Trinities

From left to right: Oliver Crisp's Beard, Oliver Crisp, Thomas McCall, Fred Sanders, Karen Kilby, Lewis Ayres, and Stephen Holmes.

In this episode I share my reflections on this conference, and specifically on Trinity theories in contemporary 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 (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:

* L.A. Theology Conference website

* Dr. Oliver Crisp and his books (and his beard - RIP)

* Dr. Thomas H. McCall and his Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? (review)

* Dr. Fred Sanders and his The Deep Things of God

* Dr. Karen Kilby and her books

* Dr. Lewis Ayres and his Nicea and Its Legacy

* a post on talk of the

I'm on the Internet, a Defender of God's Truth. I'm cocked and loaded. And... here come the _________. [Take your pick: Calvinists, Arminians, open theists, unitarians, trinitarians, Roman Catholics, Protestants, cultists, JWs, Mormons, universalists, exclusivists inclusivists, pluralists, Barthians, presuppositionalists, apologists, Muslims, Jews, atheists, liberals, evangelicals, fundamentalists, Emergent types, conservatives, Obama supporters, people who don't hate George W. Bush, Democrats, Republicans, homosexuals, homophobes, feminists, egalitarians, complementarians, sexists, creationists, evolutionists.]

Can you believe those people? How blind, how stupid, how ridiculous can they be? What business do they even have discussing such sacred things?

They need a good verbal whipping. I'll tell them how wicked, how worthless, how stupid, how conniving, how sneaky, how damned they are. If I weren't such an upstanding Christian man, I'd tell them what a bunch of worthless ******* they are. But, I won't - that wouldn't be Christlike. Instead, I'll bulldoze them with a surging mass of biblical texts and/or obviously crushing arguments, which will show up their stupidity for all to see. Bodies will fly left and right; I am a speeding train of Truth.

If they flinch, I'll inform that that what I'm giving them is nothing compared to what God will give them. Get on the train, or get out of the way. Go ahead and whine - I couldn't care less, you wicked, worthless scumbags.

I'm an agent of God's wrath. I only whip the right (wrong) people, so He appreciates my faithful whipping service. It is all for Him.

Right?

Well, let us hear God's word, and scrupulously obey it, whether among our own, or arguing with heretics, misguided Christians, unbelievers, members of other religions, or cult members.

* First, a brush-up on some basics, by Lady Wisdom, voice of the ancient Jewish sages.

* Then, the apostles James and Peter.

* Finally, the Lord Jesus himself lays down his standard, in no uncertain terms. It is to him that we'll have to give an answer.

This wisdom is sufficient to cure the proverbial odium theologicum. If you suffer from this affliction, I recommend repeated listens. This is, in every way, a better way. It is a pearl of great price.

I have, in one case, tampered with the text... can you tell which?

All music in this episode is by Chris Zabriskie. During the Proverbs, “That Kid in Fourth Grade Who Really Liked the Denver Broncos.” During James, “The Temperature of the Air on the Bow of the Kaleetan.” During Peter and Jesus, “John Stockton Slow Drag.”

In this episode, my evaluation of the case made by Shadid Lewis. Does he establish, on grounds which his opponent must affirm, that the Trinity implies polytheism?

See Lewis's arguments as analysed on the post for episode 17.

What is the doctrine of the Trinity anyway? Are the persons members of an eternal group of wonderfully unified friends? Or are they aspects or personalities of the one God? Or what? Is this just about the "deity of Christ"?

And what is the doctrine of two natures in Christ, and does it show how one and the same being could be, e.g. mortal and immortal?

Moreover, who do you think won this debate?

Let us know what you think. Click here to upload your audio feedback, for possible use in a future episode – .wav, .mp3, and probably any other common audio format should be OK. Try to keep it to a minute or less.

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.)

Referred to in or relevant to this episode:

* Their whole debate, in episodes of the trinities podcast, as well this and my first evaluation episodes.

* Posts on Islam-inspired modalism (i.e. one-self trinitarianism)

* Posts on the indiscernibility of identicals.

* Sophisticated recent "relative identity" trinitarianism explained.

* Sophisticated recent Incarnation / two-natures theories explained.

* On Christmas-time claims that the one God became a baby.

In his debate with Muslim apologist Shadid Lewis does Reformed Christian apologist Anthony Rogers establish the consistency of the Trinity and monotheism? That is, does he prove that the Trinity doctrine is not a form of polytheism?

Is this episode, we examine his arguments, and discuss

* the Qur'an, abrogation, and whether it always distinguishes Christians from polytheists

* Rogers's argument from Genesis 18-19 that Moses taught multiple persons in God

* Rogers's argument from John 8 and Matthew 28 :19 that Jesus taught the same

You may want to refer to the analyses I gave in this previous blog post.

Next week, in episode 21, we'll look at Lewis's side of the debate.

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.)

Books quoted in this episode:

* Hugh Goddard, A History of Christian-Muslim Relations (Chicago: New Amsterdam Books, 2000), pp. 27-8.

* The Racovian Catechism, trans. Thomas Rees (London, 1818), pp. 37-9.

* The Qur'an, trans. M.A.S. Abdul Haleem (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 118-9.

* Not quoted here, but helpful regarding the topics of abrogation, quranic interpretation, and the historical order of the suras: Neal Robinson, Discovering the Qur'an: A Contemporary Approach to a Veiled Text, 2nd ed. (London: SCM Press, 2003).

Episode 19 - the final segment of the Lewis-Rogers debate: Is the Trinity polytheism?

In this last of our three segments, our debaters each give a second seven-minute rebuttal, and then a five-minute closing argument. This is when they wrap up any loose ends, reiterate their main points, and try to "make the sale."

Are you buying?

They get into questions like:

* Does the Qur'an imply that Christians are not polytheists?

* Does the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, teach that the one God is in some sense multi-personal?

* If Jesus is a god, then must he be a different god than his Father?

In our next episode, I'll weigh in with my evaluation of the debate.

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.)

Rebuttals are the hardest parts of a debate - the hardest part to perform, and the hardest to listen to.

Opening and closing statements are basically pre-written, and in them, one talks about what one wants to talk about.

In a rebuttal, you are forced to think on your feet, on the spot, and find a way to knock down the arguments your opponent has just given in his opening statement - which you may have just heard for the first time. The best debaters scour heaven and earth to find everything the opponent's ever said, so as to anticipate the opening statement, and pre-prepare for the rebuttal.

Here's the best way you, the thinking person in the audience, can critically listen to this part.

* First, print my summary of the opening arguments. (See something missing or wrong? Add it, or correct it. Click once on the big image to remove it before printing.)

* Now, as you hear each rebuttal - first Rogers, then Lewis - mark the premises of their opponent's argument which they are either denying (so, asserting to be false) or challenging (so, asserting as unknown or unproven).

* Having done that, try to list their reason(s) for challenging each premise.

If they give convincing reasons to doubt or deny at least one premise in each of their opponents' argument, they've done their job. If they've only repeated their opening arguments, or talked about irrelevant things, they've failed.

How, in your view, do our debaters do here?

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.)

On September 9,  2013, Reformed Christian apologist Anthony Rogers debated Islamic apologist Shadid Lewis. The debate question was: Are trinitarians polytheists? (Entire video here.)

I think this debate is worth thinking through carefully. In this podcast series, I'm breaking up the debate into three listenable chunks. I've also slightly shortened the audio by removing some dead air, etc., but I have not deleted a single word by the two debaters. I will end with a podcast evaluating their arguments. Each episode will also have a blog post wherein I try to accurately summarize and formulate some of the arguments. This episode: opening statements.

Rogers starts off with a problem for his opponent, which I think is best put as an inconsistent triad:

* Trinitarian Christians are polytheists.

* The Qur'an implies that Christians are not polytheists.

* Everything the Qur'an implies is true.

Rogers's argument is that is opponent is committed to 1 and 3. But he hasn't noticed that he's also committed to 2. His views, then, are inconsistent. Rogers will deny 1 (and 3), so he has no problem. But Shadid must, inconsistently, commit to all three. But from any two of them, it logically follows that the remaining claim is false. (Go ahead, try all the combinations.)

In support of 2, Rogers offers:

* Muslim men can marry Christian women (5:5),  but they can't marry polytheistic women. (2:221)

* Muslims can eat food prepared by Christians (5:5), but not by polytheists (6:121).

* 22:17; 98:1, 6; 2:105; 5:82; 3:186; and a hadith from Muhammad imply that no Christian is a polytheist.

On to his positive case, Rogers affirms monotheism. But he adds that both Moses and Jesus, who were both monotheists, also taught that God is multipersonal, as so their monotheism implied multiple "persons" in the one God.

Argument 1:

* Genesis 19:24 mentions two persons called "Yahweh."

* Therefore, Genesis 19:24 implies that there are at least two persons or beings "in God." (This confirmed when the Targums say call the "YHWH" on earth the Memra (Word) of YHWH.)

Argument 2:

* In John 8, Jesus says "I am," and so claims to be the eternal, divine Son who appeared to Abraham. (Also John 1, 20:28.)

* [But John also teaches that the Father is an eternal,

Paul calls Jesus "the one Lord." What does this mean?

In episode 15, we saw why we can't take Paul to mean that Jesus is Yahweh himself. In this episode, we see what, according to the New Testament, it means for Jesus to be "the one Lord."

Sir Anthony Buzzard has helpfully covered Psalm 110:1 many times. See this blog post and this video, in addition to his published works. See also this discussion between Dr. Joe Martin and pastor J. Dan Gill, who also discuss Peter's use of this text in Acts 2, and other relevant texts.

The commanding voice of Paul in this and the last two episodes is Mr. Dominick Baldwin. Be sure to contact him if your business or church etc. is looking for a voiceover that makes Warf sound like a little girl.

You can also listen to this episode 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.)

Books quoted in this episode:

* Larry Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?

* James Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle.

* Samuel Clarke, The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity.

* James McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context.

* Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel.

Paul calls Jesus "the one Lord." What does this mean?

In episode 15, we saw why we can't take Paul to mean that Jesus is Yahweh himself. In this episode, we see what, according to the New Testament, it means for Jesus to be "the one Lord."

Sir Anthony Buzzard has helpfully covered Psalm 110:1 many times. See this blog post and this video, in addition to his published works. See also this discussion between Dr. Joe Martin and pastor J. Dan Gill, who also discuss Peter's use of this text in Acts 2, and other relevant texts.

The commanding voice of Paul in this and the last two episodes is Mr. Dominick Baldwin. Be sure to contact him if your business or church etc. is looking for a voice-over that makes Warf sound like a little girl.

Books quoted in this episode:

* Larry Hurtado, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God?* James Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle.* Samuel Clarke, The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity.* James McGrath, The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context.* Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the God of Israel.

(click for image credit)

In 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul says,

...yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

Is this statement by Paul a gift to unitarians (who hold that the one God is the Father, but not Jesus), or does he here imply that Jesus and the one God, the creator, are one and the same?

In this episode we look more deeply at this latter interpretation, and investigate two arguments offered by Dr. Richard Bauckham and others. They are:

* If Paul meant the one Lord to be someone other than (not numerically identical to) the one God, then he would be asserting two gods, and so denying monotheism.

* Paul is not here denying monotheism.

* Therefore, Paul doesn't mean the one Lord here to be someone other than (not numerically identical to) the one God - which is to say that he means the one Lord and the one God to be numerically identical. In other words, the one Lord is the one God himself.

And,

* Jesus created the cosmos.

* Only God created the cosmos.

* Therefore, Jesus is God.

He we begin to evaluate these arguments, and consider this interpretation in light of other things Paul says about God and Jesus.

Sources quoted in this episode:

* Bowman and Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ.

* Chapter 6 of Richard Bauckham's Jesus and the God of Israel.

* "The Apostle Paul a Unitarian" in Sixteen American Unitarian Tracts.

* The Racovian Catechism.