tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post931712474559174600..comments2024-03-21T03:04:18.673-04:00Comments on Unapologetica: A Special Kind of ScripturalistRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-29323838147235127422018-03-30T22:40:20.497-04:002018-03-30T22:40:20.497-04:00Well, being cautious is admirable.
One thought o...Well, being cautious is admirable. <br /><br />One thought on 1 Cor 8:6 is that "one God" and "one Lord" could be taken as being used in a very specific sense there; "one God" referring to the one Supreme Authority over all, and supreme uncaused Cause of all, while "one Lord" refers to the one subordinate authority over all, subordinated only to His God and Father, and one subordinate cause of all, as the Father created all things through Him. Certainly, I think both the Father and Son are both "God" and "Lord". But given the context of pagan supreme/subordinate deities referenced in that chapter, viewing it in parallel to that seems justified. <br /><br />That is the sense in which I would generally understand the Father to be the "one God", the Son still being "God" on account of both His headship over creation and divine nature.<br /><br />Anyways... probably all arguments you're familiar with already.<br /><br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />Andrew DavisAndrew L. Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05779467817723215365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-28058791586850782832018-03-28T11:48:31.091-04:002018-03-28T11:48:31.091-04:00That would be one of the areas I would say I am tr...That would be one of the areas I would say I am trying not to be as dogmatic about until and unless I could see that more explicitly in Scripture. <br /><br />It is factual that Scripture refers to the Father to as the one and only God. But Scripture also refers to Jesus as our one and only Lord (1 Corinthians 8:6; Jude 4). If we would not say the Father is not Lord on the basis of those passages, on what revealed grounds would we say Jesus is not God? Is "Lord" equivocal in these cases as "God" is equivocal, each depending on its own context? <br /><br />Perhaps. But I need to think about that and logical coherence a bit more before telling anyone else they are wrong, although indeed they might be and I do, as I said, still have some general leanings toward my previously stated positions, the one you mention included.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-83816205579372972072018-03-27T21:53:42.586-04:002018-03-27T21:53:42.586-04:00Well I have appreciated many of the things you'...Well I have appreciated many of the things you've had to say. There aren't too many classical trinitarians around these days Are you still committed to grounding monotheism in the Father being the one God? I notice that isn't specified in the summary above.<br /><br />I run a site on the topic, that would be of interest to you: https://contramodalism.com/<br /><br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />Andrew DavisAndrew L. Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05779467817723215365noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-70170842747139578662018-03-27T09:30:38.256-04:002018-03-27T09:30:38.256-04:00Thank you for the comment and pointing out my mist...Thank you for the comment and pointing out my mistake.<br /><br />As for whether I hold the same views, I'm at least more reserved in their expression than formerly. In another post, I stated a few tenets I believe Trinitarians generally hold to (excepting, perhaps, that each person has a distinct will):<br /><br />//////<br /><br />1. Monotheism: there is one God. <br />2. The Father is God, the Son (Jesus) is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. <br />3. The Father is distinct from the Son, and both are distinct from the Spirit. <br />4. The Father, Son, and Spirit each univocally though distinctly possess divine attributes: each is omniscient, eternal, good, etc. Each possesses a mind and a will. On the other hand, they are individuated or distinguished from one another by properties: for instance, only the "first person" is the Father, only the "second person" is the Son, and only the "third person" is the Spirit. They have different thoughts (e.g. "I am the Father") and make different choices with their different wills (e.g. "I, the Son, will to die"), though all of these variances are with the same purposes and ends in mind, of course.<br /><br /><br />//////<br /><br />I still agree with all of this. The reservation I now have in committing to much further is in wanting to fit interpretations or models to revealed facts, not the other way around. So I am still puzzling things out. If pressed, I probably generally lean towards my formerly expressed views, with perhaps some differences, but in either case, I would try not to come off as dogmatic about it.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3295328575953992372.post-46341675112090896052018-03-27T03:21:48.161-04:002018-03-27T03:21:48.161-04:00Hello, I appreciate your article and the many good...Hello, I appreciate your article and the many good points you make in it. While perhaps this discussion is outdated enough that this is a moot point, I wanted to alert you to the fact that you quote the Macrostich a couple of times as Athanasius's own words, when the source you cite is simply a work by Athanasius wherein he quotes the Macrostich at length.<br /><br />I notice that this blog has been inactive for some time, but if you do see this, I would be curious if you still hold the trinitarian views you express in this post?<br /><br />In Christ,<br /><br />Andrew DavisAndrew L. Davishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05779467817723215365noreply@blogger.com