Below is an anti-trinitarian reading of that passage. A Timothy Keller sermon is the foil and the critique of the trinitarian reading begins at 12:46 right after Keller is done speaking. Christian tradition and philosophical arguments for the Trinity aside, is Dale Tuggy's critique any less reasonable than a trinitarian interpretation?
![Tullius est [et Tullius non est Cicero]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhwDG4xhsMn9o9J6nFVbJuaWEgUYVbxr7B9gbOXGZ3gwOu55lJg3q0Ev-z3MhLy29603_fkvvngkYmsTvRd4BATcVzZvVOhgkPSy-GIAuaFE0sCVBc_zcTW_d2mKKeCWhMxsZhAPyqXzymO/s1600/cicero-right-1024x603.jpg)
Unlike my ancient predecessor, this Tullius hasn't had his hands chopped off. With hands attached I offer my thoughts on philosophy, religion, politics, and whatever else I find worth mentioning. I'm conservative religiously and politically (with libertarian leanings). I value reason and freedom but also traditions and "Oldthink." I relish being on the wrong side of history when history is wrong--part of a philosopher's job is to be unpopular. (Views given here may not represent my employers')
Saturday, July 12, 2014
An Anti-Trinitarian Reading of Philippians 2
I recently remarked to a couple friends that I am skeptical that (a) if one denies that Christian doctrine can develop beyond what the apostles universally and explicitly held that (b) one can also reasonably hold to trinitarianism over rival views such as subordinationism or other unitarian views. One friend remarked that Philippians 2 seems about as good as any passage in favor of trinitarianism with its (alleged) claim by Paul that Jesus is fully God--having the nature of God (rather, than, say, just fully "divine" which is consistent with trinitarianism but also consistent with subordinationism, tritheism, and modalism).
Below is an anti-trinitarian reading of that passage. A Timothy Keller sermon is the foil and the critique of the trinitarian reading begins at 12:46 right after Keller is done speaking. Christian tradition and philosophical arguments for the Trinity aside, is Dale Tuggy's critique any less reasonable than a trinitarian interpretation?
Below is an anti-trinitarian reading of that passage. A Timothy Keller sermon is the foil and the critique of the trinitarian reading begins at 12:46 right after Keller is done speaking. Christian tradition and philosophical arguments for the Trinity aside, is Dale Tuggy's critique any less reasonable than a trinitarian interpretation?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tuggy's interpretation is no less reasonable. I guess I still think that one could deny that Christian doctrine can develop beyond what the apostles universally and explicitly held and also hold to trinitarianism. How about John chapter 1? The Word was with God, and the Word was God.
ReplyDeleteJS,
ReplyDeleteWell granted that John explicitly held that Jesus is God, it's been argued that they Synoptics don't. Even if they did, we're still missing an argument that the apostle's universally held this view (though a probabilistic one is not hard to see). But Tuggy thinks John doesn't teach Trinitarianism either:
http://trinities.org/blog/archives/6117