ContraArianism, Part 3

Here is another installment of my conversation with ContraModalism. ContraModalism: “I don’t understand what you think you’ve actually established. Your objection that being God isn’t an ontological statement but merely one about relations is unconvincing.” Well I’ve presented you with the evidence I see for Godhood being dominion, and have been able to easily answer every supposed objection to it you have brought forward. So find it unconvincing if you like, but it seems to me you lack a reason. “You already granted that the phrase is actually about ontology.” I don’t know where you get the idea that I’ve … Continue reading ContraArianism, Part 3

Godhood and Dominion

I asked some questions to two Unitarian apologists that believe themselves to be a Trinitarian. TheSire: How close is their similarity? Do they possess all the same(generic) Divine properties? What distinguishes you from a tritheist? ContraModalism: “God begot God, that the Lord begot the Lord, that the King begot the King, that the Creator begot the Creator, that the Good begot the Good, that the Wise begot the Wise, that the Merciful begot the Merciful, and that the Powerful begot the Powerful.” (Maximinus) The Son is like the Father in that He is the Image of the Father, the exact … Continue reading Godhood and Dominion

Is God good?

The Euthyphro Dilemma sets theist with a Dilemma. Is God’s will good because he wills it, or because it appeals to an outside standard of goodness? The Christian takes this to be that Goodness is grounded in God’s being or nature. The issue that arises from that is that people push the issue to another problem: What does it mean to say God is good? Does that mean God is God? Does goodness lose all meaning? The way Christians get around this issue is that when we say “God is good” we are saying not that “God is God” but … Continue reading Is God good?

Celsus on the Deity of Christ (2nd Century)

Many who deny the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ (Arianism in all its forms for example) have attempted to make the historical case that early Christians prior to the Council of Nicea didn’t believe in such things as the idea that Christ, in addition to His human nature, possesses fully the Divine nature in the same way that God the Father and God the Spirit do. While the orthodox Christian may respond with an appeal to a plethora of early documents such as Ignatius’ (A.D. 30-107) statements that demonstrate a high Christology in the Ante-Nicene period, and rightly so, … Continue reading Celsus on the Deity of Christ (2nd Century)

Natural and Free Knowledge

God’s Knowledge: In thinking about God’s knowledge theologically it was customary for many years, until and including the Reformation, to distinguish between God’s necessary knowledge and His free knowledge. The distinction is obvious and natural. God’s necessary knowledge includes several kinds of truths. It is the knowledge of matters such as the truths of mathematics (for example, 2+2=4). It is also the knowledge of truths such as the whole is greater than the part and no circle can be a square. God’s necessary knowledge also includes His knowledge of all possibilities, such as possible people, the possible lives they could … Continue reading Natural and Free Knowledge

A delicate flower

As you probably can tell, this is another post about the notorious Professor Leighton Flowers. He has made a few new videos (probably in preparation for his upcoming debate). Flowers has the spiritual gift of not being able to add any new content to the conversation. He also provides no alternative for us to turn too. The good of Flowers is that he will weed out the Calvinist that doesn’t study. That allows for Calvinist to better formulate their beliefs. It is through refinement we come to stronger and better positions.I won’t be providing a full rebuttal to his videos. These are just my comments about … Continue reading A delicate flower