JBTS 7.2 On Critiquing Social Trinitarianism: Problems with a Recent Attempt by Andrew Hollingsworth On Critiquing “on Critiquing Social Trinitarianism”: A Response to Andrew Hollingsworth by Samuel G. Parkison A Philosophical Analysis of J.R. Daniel Kirk’s A Man Attested by God by Timothy J. Pawl In Other Words? the Difficult Question of Jesus’s Divinity in Schleiermacher by Matt Jenson Theology in Missional Mode: Harvie Conn’s Contribution by Michael W. Goheen A Rose is Not Just a Rose: Re-integrating Faith with Learning in the Post-Christian Academy by Peter Rasor Book Reviews Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

On Critiquing Social Trinitarianism: Problems with a Recent Attempt Andrew Hollingsworth Andrew Hollingsworth (PhD, New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary) is Assistant Professor of Theology and Christian Philosophy at Brewton-Parker College in Mt. Vernon, Georgia. Abstract: In his recent book, Simply Trinity, Matthew Barrett argues that Christians need to retrieve the pro-Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, as articulated by the fathers in the patristic, medieval, and reformation periods of the church’s history. He also argues that social trinitarianism is beyond the boundaries of pro-Nicene orthodoxy, and that many Christians today who have accepted some version or another of social trinitarianism have accepted a false Trinity. In this paper, I object to Barrett’s characterization of social trinitarianism, arguing that he misrepresents the positions and agendas of several thinkers who identify as social trinitarians. I also argue that Barrett does not develop a clear argument demonstrating that social trinitarianism is unbiblical, nor does he develop a clear argument against the social-trinitarian views of those individuals that he lists and critiques. As a result, Barrett’s critiques of social trinitariansism in Simply Trinity ultimately fall flat. I conclude with some practical steps for moving the discussions surrounding social trinitarianism forward. Key Words: Doctrine of the…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

On Critiquing “on Critiquing Social Trinitarianism”: A Response to Andrew Hollingsworth Samuel G. Parkison Samuel G. Parkison (PhD, Midwestern Seminary) is Associate Professor of Theological Studies and Director of the Abu Dhabi Extension Site at Gulf Theological Seminary in the United Arab Emirates. Before coming to GTS, Samuel was assistant professor of Christian studies at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, and pastor of teaching and liturgy at Emmaus Church in Kansas City. Abstract: This brief essay is a response to Andrew Hollingsworth’s article, “On Critiquing Social Trinitarianism: Problems with a Recent Attempt.” In his article, Hollingsworth canvases Matthew Barrett’s third chapter in Simply Trinity: The Unmanipulated Father, Son, and Spirit, which surveys the recent history of social trinitarianism, describing its major figures and their divergence (or, “drift”) from the historic and orthodox trinitarianism of Nicaea. Hollingsworth argues that Barrett’s critique fails on account of (a) inadequate engagement with the proponents of social trinitarianism he names, (b) an inadequate definition of social trinitarianism, and (c) inadequate justification for his presuppositions regarding the relative authority of tradition on hermeneutics and dogmatics. In this essay, I will argue that each of these criticisms fail when we consider (a) the nature of Simply Trinity, (b) Simply…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

A Philosophical Analysis of J.R. Daniel Kirk’s A Man Attested by God Timothy J. Pawl Professor of Philosophy, University of St. Thomas (MN) Abstract: In his recent book, A Man Attested by God, J. R. Daniel Kirk argues that the Synoptic Gospels are best read through a paradigm in which Jesus is not a divine person, but rather an exalted non-preexistent human person. In what follows I set out Kirk’s argumentation in a precise logical structure, then assess it from a logical and philosophical point of view. My conclusion is mixed. The logical structure of Kirk’s argumentation against the Divine paradigm is good. If the texts he marshals against his early high Christology opponents are exegeted correctly—I give no assessment of Kirk’s historical or exegetical work—then he has succeeded in showing that his opponents’ arguments are in dire shape. On the other hand, Kirk’s own argumentation in favor of the Ideal Human paradigm is itself lacking in an essential component–—he does not support a necessary part of that paradigm, Christ’s alleged nonpreexistence. Keywords: Divine paradigm, Ideal Human Figure paradigm, Early High Christology, The Synoptic Gospels, Preexistence. Read the full article: A Philosophical Analysis of J.R. Daniel Kirk’s A Man Attested by…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

In Other Words? the Difficult Question of Jesus’s Divinity in Schleiermacher Matt Jenson Matt Jenson (PhD, University of St. Andrews) is associate professor of theology for the Torrey Honors Institute at Biola University. Abstract: The apparently straightforward question of whether Friedrich Schleiermacher believed that Jesus is God proves surprisingly complex. As a teenager, he confessed to his father that he had lost his faith; but later he claimed to have become a pietist again, if of a higher order. He sharply critiqued Chalcedonian categories but spoke of “an actual being of God in [Christ].” Perhaps Schleiermacher offers an orthodox Christology in other words, one that purifies philosophical categories while retaining the central biblical witness to Jesus as God in the flesh. In the end, however, I argue a cumulative case on the basis of epistolary, exegetical, and dogmatic evidence that Schleiermacher persevered in his unbelief “that He, who called Himself the Son of Man, was the true, eternal God.” Read the full article: In Other Words? the Difficult Question of Jesus’s Divinity in Schleiermacher * Portions of this article appear in Matt Jenson, Theology in the Democracy of the Dead: A Dialogue with the Living Tradition (Baker Academic, 2019). Used by…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Theology in Missional Mode: Harvie Conn’s Contribution Michael W. Goheen Michael W. Goheen is professor of missional theology at Covenant Theological Seminary and director of theological education for the Missional Training Center Systematic Theology Under Attack Today systematic theology is under attack in many circles. It has been knocked off its privileged perch for a variety of reasons. John Goldingay speaks for many that “if systematic theology did not exist, it might seem unwise to invent it.”[1] We are in a new postmodern climate that distrusts both reason and all totalizing systems structured by human rationality. There is suspicion that the systems of theology are less systems found in Scripture and more products of creative human construction. Moreover, there has been a recovery of the storied shape of the Scriptural canon accompanied by a deepened awareness of the diversity of literary genres. The Bible is not simply a data dump of theological propositions,[2] nor a storehouse of isolated theological facts waiting to be arranged coherently by the systematic mind, nor a book with theological pieces of a jigsaw puzzle waiting to be assembled.[3] The Bible is in its overall shape a story of redemption with many genres that equip us…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

A Rose is Not Just a Rose: Re-integrating Faith with Learning in the Post-Christian Academy [1] Peter Rasor Peter Rasor (PhD, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Senior Pastor at Lilburn Christian Church in Lilburn, GA and serves as Adjunct Professor in Philosophy at Grand Canyon University Abstract: The integration of the Christian faith with learning has been a subject of discussion in Christian higher education for several decades. One pressing question is exactly how to accomplish this integration in every discipline of the Christian university, from the humanities to the sciences. This has proven to be somewhat difficult. A primary reason for this difficulty is due to the acceptance of what George Marsden calls “methodological secularism.” This paper offers four suggestions for overcoming methodological secularism seemingly entrenched in Christian universities in order to integrate successfully Christian faith with learning across all disciplines. Read the full article: A Rose is Not Just a Rose: Re-integrating Faith with Learning in the Post-Christian Academy [1] The phrase “a rose is not just a rose” is taken from Arthur Holmes, Building the Christian Academy (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), 44. Emphasis added. Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Genesis 3:15 in the New Testament and in the Pentateuchal Targums: Enmity as a Spiritual Conflict Iosif J. Zhakevich Iosif J. Zhakevich is Associate Professor of Old Testament The Master’s Seminary in Los Angeles, CA Abstract: The present paper conducts a comparative analysis of Gen 3:15 in the Pentateuchal Targums and of allusions to Gen 3:15 at Rev 12:17 (and its broader context) in order to demonstrate that the Targums and the book of Revelation both interpret the enmity announced at Gen 3:15 to be a spiritual battle, not a mere reference to the animus between humans and snakes. This view of enmity is indeed the point of departure for the broader interpretation of Gen 3:15 as a messianic text in Rev 12 and the Targums, as other scholars have shown. Moreover, to explain the congruity between the Targums and Rev 12, this study concludes, in agreement with the general view in comparative targumic and NT studies, that such an interpretation of the enmity at Gen 3:15 existed in the early Jewish community and was incorporated into the NT and into the Targums in accordance with each author’s literary purposes and theological convictions. Key Words: Targum, New Testament, Messiah, Enmity,…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Understanding the Paraclete Title: Any Help from the Targums?[1] John Ronning John Ronning, Field Service Engineer, American Electrical Testing Co. “Helper” is one suggested meaning of the fairly rare Greek word παράκλητος, found in the NT only in John’s writings.[2] In a previous study I suggested the possibility that when Jesus promised “another Paraclete, that he may be with you forever” (John 14:16), he may have been using targumic language, since in the extant Targums the divine promise to be with his people is frequently paraphrased with the idea of the divine Word (Aramaic מֵימְרָא) being their “Helper.”[3] The present paper explores further this possibility. The term (παράκλητος) is used of the Holy Spirit by Jesus in his upper room discourse (John 14:16-17; 15:26; 16:7).  Additionally, it is used by John (1 John 2:1) to describe Jesus after his ascension.  Implications for the doctrine of the deity of the Holy Spirit would seem to come not from the definition and possible OT background of the word, but from the fact that the same term is used for both the Son and the Spirit, who carries on the work of the Son after his ascension to the right hand of the…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin

Targumic Forerunners: How Codex Colbertinus-Sarravianus (G) Demonstrates Targumic Tendencies Matthew R. Miller Matthew R. Miller serves as a Chaplain at Westover Air Force Base, MA Before Targumic texts existed, the Septuagint (LXX) was translated in Alexandria. This translation of the Pentateuch from Hebrew to Greek was the first of its kind and literally the stuff of legend.[1] It is a well-known problem in Old Testament textual studies that the LXX translation does not align exactly with the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT) standard today.[2] The differences between the LXX and MT raise several questions: 1) are the differences due to different idioms? 2) is there a theological motivation behind the differences? 3) was the LXX translated from a Hebrew Vorlage that is different from the MT? Since most in the Early Church did not know Hebrew, they assumed the priority of the LXX over the Hebrew Scriptures, believing that God had given the LXX to the Early Church in his providence.[3] These problems were not unknown in the Early Church, however. They were not fully documented until Origen’s work on the Hexapla. Origen was distressed by the lack of agreement he noticed between the church’s Bible and the Hebrew text of…

Share this on:

Facebook

Twitter

Linkedin