Showing posts sorted by relevance for query trinity. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query trinity. Sort by date Show all posts

Sunday, April 12, 2020

The Trinity & Easter: Briefly

The Trinity & Easter: Briefly

April 12, 2020

Searching my website archives, I have not previously presented this section of my Doctoral thesis as the original block paragraph. Theologically, the Trinity is essential for Jesus Christ’s death on the cross leading to his atoning and resurrection work applied to regenerated, enlightened, justified believers. The Trinity is relevant to this and every Easter that celebrates the risen Christ.

2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter

Franke reasons the Trinity is a method of self-disclosure of God to and within creation.[1]  It is centrally concerned with the coming of Christ and his work, and the work of the Holy Spirit and the concept of everlasting life for believers.[2]  Jesus Christ in his atoning work was not only a man,[3] although he did take upon himself full humanity.[4]  His atoning death was that of a God- man[5] that can save those that a mere man or creature could not.[6]  The Trinity, therefore, takes on philosophical importance within human salvation.[7]  Both Christ’s humanity and deity played central roles in his atoning work[8] and resurrection.[9]

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.  



[1] Franke (2005: 65). 
[2] Franke (2005: 65).
[3] Christ was incarnate and not a creature created by God.  Bowman (1990: 19).
[4] Bowman (1990: 19).  Thiessen (1956: 299).  Hughes (1990: 55).
[5] Bowman (1990: 19).  Christ remained an incarnated true man even as he was resurrected immortal.  Hughes (1990: 55).
[6] Bowman (1990: 19-20).  A mere human being could not accomplish the mission and work Christ did. Schreck (1984: 16).
[7] Bowman (1990: 19-20).
[8] Bowman (1990: 19-20).
[9] Hughes (1990: 55).

Monday, April 16, 2018

Genesis 1: 26 and the Trinity

YVR approach

Last Sunday, our church featured a fine, educational sermon on the Trinity. Genesis 1: 26 (a) was referenced from the English Standard Version:

Genesis 1:26 English Standard Version (ESV) 

26 Then God said, “Let us make man[a] in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Footnotes: Genesis 1:26 The Hebrew word for man (adam) is the generic term for mankind and becomes the proper name Adam 

Courson, via his commentary, is in basic agreement on what was preached on Sunday. He explains that in Genesis 1: 26 (a) the name God is translated from the Hebrew (In English, my add) as Elohim El is in singular form and Elohim refers to three or more. (4). Courson reasons the Trinity is being referenced here. (4).

Hebrew Bible scholar, Hamilton, acknowledges that based on 1: 26, God is multiple in nature. (22). Based on exegesis he reasons it is impossible to state that it is a reference to the Trinity. (22). Several unrealistic possibilities are offered as alternative interpretations (mythological interpretation as in God to other gods, or the Earth being in partnership with God, or God and the angels creating, or God speaking of his majesty in plural, or the plural of divine self-deliberation) and then finally Hamilton reasons that most likely 'us' refers to the fullness or plurality within the Godhead. (23). Perhaps God is referencing the Holy Spirit mentioned in 1:2 as the Spirit of God moved upon the earth...(23). Hamilton is not denying the Trinity, but he does reason that it is not revealed until the New Testament revelation. (23). Hamilton, I reason, would not necessarily agree with Courson that multiple in nature meant at least three, based on exegesis.

I would state that the Trinity is foreshadowed in Genesis.

The pastor on Sunday stated that God was in eternal relationship. I agree. I would like to state that God as infinite and eternal did not have eternal time to be in triune relationship. God did not have an eternal past to ponder in Trinity on whether or not he would create humanity, the universe and solar time, or a type of time for finite angels, without infinite knowledge, to reason in.

God has infinite knowledge and infinite, eternal, triune relationship. God simply is and created the finite, including finite humanity, the finite universe and finite time, both solar time and time within the spiritual realm for angelic beings, to reason from point A to point B. God may have created finite angelic beings within a type of finite time prior to creating the physical universe of time, matter and energy.

It is error to hold to a view that God reasoned in infinite time because this is a fatal problem of vicious regress and this is a fatal problem that is not reasonably solved. God simply reasoned and yet had infinite knowledge and fellowship within the Trinity.

In the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Simon Blackburn discusses ‘infinite regress’ and mentions that this occurs in a vicious way whenever a problem tries to solve itself and yet remains with the same problem it had previously. Blackburn (1996: 324). A vicious regress is an infinite regress that does not solve its own problem, while a benign regress is an infinite regress that does not fail to solve its own problem. Blackburn (1996: 324). Blackburn writes that there is frequently room for debate on what is a vicious regress or benign regress. Blackburn (1996: 324). An example of a benign regress is infinite numbers both plus and minus, as they in reality represent conceptualized things as opposed to being real things.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Regress’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

COURSON, JON (2005) Application Commentary, Thomas Nelson, Nashville.

HAMILTON, VICTOR P. (1988) Handbook on the Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

Criticism, toleration, and the Trinity


Red Centre, Northern Territory, Australia (photo from trekearth.com)

The following three propositions below, are from my problem of evil questionnaire. God willing, once I pass my PhD dissertation, I shall publish the entire statistical chapter, but for now I will release some of this copyrighted material. I am in the middle of trying to put my introduction together for my doctorate and do not have the time to present material outside of my thesis work.

Religions should not be beyond criticism.

72.8% of respondents supported this concept.

Differing religious views should be tolerated.

56.3% of persons supported this idea.

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same God.

96.7% accepted the Biblical idea of the Trinity

By examining the first two questions together, one can conclude that the majority of respondents think that religions should be criticized but also tolerated. A question arises. In the mind of respondents, how much should a religion be criticized before it is no longer tolerated? I would be interested in reading your comments. I strongly agree with the 72.8% of respondents that supported the notion that religion should not be beyond criticism, and to some extent agree that differing religions should be tolerated. Must all religious philosophies be tolerated? I think not, if a religion advocates murder for example, or is intolerant of the basic rights of others, it should not be tolerated. I do not think that religions that offer human sacrifice should be tolerated. I do however, in a secular Western world, appreciate the right to worship, write and live as a Christian, and realize that those of other religious or non-religious viewpoints should have the same freedom.

One of the purposes of this blog is to look at religious and non-religious views critically, and with tolerance when possible. My own views come from years of scholarly and personal research, and are open for revision, although I hold to certain views and doctrines more strongly than others. There are essentials within Christian faith and philosophy that are non-negotiable in order to actually legitimately call oneself a Christian, in a Biblical sense. In my writing, I often focus on the nature of God and the atoning and resurrection work of Christ. The nature of God within Christianity is essential to understand and accept, as one cannot reasonably, merely believe in a God of choice and attempt to make that the Biblical God. The understanding revealed within the New Testament is that God is of one undivided nature, but yet in unity. Thiessen (1956: 134). Thiessen quotes Deuteronomy 6:4 and Mark 12:29, where God is called one. Thiessen (1956: 134). A comprehensive evaluation of the doctrine of the Trinity could easily be a PhD dissertation, but there are good explanations of the doctrine. Thiessen admits that the word Trinity is not in Scripture, and he writes that the term was perhaps first used by in the Greek as Trias by Theophilus of Antioch (d. 181) and then in the Latin by Tertullian (d. ca. 220). Thiessen (1956: 135). Thiessen explains that the idea behind the Trinity is that from the New Testament there are three external distinctions, in the one divine nature, as they are known to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Thiessen (1956: 135). These three persons are not to be confused as being the same or are they of a different substance. Thiessen (1956: 135). Thiessen points out that the Trinity is not Tritheism, as there are not three distinct Gods. Thiessen (1956: 135). He also explains that Biblical Christianity does not hold to Sabellianism (third century) as this would understand God as having three qualities within one person. Thiessen (1956: 135). Sabellianism does not hold to real distinctions existing, but merely names that are used at different times. Erickson (1994: 334). God would work in different modes, and this is known as modalism. Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling. (1999: 79). H.E.W. Turner writes that Sabellianism is an alternate description of modalism which gave the doctrine in its most sophisticated form. Turner (1999: 514). Robert M. Bowman notes that the Trinitarian faith does not allow for the dividing of substance. Bowman (1990: 13). The persons present in the Trinity are not representing three separate beings with differing natures of differing substance, but to Bowman they are three personal distinctions each fully God. Bowman (1990: 13).

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD. (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

TURNER, H.E.W. (1999) ‘Sabellianism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

Thursday, January 28, 2021

Perichoresis: In Brief

Perichoresis

Journey to Space, January 2021 Facebook 

Perichoresis 

S.M. Smith explains that perichoresis means mutual indwelling and mutual interpretation and deals with both the 'Trinity' and 'Christology'. (843).

Trinitarian theology of perichoresis was used in the Greek theology (843) of John of Damascus in describing the inner relationship between the persons of the Godhead. (843).

Angus Stewart


Cited

(Slightly modified from an article first published in the British Reformed Journal)

John of Damascus (c.675-c.750), though little known by most in the West today, is probably the most famous theologian in the last 1,500 years of the Eastern church. 

John of Damascus

Cited by Angus Stewart

(In regards to the nature of God, my add)

Uncreated, without beginning, immortal, infinite, eternal, immaterial, good, creative, just, enlightening, immutable, passionless, uncircumscribed, immeasurable, unlimited, undefined, unseen, unthinkable, wanting in nothing, being His own rule and authority, all-ruling, life-giving, omnipotent, of infinite power, containing and maintaining the universe and making provision for all (OF 1.14). 

(In regards to the Trinity. my add)

The subsistences [i.e., the three Persons] dwell and are established firmly in one another. For they are inseparable and cannot part from one another, but keep to their separate courses within one another, without coalescing or mingling, but cleaving to each other. For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit, but there is no coalescence or commingling or confusion. And there is one and the same motion: for there is one impulse and one motion of the three subsistences, which is not to be observed in any created nature (OF 1.14).

Image: Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, page 843.

The Pocket Dictionary under the entries: perichoresis and circumincession states this theology affirms that within the trinity, essence is shared by each of the three persons, in a manner that does not blur the distinctions between them.(26). Therefore, quote: 'By extension, this idea suggests that any essential characteristics that belongs to one of the three is shared by the others. (26). This view also affirms that the actions within the trinity are always done within a divine unity. (my specific paraphrased comment, based on 26).

Note that God the Son (God the Word), as God incarnate, alone takes a finite, human body (now resurrected, see Gospels/Acts for event).

Non-exhaustive in regards to that unity in purpose: 

Colossians 2:9-10 (Him is Jesus Christ) 'New American Standard Bible (NASB) 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [a]complete, and He is the head [b]over all rule and authority; Footnotes: Colossians 2:10 Lit full Colossians 2:10 Lit of '

N.T. Wright explains in regard to Colossians 2: 9-10, it is an continuation of 1:19 (109), 'for all the fulness to dwell in him.' (NASB). 'He is uniquely God's presence and his very self'. (109). Wright reasons that Paul is teaching monotheistic doctrine here and not that Jesus Christ is a second deity. (109). Christ is the embodiment of full deity. (109).

Hebrews 1; Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡit from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. (page 847). Erickson further explains that each member of the Trinity is quantitatively equal. Erickson (1994: 337).

Matthew 28: 19-20 and Acts 5 are two examples from the New Testament demonstrating the Holy Spirit as God, interacting within the trinity.

Matthew 28:19-20 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 19 [a]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.” Footnotes: Matthew 28:19 Or Having gone; Gr aorist part. Matthew 28:20 Lit all the days 

Acts 5: 2-6 New American Standard Bible (NASB) It is stated that one can lie to the Holy Spirit (verse 3) and therefore lie to God. 'You have not lied to men, but to God.' (verse 4). 

All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions and communicate with each other in eternal relationship. God as trinity is relational in nature and therefore humanity is made in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). Humanity is therefore specifically relational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God. God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication, because that is also an aspect of God's nature.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

JOHN OF DAMASCUS (c.675-c.750)(1996) Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, trans. S. D. F. Salmond, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, eds. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, vol. 9
Covenant Protestant Reformed Church: Revered Angus Stewart 

SMITH, S.M. (1996) ‘Perichoresis’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.) Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

WRIGHT, N.T., Colossians and Philemon, (1986)(1989), IVP, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids. 

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Praying: In Jesus’ Name & In The Name of The Father, Son And Holy Spirit (Non-exhaustive)

York Minster from trekearth
Praying: In Jesus’ Name & In The Name of The Father, Son And Holy Spirit

Edited February 11, 2023

Non-exhaustive analysis

Often when professional Christian speakers as in Reverends, missionaries, professors and others pray, they pray in Jesus' name, or in the name of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. 

'They might pray in the name of the 'Heavenly Father' or 'our Lord', Lord, or simply in the name of God or to God, is often used.

Is this acceptable? Or should from a trinitarian perspective, should God always be strictly addressed as in Matthew 28: 19:20, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?

English Standard Version (ESV)

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”

Millard Erickson in 'Christian Theology' expresses a Biblical, orthodox (not meaning Orthodox Church here) position on the Trinity via the  Council of Constantinople (381). Erickson (1994: 335). A formula ὑποστάσεις was expressed, which expressed three separate persons that exist simultaneously in three modes of being or hypostases. Erickson (1994: 335). The idea being the Godhead is undivided in essential nature, in divided persons. Erickson  (1994: 335).

There are three distinctions within the triune God, but only one divine nature and therefore only one God. There is not tritheism. There is not modalism or Sebellanism, as the persons of the trinity are simultaneously existing and not interchanging among one another. Jesus does not become the Father, for example. Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original word: ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡit from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. page 847.

Erickson further explains that each member of the Trinity is quantitatively equal. Erickson (1994: 337). This would be in spiritual essence accepting that God the Son took an additional human nature in the incarnation in order to accomplish the atonement and resurrection and also his future Kingship. This does not in any way alter the divine nature of God the Son or the Trinity. Erickson points out that the Son did subordinate himself to God the Father as fully human while on earth, but this was an aspect of will. God the Son did not become less than God the Father, or less God. Erickson (1994: 338). Similarly, even though the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity and is named the 'Helper' in the Gospel of John in the New American Standard Version as well as the English Standard Version, this does not mean the Holy Spirit is any less Almighty God. In that instance, functionally the Holy Spirit willingly takes that position.

One of my Theology professors at Trinity Western, at the Seminary, stated that although he was fully trinitarian, in his opinion, the Holy Spirit was not meant to be addressed primarily in prayer. Instead the prayer needed to take place through the Holy Spirit to God the Son as he is the mediator between God and humanity as Hebrews mentions. This view certainly is not without merit as the Holy Spirit as God indeed is to focus persons on Christ and his atoning and resurrection work he has done for the chosen that believe.  However, because God is of one substance and nature and therefore Christ was and is the fullness of deity in bodily form (Colossians 2: 9), if one is a trinitarian Christian and addresses a prayer to the Holy Spirit it can be reasoned that it certainly be understood by God the Father and God the Son as well.

Boice mentions that correctly and Biblically, Christians do pray through Jesus Christ. Boice (1986: 488-489). And they pray in the Holy Spirit.  'Prayer is communion with God the Father through the Lord Jesus Christ. But it is also in the Holy Spirit'. Boice (1986: 489).

I would reason that it is always Biblical and spiritually correct to pray in a triune manner as Jesus set out out in Matthew 28:19-20, but that to not necessarily use that exact formula by praying in Jesus' name, to the Lord, to the Father, 'Heavenly Father' or God is not Biblically and spiritually wrong because to pray to any aspect of God, to any of the three Biblical distinctions or persons of God, as God is of one essence and nature, is to pray to God as one God.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Monarchianism' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Nicea, Council of (325)’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1981) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

BROM, ROBERT H. (1983) The Eternal Sonship of Christ, San Diego, CIC 827. 

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Trinity’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

GRENZ, STANLEY J., DAVID GURETZKI AND CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press. 

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

SCHRECK, ALAN (1984) Catholic and Christian, Ann Arbor, Michigan, Servant Books. 

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company. 

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

TURNER, H.E.W. (1999) ‘Sabellianism’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

Wednesday, September 01, 2010

Divinity student? Fundamentalist? Hmm


The University of Wales, Trinity Saint David

1. Dr. Russ Murray

September 3

This morning via the postgraduate department, my internal reviewer confirmed he agrees with the external reviewer that my post-viva PhD revisions are acceptable and that I have passed the PhD research thesis and am now a Doctor.

I will await the proper paperwork by regular mail, but email confirmation shall suffice for now.

This has been a long process for which I started with the University in 2004 and have gone through three advisors.

But it is a valuable degree with two stamps. The second stamp is from Wales, Trinity Saint David, which is a new University which is in existence by a merger with the University of Wales, Lampeter, and Trinity University College. I am currently with the Lampeter campus (distance learning), but actually started with Wales at Trinity University, although I have not physically been to the campus.

The merger has slowed up the processing of my Doctorate, but I am pleased with my result.

Trinity Saint David link



Rankings related to Wales, Lampeter, my campus.

Wales, Lampeter Rankings link

'May 2009

In the most recent Complete University Guide published in association with The Independent newspaper, the Department of Theology & Religious Studies at the University of Wales Lampeter was ranked 13th in the UK.'

'In December 2008, the Research Institute for Theology & Religious Studies was rated 9th in the UK for its research strength by Research Fortnight magazine in its RAE 2008 Analysis Power Rankings.'

'Then in February (2009), The Guardian newspaper placed the Department in first position in the UK for the number of postgraduate distance learning students.'

The first stamp is from The University of Wales in Cardiff. Wales is a series of accredited Universities, including Trinity Saint David and is affiliated with Cardiff University. With 100, 000 students the University of Wales would be one of the largest Universities in the United Kingdom.

My first advisor at Wales stated it was the second largest in the UK.

My thinking is that Wales, Lampeter has a high ranking on its own, and this should be boosted by the merger. So, with the second stamp from Wales, Trinity Saint David I have done well.

With the Wales first stamp it is less specific to my degree but the size of the institution does carry much credibility.

I started at Manchester, but this degree is just as valuable. I could have spent months working on passing a GRE (general knowledge test) and signed with Cambridge, but for Theology and Philosophy of Religion, although Cambridge is more famous than Wales, I doubt my CV would be boosted by a Cambridge degree over Wales. The level of work would be identical and Wales is very well-known in my field.

My preferences were London, Cambridge, Durham, Oxford, Wales, Edinburgh, Sheffield and Manchester and I received two research degrees from Wales, and so with God's help I succeeded.

University of Wales link



Now I can upgrade my Curriculum Vitae properly and start the process of looking for employment as a professor, worldwide. This will be much work.

Thanks for all the support, and comments appreciated if you feel so led.

2. Divinity student? Fundamentalist? Hmm

August 31

As some of you may have realized, as well as continuing my education in theology, philosophy of religion and Biblical studies, I also dabble with psychology. I actually took some psychology courses for my degrees.

Desiring a diverse education, I emailed a secular psychologist and businessman a few months ago. He was friendly, somewhat helpful, quite intelligent, and claimed to be so, having worked in special capacities for governments. Now, I basically admitted his greater knowledge and intelligence in some areas by writing him and asking for his advice, even though overall, his formal education was less than mine.

But, in many ways, so what, academic degrees represent types of intelligence in certain areas only.

Although he had some good advice, two major red flags came up in our dialogue.

Now please realize I have worked within secular Religious Studies academia for over ten years and so I have developed a sensitivity with certain semantics.

One, although I clearly pointed out, listing my degrees, I was working within a secular University within the fields of Theology and Philosophy of Religion, concerning theodicy and the problem of evil, he stated that I was a 'Divinity' student. This as opposed to acknowledging me as a Theologian, and Philosopher or more accurately a Philosopher of Religion. I also provided my links to my theology blogs.

Importantly for context, our discussion was in regard to relationships and perceived intelligence, including social and academic intelligence and associated success.

My education was not viewed by him as having notable social status.

Please note, I am not being egotistical here, I realize although I am not typical I suppose, I am an average man in many ways. Perhaps most ways. This post is not primarily about me, but about worldviews.

Now, I realize semantics can be tricky, but in my mind anyway, a 'Divinity' student can be a brilliant academic, and certainly there are ones I can learn from. But typically it is someone studying to be a pastor, church worker or perhaps missionary, which are generally less academic endeavours. I did attend Canadian Baptist Seminary at Trinity Western University but did not take the M.DIV degree, but did the MTS degree.

For example from Loyola, at the University of Chicago, it describes their M.DIV degree.

Chicago

'The Master of Divinity (M.Div.), is a comprehensive degree designed to meet the educational needs of persons called to professional ministerial leadership. Those who elect to pursue this Master of Divinity degree are making a major commitment to prepare for pastoral ministry, choosing to join in the adventure of discerning their gifts and preparing themselves for a life of religious leadership in an evolving church and society.'

From my academic experience, I reason this is a typical description of a M.DIV.

I am not criticizing the intellectual ability of persons taking this degree, but this type of degree is not generally as academic as the MTS, or more so secular MPhil or PhD research only degrees.

Did perhaps this psychologist, not know the difference? Quite likely to some degree, but the red flag comes from his overall downplaying of Religious Studies.

Therefore:

My reasoning is that he views even the higher degrees in Religious Studies as simply glorified Divinity degrees. In other words, Theology and Philosophy of Religion are intellectually secondary as academic disciplines.

So, I kindly corrected the gentleman and pointed out his mistake via email.

There was no answer...which is typical in that type of situation.

I am reading too much into his view? Perhaps. Well, let us go to point two.

Two, he stated I needed to change the type of people that I wished to associate with in certain ways. He claimed that I should avoid certain relationships with fundamentalist Christians, in content seemingly as if all Bible-believing Christians were stereotypical American fundamentalists. Within the context he wrote, he labelled the fundamentalists as being naive in certain aspects. He did not state I was a fundamentalist.

Now, I can admit, certainly some fundamentalists will be naive in certain ways, as will some non-fundamentalists, but the red flag came up in basically labelling all Bible-believing Christians as stereotypical fundamentalists.

C.T. McIntire states that fundamentalism is a movement that arose after World War One in the United States which attempted to reaffirm orthodox Protestant theology and defend it against liberal theology. McIntire (1996: 433). Since then the movement has diversified as has its meanings. McIntire (1996: 433). Connections are made to non-academics that are leaders, such as the now late Jerry Falwell, Tim La Haye, Hal Lindsey and Pat Robertson. McIntire (1996: 435).

Now, I can admit that I, and certain Christian persons I could have actual or potential relationships with would to certain degrees share some of the views of American fundamentalism.

But, in reality, I and many of the Christian persons I could have actual or potential relationships with, are not American fundamentalists.

With me for example:

I am not American.
I was not educated in American fundamentalist or Christian institutions.
My early Christian education was via moderate liberal Christian Sunday school.
I am an academic educated in Canadian Christian institutions of a moderate conservative nature and secular British Universities that would be moderately liberal.
I am not culturally an American fundamentalist, but by years of study I am Christian, Reformed, and Evangelical, although also not culturally American Reformed or Evangelical.
My degrees and my writing topics concerning theodicy, the problem of evil, the nature of God, non-conformity to certain aspects of cultural Christianity and the need for critical thinking clearly place me outside of American fundamentalism in many ways.
I am a moderate conservative.

Now, was the psychologist aware of much of this? No, not likely.

Therefore:

The assumption appears to be Theology and Philosophy of Religion Studies are largely at least, based in fundamentalism and that these disciplines and all Religious Studies are intellectually secondary as disciplines.

In the same reply that I dealt with the Divinity issue, I dealt with the fundamentalism issue and of course received no reply.

I am misreading his views? That is possible, yes. But in my time in the UK, I realized sitting in some meetings that North American religious studies of any conservative nature were primarily written-off as fundamentalist and evangelical and therefore academically lightweight.

The kind of work supposed 'Divinity' students would do.

I reason the kind and intelligent psychologist was basically reasoning the same thing.

MCINTIRE, C.T. (1996) ‘Fundamentalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

End

In this post are ten more of my favourite desktop photos from the last decade plus years.


Grand Canyon, Australia


Anse Couleuvre, France (trekearth.com)


Where is this?


Moezel, Germany (trekearth.com)


Fire Lake, BC (trekearth.com)


The University of Wales, Bangor. Where I earned my MPhil thesis degree. I have never set foot on campus or been in Bangor.


Cha Grande, Brazil (trekearth.com)


Bahia, Honda Bridge, South Florida (trekearth.com)


Maple Ridge, BC (thekingpin68)
My estate is on the right, Mr. Walter T. Franklin's house is down that road heading east.


Maple Ridge, BC (thekingpin68)
From my back window. Sometimes I pray while looking at that crooked Evergreen Tree. I am thinking of me, you, or both of us?;)

Friday, December 26, 2014

John R. Franke (PhD Edit)


John R. Franke (PhD Edit)

Preface


Robert The Bruce statue and Stirling Castle

Seems to me I 'found' this statue as a child on our family trip to Scotland and Stirling Castle. Also on Christmas 2014, I viewed Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) on DVD. It also seems to me as a child with the family we visited Doune Castle where the cow was thrown in the film. A classic film but I think the ending should still be redone.
---

Reformed Theology

John R. Franke was strongly suggested to me by the external reviewer at my viva for a Reformed Theology source for my final Wales, PhD revisions. Methodology and Theology Methodologically, ‘theology is disciplined consideration and exploration of the content of divine revelation.’ Franke (2005: 13).

Franke cautions that although there is truth in this definition, human knowledge of God is not sufficient without a proper knowledge of humanity while this theology is being considered. Theology is always considered in the light of cultural and historical setting of the day, the implication being that a culture will influence theology and therefore theology needs to be scrutinized with this concept always in mind. Franke (2005: 14).

Erickson explains theology is to use the tools and methods of Biblical research. Erickson (1994: 21). 

The Trinity 

Admittedly the Trinity is a difficult concept, and Franke acknowledges that some, such as Friedrich Schleiermacher, view the Trinity as not a primary but secondary Christian doctrine. Franke (2005: 59). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 751).

The doctrine is a systemized one and not a primary witness of the Christian faith. Franke (2005: 59). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 751). I would not negate the Trinity to a secondary doctrine. Franke reasons the Trinity is a method of self-disclosure of God to and within creation. Franke (2005: 59). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 751).

It is centrally concerned with the coming of Christ and his work, and the work of the Holy Spirit and the concept of everlasting life for believers. Franke (2005: 59). Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 751). God within the Trinity is of one essence, Barth explains in his section on the Trinity from Church Dogmatics. Barth (1932-1968: 371).

The Holy Spirit 

Franke suggests that at the heart of traditional Christian and Reformed theology is the idea of the Holy Spirit guiding the community of faith into the truth of the gospel and God’s plan for the Church and the world. Franke (2005: 113). Pneumatology can only be ventured into and understood properly under the umbrella of Christian theology. Franke (2005: 65). It can also be studied within Reformed theology.

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of the Word of God: Volume 1, Part One, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of Creation: Volumes 1 and 3. Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark. 

BARTH, KARL (1932-1968) Church Dogmatics, The Doctrine of God: Volume 2, First Half -Volume, Translated by J.W. Edwards, Rev. O. Bussey, and Rev. Harold Knight, Edinburgh, T. and T. Clark.

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2: God and Creation, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

BAVINCK, HERMAN (1918)(2006) Reformed Dogmatics Volume 3: Sin and Salvation in Christ, John Bolt (gen.ed.), Translated by John Vriend, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.

BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1986) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University. 

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books. 

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

GREEN, JAY (1971) Five Points of Calvinism, ‘Forward’, Grand Rapids, Sovereign Grace Publishers.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1516)(1968) Commentary On The Epistle To The Romans, Translated by J.Theodore Mueller, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1518)(1989) ‘Heidelberg Disputation’, in Timothy F. Lull (ed.), Martin Luther’s Basic Theological Writings, Minneapolis, Fortress Press.

LUTHER, MARTIN. (1525)(1972) ‘The Bondage of the Will’, in F.W. Strothmann and Frederick W. Locke (eds.), Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will, New York, Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., INC.

MURRAY, JOHN (1937-1966)(1977) Collected Writings of John Murray, Vol. 2: Select Lectures in Systematic Theology, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

REID, W.S. (1996) ‘Calvinism', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

REID, W.S. (1996) ‘The Reformed Tradition', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1799)(1961) On Religion, in Elie Kedourie, Nationalism, New York, Praeger University Series.

SCHLEIERMACHER, FRIEDRICH (1821)(1928)(1976) The Christian Faith, Edited by H.R. Mackintosh and J.S. Stewart, Philadelphia, Fortress Press.

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 1, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers. 

SHEDD, WILLIAM G.T. (1874-1890)(1980) Dogmatic Theology, Volume 2, Nashville, Thomas Nelson Publishers.

WHALE, J.S. (1958) Christian Doctrine, Glasgow, Fontana Books.

WEBER, OTTO (1955)(1981) Foundations of Dogmatics, Volumes 1 and 2, Translated and annotated by Darrell L. Guder, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 

WILLIAMS, ROWAN (2007) Wrestling with Angels, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids.

Tuesday, August 09, 2016

The Trinity: Relating to humanity in different ways

Amsterdam: Google+



















In Touch Ministries: September 22 2016

The Truth About The Trinity by Charles F. Stanley

Cited

'The word "Trinity" cannot be found in the Bible, but the truth of it can. While there's only one God, the Godhead consists of three distinct persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All are equally omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and unchanging, but each one has unique functions. 

Scripture shows how each member of the Trinity fulfills His specific role, and it also reveals how those three roles interrelate. Let me express this idea in simple terms: The Father creates a plan, Jesus Christ implements the plan, and the Holy Spirit administers the plan.'

I listened to two of Dr. Stanley's sermons on the Holy Spirit today. I have heard and read similar, but he provides biblical and reasonable descriptions of the distinctions within the Trinity.

God the Father: Plan and planner
Jesus Christ: Implementer of that plan
The Holy Spirit: Administers the plan

Again from Dr. Stanley:

'The Father, Son, and Spirit are equal in their divine attributes. Yet each relates to mankind in a different way because He has a specific role. It's very important to understand this distinction: We do not have three gods; we have one God in three persons functioning uniquely and perfectly.'

End citations from Dr. Stanley

Colossians 2:9-10 (Him is Jesus Christ)

'New American Standard Bible (NASB) 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [a]complete, and He is the head [b]over all rule and authority; 

Footnotes: Colossians 2:10

Lit full Colossians 2:10 Lit of '

N.T. Wright explains in regard to Colossians 2: 9-10, it is an continuation of 1:19 (109), 'for all the fulness to dwell in him.' (NASB).

'He is uniquely God's presence and his very self'. (109). Wright reasons that Paul is teaching monotheistic doctrine here and not that Jesus Christ is a second deity. (109). Christ is the embodiment of full deity. (109).

Based on this section of Scripture, a proper interpretation is that although the Father can be reasonably defined as the planner, all of God in nature is involved in the planning process in a sense; in infinite knowledge and agreement. The infinite nature of God in the three distinctions is fully aware of plans. The Godhead is involved in the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, even though it was Jesus Christ that died on the cross and was resurrected. Jesus Christ, the Word (John 1) remains infinite, eternal God, and became God incarnate. Acts 2: 24 states that God raised Him (Jesus Christ) from the dead and in the process defeated death.

As I noted in a previous article from Hebrews 1; Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡit from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. (page 847). Erickson further explains that each member of the Trinity is quantitatively equal. Erickson (1994: 337).

Matthew 28: 19-20 and Acts 5 are two examples from the New Testament demonstrating the Holy Spirit as God.

Matthew 28:19-20

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

19 [a]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.”

Footnotes:

Matthew 28:19 Or Having gone; Gr aorist part.

Matthew 28:20 Lit all the days

Acts 5: 2-6

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

It is stated that one can lie to the Holy Spirit (verse 3) and therefore lie to God. 'You have not lied to men, but to God.' (verse 4).

All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions.

In speculation, a philosophical critique might be that the infinite nature of God requires no distinctions or differently that God being infinite, should exist as infinite distinctions.

Finite, sinful and imperfect humanity needs God's enlightenment from revelation to reasonably know God and to have significant intellectual understanding. God is Scriptually revealed in three distinctions and three persons, properly biblically defined. This is not completely understandable for the finite mind, but it is reasonable to the finite mind.

To suggest that God as infinite must have infinite distinctions is not necessarily true, theologically, is not necessary philosophically, and is highly speculative philosophy of religion.

The incarnation of Jesus Christ has the infinite, eternal Word of God (John 1) take upon a finite human nature without the infinite divine nature and finite human nature, mixing. Therefore, Jesus Christ remains infinite, eternal God, but with two natures as both deity and incarnated man.

God as trinity is relational in nature and therefore humanity is made in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). Humanity is therefore specifically relational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God. God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication, because that is also an aspect of God's nature.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

WRIGHT, N.T., Colossians and Philemon, (1986)(1989), IVP, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Sabellianism and modalism (non-exhaustive)

Sabellianism and modalism (non-exhaustive)

Originally published March 1, 2011, edited on May 27, 2023.

Photo: Princeton University

February 25, 2011

On Sunday at the church related lunch, I was given a tract to examine by someone. It was from a local modalist church, I reasoned. 

According to C. A. Blaising, monarchianism, also known as patripassianism and Sabellianism refers to a mainly Western concept of the third century which attempted to defend monotheism against tritheism by denying personal distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Blaising (1996: 727). Blaising notes the term monarchianism was first used by Tertullian to denote those that wished to protect the monarchy of the one God from wrong theology concerning the economy of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Blaising (1996: 727).

Blaising noted this first (dynamic monarchianism) view had proposed monotheistic God, as in the Father in relation to Jesus a mere man who was 'endowed with the Holy Spirit'. Blaising (1996: 727). This view was supported in Rome in around 190 by Thedotus of Byzantium and then by Artemon/Theodotus. This first view was refuted by Hippolytus. Blaising (1996: 727).

Paul of Samosata depersonalized the Logos as the inherent rationality of God, the 'homoousia' of God. Blaising (1996: 727). The substance of God. For this Paul, the Holy Spirit was not a separate being but the grace of the Father. Blaising (1996: 727). This Paul also denied the preincarnate Word of God, and his teaching was condemned at the Synod of Antioch in 268.

This second view also became known as modalism. Blaising. (1996: 727). Sabellius was in Rome, Blaising (1996: 727), Turner (1999: 514). There is a possibility he may have been from Libya. Turner (1999: 514). He taught modalism in the third century and thus concepts developed the name Sabellianism. Turner explains sabellianism as an alternative denotation of modalism. Turner (1999: 514). Blaising states that Sabellius is often confused with Marcus of Ancyrra of the fourth century. He reasoned a divine monad named Huiopator projected itself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father as creator and lawgiver, the Son as redeemer the Spirit as grace giver. These were three different modes revealing the same divine person. Blaising (1996: 727).

Erickson notes that dynamic monarchianism seemed to deny the trinity. Erickson (1994: 334). He did examine modalism in his text in regard to the trinity. There is one God, variously designated as Father, Son and Holy Spirit but they do not stand for any real distinctions, but are simply useable at different times. Erickson (1994: 334). Erickson also points out the difficulty with patripassianism, in other words the Father suffering along with Christ as if the Father suffers identically with the Son under modalism. Erickson (1994: 334). Perhaps a difficulty, perhaps, not. As God is one of spiritual united nature. Would not God the Father understand all the sufferings of God of the Son? I would think so.

And an objection raised by trinitarians, and rightly so, is that the New Testament interactions between the Father and Son appear to be very real conversations and not based in modes. A reasonable point could be made that yes the human Jesus was interacting with the divine Father in sinless perfection but this was being done largely because in eternity, God the Son/Word had been interacting with God the Father in a similar way (John 1).

Concerning Hebrews 1, for example, it is demonstrated in the New Testament that the Father and Son are of the same substance and nature. The Holy Spirit in Acts 5, and in Matthew 28: 19 can be demonstrated as divine and I would therefore deduce have the same substance and nature.

Therefore it should be noted that triune persons are not three separate natures/Gods.

Further:

Jesus Christ did of course in the incarnation take a separate human nature.

The persons of the trinity could also be called distinctions, but they do personally interact according to the New Testament.


Hawthorne (1986: 1506). Click twice to enlarge.


University of Wales, Bangor


University of Wales, Lampeter/University of Wales, Trinity Saint David.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Monarchianism' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Nicea, Council of (325)’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

BROM, ROBERT H. (1983) The Eternal Sonship of Christ, San Diego, CIC 827. 

BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Trinity’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids. 

HAWTHORNE, GERALD F. (1986) 'Hebrews', in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

TURNER, H. E. W. (1999) 'Sabellianism', in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

Confused On The Trinity

Confused On The Trinity

Happy Reformation Day (500)!

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

Chapter One:The Fantacizers Cont. 

The Danger of Islam

Mr. Wallace writes that Muslims too have a great commission in their Scriptures. (6). But it is much different than the New Testament, great commission. (6). Mr. Wallace quotes from the Qur'an and I will cite the same verse from my online source. The author explains that these were Muhammad's final instructions on his death bed. (6). Muslims are to convert these people, enslave them or force them to pay jizya. (6). Jizya is a protection tax extorted from non-Muslims. (163).

This reads like an act of thuggery. More like the mafia than a religion of peace. Enslaving people is even worse, morally.

Sahih International

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

Surah 9;29 (This verse has been quoted twice in this series, previously)

Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.

Mr. Wallace writes that Muhammad was mildly partial to Christians in Surah 5:82. (6).  Below.

SAHIH INTERNATIONAL

You will surely find the most intense of the people in animosity toward the believers [to be] the Jews and those who associate others with Allah ; and you will find the nearest of them in affection to the believers those who say, "We are Christians." That is because among them are priests and monks and because they are not arrogant. 

But on his deathbed, Muhammad declared Christians as polytheists. and not monotheists (7).

As has been discussed in this review series so far, in regard to Jihad/Holy War, it appears that orthodox Islam and radical Islam have significant agreement.  Although as I have noted, the orthodox position claims Jihad and Holy War is more so, defensive. A trillion dollar question is how many Muslims in North America and the West would attempt to follow these instructions from Muhammad very literally? Especially if politically allowed to do so?

I do not have a clear, specific answer.

More importantly to me, at least at this point in time, as a Christian theologian and philosopher is the Islamic confusion in regard to the Trinity. Islamic theology confuses the Christian doctrine of Trinity, three divine distinctions/persons of one infinite, eternal, ontological nature as God, with polytheism, a belief in three Gods with distinct natures.

Colossians 2:9-10 (Him is Jesus Christ) 'New American Standard Bible (NASB)

9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [a]complete, and He is the head [b]over all rule and authority;

Footnotes:

Colossians 2:10

Lit full Colossians 2:10

Lit of ' N.T. Wright explains in regard to Colossians 2: 9-10, it is an continuation of 1:19 (109), 'for all the fulness to dwell in him.' (NASB).

'He is uniquely God's presence and his very self'. (109). Wright reasons that Paul is teaching monotheistic doctrine here and not that Jesus Christ is a second deity. (109). Christ is the embodiment of full deity. (109).

Jesus Christ, the Word (John 1) remains infinite, eternal God, and became God incarnate.

Acts 2: 24 states that God raised Him (Jesus Christ) from the dead and in the process defeated death. 

From Hebrews 1; Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡit from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. (page 847).

Erickson further explains that each member of the Trinity is quantitatively equal. Erickson (1994: 337). Matthew 28: 19-20 and Acts 5 are two examples from the New Testament demonstrating the Holy Spirit as God.

Matthew 28:19-20

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

19 [a]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.”

Footnotes:

Matthew 28:19 Or Having gone; Gr aorist part.

Matthew 28:20 Lit all the days

Acts 5: 2-6

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

It is stated that one can lie to the Holy Spirit (verse 3) and therefore lie to God. 'You have not lied to men, but to God.' (verse 4).

All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions. In speculation, a philosophical critique might be that the infinite nature of God requires no distinctions or differently that God being infinite, should exist as infinite distinctions. Finite, sinful and imperfect humanity needs God's enlightenment from revelation to reasonably know God and to have significant intellectual understanding. God is Scripturally revealed in three distinctions and three persons, properly biblically defined. This is not completely understandable for the finite mind, but it is reasonable to the finite mind. To suggest that God as infinite must have infinite distinctions is not necessarily true, theologically, is not necessary philosophically, and is highly speculative philosophy of religion.

The incarnation of Jesus Christ has the infinite, eternal Word of God (John 1) take upon a finite human nature without the infinite divine nature and finite human nature, mixing. Therefore, Jesus Christ remains infinite, eternal God, but with two natures as both deity and incarnated man. God as trinity is relational in nature and therefore humanity is made in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1: 26-27).

Humanity is therefore specifically relational and rational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God.  The infinite God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication in rationality, because being relational and rational is also an aspect of God's nature.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

WALLACE TOM Jr. (2015) Refuting Islam, The Christian Patriots Guide to Exposing the Evils of Islam, Bellingham, Fundamental Publishers.

WRIGHT, N.T., Colossians and Philemon, (1986)(1989), IVP, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.