Trinities

The apostle Paul famously says,

...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. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

Is this passage a radical transformation of, or a redefinition of Jewish monotheism? Is it an insertion of Jesus into the Shema confession, that "The LORD is our God, the LORD alone"? In this way, is Paul saying that Jesus is God himself, Yahweh, or that he is "in the divine identity," or at any rate that Jesus is divine? Is there, in short, some trinitarian juice that can be squeezed from this orange?

Unitarian Christians don't think so. In fact, this is one of their favorite verses, even suitable for a book title. Why?

Clearly, at least one side here is quite mistaken. In this episode, we hear from proponents of each side. In the next, we'll try to weigh their arguments.

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 and videos quoted or mentioned in this episode, in order:

* Patrick Navas's Divine Truth or Human Tradition.

* William Christie's Dissertations on the Unity of God. (And his later Discourses on the Divine Unity.)

* Dr. James Dunn's Christology in the Making.

* Dr. Gordon Fee's Pauline Christology

Dr. Richard Bauckham is a prominent biblical scholar and theologian. He is best known for his claim that the whole New Testament reflects a "christology of divine identity," most famously perhaps in his book God Crucified.

Many evangelical apologists and theologians have bought into Bauckham's theory. Also, N.T. Wright seems to be saying many of the same things. But other U.K. Heavyweight scholars, Dunn and Hurtado, do not agree. And with perhaps a few exceptions, I've observed that Christian philosophers and analytic theologians are unwilling to make the deal. I think that my paper, presented in this episode, brings out why.

Note that despite my own developed theological views, I argue 100% from premises to which any Christian - me, Dr. Bauckham, or your aunt Sally - is committed, by either the Bible or common sense. Philosophers, as undergraduates, are trained in the simple logic of identity - uncontroversial reasoning which I employ here, as non-technically as I can. I tried very hard to make this paper accessible to non-philosophers. Still, you may want to read it and not merely listen to it. (Here's the official version you can cite.) It gets a bit convoluted at the end - sorry - but this is only because I'm struggling to be fair to Dr. Bauckham and not misread him.

Abstract

Richard Bauckham argues that every book in the New Testament contains a ‘‘christology of divine identity,’’ according to which Jesus is ‘‘included in the divine identity.’’ He also argues that traditional Christians may avoid or dissolve a large number of theoretical problems by embracing this thesis. Here I clarify the concepts of personal identity, numerical identity, and identifying features, and critically examine Bauckham’s thesis and his arguments for it in light of these analyses. Of central importance is the self-evident truth that a thing cannot at one time differ from itself (the indiscernibility of identicals). It is argued that Bauckham’s thesis is unclear, and that on one interpretation it is manifestly self-inconsistent, while on the other it is too thin in content to do the work Bauckham assigns it, which is expressing ‘‘the highest possible christology.’’ I thus argue that the theoretical costs of Bauckham’s theory outweigh its theoretical benefits. Section I summarizes the touted benefits. Section II clarifies the aforementioned concepts. Section III applies these analyses to Bauckham’s work. In Section IV I weigh some reasons for thinking that the interpretation of Section III is mistaken. Section V continues the interpretive struggle, and VI draws a negative conclusion.

You can also listen to this episode on Stitcher or iTunes (please...

The Apostles' Creed is one of the most beloved and most widely used creeds in the Christian world.

Is it really by Jesus's original twelve apostles? Why is it so popular? Is it the one truly uncontroversial creed, something which all Christians - Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, pentecostal, etc. can agree on? And is it the most ancient Christian creed we possess?

We'll answer these questions in this, our 12th (!) episode.

Many thanks to my friend Caroline for her reading here. The Lamson quote at the end is from this book.

This episode is a recording of my talk on September 20, 2013 in Prague, Czech Republic, at the conference "Analytical Theology: Faith, Knowledge and the Trinity."

Our Czech hosts were Roman Catholic philosophers, interested in both contemporary analytic philosophy and early modern Catholic scholastic philosophy. It was an excellent conference, and we all enjoyed our conversations, as well as seeing some of one of the world's most beautiful cities, and some surrounding countryside. Special thanks to Vlastimil, Lukáš, and Petr and Daniel for their hospitality, papers, and conversations.

My talk is called "Tertullian the unitarian". Though he's the first on record to use the Latin word trinitas, I show that he was in fact a sort of unitarian, a kind I have elsewhere called "subordinationist."

Here are my conference slides, in case you want to follow along.

These ideas are relevant, of course, far beyond Tertullian. But here I want to set the record straight, because there's a lot of mistaken stuff out there about Tertullian, in realms such as apologetics, church history, and the history of theology.

Update: this paper has now been revised and published.

(click image for credit)

This week, an interview with Dr. Scott Williams, an analytic theologian, trained by some of the best out there, who loves to tackle those hard to read medieval philosopher-theologians like John Duns Scotus, Thomas Aquinas, and Henry of Ghent.

Specifically, we discuss this recent paper of his, which I briefly discussed in a previous post.

His main interest is in different versions of "LT" - "Latin," as opposed to eastern or social Trinity theories. He sets out a theory he calls "soft LT" in opposition to a recent theory by Brian Leftow.

Buckle your metaphysical seat belts for this one! Divine nature, divine simplicity, indexicals, life-streams, substance, "persons," incommunicable existents, tritheism - there's a lot going on here. You philosophers out there will enjoy this one.

Thanks to Scott for a good interview, and for his contributions to this blog - speaking of which, here are some previous posts by Scott.

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.)

In this episode I get post-debate reflections from the (biblical) unitarian Christian debater, Steve Katsaras. He's the founding pastor of the Red Words Church in Melbourne, Australia . His sermons are regularly podcasted here.

If he sounds a little sleepy, that's my fault; I asked him to talk to me on the same night as the debate, and he graciously agreed.

We discuss highlights of the debate, his position literally and figuratively between the other two discussants, monotheism, whether a non-divine Jesus can make atonement, and his grounds for believing Jesus to be God's human messiah, and not God.

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.)

This episode is a second post-debate interview, this time with Islamic apologist Shahir Naga.

We had a good conversation, discussing, among other things, the worship of Jesus and where Mr. Naga is originally from.

Thanks to Mr. Naga for a good interview. He is a seeker of truth, and is a pleasure to dialogue with.

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.)

I see from his website that Mr. Naga has more recently been in a similar debate, this time one on one, with evangelical apologist Samuel Green. Here it is, below the fold, on Samuel Green's youtube channel.

Bonus: some clips from Islamic apologists who inspired him: Ahmed Deedat, Dr. Zakir Naik, and Shabir Ally.

About a week after the debate, I interviewed Dr. Bernie Power for his post-debate thoughts.

Among other things, he adds an argument from divine perfection to divine tri-unity, and comments on Christian-Muslim discussions and misunderstandings.

Asked about Muslim apologists like Admed Deedat and Dr. Zakir Naik, he recommends work by Jay Smith and Sam Green.

About Jesus, Dr. Power emphasizes that we need to allow him to define himself, rather than to approach him only through unexamined assumptions. Amen to that.

Thanks to Dr. Power for a good interview.

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.)

Bonus: an engaging television interview with Dr. Power from 2012 where he talks about his background and Muslims.

This episode features this 2013 discussion/informal debate about Jesus in Melbourne, Australia, featuring a trinitarian Christian (Dr. Bernie Power), a unitarian Christian (Pastor Steve Katsaras), and a Muslim (Mr. Shahir Naga).

The audio is a little rough; I've cleaned it up a little for this episode. Here is the video from which this audio is taken. Many thanks to the City Bible Forum in Melbourne for putting on this event, and for their permission to use their audio here.

This discussion been discussed on the Kingdom Ready blog already. Please post other discussion links in the Comments section below.

In the next three episodes of the trinities podcast, I'll interview each debater to get his post-debate thoughts.

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.)

This time, an answer to Nye by Anglican minister and writer William Sherlock (c. 1641 – 1707 - pictured to the left). He offers a unique, but to us surprisingly contemporary rational reconstruction of the claims in the "Athanasian Creed." Did he convince his fellow Anglicans that the "Athanasian Creed" is, after all, self-consistent?

We'll also look briefly at a sort of defense of the "Athanasian Creed" by minister, apologist, and patristic scholar Daniel Waterland ( 1683 - 1740). Following some ancient sources, he is a mysterian, though he offers a defense of its notorious damnatory clauses.

In this battle of the powdered wigs, we also discuss Samuel Clarke's (1675 - 1729) arguments for removing the Creed from the Anglican liturgy, as well as arguments based on the ecumenical councils.

Is this "Creed" one you accept as authoritative? Let us know what you think.

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, the we’ll get it.)

Links for this episode:

* Sherlock's book: pdf, reprint.

* Waterland's A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, from Volume III of his Works: pdf, reprint.

* Clarke's Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity: pdf of first, 1712 ed, reprint of the 4th ed. and follow up writings.