Trinities

In this episode theologian Dr. Randal Rauser interviews me for his YouTube channel (original video below), asking good and tough questions. He inquires about my theological views and how I came to them, and why I think Christians who accept the authority of the New Testament should re-examine their assumptions about traditional triune-God speculations. We discuss the true humanity of Jesus, his being called "God" in a few New Testament passages, common arguments that some Trinity theory is implied by Scripture, the pattern of worship we see in the New Testament, how becoming unitarian in my theology has impacted my own spiritual life, Jesus' faith in God, the concept of heresy, saving faith, ongoing reformation, historical unitarian Christians, "mystery" defenses of problematic dogmas, the implosion of 19th c. American unitarianism, and a providential argument that some sort of Trinity theory must be true.

Links for this episode:

Dr. Rauser's YouTube channel

Dr. Rauser's blog

What is the Trinity?

Is Jesus Human and Not Divine?

the evolution of my views on the Trinity

"Trinity," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation

podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”

podcast 191 – Ware’s Outline of the Testimony of Scripture Against the Trinity

The Tuggy-Brown debate: Dale’s opening statement

Williams, The Radical Reformation

Harris, Jesus as God

podcast 167 – Lamson’s History of The Unitarian Congregationalists

podcast 168 – The Death of Unitarian Congregationalism

podcast 144 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Conciliar Christology – Part 2

podcast 143 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Conciliar Christology – Part 1

podcast 270 – Origen’s “one God”

podcast 26 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 2

podcast 25 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 1

podcast 108 – Dr. Robert M. Bowman Jr. on triadic New Testament passages – part 2

podcast 107 – Dr. Robert M. Bowman Jr. on triadic New Testament passages – part 1

podcast 260 – How to Argue that the Bible is Trinitarian

podcast 227 – Who Should Christians Worship?

podcast 176 – Photinus of Sirmium

John Biddle’s unitarian confession of the Holy Trinity

podcast 286 – Is the Trinity Essential? – Three Views

podcast 85 – Heretic! Four Approaches to Dropping H-Bombs

podcast 53 – John Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity, Part 2

podcast 52 – John Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity, Part 1

podcast 146 – Jesus as an Exemplar of Faith in the New Testament

podcast 148 – Dr. Daniel McKaughan on faith – Part 2

podcast 147 – Dr. Daniel McKaughan on faith – Part 1

Higher Ground Church

Church of God General Conference

Christian Disciples Church

Living Hope International Ministries

Compass Christian Church

Unitarian Christian Alliance

Restitutio Interview 31: Master’s University Prof. Finds Son of God, Loses Job (Bill Schlegel)

podcast 309 – Channing’s “Unitarian Christianity” – Part 2

podcast 308 – Channing’s “Unitarian Christianity” – Part 1

Matthew 28:19-20; Ephesians 4:4-6; 1 John 5:7-8 (Wallace, "The Textual Problem in 1 John 5:7-8"); Hebrews 1:8-9; John 10:22-39; Phil 2:5-11; Revelation 4; Revelation 5; John 16:13; Acts 2; Acts 3:13; Acts 5:30; Acts 24:14; John 8:40; John 20:30-31; Mathew 16:16; Luke 4:14-30; 2 Corinthians 5:19; John 14:10.

This week's thinking music is "ukeSounds" by airtone.

In this presentation from the 2021 Unitarian Christian Alliance Conference Kegan Chandler examines the work of "Early High Christology Club" members Dr. Michael Bird, Dr. N.T. Wright, and Dr. Larry Hurtado about what we can say, based on historical evidence, about Jesus' understanding of himself.

Chandler finds their proposals wanting. They are intended to be orthodox, or at least somehow to point in that direction, but it is not clear that they succeed, and their intelligible content, gleaned from the gospels, is what biblical unitarian Christians say: that Jesus understood himself to be a Jewish man who was the prophet and unique Messiah of the one true God, the God of Israel, the Creator.

“Are you the only stranger in Jerusalem who does not know the things that have taken place there in these days? . . . The things about Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God and all the people . . ."

Luke 25:18-19

Dr. Bird and Dr. Wright: the ball's on your side of the court . . .

If you want to see his slides, here is the original video from the UCA YouTube channel.

Links for this episode:

Chandler's blog Buried Deep

Chandler @ academia.edu

Constantine and the Divine Mind: The Imperial Quest for Primitive Monotheism

The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma

podcast 247 – Kegan Chandler on the term “homoousios”

Chandler @ the Restitutio podcast

Unitarian Christian Alliance

Larry Hurtado @ trinities

podcast 281 – Introducing the Unitarian Christian Alliance

podcast 341 – Reflections on my debate with Dr. Andrew Loke

podcast 340 – Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is truly divine? – Loke vs. Tuggy – Part 2

podcast 339 – Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is truly divine? – Loke vs. Tuggy – Part 1

podcast 338 – What John 1 Meant

podcast 332 – Emlyn’s Humble Inquiry

podcast 323 – Did God die on the cross?

podcast 264 – Tuggy vs. Date debate – Jesus is human and not divine – Part 2

podcast 263 – Tuggy vs. Date debate – Jesus is human and not divine – Part 1

This week's thinking music is "lostTrack" by airtone.

In this second part of my post-dialogue thoughts, I address in depth Dr. Craig's "deity of Christ" proof-texts, as well as his appeal to "Sharp's Rule" in relation to Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1. Does this alleged rule of Greek grammar to show that the authors there assert "the deity of Christ"?

With some help from previous unitarian scholars, I show why it is pointless to argue against a unitarian using that alleged rule, and I also point out that Dr. Craig ought not assert Sharp's rule, as the point of it is to read those passages as collapsing together Jesus and God - which Dr. Craig and I agree is a huge mistake.

I also fess up to some historical mistakes I made about these texts regarding Tertullian, Origen, and generally how pre-Nicene authors did and didn't use these texts. I go looking for early references to 2 Peter 1:1 and Titus 2:13, and what I find is both surprising and revealing!

Finally, I review the many facts I pointed out in our dialogue which together constitute strong evidence against thinking that the New Testament authors are trinitarians - facts that Dr. Craig did not address. These are facts which no student of Scripture should ignore.

Links for this episode:

Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; John 10:34-36; John 1:18; John 1:1; Hebrews 1:8-9; Psalm 45:6-7; 1 John 5:20; 2 Peter 1:1; Matthew 16:18; Philippians 2:11; John 20:30-31; Matthew 16:15-16; Titus 1:4; Titus 2:14; 2 Peter 1:2; 2 Peter 1:17; Revelation 1:17.

podcast 350 – Thoughts on my Dialogue with Craig on the Trinity and the Bible – Part 1

podcast 349 – Craig-Tuggy dialogue on trinitarian vs. unitarian theologies

Harris, Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus

BeDuhn, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament

podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation

podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”

podcast 227 – Who Should Christians Worship?

podcast 263 – Tuggy vs. Date debate – Jesus is human and not divine – Part 1

podcast 264 – Tuggy vs. Date debate – Jesus is human and not divine – Part 2

podcast 344 – Craig’s Contradictory Christ – Part 2

podcast 343 – Craig’s Contradictory Christ – Part 1

podcast 253 – The Apostle Paul a Unitarian

Norton, A statement for reasons for not believing the doctrines of Trinitarians, concerning the nature of God and the person of Christ (free pdf)

Middleton, The Doctrine of the Greek Article Applied to the Criticism and Illustration of the New Testament

On not Confusing Together Jesus and God

podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!

podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists

This week’s thinking music is “Retrofuturistic Space Atrium” by Jesse Spillane.

My recent one-hour dialogue with Dr. William Lane Craig featured a number of interesting exchanges, as well as what I believe is Dr. Craig's first publicly distinguishing between a creedal Trinity doctrine (which he doesn't defend) and what he calls a minimal and biblical Trinity doctrine (which he does defend).

In this podcast, I reflect on the discussion, and even try to "steel man" Dr. Craig's definition of a minimal and biblical Trinity doctrine. He distinguishes such a theory from his Trinity monotheism (one soul with three cognitive faculties) and from a full-blown creedal Trinity doctrine.

One way to develop his minimal "tripersonal theism" is this collection of claims:

That's one try; but it seems to me that it can't be what Dr. Craig wants. So I consider another version of 1-3:

About his more elaborate "Trinity monotheism" (the Trinity is one soul which has three cognitive faculties, and therefore "is" three selves), I argue that these speculations suffer from unintelligibility and incoherence.

I also discuss an argument which it seems to me is governing how Dr. Craig sees God-statements in the New Testament:

While the argument isn't obviously unsound, neither is it obviously sound. We need to be given reasons for thinking premises 1 and 3 are true.

Finally, I argue against Dr. Craig's claim that ancient people can no concept of identity, and so could not, for instance, have been identifying the Father with the one God.

In part 2 I'll get more into Dr. Craig's biblical objections to my own unitarian Christian theology and christology.

My less philosophical, more big-picture conversation with Sean Finnegan about my dialogue with Dr. Craig is here:

Links for this episode:

Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview

Restitutio podcast

podcast 232 – Trinity Club Orientation

an incoherent Trinity theory

podcast 260 – How to Argue that the Bible is Trinitarian

relative identity Trinity theories

Dr. Fred Sanders’s Study of Edition of Warfield’s “Trinity”

Origen's Commentary on John

God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament

John 17:1-3; John 20:17

This week's thinking music is "Retrofuturistic Space Atrium" by Jesse Spillane.

On July 11, 2022 I had the privilege of dialoguing for about an hour with Dr. William Lane Craig on Jordan Hampton's Analytic Christian YouTube channel. Our official topics were (1) Dr. Craig's Trinity theory and my objections to it, and (2) my unitarian Christian view of the one God, and Dr. Craig's objections thereto. In this short but spirited exchange, I lodge biblical and philosophical objection to his Trinity theory, and he urges that my views are refuted by rather obvious deity of Christ texts.

Topics include:

In the next episode I'll share some reflections on the discussion and even give a few corrections.

Links for this episode:

the original video

his Trinity playlist

Dr. Craig's ministry Reasonable Faith

God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament

podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation

podcast 70 – The one God and his Son according to John

What John 1 Meant

podcast 248 – How Trinity theories conflict with the Bible

podcast 302 – The Stages of Trinitarian Commitment

On Numerical Sameness / Identity / “Absolute” Identity

a reading of Philippians 2:5-11

"There you go again."

podcast 224 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 1 – God and “God” in the Bible

Passages discussed in this episode: John 10:34-36; Philippians 2:5-11; John 17:1-3; Revelation 4-5; 1 John 5:20; John 20:17; John 20:31-32; John 1:1-18; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1; Hebrews 1:8-9; Psalm 45.

This week's thinking music is "Green Monster" by Jesse Spillane.

In this second episode (part 1 here) you'll learn about the very interesting last two chapters of Novatian's book On the Trinity, chapters which tell us so much about the range of theological opinions in mainstream Christianity in the middle of the 200s.

In chapter 30, he relates three arguments of his opponents, arguments from mainstream Christians who rejected the then-new logos speculations. These are what modern historians call Modalistic Monarchians and Dynamic Monarchians.

My analyses of these arguments are as follows:

The first, "direct" Modalistic Monarchian argument

This argument is valid. But, is it sound? Should we accept this argument as sound, or should we deny at least one premise, showing how it is unsound? What would Novatian advise? And what should a trinitarian theologian say about the argument?

The second, "indirect" Modalistic Monarchian argument

Again, the argument seems valid, and so either we must deny at least one premise (showing the argument to be unsound), or accept the conclusion (so that the argument is sound). What should we say? What should a trinitarian say? What does Novatian say?

The third argument comes from a very different brand of "Monarchian" Christians: what historians call the "Dynamic Monarchians," or in present-day terms, biblical unitarians. These are mainstream Christians who rejected speculations that Christ had "two natures," human and divine. Instead, they insisted, with Peter, that Jesus is "a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him" (Acts 2:22, NIV).

The Dynamic Monarchian argument

Again, the argument seems to be valid. What will Novatian do? After all, he seems committed to the truth of each of the four premises (2, 3, 4, 8)! So if the argument really is valid, he will thereby already be committed to the truth of the conclusion, step 10.

In trying to diagnose where these "heretics" go wrong, Novatian discusses what I'll call:

The Lord/Master/Good argument

Novatian's point is that an argument like this is invalid - that 3 doesn't follow from 1 and 2. And surely he is right about that. But none of the Monarchian arguments just surveyed seems to rely on any such crude mistake, e.g. on confusing being a god with being called "God" or "a god." When those arguments mention the claim that "Christ is a god" they mean this in the sense in which logos theorists like Novatian mean it. And clearly, Novatian and company do not mean only to say that the word deus can be applied to Christ!

At the end of the day, Novatian's responses to these first three Monarchian arguments are clear enough. Moreover, in my view, he is clearly correct about all three of them! Do you agree? Why or why not?

Links for this episode:

Novatian (Papandrea, trans.) On the Trinity, Letters to Cyprian of Carthage, Ethical Treatises

Papandrea, Novatian of Rome and the Culmination of Pre-Nicene Orthodoxy

Novatian (DeSimone, trans.) The Trinity, The Spectacles, Jewish Foods, In Praise of Purity, Letters

podcast 271 – Does your Trinity theory require relative identity?

podcast 224 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 1 – God and “God” in the Bible

podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists

podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”

God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament

podcast 291 – From one God to two gods to three “Gods” – John 1 and early Christian theologies

Clarke, The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity

This week's thinking music is "initial bridge" by Koi-discovery.

Novatian was executed by the Roman government in 258. This ended an interesting career.

After an emergency baptism when he was sick, Novatian became a priest and a leading theologian at Rome. He wrote his book The Trinity as a sort of commentary on traditional Roman baptismal creed, in order to help laypeople steer around docetic, Modalistic Monarchian, and Dynamic Monarchian christologies.

In this episode I discuss the various reactions of Christians to the order of the emperor in 249 to either sacrifice or be executed, and then I explain how Novatian became the leader of a faction of churches in Rome which would not re-admit the "lapsed." He might have become the bishop of Rome, but later people have sometimes called him an "anti-pope."

I then summarize his book and the rival theologies to his own brand of 3rd c. logos speculations, and I speculate myself about why he doesn't use the word trinitas in the book. Finally, since Novatian urges throughout this book that clearly the Son is Deus, I ask what such "Jesus is God" statements mean.

This sets the stage for the next episode, where we dig in to the last two chapters of his book, where he engages with some clear Modalistic Monarchian and Dynamic Monarchian arguments and explains why his own logos theory approach is monotheistic and not polytheistic.

Links for this episode:

Papandrea, Novatian of Rome and the Culmination of Pre-Nicene Orthodoxy

Novatian, The Trinity, The Spectacles, Jewish Foods, In Praise of Purity, Letters

The Treatise of Novatian on the Trinity

Rives, "The Decree of Decius and the Religion of Empire"

Emperor Decius

podcast 270 – Origen’s “one God”

podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”

podcast 12 – the Apostles’ Creed

podcast 316 – Review of Papandrea, Trinity 101: Father, Son, Holy Spirit

podcast 224 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 1 – God and “God” in the Bible

podcast 259 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 2

podcast 258 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 1

This week's thinking music is the track "Retrospective" by Koi-discovery.

Does the New Testament teach that when God raised and exalted the Lord Jesus, this changed Jesus from being human to being divine?

There's at least one passage in Paul's letters which at first glance sounds like this, and this view is held by some unitarian Christians.

In this episode I answer an email from listener Corey in which he argues that certain texts clearly teach that Jesus is no longer human, but is instead divine.

I discuss the texts he cites, and I again make use of the god-deity distinction discussed last time, and point out a crucial ambiguity in the terms "humanity" and "divinity." Are these supposed to be essences/natures, or mere statuses/accidental properties? It is going to matter when we ask whether or not Jesus is still human!

Here are some rough definitions of the key terms discussed in this and in the last episode, and some clear implications of these terms, as I discuss them at the end of this episode.

By definition, any god is a deity, but by the definitions at most one deity can be a god.

Or perhaps one may stipulate that by "divine status" one means instead this:

By the definitions, having human status implies not having divine status, and divine statues implies not having human status. On the first definition of "divine status" above, nowadays both God and Jesus will have it, but on the second definition, the exalted Jesus but not God would enjoy "divine status."

We must distinguish "divinity" and "humanity" as involving statuses from these important ideas:

Because these are by definition kind-essences, nothing can gain or lose them without coming into existence or going out of existence. Thus, if Jesus ever had human essence, then he continues to have it now.

And because of the properties involved, in principle nothing could either gain or lose divine essence, nor could a thing have it because of something else. Thus, it can't be that God has awarded Jesus with divine essence.

Because of the properties involved (see podcasts 343 and 344 or 263 and 264), if anyone has divine essence then it follows that they lack human essence, and if anyone has human essence then they lack divine essence.

Having heard both sides, do you affirm or deny that Jesus is no longer human? Let us know in a comment below.

Links for this episode:

Revised English Version

1 Corinthians 15:35-58; 1 Corinthians 15:44; REV comment on 1 Cor 15:45; 2 Peter 1:4; 1 John 3:2; Hebrews 1:3; Genesis 1:26-27; John 14:7-10; Galatians 1:1; Galatians 1:11-12; Galatians 1:15-17.

podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!

This week's thinking music is "lostTrack" by airtone.

A few months ago a podcast listener wrote me a long email arguing that clearly, according to the New Testament, the risen and exalted Lord Jesus is no longer human, but is instead divine.

In this first part of my reply I lay the groundwork for my response in part 2, where I'll interact with his arguments and proof-texts.

First I explain why, in general, knowledge of Philosophy is helpful for theology and for interpretation of the Bible, and point out that philosophical issues and assumptions are unavoidable. I counter a common sentiment that "Philosophy" is only a corrupting and unfortunate and "pagan" thing.

I then explain two importantly different ways to understand the terms "divine" and "human" - these can mean mere conditions or status (in technical lingo, "accidental" properties) or they might mean essences/natures (aka all of some kind of thing's "essential properties"). I explain these two interpretations, and then argue that we should, for general metaphysical reasons, believe that there are kind-essences.

I also explain different uses in theology of the words "nature" and "god" in Christian theology, also making use of the deity/god distinction explained in some of my previous work.

Links for this episode:

What is Philosophy?

Divine simplicity

The Reluctant Theologian Podcast

podcast 334 – “Who do you say I am?”

podcast 344 – Craig’s Contradictory Christ – Part 2

podcast 343 – Craig’s Contradictory Christ – Part 1

podcast 59 – Dr. Carl Mosser on salvation as deification

podcast 60 – Dr. Carl Mosser on deification in the Bible

omnipotence

"On counting gods"

podcast 164 – On Counting Gods

Is Jesus Human and Not Divine?

podcast 264 – Tuggy vs. Date debate – Jesus is human and not divine – Part 2

podcast 263 – Tuggy vs. Date debate – Jesus is human and not divine – Part 1

A letter from the Lord Jesus: About God and Me

This week's thinking music is "Bluenotation" by Ezra Skull.

In this episode I critically evaluate Dr. Craig's "Neo-Apollinarian" christology, and I find that it is beset with many metaphysical, creedal, and biblical problems.

Topics include:

This proposed christology is so unsuccessful that it should cause the thinking Christian to revisit this inconsistent triad of claims we looked at last time:

Specifically, is denying 2 really defensible? Mustn't we rather accept 2, and so, to be consistent, mustn't we only accept one of 1 and 3? If so, which way does Scripture as a whole point?

Links for this episode:

podcast 343 – Craig’s Contradictory Christ – Part 1

Craig and Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd ed.

Mark 13:32; Matthew 24:36; Genesis 1:26-27; John 8:40.

Question of the Week #410 Incarnation and Omniscience

Question of the Week #445 Was Christ a Contingent Being?

podcast 341 – Reflections on my debate with Dr. Andrew Loke

podcast 340 – Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is truly divine? – Loke vs. Tuggy – Part 2

podcast 339 – Does the New Testament teach that Jesus is truly divine? – Loke vs. Tuggy – Part 1

"kenotic" Incarnation theories

a reading of Philippians 2:5-11

What John 1 Meant

podcast 31 – Dr. William Hasker on the “Arian” Controversy

podcast 30 – The Council of Nicea

Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils

Pawl, The Incarnation

podcast 144 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Conciliar Christology – Part 2

podcast 143 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Conciliar Christology – Part 1

Morris, The Logic of God Incarnate

The Case Against the Preexistence of Christ - by Dr. Dale Tuggy

Debate - Identifying Jesus - Yusuf Ismail and William Lane Craig

Vishnu and his avatars

Parrinder, Avatar and Incarnation

podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!

podcast 235 – The Case Against Preexistence

This week's thinking music is "bluenotes" by airtone.