This is part of a series. See part 1, part 3, part 4, part 5, and part 6. Note: links will go live upon publication. I don’t regularly and consistently read Sigma Frame or its comments anymore, so when Jack responded to “Sigma Frame Abandons the Patriarchy” with two lengthy comments on his …
This is part of a series. See part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, and part 6. Note: links will go live upon publication. Today’s class will be a lesson in how not to write a comment. If you were good at the debate team in High School, starting …
Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here. In “Polytheists on the Trinity,” I noted how belief in polytheism (and mysticism) naturally leads to a softening on the doctrine of the Trinity. But this is not always the case. …
Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here. Back in “Bruce Charlton on the Trinity,” I made this statement: After I wrote that, Charlton answered this, saying: Something fundamental has changed in recent times with the way people think, …
Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here. I recently wrote about “Gnosticism” and its relationship to esoteric, mystical Christianity. Now we are going to explore it’s relationship to the doctrine of the Trinity, and of the doctrine of …
Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here. One of the more interesting facets of the doctrine of the Trinity is just how many proof-texts are asserted to be evidence or proof of the Trinity. There are dozens or …
Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here. I like Jesse Albrecht. I do. He runs the very interesting “Rational Christian Discernment,” which is such a fantastic title for a blog. And he’s even commented on this blog. I …
Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here. In previous posts, we’ve seen the views of James Attebury and Bruce Charlton on the Trinity. I wrote those posts a while in advance of publication. Since I wrote them, Attebury …
Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here. I began the discussion on the Trinity with more traditional viewpoints—of James Attebury and James White—for a reason. They all share intellectual, non-mystical approaches to the question of the Trinity and …
Note: This is part of a series on the Trinity from a rational, non-mystical perspective. See the index here. Bart Ehrman is a former Christian. He’s a textual critic, so his perspective on the Trinity is interesting (and, of course, not expected to be theologically correct). So let’s look at …