There are things thing we rather easily accept as true even though we find them confusing or irrational. The Trinity, proponents argue, is the greatest example of such paradoxical truths. This really resonates with believers for whom the creator is by definition beyond the creature’s comprehension. Even if you are not a Christian, you have to admit it is a reasonable argument to say you are simply describing reality even if it seems counterintuitive. When presented in this sort of manner, I think the Trinity is far more rationally formidable. With that said, there are still serious problems with logical arguments for the Trinity. Continue reading “The Trinity, Truth and Logic (Part II)”
To put it mildly the Trinity is a difficult concept to grasp. To say there is one God and that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are equally God, and equal to one another, yet are different from one another clearly stretches logic. This is something that even Trinitarians implicitly admit when they call the Trinity a “mystery”, that is, a theological truth beyond human logical comprehension. Even though they will heartily affirm it, the overwhelming majority of Trinitarian Christians cannot make sense of it. Most believers tend to avoid it altogether often out of fear of flirting with heresy if they press the matter just a little further. It is therefore unsurprising that both Christian and non-Christian critics tend to primarily attack the rationality of it.
I am a Christian who does not believe in the Trinity but I do not find the logical argument against the Trinity that convincing. I do still think it is a serious problem with the doctrine, especially combined with other problems, but I personally do not think it is the most potent standalone argument against the Trinity. In my view, there are better theological arguments, which I am going to address in two parts. In the first part I want to explore the weaknesses of the logical attack and in the second part how to strengthen it. Continue reading “The Trinity, Truth and Logic (Part I)”
In Christian thought, the concept of a worldview has proved very useful, especially in broadly comparing and contrasting other religious and philosophical schemes. One thing that is generally assumed about worldviews or implied when the concept itself is being discussed is that they are rigid, rather inflexible constructs. If they do undergo change, it is drastic change where the worldview is undermined and then an entirely new worldview is adopted. Given the purpose of a worldview as an overarching, ready to use heuristic for making sense of the world, it is perfectly understandable why they should be stable and resistant to change. However, I think worldviews are more flexible and dynamic than we realise. Continue reading “An Elastic Worldview”
If Jesus was a prophet of Jewish restoration eschatology (see Ben Meyers; Ed Sanders; N.T. Wright; Richard Horsley), then it is important to note the impact that Jesus’s restoration eschatology had upon the early church who, in the transformed post-Easter context, carried forward Jesus’s appropriation of Israel’s sacred traditions about the restoration of Israel and the inclusion of the nations in God’s saving purposes.
It is in Luke–Acts that we observe how this story of Jesus as the agent of Israel’s restoration was taken up into the preaching and praxes of the first Christians…
When Christians talk about the birth of Jesus one of the things that is often underappreciated is his Davidic lineage. In both nativity stories what makes Jesus birth significant is that he is the true heir of David. Matthew and Luke are careful to emphasise his royal ancestry and that his birthplace was the ancestral home of the family of David. In those and other ways, both writers were indicating that the circumstances of Jesus’ birth fulfilled the scriptural prophecies about who the long awaited Messiah was going to be. Continue reading “All Hail the Heir of David!”