Trinities

By Dale TuggySociety & Culture Religion & Spirituality Christianity Philosophy

Trinities episodes

April 03, 2021podcast 323 – Did God die on the cross?
In this episode I interact with an episode of the Church Grammar podcast by Baptist theologian Dr. Brandon Smith called "Did God Die on the Cross?"
Dr. Smith's answer is: yes, "God" (i.e. the eternal, divine Son) did die on the cross.
My answer is: no, it was not God but rather God's human Son who died on the cross, and a fully divine Person can't in any way die.
It's a contrast of two ways to approach New Testament doctrine: coming to it with the full arsenal of catholic commitments from the first four "ecumenical" councils vs. trying to let New Testament teaching stand on its own, with no help from Incarnation and Trinity speculations, focusing on its clear claims, and carefully using some conceptual analysis.
Topics include:
what the New Testament actually says about the one who died for us on the cross
the standard catholic view that the one self in the incarnate Christ is the divine one, the "complete human nature" there being "anhypostatic"
our common concept of death and how this relates to the idea of ceasing to exist
modern "kenosis" speculations about incarnation
the alleged essential divine attributes of immutability, necessity, and immortality
two understandings of "the immortality of the soul" and which is common to most Christian traditions
how standard catholic views seem to imply that Jesus's crucifixion did not involve a human death
Why Dr. Smith thinks that if the Son died this amounts to God himself dying.
Did a fully divine Person die on the cross, or was it a very special man? Let us know what you think in a comment below or in the podcast's Facebook group.
Links for this episode:
Dr. Brandon Smith, his Church Grammar podcast, "Did God Die on the Cross?", "Did God Die on the Cross?: The Trinity and the Crucifixion"
podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!
Romans 5:1-11; 1 Timothy 6:13-16; Psalm 22; Luke 23:46; Matthew 27:46; John 3:16.
What is Modalism?
Clarifying Catholic Christologies
podcast 143 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Conciliar Christology – Part 1
podcast 144 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Conciliar Christology – Part 2
podcast 235 – The Case Against Preexistence
podcast 146 – Jesus as an Exemplar of Faith in the New Testament
Debate - "Is Jesus Human and not Divine?" - Dr. Dale Tuggy vs. Chris Date
Is Jesus Human and not Divine?
one-self Trinity theories
This week's thinking music is "Alive (Doing It Right) [Instrumental]" by Mise Darling.
57 min
March 09, 2021podcast 322 – Review of Erickson’s Making Sense of the Trinity
In this episode, my review of Dr. Millard Erickson's Making Sense of the Trinity. How many questions about "the Trinity" does this short and often-recommended book clearly answer? The author is very learned, and is not afraid to admit some difficult points for trinitarians, for example:
[The doctrine of the Trinity] does not appear to be taught in Scripture, which is the Christian's supreme authority in faith and practice. And it presents an obstacle to faith for those who otherwise might be inclined to accept the Christian faith.
Making Sense of the Trinity, p. 13
...most attempts to explain the Trinity have fallen into two major types...[those which] tend toward modalism, that is, the view that God is simply one person, with three different modes of existence...on the other hand [other attempts] tend toward tritheism, that is, the belief in three Gods. I have observed that in practice many Christians tend to alternate between these two positions, and something of this alternation may be a practical necessity.
p. 45
There is no evidence in the New Testament, either in instructions or in practice, of worship and prayer directed to the Holy Spirit. There is, however, considerable indication of a growing practice, as early as the third and fourth centuries. This became more firmly established as time went on.
p. 83
I understand him to be suggesting a four-self Trinity theory in this book, on which each "Person" of the Trinity is a self, and so is the Trinity. Any of those four can and should be objects of prayer and of worship, in his view. Topics discussed in this podcast include:
Several positive features of this book, and some of his deep insights.
How this book strongly reflects the intellectual fashions of its time (2000).
His peculiar view that each Person of the Trinity depends on each of the other two for his existence and deity, and his denial of tradition "divine processions" speculations.
How the book reveals four "dirty little secrets" of present-day academic theologians.
Which questions about the Trinity this book answers and which it fails to answer.
The strong and weak points of this book's treatment of early Christian views on the Father, Son, and Spirit.
How this 2000 book differs from Erickson's 1995 book God in Three Persons on the question of whether or not there is a Trinity doctrine taught in Scripture.
How Erickson's approach to "the Trinity" is more Protestant than that of many others.
How this book answers seven of the nine applicable Advanced Questions about "the Trinity."
The minimal use Erickson makes of appeal to "mystery" in this book.
What sorts of people I think would or would not significantly benefit from this book.
Links for this episode:
podcast 314 – 10 Fundamental Questions about the Trinity
Millard J. Erickson
Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions
God in Three Persons: A Contemporary Interpretation of the Trinity
Evolution of the Trinity – with Bill Schlegel
podcast 167 – Lamson’s History of The Unitarian Congregationalists
"Trinity" (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
McIntosh's Four-Self Trinity theory
podcast 78 – Mr. Chad McIntosh on the Trinity as a Functional Person
podcast 44 – The Spiritual Journey of Sir Anthony Buzzard
new co-authored paper: “Dormant Dispositions, Agent Value, and the Trinity”
"On the Possibility of a Single Perfect Person"
Journal of Analytic Theology
podcast 58 – We can’t prove the Trinity by reason alone
podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation (published book chapter)
10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #6 get a date – part 2
podcast 260 – How to Argue that the Bible is Trinitarian
podcast 248 – How Trinity theories conflict with the Bible
podcast 191 – Ware’s Outline of the Testimony of Scripture Against the Trinity
Theories of Religious Diversity
podcast 308 – Channing’s “Unitarian Christianity” – Part 1
podcast 302 – The Stages of Trinitarian Commitment
This week's thinking music is "Dream Blaze" by Little Glass Men.
1 hr 7 min
March 02, 2021podcast 321 – Evaluating Minton’s Three Arguments that Jesus is Yahweh
In this episode I interact with some arguments from the interesting blog post "3 Syllogistic Arguments For Jesus’ Deity" by apologist Evan Minton (also posted here).
I evaluate the arguments according to whether or not they are valid (i.e. whether the premises really imply the conclusion) and sound (i.e. valid and the premises are each true). For more on the concepts of validity and soundness, see this.
Since the validity or invalidity of an argument can be determined even by a machine, I make use of my trusty, crusty old Logicbot 2000.
In this blog post I list all the arguments discussed and my verdicts on them, but you'll have to listen to the episode to hear my scriptural reasons for holding various premises to be true or false. The three arguments Minton actually makes are labeled with his name below - but each has a crucially ambiguous term, and when you disambiguate that term in various ways, different arguments result - hence, the herd of arguments which follow each argument of his.
To properly work through this episode, you may want to print it; look for the green print button on the lower right of this post, which will create a printable version.
I start with a kind of argument which I think he is presupposing:
The "God" Argument
Jesus can be referred to as "God."
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: Unsound because invalid (2 doesn't follow from 1).
The Improved "God" Argument
Jesus can be referred to as God.
Any being which can be referred to as "God" is Yahweh.
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: valid but unsound; according to the Bible, 2 is false.
Minton's Savior Argument
Yahweh is the only Savior of mankind.
Jesus is the Savior of humankind
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: Valid, but "Savior" is ambiguous, and however it is disambiguated (see the following four arguments), the resulting argument is is unsound.
The Source of Salvation Argument
Yahweh is the only ultimate source of human salvation.
Jesus is the ultimate source of human salvation.
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: valid, but unsound because according to the Bible 2 is false.
The Direct Agent of Salvation Argument
Yahweh is the only direct agent of human salvation (i.e. the one who died for us and now mediates for us).
Jesus is the direct agent of human salvation.
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: Valid but unsound, as according to the Bible 1 is false.
The "Savior" Argument
Yahweh is the only "Savior" (i.e. the only one who can truly be called that).
Jesus is "Savior."
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: Valid but unsound; 1 is false according to the Bible.
The Mixed Sense of "Savior" Argument
Yahweh is the only ultimate source of human salvation.
Jesus is the direct agent of human salvation.
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: Unsound because invalid (3 does not follow from 1 and 2).
Minton's Creator Argument
Only Yahweh created the universe.
Jesus created the universe.
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: Valid, but "created" is ambiguous, and however it is disambiguated (see the following four arguments), the resulting argument is is unsound.
The Ultimate Source Argument
Only Yahweh is the ultimate source of the cosmos.
Jesus is the ultimate source of the cosmos.
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: Valid, but unsound because premise 2 is false according to the Bible.
The Instrument of Creation Argument
Only Yahweh is the one through whom another created.
Jesus is the one through whom another created.
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: Valid, but unsound because 1 is false according to the Bible.
The Involved in Creation Argument
Only Yahweh was involved in creation (i.e. either as the ultimate source of it or as the one through whom the creation was done).
Jesus was involved in creation (i.e. either as the ultimate source of it or as the one through whom the creation was done).
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: Valid, but unsound. Given the way that Minton is reading the alleged Christ-creator texts, 2 will be true but 1 will be false.
The Mixed Sense of "Created" Argument
Only Yahweh created (i.e. is the ultimate source of) the universe.
Jesus created (i.e. is the instrument through which another created).
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: Unsound because invalid (1 and 2 do not imply 3).
Minton's Worship Argument
Anyone who accepts worship other than Yahweh is a blasphemer.
Jesus accepted worship.
Therefore, Jesus was either a blasphemer or he was Yahweh.
Jesus was not a blasphemer.
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: Valid, but "worship" can be either just religious worship or "God-worship" - a sort of honor which is by definition can only be given to God. To evaluate the truth of premises 1 and 2, we must disambiguate the term "worship" - hence the following two arguments.
The Religious Worship Argument
Anyone who accepts religious worship other than Yahweh is a blasphemer.
Jesus accepted religious worship.
Therefore, Jesus was either a blasphemer or he was Yahweh.
Jesus was not a blasphemer.
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: Valid but unsound, because according to the New Testament 1 is false.
The God-Worship Argument
Anyone who accepts God-worship other than Yahweh is a blasphemer.
Jesus accepted God-worship.
Therefore, Jesus was either a blasphemer or he was Yahweh.
Jesus was not a blasphemer.
Therefore, Jesus is Yahweh.
Verdict: Valid, but according to the New Testament 2 is false.
Finally, I discuss this argument, which is not one which Minton would make, but one which might occur to a hasty listener:
The No-Sound-Arguments-So-Far Argument
The arguments we've considered so far for the conclusion that Jesus is Yahweh are unsound arguments.
Therefore, Jesus is not Yahweh.
Verdict: Unsound because invalid.
Am I right? Are none of Minton's arguments sound? Let us know what you think in a comment below.
Links for this episode:
"3 Syllogistic Arguments For Jesus’ Deity"
Evan Minton's cerebralfaith.net
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 258 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 1
podcast 259 – Who is the one Creator? – Part 2
Tuggy and Date, Is Jesus Human and Not Divine?
podcast 227 – Who Should Christians Worship?
worship and Revelation 4-5
Hurtado on the early worship of Jesus
evangelical apologists take note: Hurtado on Jesus and God
a reading of Philippians 2:5-11
the apologetics blind-spot on numerical identity
Kermit Zarley on “My Lord and my God.”
podcast 176 – Photinus of Sirmium
This week's thinking music is "Private Hurricane (Instrumental Version)" by Josh Woodward.
58 min
February 23, 2021podcast 320 – Thoughts on my debate with Rogers about Mark – Part 2 – interpretive fails
In this episode, my final thoughts on my recent debate with apologist Anthony Rogers about whether Mark teaches that Jesus is the one true God (part 1, part 2). Topics include:
the fulfillment fallacy
how New Testament authors use the Old Testament
a serious misreading of Psalm 110 which confuses together the two characters
the idea of multiple meanings and how this relates to divine inspiration
the original meanings and contexts of Psalm 45 and Psalm 2
Matthew 2:15 as a fulfillment of Hosea 11:1
Mark's and Luke's portrayals of Jesus as limited in knowledge and Rogers's attempts to re-interpret these passages so as to preserve or even imply Jesus's omniscience
what many apologists don't understand about early Christian theologies and John 1
Irenaeus's view that Jesus knew less than God
how Rogers anachronistically misunderstands what Novatian teaches about Jesus and God
Rogers's "I know Greek!" rhetoric, and what many people don't know about how language skills relate to interpretive disputes
Links for this episode:
podcast 319 – Thoughts on my debate with Rogers about Mark – Part 1 – culture clash
podcast 318 – Debate with Rogers – Does Mark teach that Jesus is God? – Part 2
podcast 317 – Debate with Rogers – Does Mark teach that Jesus is God? – Part 1
The NET Bible (Hardcover)
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
podcast 176 – Photinus of Sirmium
podcast 301 – Dr. Daniel Boyarin on John 1
podcast 298 – Andrews Norton on John 1
podcast 293 – Dr. Jo-Ann Brant on the Gospel According to John – Part 1
podcast 292 – New vs. Old “Beginning” – Two Interpretations of John 1
podcast 291 – From one God to two gods to three “Gods” – John 1 and early Christian theologies
podcast 290 – Is the “Socinian” interpretation of John 1 correct? A conversation with Carlos.
podcast 289 – “Socinian” approaches to John 1 – Part 2
podcast 288 – “Socinian” approaches to John 1 – Part 1
podcast 287 – Dr. Andrew Perry on John 1
https://youtu.be/0Hnlw4iMhE8
posts on Irenaeus
Irenaeus, Against Heresies Book 5
Origen on the Challenge to Jesus is God Apologists
Novatian, The Trinity, The Spectacles, Jewish Foods, In Praise of Purity, Letters (older, free translation of On the Trinity)
Matthew 1:23; Isaiah 7; Psalm 110; Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9; Matthew 2:15; Hosea 11:1; Mark 1; Mark 13:32; Mark 5:NN; Luke 8:42-48; Matthew 9:18-22; Matthew 9:8; Deuteronomy 34.
This week's thinking music is "The Magic Bullet" by Little Glass Men.
1 hr 4 min
February 16, 2021podcast 319 – Thoughts on my debate with Rogers about Mark – Part 1 – culture clash
In this episode I reflect on the debate of episodes 317 and 318. Topics include:
why I was willing to debate a Jesus-is-God apologist like Rogers
Rogers's post-debate statements that I think that all trinitarians are blasphemers, and that I regard them with "immense hatred."
what I meant by referring to Rogers's views as "fringe"
the idea that we can first interpret the Bible and construct our theology and only then bring in any sort of "philosophical" reasoning
some things Rogers doesn't understand about contemporary analytic Christian Philosophy
why I don't assume "that God can be only one Person" or that "if Jesus is God then the Father can't be God"
the importance of the concept of numerical sameness/identity when it comes to reasoning about God and Jesus
apologists' obstinate refusal to learn that these are valid forms of argument: a=c, b=c, therefore a=b; Fa, not-Fb, therefore not-(a=b) ("Fx" is a claim that x has feature F)
a vast and directly relevant scholarly literature which Jesus-is-God apologists choose to ignore
the idea of OT "signature acts" of God
Towards the end, I discuss the opening of the gospel according to Mark, with a view towards keeping its characters straight. Below, the terms referring to Jesus are blue, those referring to God are red, and those referring to John are in green. The parts which reflect an assumption of differences between Jesus and God are underlined.
Next episode: how Rogers, in his zeal to argue that Jesus is Yahweh, rejects a massive amount of contemporary conservative Bible scholarship.
Links for this episode:
Tre Brickley's debate map
original debate video
Debating Dale Starter Pack
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
Anthony Rogers's post-debate discussion with his followers
the apologetics blind-spot on numerical identity
podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists
Walton, Old Testament Theology for Christians: From Ancient Context to Enduring Belief
podcast 100 – Dr. Larry Hurtado on God in New Testament Theology
Dunn, Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence
Identity
podcast 271 – Does your Trinity theory require relative identity?
Pawl, The Incarnation
podcast 302 – The Stages of Trinitarian Commitment
Tuggy: What is the Trinity?
podcast 223 – Self-evident truths relevant to Trinity or Incarnation theories – Part 2
podcast 222 – Self-evident truths relevant to Trinity or Incarnation theories – Part 1
podcast 221 – Thomas Reid on human prejudices and common causes of error
podcast 220 – Thomas Reid on First Principles and Common Sense – Part 2
podcast 219 – Thomas Reid on First Principles and Common Sense – Part 1
“Trinity,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
“Trinity,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
“Trinity,” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
J.P. Moreland
podcast 265 – What apologists don’t understand about the terms “being” and “Person”
podcast 225 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 2 – Old “Lord” vs. New “Lord”
Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia: a Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible)
https://youtu.be/qd2xiCKl8-g
Acts 3:22; Deuteronomy 18:15; Matthew 5:43-48; 1 Corinthians 8:4-6; Ephesians 4:4-6; Isaiah 46; Mark 1:1-11
This week's thinking music is "Procreation" by Little Glass Men.
1 hr 5 min
February 08, 2021 podcast 318 – Debate with Rogers – Does Mark teach that Jesus is God? – Part 2
In this episode, the final portion of my debate with apologist Anthony Rogers.
Topics include what I call "the fulfillment fallacy," the meanings of "Lord" in the New Testament, what Rogers means by saying that "Jesus is God," whether or not Mark portrays Jesus as having been given authority by God, whether or not Mark portrays Jesus as not knowing certain truths, and just what the clear main thesis of Mark is.
The episode starts with our cross-examinations of one another, followed by some open discussion, closing statements, and Q&A time. (I have edited out a question or two which overall did not add to the discussion.)
Which side made the stronger case, and why?
Next week I'll share some thoughts on the debate.
Links for this episode:
Source video, Marlon Wilson’s The Gospel Truth YouTube channel
How Anthony Rogers interprets Scripture as self-contradictory
podcast 225 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 2 – Old “Lord” vs. New “Lord”
the apologetics blind-spot on numerical identity
“Identifying Jesus as Yahweh” as heresy
podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists
podcast 271 – Does your Trinity theory require relative identity?
This week's thinking music is "Sub Aqueonic" by Little Glass Men.
1 hr 24 min
February 02, 2021 podcast 317 – Debate with Rogers – Does Mark teach that Jesus is God? – Part 1
In this episode apologist Anthony Rogers lays out his case that the gospel according to Mark asserts Jesus to be the one true God. Not only does it call Jesus "the Lord," it presents Jesus as doing miracles which sort of resemble some of the miracles involved in the famous Old Testament Exodus from Egypt. Thus, any reader should know that this is Yahweh himself, who has come as a man, doing miracles only Yahweh himself could do.
Then, I give my opening statement, emphasizing that the clear and explicit thesis of this book is not that Jesus is God, but rather that Jesus is God's Christ (a.k.a. Messiah, Son of God, Son of Man, King of the Jews, Son of David). I also argue that what Mark doesn't say is very important evidence, and point out that Rogers's reading depends on a fulfillment fallacy relating to chapter 1.
Next, we give longer, then shorter rebuttals, which I think start to bring out very radical Rogers's interpretations are - radical in disagreeing with a lot of even very conservative scholarship, and radical in implying numerous logical contradictions.
I've edited the audio here to be more listenable, removing intros and transitions and stumbles, correcting a misstatement by me (I said "John" instead of "Matthew"), and reducing some of the cross-talk. And of course, I added breaks with thinking music.
Next week: back-and-forth discussion, audience Q&A, and closing statements.
Links for this episode:
Source video, Marlon Wilson's The Gospel Truth YouTube channel
podcast 225 – Biblical Words for God and for his Son Part 2 – Old “Lord” vs. New “Lord”
podcast 305 – Two Readings of Mark – popular or esoteric? – Part 1 (Part 2, Part 3)
Does Mark teach that Jesus is God?
Mark: Jesus is God’s Son, the Messiah
podcast 13 – On Bauckham’s Bargain
podcast 213 – Has Bauckham clarified his “divine identity” theory? – Part 1 (Part 2)
fulfillment fallacy posts: the Bible teaches that David is God, the Bible on another previous life of Jesus
the apologetics blind-spot on numerical identity
“Identifying Jesus as Yahweh” as heresy
podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists
podcast 257 – A letter from the Lord Jesus: About God and Me
Debating Dale Starter Pack
This week's thinking music is "Black Keys" by Little Glass Men.
1 hr 2 min
January 19, 2021podcast 316 – Review of Papandrea, Trinity 101: Father, Son, Holy Spirit
In this episode I review this introductory Trinity book by Dr. James Papandrea.
As with the previous episode in this series, I'll ask how many of these fundamental questions the book clearly answers:
What is “the doctrine of the Trinity”?
Why is this doctrine not, as some allege, tritheism?
Why is this doctrine not, as some allege, incoherent?
Is this doctrine consistent with the common conception of God as a mighty, unique, and completely perfect self?
When, if ever, did God reveal this doctrine?
If this doctrine is “in” the Bible, how can one see this?
If this doctrine is not in the Bible, why should Bible-oriented Protestants accept it?
How does this doctrine relate to the so-called “ecumenical” councils?
Why have some Christians opposed any Trinity doctrine?
Is this doctrine, as the “Athanasian” creed asserts, something which one must believe in order to be saved?
It seemed to me that a couple of passages in this book are key for understanding this author's views. One is:
At the end of the day, we have to admit that while we may be able to see the Trinity in the text of Scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity is not in Scripture per se, but is the result of the Church's interpretation of Scripture.
p. 60
Another is:
A [threefold] thing is either one thing with three parts, or three things that have some common relationship, but nothing that we can observe is [like the Trinity] truly both one and three at the same time.
pp. 128-29
How many of the above questions does this book answer? And, are the answers correct?
Links for this episode:
podcast 315 – Review of Ryken and LeFebvre, Our Triune God
Dr. Papandrea's home page
Trinity 101: Father, Son, Holy Spirit
podcast 248 – How Trinity theories conflict with the Bible
The Reluctant Theologian Podcast Episode 29, Classical Theism Part 1 with Thomas Williams
The Reluctant Theologian Podcast Episode 30, Objections to Classical Theism, Part 2 with Thomas Williams
podcast 227 – Who Should Christians Worship?
The Treatise of Novatian, On the Trinity
Clarifying Catholic Christologies
podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation (book chapter version)
Is Jesus Human and not Divine?
Catholic Theologian Hans Küng on New Testament theology
podcast 286 – Is the Trinity Essential? – Three Views
"Theories of Religious Diversity," Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The Lost Early History of Unitarian Christian Theology
podcast 11 – Tertullian the unitarian
"On Positive Mysterianism"
What is the Trinity?
podcast 190 – What is the Trinity? A triad of book reviews
This week's thinking music is "Decade Of Upsets (remaster)" by Doctor Turtle.
51 min
January 11, 2021 podcast 315 – Review of Ryken and LeFebvre, Our Triune God
In this episode I ask whether this short, introductory book on the Trinity, Our Triune God: Living in the Love of the Three-in-One by Philip Ryken and Michael LeFebvre, answers the ten (or nine) basic questions we explored last time. I score the book based on how many are clearly answered, as opposed to either being ignored or answered in an utterly confusing fashion. One of this last sort is the question of just what this doctrine is. Ryken and LeFebvre write,
For all its complexity, the biblical doctrine of the Trinity can be stated in seven simple propositions:
1. God the Father is God.
2. God the Son is God.
3. God the Holy Spirit is God.
4. The Father is not the Son.
5. The Son is not the Spirit.
6. The Spirit is not the Father.
7. Nevertheless, there is only one God.
I explain why this list is not enough to clarify what "the doctrine of the Trinity" is, and how their presentation overall leaves the careful reader baffled about what it is supposed to be.
We also explore, among other issues, how they try to show how the New Testament teaches a triune God. Along the way I discuss the "see three" fallacy and what I call the myth of the three eternal amigos.
Links for this episode:
Philip Ryken
Michael LeFebvre
Luke 3:21-22; Ephesians 1:1-14; Acts 7:59-60; John 14:22-23; John 17:1-3; 1 John 1:3; Luke 9:28-36; Exodus 34:30-35 ; 2 Peter 1:16-18; Luke 10:21; Luke 1:41; Matthew 16:13-20.
podcast 314 – 10 Fundamental Questions about the Trinity
podcast 302 – The Stages of Trinitarian Commitment
podcast 260 – How to Argue that the Bible is Trinitarian
God and his Son: the logic of the New Testament
“Trinity” (by analytic theologians): Baber, Howard-Snyder, Tuggy
the evolution of my views on the Trinity
podcast 5 – Anglicans Defending “Athanasius”
podcast 4 – Anglicans vs. “Athanasius”
podcast 2 – the “Athanasian Creed”
The Standard Opening Move
negative mysterianism
What is modalism?
podcast 253 – The Apostle Paul a Unitarian
podcast 26 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 2
podcast 25 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 1
podcast 227 – Who Should Christians Worship?
podcast 189 – The unfinished business of the Reformation
a four-self Trinity theory
podcast 190 – What is the Trinity? A triad of book reviews
podcast 277 – Was Christ tempted in every way?
podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!
podcast 218 – Dr. Jerry Walls on Roman Catholic and Christian Foundational Claims
"When and How in the History of Theology Did the Triune God Replace the Father as the Only True God?"
This week's thinking music is "High Above the Darkness (My Star)" by Admiral Bob.
1 hr 4 min
January 04, 2021podcast 314 – 10 Fundamental Questions about the Trinity
There are now a plethora would-be experts on "the doctrine of the Trinity" who offer to tell you the basics of what you need to know about the subject in a short paperback book, or in a lecture or three. Here are some questions which any actual expert should have ready and supportable answers for.
10 Basic or Fundamental Questions about "the Trinity":
What is "the doctrine of the Trinity"?
Why is this doctrine not, as some allege, tritheism?
Why is this doctrine not, as some allege, incoherent?
Is this doctrine consistent with the common conception of God as a mighty, unique, and completely perfect self?
When, if ever, did God reveal this doctrine?
If this doctrine is "in" the Bible, how can one see this?
If this doctrine is not in the Bible, why should Bible-oriented Protestants accept it?
How does this doctrine relate to the so-called "ecumenical" councils?
Why have some Christians opposed any Trinity doctrine?
Is this doctrine, as the "Athanasian" creed asserts, something which one must believe in order to be saved?
I also suggest ten more advanced questions. If a source can give convincing answers to any of these harder questions, then it should get some bonus points, especially if it can also answer the ten more basic ones above.
10 Advanced Questions about "the Trinity": bonus points for answering
Hypothetically, what would be required to show that the doctrine of the Trinity is false?
Does "the Trinity" either require or exclude a traditional doctrine of "divine processions"?
Is this doctrine "a mystery" and if so, what does that mean?
Is "the doctrine of the Trinity" consistent with divine simplicity?
What, if any, are the Jewish and/or Christian precursors to this doctrine of the Trinity? What are the stages by which this line of thinking about God developed?
What are the various competing ways of understanding the traditional Trinity-language, i.e. Trinity theories?
How can we rule out competing Trinity theories?
Why isn't the prevalence of such disagreement among people who have a Trinity theory evidence that no such theory has been revealed by God?
If "the Trinity" is a salvation-required doctrine why is it not clearly spelled out in any biblical passage?
In what sense, if any, is "the Trinity" an essential doctrine? Essential to what exactly? In other words, we can't truly have ____ until we have a doctrine of the Trinity.
At the end of this episode, I'll very briefly tell you my answers; I've been researching and publishing on these things for more than two decades. But you can skip that ending part if you want, because my main point here is just to arm you with important questions as you start to find your way around this topic.
Links for this episode:
podcast 302 – The Stages of Trinitarian Commitment
2 Timothy 2:24-25
podcast 190 – What is the Trinity? A triad of book reviews
What is the Trinity?
The Standard Opening Move [of trinitarian apologists]
SEP: Trinity as incoherent
podcast 102 – Dr. Brian Leftow on perfect being theology
podcast 164 – On Counting Gods
podcast 260 – How to Argue that the Bible is Trinitarian
Westminster Confession of Faith
podcast 31 – Dr. William Hasker on the “Arian” Controversypodcast
podcast 30 – The Council of Nicea
podcast 29 – Arius
10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #6 get a date – part 2
podcast 248 – How Trinity theories conflict with the Bible
How Trinity theories conflict with the New Testament
podcast 2 – the “Athanasian Creed”
podcast 286 – Is the Trinity Essential? – Three Views
"Trinity," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Evolution of the Trinity – with Bill Schlegel on The One God Report
"When and How in the History of Theology Did the Triune God Replace the Father as the Only True God?"
This week's thinking music is "The Dweller on Coyote Hill" by Little Glass Men
1 hr 2 min