Tag Archives | debate

Does Eternal Subordination Entail a Denial of Homoousion?

Shield of the TrinityIn tonight’s debate, McCall and Yandell tried to make the case that the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father entails a denial of homoousion.

The Argument

Here’s their argument:

  1. If the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in all possible worlds, then the Son is necessarily subordinate to the Father.
  2. If the Son is necessarily subordinate to the Father, then the Son is essentially subordinate to the Father.
  3. Thus, the Son, as essentially subordinate to the Father, is of a different essence or nature than the Father, which entails a denial of homoousion.

Continue Reading →

Comments { 14 }

Trinity Debate—Live

I mentioned the debate between Ware–Grudem and McCall–Yandell a while back. The subject of the debate is “Do relations of authority and submission exist eternally among the Persons of the Godhead?” I’m currently watching the debate live right now. You can tune in as well.

I don’t know if I’ll liveblog. We’ll see. But I probably will write a post later analyzing the debate.

Comments { 3 }

Wallace vs. Ehrman on the Textual Reliability of the NT

Today and tomorrow Daniel Wallace will be debating Bart Ehrman on “The Textual Reliability of the New Testament.” The debate is part of the Greer-Heard Point-Counterpoint Forum, a ministry of New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

Here’s the announcement from DTS:

On April 4-5, 2008, Dr. Dan Wallace, professor of New Testament Studies at Dallas, will participate in a debate with Dr. Bart Ehrman, chair of the department of religious studies at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, over the textual reliability of the New Testament.

For more information, please visit www.greer-heard.com.

Wallace vs. Ehrman

Let’s pray that God’s truth would prevail.

Comments { 2 }

The Failed Strategy of “Trinity & Subordinationism”

trinity-and-subordinationism.jpgKevin Giles’s The Trinity & Subordinationism is easily one of the worst books I have ever read.1 I say that not because I disagree with the position he defends (i.e., the Son is not in any sense eternally subordinate to the Father); I’m still in the process of evaluating the evidence. Rather, I make that statement based primarily2 on what the book itself sets out to do.

Giles’s goal in T&S is to move beyond the exegetical impasse regarding eternal subordination in the Trinity by appealing to tradition.

Quoting biblical texts and giving one’s interpretation of them cannot resolve complex theological disputes. . . . I believe this approach [to “doing theology”] should . . . be abandoned today because it always leads to a “text-jam.” . . . What we have today is a bitter stalemate (3).

Continue Reading →

Footnotes

  1. I should clarify that I have read and am referring to only his section on the Trinity, which is its own distinct unit.
  2. I’ll probably follow up this post with the book’s other problems, such as (1) misunderstanding and misrepresenting complementarians, (2) selective reading of history, (3) eisegesis of historical texts, (4) category confusion, etc., etc. Here’s one example of misrepresentation to give you an idea of the way Giles interacts with complemenatarian Trinitarianism throughout the book: “Rather than working as one, the divine persons have been set in opposition—with the Father commanding and the Son obeying.” I wrote this in the margin, “Opposition?!!! What a massive misrepresentation!” I challenge Giles to show one complementarian who considers the Father and the Son to be in a relationship of opposition!
Comments { 7 }

More Bahnsen Debates

Greg BahnsenNote: The site hosting the MP3 files below no longer has them up, but Archive.org has them cached. I’ve updated the links. Make sure to right-click and select “Save link as” to download them.

I recently stumbled across and listened to two other free Bahnsen (Wikipedia | Theopedia) debates:

They aren’t quite as good as the debate against Gordon Stein (Pt 1 | Pt 2 | Pt 3 | transcript), but they are still worth listening to.

Continue Reading →

Comments { 26 }

Hitchens–Wilson Debate

Hitchens & WilsonLast night I read the final installment in the six-part email debate that has been taking place over the last month on ChristianityToday.com between atheist Christopher Hitchens (website) and Christian theist Douglas Wilson (blog). I thoroughly enjoyed it and heartily recommend it. Wilson is a cogent thinker, effective debater, and engaging writer, and he did a phenomenal job of presuppositionally obliterating the notion of philosophically consistent atheistic morality.

Continue Reading →

Comments { 9 }