title

Trinities

Dale Tuggy

6
Followers
43
Plays
Trinities
Trinities

Trinities

Dale Tuggy

6
Followers
43
Plays
OVERVIEWEPISODESYOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Details

About Us

Theories about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Latest Episodes

podcast 276 – How is the Trinity Central to the Gospel? Or: How The Gospel Coalition Prioritizes Speculation over Scripture

In this short video, Drs. Ligon Duncan, Scott Swain, and Gavin Ortlund tell us how "the doctrine of the Trinity" is central to the good news. Of course, asking how "the doctrine of the Trinity" is central to the good news is to assume that (1) there is one such doctrine, and (2) obviously this doctrine is central to the gospel, so that any gospel that doesn't include it is incomplete. Unfortunately, we know that (1) is false, and (2) seems to lack any actual New Testament basis. For instance, the author Luke, in presenting gospel sermons in Acts, never mentions, implies, or assumes any doctrine of a tripersonal God. Not only is "the Trinity" not essential to the New Testament gospel, any Trinity theory conflicts with the clear New Testament teaching that the one just is the Father himself. Oblivious to the Protestant concern held by countless laypeople today, that "the Trinity" is a later development that misfits the Bible, not an actual teaching of the Bible, these Reformed theolog...

56 MIN6 d ago
Comments
podcast 276 – How is the Trinity Central to the Gospel? Or: How The Gospel Coalition Prioritizes Speculation over Scripture

podcast 275 – Exposing Dr. Heiser to actual biblical unitarian thought

In episode 292 of his Naked Bible podcast, Dr. Michael Heiser was asked about how biblical unitarian Christians understand Old Testament texts involving "the angel of the LORD" and "the word of the LORD." He took the opportunity to dump on biblical unitarianism as rationalistic, dishonest, pitifully uninformed, self-inconsistent, not "biblical" in any meaningful sense, and simply inconsistent with the obvious meaning of several Old Testament texts, in Genesis 48, 1 Samuel 3, and Jeremiah 1. In this episode I respond, exposing Dr. Heiser to how actual (as opposed to imagined) unitarian Christians approach scripture and theology. Links for this episode: * Naked Bible 292: Q&A 35* podcast 97 – Dr. Michael Heiser on The Unseen Realm* podcast 98 – Dr. Michael Heiser on Old Testament binitarianism* Benjamin Sommer on God’s Bodies* If Modalism about the Son were true, then…* podcast 167 – Lamson’s History of The Unitarian Congregationalists * podcast 25 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 1 * podcast 26 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 2 * Jeremiah 1:4-19; 1 Samuel 3; Genesis 48:15-16; Mark 1; Philippians 2; Isaiah 7:10-17. * On the fulfillment fallacy: the Bible teaches that David is God, the Bible on another previous life of Jesus, Worship of Jesus, Worship of God, and the Fulfillment Fallacy* podcast ...

67 MIN1 w ago
Comments
podcast 275 – Exposing Dr. Heiser to actual biblical unitarian thought

podcast 274 – McManus on Oneness Pentecostal Christology

In this episode I interact with "A Solution to Dale Tuggy’s Argument against Oneness Pentecostal Christology" - a blog post by Skylar McManus. In this piece he critically interacts with the following argument of mine (from this blog post). * Suppose that modalism is true about the Son.* Therefore, either the Son is identical to God, or the Son is a mode of God. (2)* The Son is identical to God only if whatever is true of God is true of the Son, and vice versa.* Some things are true of God which are not true of the Son, and vice versa.* Therefore the Son is not identical to God. (3,4)* If the Son is a mode of God, then the Son at no time has a loving interpersonal relationship with God.* The Son has had a loving interpersonal relationship with God.* Therefore, the Son is not a mode of God. (6,7)* Therefore, modalism about the Son is false; the Son is not a mode of God. (2,5,8) He suggests that a Oneness Pentecostal, who is committed to 1 and 2, might sensibly escape the unwanted conclusion here (9) by denying premise 4. That's a bold move! But can 4 sensibly be denied? In arguing for this McManus appeals to the key move made by analytic theologian Dr. Timothy Pawl in defense of the coherence of a two-natures doctrine about Christ. So along the way I explain some problems I have with Pawl's take on incarnation. Links for this episode: * Skylar McManus's blog Thought Life* A Solution to Dale Tuggy’s Argument against Oneness Pentecostal Christology* Classic Cars and Christology: Two Models* 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 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists*

57 MIN3 w ago
Comments
podcast 274 – McManus on Oneness Pentecostal Christology

podcast 273 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Extended Conciliar Christology – Part 2

In this second part of our conversation about his new book, we discuss some of the "extensions" of conciliar christology that Dr. Pawl defends as coherent (contradiction-free). These include possibilities of multiple incarnations, Jesus's real temptation, and the common medieval doctrine that "in" his human nature Jesus knows all past, present, and future events. We also discuss a problem which Dr. Pawl encapsulates in this argument in the book (p. 96). The argument starts with five premises and derives a contraction, which shows that one or more of the premises must be false. * The Word permanently assumed whatever he assumed in the incarnation. * The Word assumed CHN [Christ's human nature] in the incarnation.* During the Interim state [i.e. when Christ was dead], CHN did not exist.* All real relations, to be instantiated, require the existence of their relata.* Assumption [i.e. the relation between the Word and CHN] is a real relation. * Assumption requires the existence of its relata to be instantiated. (From 4,5)* During the Interim state, CHN was not assumed. (From 2,3,6)* It is false that the Word permanently assumed CHN in the incarnation. (From 2,7)* The Word permanently assumed CHN in the incarnation. (From 1,2)* Contradiction! (From 8,9) This looks like a tough problem for the adherent of two-natures theory, since they would seem to be committed to all of 1-5. Dr. Pawl suggests denying either 1 or 2. We also discuss my objection that a Jesus who knew the day and hour of his future return has, if the New Testament is to be believed, deceived us. At one point I mistakenly say the Dr. Pawl and I are in a modus ponens - modus tollens standoff. But that's not right. My modus tollens argument was: * If Christ is divine, then he wasn't tempted.* Christ was tempted.* Therefore, it is not the case that Christ is divine. The corresponding modus ponens argument would be: * If Christ is divine, then he wasn't tempted.* Christ is divine.* Therefore, Christ wasn't tempted. I'm sure some Christians think this. But that's not what Dr. Pawl thinks. Rather, he would argue: * Christ can be tempted.* Christ is divine.* Therefore, it is not the case that if Christ is divine then he can't be tempted. Of course, all three of these argument are valid. But only one of them can be sound! Which we should accept depends on what evidence we possess. But the disagreement between Dr. Pawl and me is better represented as two responses to what we would agree is an inconsistent triad of claims - claims such that if any two are true, then the remaining one is false. * Christ is divine.* Christ was tempted.* If Christ is divine, then he wasn't tempted. I deny the first. I hold the second to be a clear and non-negotiable New Testament teaching. And the third seems evident, given that being divine entails being perfect in power, knowledge, goodness, and independence. But the first isn't actually supported by the New Testament, contrary to a load of dodgy traditional arguments. Thus, we should deny the first. Dr. Pawl would say that Church tradition requires the first two, so the third should be denied. What say you? Which of those should be denied, and why? Links for this episode: *

52 MINOCT 15
Comments
podcast 273 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Extended Conciliar Christology – Part 2

podcast 272 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Extended Conciliar Christology – Part 1

Dr. Timothy Pawl has written the fullest and most carefully-argued defense of "two natures" christology as defined by the ecumenical councils. Now he's also written a book-length defense of those core claims plus some related claims which are advocated by many in the catholic traditions, including St. Thomas Aquinas. In this first part of our conversation we discuss: what it takes to defend the coherence of traditional "conciliar" christology, reactions to his first book, what genre these books are in, my main objection to his defense, the concept of a supposit, the significance of the Definition from the Council of Chalcedon in 451, whether or not the communication of idioms applies to him and his wife (who are "one"), and whether or not I've ever thrown one of his books across the room. Links for this episode: * Dr. Timothy Pawl* Interview about Jesus as God at Closer to Truth* Dr. Faith Pawl* 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 270 – Origen’s “one God”* This week's thinking music is "The Bipolar Bear (Live in Concert)" by Papa_Zulu.

49 MINOCT 8
Comments
podcast 272 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Extended Conciliar Christology – Part 1

podcast 271 – Does your Trinity theory require relative identity?

Apologists, this episode is for you. Some of you hold a Trinity theory which will clearly be incoherent unless relative identity theory is true. In this episode, I explain the concept of (numerical) identity, the basic idea behind Catholic analytic philosopher Peter Geach's relative identity theory, and how all of this applies to Trinity theories. It will help you to start to consider whether or not relative identity is a price you're willing to pay. Along the way I discuss this argument, which I think we should agree must be unsound. But the question is: Why? (Most philosophers agree that it is obviously valid.) * The Father just is God.* The Son just is God.* Therefore, the Son is the Father (and vice-versa). And in the last segment I discuss this challenging argument, which interestingly, both me and some trinitarians would say is sound (i.e. it is valid and the premises are true, so the conclusion is true too). * The Father and the Son have simultaneously and/or timelessly differed. (theological and biblical premise)* Nothing can either simultaneously or timelessly be and not be some way. (self-evident premise)* Therefore, Father and the Son are not numerically one thing. (1,2)* For any a and any b, and any type of thing F, a and b are the same F only if a and b are numerically one thing. (self-evident premise)* Therefore, the Father and the Son are not the same god. (3, 4) But what do you say about this argument? That's the point. (In this episode I don't discuss Brower's and Rea's sort of non-Geachian relative identity theory, on which see this.) Links for this episode: * Identity* "Trinity," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy* Peter van Inwagen, "Not by Confusion of Substance But by Unity of Person," "And Yet They Are Not Three Gods But One God" * the apologetics blind-spot on numerical identity * On Numerical Sameness / Identity / “Absolute” Identity * podcast 28 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 2* podcast 27 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 1 * p...

59 MINSEP 17
Comments
podcast 271 – Does your Trinity theory require relative identity?

podcast 270 – Origen’s “one God”

I might have called this episode "Origen's two gods and his 'one God.'" Or even: "Origen's two deities, his one god, and his 'one God.'" In it I present the first portion of Origen's interesting Dialogue with Heraclides, from about the year 254 A.D. The backstory, in a nutshell: somehow concerns were raised about the bishop Heraclides's doctrine; apparently he was suspected of being some sort of "monarchian" (rejector of Logos theories). A meeting was called at his church and the famous scholar Origen was brought in to publicly examine him. Someone was there taking it all down, mostly likely one of Origen's scribes. And this transcript was fairly recently discovered! Do you think that it has always been agreed mainstream Christian doctrine that the Father and the Son are the same God? If so, this little dialogue is going to surprise you! Also, the nature of Origen's monotheism may surprise you. Thanks to Leslie, Joshua, and Sean for their voice acting here. Here is my modified Chadw...

62 MINSEP 11
Comments
podcast 270 – Origen’s “one God”

podcast 269 – Why debate theology?

I've recently participated in a couple of face-to-face debates, one about the Trinity and the other about Incarnation. But not everyone likes debates, or thinks they are overall helpful or important. In this episode you'll hear my brief, informal talk at Converge about debating theology, with some of the Q&A that followed. I address questions including: * Are debates just an example of ungodly strife or harmful quarreling?* Are debates important? If so, who do they help?* Is there any scriptural precedent for debating theological questions?* Debates never change anyone's mind, right? So then, why do them?* Should you be a debater?* Should you debate all challengers?* What are the downsides of debating? Links for this episode: * Tuggy vs Kershnar: Is there a God?* Tuggy vs. Brown: Is the God of the Bible the Father Alone?* Tuggy vs Date: Is Jesus Human and not Divine?* Acts 18:24-28; Matthew 5:24; James 1:19-21, 3:1-12.* The Gospel of John movie* Jesus's argument in John 10* podcast 194 – God: One Person or Three? Sanders vs. Buzzard debate * Unitarian vs. Trinitarian debate: Sean Finnegan vs. Brant Bosserman* Did Paul Teach Jesus is God? Anthony Rogers vs. Carlos Xavier* trinities podcast Facebook group* Restitutio Interview 31: Master’s University Prof. Finds Son of God, Loses Job (Bill Schlegel)* Loyola: tradition trumps sense perception*

54 MINSEP 3
Comments
podcast 269 – Why debate theology?

podcast 268 – Another look at Philippians 2 with Dr. Dustin Smith

In Philippians 2 Paul famously holds up Jesus as an example because he traded the "form of God" for the "form of a slave." Is he here, as many readers think, describing an eternal divine Person who decides to become human and be born on the earth? Or is Paul rather praising Jesus's humility as shown in his earthly ministry? In this episode we take a deep dive into this passage with Dr. Dustin Smith, host of The Biblical Unitarian Podcast. I think the sort of reading explained here is on the whole better than the one I defended in podcast 49. Passages discussed include: Philippians 2; Philippians 3:4-11; Philippians 3:15-21; Philippians 3:25-30; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 4:19; 2 Timothy 3:5; Isaiah 52:13-53:12; Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 3:6-8; Psalm 8; Romans 5:12-21; Romans 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:25-28; Matthew 28:18; Zechariah 12. Links for this episode * Allegiance to the King* The Biblical Unitarian podcast: episodes on Philippians 2* podcast 119 – The Son of God 3 – Dr. Dustin Smith’s “Socinian” view of Jesus* podcast 49 – 2 interpretations of Philippians 2 – part 2* James Dunn, Christology in the Making* Philippians 2 Greek-English Interlinear* harpagmon; morphe; eikon;

-1 sJUL 16
Comments
podcast 268 – Another look at Philippians 2 with Dr. Dustin Smith

podcast 267 – Andrew Davis on church history, the Trinity, and modalism – Part 2

In this episode we hear the rest of Andrew Davis's journey from trinitarian to "Arian" to biblical unitarian whistleblower. We discuss why he had dismissed biblical unitarian theology and why he decided to give it another look, what the New Testament says you must believe to be saved, how trinitarian traditions discourage thinking about Trinity theories, and how most Protestants assume some degree of Catholic traditions about the Trinity. And at the end of the episode he offers advice to Christians who are starting to work their way into these issues. Links for this episode: * Andrew Davis's blog Contra Modalism* Is the Trinity Necessary For Salvation?* John 10:30 Commentary* Origen on the One God Being the Father* podcast 52 – John Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity, Part 1* Tuggy, "The unfinished business of Trinitarian theorizing"* podcast 235 – The Case Against Preexistence* John 10:30; 1 Corinthians 3:8; John 14:28; Mark 13:32; * podcast 2 – the “Athanasian Creed”...

53 MINJUL 9
Comments
podcast 267 – Andrew Davis on church history, the Trinity, and modalism – Part 2

Latest Episodes

podcast 276 – How is the Trinity Central to the Gospel? Or: How The Gospel Coalition Prioritizes Speculation over Scripture

In this short video, Drs. Ligon Duncan, Scott Swain, and Gavin Ortlund tell us how "the doctrine of the Trinity" is central to the good news. Of course, asking how "the doctrine of the Trinity" is central to the good news is to assume that (1) there is one such doctrine, and (2) obviously this doctrine is central to the gospel, so that any gospel that doesn't include it is incomplete. Unfortunately, we know that (1) is false, and (2) seems to lack any actual New Testament basis. For instance, the author Luke, in presenting gospel sermons in Acts, never mentions, implies, or assumes any doctrine of a tripersonal God. Not only is "the Trinity" not essential to the New Testament gospel, any Trinity theory conflicts with the clear New Testament teaching that the one just is the Father himself. Oblivious to the Protestant concern held by countless laypeople today, that "the Trinity" is a later development that misfits the Bible, not an actual teaching of the Bible, these Reformed theolog...

56 MIN6 d ago
Comments
podcast 276 – How is the Trinity Central to the Gospel? Or: How The Gospel Coalition Prioritizes Speculation over Scripture

podcast 275 – Exposing Dr. Heiser to actual biblical unitarian thought

In episode 292 of his Naked Bible podcast, Dr. Michael Heiser was asked about how biblical unitarian Christians understand Old Testament texts involving "the angel of the LORD" and "the word of the LORD." He took the opportunity to dump on biblical unitarianism as rationalistic, dishonest, pitifully uninformed, self-inconsistent, not "biblical" in any meaningful sense, and simply inconsistent with the obvious meaning of several Old Testament texts, in Genesis 48, 1 Samuel 3, and Jeremiah 1. In this episode I respond, exposing Dr. Heiser to how actual (as opposed to imagined) unitarian Christians approach scripture and theology. Links for this episode: * Naked Bible 292: Q&A 35* podcast 97 – Dr. Michael Heiser on The Unseen Realm* podcast 98 – Dr. Michael Heiser on Old Testament binitarianism* Benjamin Sommer on God’s Bodies* If Modalism about the Son were true, then…* podcast 167 – Lamson’s History of The Unitarian Congregationalists * podcast 25 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 1 * podcast 26 – Pastor Sean Finnegan on “the Holy Spirit” – Part 2 * Jeremiah 1:4-19; 1 Samuel 3; Genesis 48:15-16; Mark 1; Philippians 2; Isaiah 7:10-17. * On the fulfillment fallacy: the Bible teaches that David is God, the Bible on another previous life of Jesus, Worship of Jesus, Worship of God, and the Fulfillment Fallacy* podcast ...

67 MIN1 w ago
Comments
podcast 275 – Exposing Dr. Heiser to actual biblical unitarian thought

podcast 274 – McManus on Oneness Pentecostal Christology

In this episode I interact with "A Solution to Dale Tuggy’s Argument against Oneness Pentecostal Christology" - a blog post by Skylar McManus. In this piece he critically interacts with the following argument of mine (from this blog post). * Suppose that modalism is true about the Son.* Therefore, either the Son is identical to God, or the Son is a mode of God. (2)* The Son is identical to God only if whatever is true of God is true of the Son, and vice versa.* Some things are true of God which are not true of the Son, and vice versa.* Therefore the Son is not identical to God. (3,4)* If the Son is a mode of God, then the Son at no time has a loving interpersonal relationship with God.* The Son has had a loving interpersonal relationship with God.* Therefore, the Son is not a mode of God. (6,7)* Therefore, modalism about the Son is false; the Son is not a mode of God. (2,5,8) He suggests that a Oneness Pentecostal, who is committed to 1 and 2, might sensibly escape the unwanted conclusion here (9) by denying premise 4. That's a bold move! But can 4 sensibly be denied? In arguing for this McManus appeals to the key move made by analytic theologian Dr. Timothy Pawl in defense of the coherence of a two-natures doctrine about Christ. So along the way I explain some problems I have with Pawl's take on incarnation. Links for this episode: * Skylar McManus's blog Thought Life* A Solution to Dale Tuggy’s Argument against Oneness Pentecostal Christology* Classic Cars and Christology: Two Models* 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 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists*

57 MIN3 w ago
Comments
podcast 274 – McManus on Oneness Pentecostal Christology

podcast 273 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Extended Conciliar Christology – Part 2

In this second part of our conversation about his new book, we discuss some of the "extensions" of conciliar christology that Dr. Pawl defends as coherent (contradiction-free). These include possibilities of multiple incarnations, Jesus's real temptation, and the common medieval doctrine that "in" his human nature Jesus knows all past, present, and future events. We also discuss a problem which Dr. Pawl encapsulates in this argument in the book (p. 96). The argument starts with five premises and derives a contraction, which shows that one or more of the premises must be false. * The Word permanently assumed whatever he assumed in the incarnation. * The Word assumed CHN [Christ's human nature] in the incarnation.* During the Interim state [i.e. when Christ was dead], CHN did not exist.* All real relations, to be instantiated, require the existence of their relata.* Assumption [i.e. the relation between the Word and CHN] is a real relation. * Assumption requires the existence of its relata to be instantiated. (From 4,5)* During the Interim state, CHN was not assumed. (From 2,3,6)* It is false that the Word permanently assumed CHN in the incarnation. (From 2,7)* The Word permanently assumed CHN in the incarnation. (From 1,2)* Contradiction! (From 8,9) This looks like a tough problem for the adherent of two-natures theory, since they would seem to be committed to all of 1-5. Dr. Pawl suggests denying either 1 or 2. We also discuss my objection that a Jesus who knew the day and hour of his future return has, if the New Testament is to be believed, deceived us. At one point I mistakenly say the Dr. Pawl and I are in a modus ponens - modus tollens standoff. But that's not right. My modus tollens argument was: * If Christ is divine, then he wasn't tempted.* Christ was tempted.* Therefore, it is not the case that Christ is divine. The corresponding modus ponens argument would be: * If Christ is divine, then he wasn't tempted.* Christ is divine.* Therefore, Christ wasn't tempted. I'm sure some Christians think this. But that's not what Dr. Pawl thinks. Rather, he would argue: * Christ can be tempted.* Christ is divine.* Therefore, it is not the case that if Christ is divine then he can't be tempted. Of course, all three of these argument are valid. But only one of them can be sound! Which we should accept depends on what evidence we possess. But the disagreement between Dr. Pawl and me is better represented as two responses to what we would agree is an inconsistent triad of claims - claims such that if any two are true, then the remaining one is false. * Christ is divine.* Christ was tempted.* If Christ is divine, then he wasn't tempted. I deny the first. I hold the second to be a clear and non-negotiable New Testament teaching. And the third seems evident, given that being divine entails being perfect in power, knowledge, goodness, and independence. But the first isn't actually supported by the New Testament, contrary to a load of dodgy traditional arguments. Thus, we should deny the first. Dr. Pawl would say that Church tradition requires the first two, so the third should be denied. What say you? Which of those should be denied, and why? Links for this episode: *

52 MINOCT 15
Comments
podcast 273 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Extended Conciliar Christology – Part 2

podcast 272 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Extended Conciliar Christology – Part 1

Dr. Timothy Pawl has written the fullest and most carefully-argued defense of "two natures" christology as defined by the ecumenical councils. Now he's also written a book-length defense of those core claims plus some related claims which are advocated by many in the catholic traditions, including St. Thomas Aquinas. In this first part of our conversation we discuss: what it takes to defend the coherence of traditional "conciliar" christology, reactions to his first book, what genre these books are in, my main objection to his defense, the concept of a supposit, the significance of the Definition from the Council of Chalcedon in 451, whether or not the communication of idioms applies to him and his wife (who are "one"), and whether or not I've ever thrown one of his books across the room. Links for this episode: * Dr. Timothy Pawl* Interview about Jesus as God at Closer to Truth* Dr. Faith Pawl* 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 270 – Origen’s “one God”* This week's thinking music is "The Bipolar Bear (Live in Concert)" by Papa_Zulu.

49 MINOCT 8
Comments
podcast 272 – Dr. Timothy Pawl’s In Defense of Extended Conciliar Christology – Part 1

podcast 271 – Does your Trinity theory require relative identity?

Apologists, this episode is for you. Some of you hold a Trinity theory which will clearly be incoherent unless relative identity theory is true. In this episode, I explain the concept of (numerical) identity, the basic idea behind Catholic analytic philosopher Peter Geach's relative identity theory, and how all of this applies to Trinity theories. It will help you to start to consider whether or not relative identity is a price you're willing to pay. Along the way I discuss this argument, which I think we should agree must be unsound. But the question is: Why? (Most philosophers agree that it is obviously valid.) * The Father just is God.* The Son just is God.* Therefore, the Son is the Father (and vice-versa). And in the last segment I discuss this challenging argument, which interestingly, both me and some trinitarians would say is sound (i.e. it is valid and the premises are true, so the conclusion is true too). * The Father and the Son have simultaneously and/or timelessly differed. (theological and biblical premise)* Nothing can either simultaneously or timelessly be and not be some way. (self-evident premise)* Therefore, Father and the Son are not numerically one thing. (1,2)* For any a and any b, and any type of thing F, a and b are the same F only if a and b are numerically one thing. (self-evident premise)* Therefore, the Father and the Son are not the same god. (3, 4) But what do you say about this argument? That's the point. (In this episode I don't discuss Brower's and Rea's sort of non-Geachian relative identity theory, on which see this.) Links for this episode: * Identity* "Trinity," Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy* Peter van Inwagen, "Not by Confusion of Substance But by Unity of Person," "And Yet They Are Not Three Gods But One God" * the apologetics blind-spot on numerical identity * On Numerical Sameness / Identity / “Absolute” Identity * podcast 28 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 2* podcast 27 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 1 * p...

59 MINSEP 17
Comments
podcast 271 – Does your Trinity theory require relative identity?

podcast 270 – Origen’s “one God”

I might have called this episode "Origen's two gods and his 'one God.'" Or even: "Origen's two deities, his one god, and his 'one God.'" In it I present the first portion of Origen's interesting Dialogue with Heraclides, from about the year 254 A.D. The backstory, in a nutshell: somehow concerns were raised about the bishop Heraclides's doctrine; apparently he was suspected of being some sort of "monarchian" (rejector of Logos theories). A meeting was called at his church and the famous scholar Origen was brought in to publicly examine him. Someone was there taking it all down, mostly likely one of Origen's scribes. And this transcript was fairly recently discovered! Do you think that it has always been agreed mainstream Christian doctrine that the Father and the Son are the same God? If so, this little dialogue is going to surprise you! Also, the nature of Origen's monotheism may surprise you. Thanks to Leslie, Joshua, and Sean for their voice acting here. Here is my modified Chadw...

62 MINSEP 11
Comments
podcast 270 – Origen’s “one God”

podcast 269 – Why debate theology?

I've recently participated in a couple of face-to-face debates, one about the Trinity and the other about Incarnation. But not everyone likes debates, or thinks they are overall helpful or important. In this episode you'll hear my brief, informal talk at Converge about debating theology, with some of the Q&A that followed. I address questions including: * Are debates just an example of ungodly strife or harmful quarreling?* Are debates important? If so, who do they help?* Is there any scriptural precedent for debating theological questions?* Debates never change anyone's mind, right? So then, why do them?* Should you be a debater?* Should you debate all challengers?* What are the downsides of debating? Links for this episode: * Tuggy vs Kershnar: Is there a God?* Tuggy vs. Brown: Is the God of the Bible the Father Alone?* Tuggy vs Date: Is Jesus Human and not Divine?* Acts 18:24-28; Matthew 5:24; James 1:19-21, 3:1-12.* The Gospel of John movie* Jesus's argument in John 10* podcast 194 – God: One Person or Three? Sanders vs. Buzzard debate * Unitarian vs. Trinitarian debate: Sean Finnegan vs. Brant Bosserman* Did Paul Teach Jesus is God? Anthony Rogers vs. Carlos Xavier* trinities podcast Facebook group* Restitutio Interview 31: Master’s University Prof. Finds Son of God, Loses Job (Bill Schlegel)* Loyola: tradition trumps sense perception*

54 MINSEP 3
Comments
podcast 269 – Why debate theology?

podcast 268 – Another look at Philippians 2 with Dr. Dustin Smith

In Philippians 2 Paul famously holds up Jesus as an example because he traded the "form of God" for the "form of a slave." Is he here, as many readers think, describing an eternal divine Person who decides to become human and be born on the earth? Or is Paul rather praising Jesus's humility as shown in his earthly ministry? In this episode we take a deep dive into this passage with Dr. Dustin Smith, host of The Biblical Unitarian Podcast. I think the sort of reading explained here is on the whole better than the one I defended in podcast 49. Passages discussed include: Philippians 2; Philippians 3:4-11; Philippians 3:15-21; Philippians 3:25-30; 2 Corinthians 8:9; Galatians 4:19; 2 Timothy 3:5; Isaiah 52:13-53:12; Genesis 1:26-27; Genesis 3:6-8; Psalm 8; Romans 5:12-21; Romans 8:3; 1 Corinthians 15:25-28; Matthew 28:18; Zechariah 12. Links for this episode * Allegiance to the King* The Biblical Unitarian podcast: episodes on Philippians 2* podcast 119 – The Son of God 3 – Dr. Dustin Smith’s “Socinian” view of Jesus* podcast 49 – 2 interpretations of Philippians 2 – part 2* James Dunn, Christology in the Making* Philippians 2 Greek-English Interlinear* harpagmon; morphe; eikon;

-1 sJUL 16
Comments
podcast 268 – Another look at Philippians 2 with Dr. Dustin Smith

podcast 267 – Andrew Davis on church history, the Trinity, and modalism – Part 2

In this episode we hear the rest of Andrew Davis's journey from trinitarian to "Arian" to biblical unitarian whistleblower. We discuss why he had dismissed biblical unitarian theology and why he decided to give it another look, what the New Testament says you must believe to be saved, how trinitarian traditions discourage thinking about Trinity theories, and how most Protestants assume some degree of Catholic traditions about the Trinity. And at the end of the episode he offers advice to Christians who are starting to work their way into these issues. Links for this episode: * Andrew Davis's blog Contra Modalism* Is the Trinity Necessary For Salvation?* John 10:30 Commentary* Origen on the One God Being the Father* podcast 52 – John Locke’s The Reasonableness of Christianity, Part 1* Tuggy, "The unfinished business of Trinitarian theorizing"* podcast 235 – The Case Against Preexistence* John 10:30; 1 Corinthians 3:8; John 14:28; Mark 13:32; * podcast 2 – the “Athanasian Creed”...

53 MINJUL 9
Comments
podcast 267 – Andrew Davis on church history, the Trinity, and modalism – Part 2
hmly
himalayaプレミアムへようこそ聴き放題のオーディオブックをお楽しみください。