khanpadawan | trinities 246 - Response to Branson Part 4 - the shortcomings of "monarchical trinitarianism" @khanpadawan | Uploaded December 2018 | Updated October 2024, 39 minutes ago.
trinities.org/blog/podcast-246-response-to-branson-part-4-the-shortcomings-of-monarchical-trinitarianism This episode is the last part of my response to Dr. Beau Branson’s presentation on the monarchy of the Father (trinities podcast episodes 239-242). Here I leave aside issues of terminology, historical theologies, and historical narrative, and focus on the theological merits of Dr. Branson’s account of the Triad. In short, I think it that “monarchical trinitarianism” (MT) needs further development, as it leaves pressing, central theological questions unanswered.
Along the way I get analytic, explaining how (I believe) Dr. Branson’s Triad theory would deal with these four claims, only three of which (as a matter of logic) can be true. (Note: these are just four claims, not an argument with premises and a conclusion.)
The Independence Tetrad
The Son is eternally generated by the Father.
If a being is generated by another, it exists because of that other.
Full divinity implies not existing because of any other.
The Son is fully divine.
The interesting thing about these four claims is that they can’t all be true. If the Son is eternally generated and so exists because of the Father, whereas full deity requires not existing because of any other, then the Son is not divine. (1 & 2 & 3 imply the falsity of 4.) If to be generated is to be caused, and full deity requires not being caused by any other, and the Son enjoys full deity, then the Son can’t have been caused by the Father. (2 & 3 & 4 imply the falsity of 1.) If they Son is fully divine, so doesn’t exist because of any other, and if he was generated, then it must be false that if a being is generated, it is caused to exist by another. (1 & 3 & 4 imply the falsity of 2.) Finally, if the Son is generated and so exists because of another, and he’s fully divine, then full divinity must not require not existing because of any other. (1 & 2 & 4 imply the falsity of 3.) What is a thinking Christian to do? Which should be denied? One would think, the one which we have the least reason to believe. Which is that?
I also offer Dr. Branson (really, all thinking Christians) the following argument, which starts with the Nicene claim that the Son is the same in essence/substance as the Father, and ends with a denial of monotheism. It’s not an argument I assert. Rather, it seems to me that any decently developed Christian theology ought to tell us which premise or premises should be denied. (It is, rightly, a rare Christian theology indeed which would simply accept the argument as sound!)
The Argument from Nicene Theology vs. Monotheism
Jesus is divine (has the essential quality of divinity). (Premise)
If something has the essential quality divinity, it is a god. (Premise)
Therefore, Jesus is a god. (1,2)
The Father is divine. (Premise)
Therefore, the Father is a god. (2,4)
Jesus and the Father are either the same god, or they are two different gods. (Premise)
If Jesus and the Father were the same god, they could not differ in any way. (Premise)
But the Father and Son do differ. (Premise)
Therefore, Jesus and the Father are not the same god. (7,8)
Therefore, Jesus and the Father are different gods. (6,9)
Therefore, there are at least two gods. (10)
Therefore, monotheism is false. (11)
When it comes to the above argument, I deny 1, because of the New Testament. Which does Dr. Branson deny? Which do you deny, Mr. or Ms. Thinking Christian? Let us know in the comments below or in the Facebook group.
Thanks again to Dr. Branson; he’s a friend to me and to the podcast, and I hope we will have him on again.
Links for this episode @ trinities.org/blog/podcast-246-response-to-branson-part-4-the-shortcomings-of-monarchical-trinitarianism
Information on Dale’s upcoming debate with Dr. Michael Brown.
21st Century Reformation website
Restitutio podcast
podcast episodes by or about Dr. Beau Branson
Proverbs 27:17
“social” Trinity theories
podcast 231 – Swinburne’s Social Theory of the Trinity
podcast 57 – Richard Swinburne on the Trinity
podcast 28 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 2
podcast 27 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 1
Samuel Clarke, The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity
podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!
podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists
Weekly podcast exploring views about the Trinity, and more generally about God and Jesus in Christian theology and philosophy. Debates, interviews, and historical and contemporary perspectives. Hosted by philosopher of religion / analytic theologian Dr. Dale Tuggy.
This week's thinking music is "Toddler Guitarist" by Admiral Bob. dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/58311
trinities.org/blog/podcast-246-response-to-branson-part-4-the-shortcomings-of-monarchical-trinitarianism This episode is the last part of my response to Dr. Beau Branson’s presentation on the monarchy of the Father (trinities podcast episodes 239-242). Here I leave aside issues of terminology, historical theologies, and historical narrative, and focus on the theological merits of Dr. Branson’s account of the Triad. In short, I think it that “monarchical trinitarianism” (MT) needs further development, as it leaves pressing, central theological questions unanswered.
Along the way I get analytic, explaining how (I believe) Dr. Branson’s Triad theory would deal with these four claims, only three of which (as a matter of logic) can be true. (Note: these are just four claims, not an argument with premises and a conclusion.)
The Independence Tetrad
The Son is eternally generated by the Father.
If a being is generated by another, it exists because of that other.
Full divinity implies not existing because of any other.
The Son is fully divine.
The interesting thing about these four claims is that they can’t all be true. If the Son is eternally generated and so exists because of the Father, whereas full deity requires not existing because of any other, then the Son is not divine. (1 & 2 & 3 imply the falsity of 4.) If to be generated is to be caused, and full deity requires not being caused by any other, and the Son enjoys full deity, then the Son can’t have been caused by the Father. (2 & 3 & 4 imply the falsity of 1.) If they Son is fully divine, so doesn’t exist because of any other, and if he was generated, then it must be false that if a being is generated, it is caused to exist by another. (1 & 3 & 4 imply the falsity of 2.) Finally, if the Son is generated and so exists because of another, and he’s fully divine, then full divinity must not require not existing because of any other. (1 & 2 & 4 imply the falsity of 3.) What is a thinking Christian to do? Which should be denied? One would think, the one which we have the least reason to believe. Which is that?
I also offer Dr. Branson (really, all thinking Christians) the following argument, which starts with the Nicene claim that the Son is the same in essence/substance as the Father, and ends with a denial of monotheism. It’s not an argument I assert. Rather, it seems to me that any decently developed Christian theology ought to tell us which premise or premises should be denied. (It is, rightly, a rare Christian theology indeed which would simply accept the argument as sound!)
The Argument from Nicene Theology vs. Monotheism
Jesus is divine (has the essential quality of divinity). (Premise)
If something has the essential quality divinity, it is a god. (Premise)
Therefore, Jesus is a god. (1,2)
The Father is divine. (Premise)
Therefore, the Father is a god. (2,4)
Jesus and the Father are either the same god, or they are two different gods. (Premise)
If Jesus and the Father were the same god, they could not differ in any way. (Premise)
But the Father and Son do differ. (Premise)
Therefore, Jesus and the Father are not the same god. (7,8)
Therefore, Jesus and the Father are different gods. (6,9)
Therefore, there are at least two gods. (10)
Therefore, monotheism is false. (11)
When it comes to the above argument, I deny 1, because of the New Testament. Which does Dr. Branson deny? Which do you deny, Mr. or Ms. Thinking Christian? Let us know in the comments below or in the Facebook group.
Thanks again to Dr. Branson; he’s a friend to me and to the podcast, and I hope we will have him on again.
Links for this episode @ trinities.org/blog/podcast-246-response-to-branson-part-4-the-shortcomings-of-monarchical-trinitarianism
Information on Dale’s upcoming debate with Dr. Michael Brown.
21st Century Reformation website
Restitutio podcast
podcast episodes by or about Dr. Beau Branson
Proverbs 27:17
“social” Trinity theories
podcast 231 – Swinburne’s Social Theory of the Trinity
podcast 57 – Richard Swinburne on the Trinity
podcast 28 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 2
podcast 27 – Interview with Dr. William Hasker about his Metaphysics and the Tripersonal God – Part 1
Samuel Clarke, The Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity
podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!
podcast 124 – a challenge to “Jesus is God” apologists
Weekly podcast exploring views about the Trinity, and more generally about God and Jesus in Christian theology and philosophy. Debates, interviews, and historical and contemporary perspectives. Hosted by philosopher of religion / analytic theologian Dr. Dale Tuggy.
This week's thinking music is "Toddler Guitarist" by Admiral Bob. dig.ccmixter.org/files/admiralbob77/58311
