, probably is contradictory.

* Contradictory claims are false.

* Trinitarian theology strongly and steadily seems contradictory, and can’t be re-stated in a seemingly consistent way.

* Therefore, probably, trinitarian theology is false.     (1-3)

What to do? It seems we can't reasonably accept 4!

* We can't just loudly deny 4 - that is missing the point, as 1-3 support 4. This is to fail to "make your defense to anyone who demands from you an accounting for the hope that is in you... with gentleness and reverence." (1 Peter 3:15-6)

* Only a few foolhardy Protestants will deny 2. If this doesn't seem foolhardy to you, I recommend the sober discussion by Reformed analytic theologian Dr. James Anderson in this book, pp. 117-26.

* Only uber-sophisticates can concoct reasons for denying 1, which seems, in the end, more secure than their reasons. (Also, they constantly believe 1 in other contexts.) If you are such a sophisticate, I invite you to consider these arguments.

* 3 seems true at first glance, and on a second.

But in this paper, I show how Tertullian (d. c. 225) and particularly Origen (d. 254), show both Christians and Muslims why 3 should be denied. This is because, for all their speculations, Tertullian and Origen preserve elements of New Testament teaching which were later overwritten.

This podcast features the actual audio of my presentation at the theology conference discussed in episode 23. My thanks to the audience for their excellent questions and discussions during and after my session. They were a great group.

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 (you can subscribe here). If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast,