#essential aseity

[oddinthetruth]

Essential Aseity and the Eastern Fathers

Scholar Nathan Jacobs argues that the Eastern fathers do not hold to a view of essential aseity. Now, given the predominance of essential aseity in much Western trinitarian thought, such a view might seem rather scandalous.

Jacob’s, on the other hand, sees it as simply an entailment of the Eastern fathers moderate realism. He supports his claim by way of contrast with the Eunomian view of natures.

The Eunomian case places the principle of existence in nature rather than subject. In other words, the Eunomian instinct is that existence...is essential to the divine nature. Hence, any subject having the divine nature has existence by virtue of being divine.

On the Eunomian view, the Son who is begotten and originate, cannot be of and identical with the divine nature, which is itself the principle of existence. Aseity is proper to natures and the Son, who is begotten, is not a se. He must be of a different nature than the having-no-cause-whatsoever (a se) Father. 

More than that, the Father must be “of a nature that is ontologically superior to that of the Son and the Holy Spirit--the Father being unoriginate (or a se), while the Son and the Spirit are originate (not a se).”

The Eastern fathers, on the other hand:

...being moderate realists, reject the point. Existence is never a property, accidental or essential, of natures. Existence is only ever located in subjects that give concrete reality to natures – hence their use of hypostasis, or that which exists underneath a nature.

He explains further:

...the Eastern fathers make clear that natures are mere abstractions that lack stability (stasis, playing on the term hypostasis) and thus require a hypostasis to supply concrete existence. This is why they also insist that the hypostasis is logically anterior to the nature. That is to say, the nature stands upon the individual, not vice versa. Put otherwise, individuals exist; natures subsist in individuals. And to be clear, the Eastern fathers do not make an exception for things divine.

This approach of the Eastern fathers has a startling implication:

Applied to the Trinity, this means that the Father exists a se (in himself); the divine nature subsists in the Father. Thus, there is no "essential aseity," since the divine nature does not (and cannot) exist in itself...Since aseity implies having no cause whatsoever, the term is applicable to the Father only, according to Eastern patristic thought.

This Eastern fathers’ view of natures and its application to the Trinity is what counters the Eunomian position that only the Father can be of the divine nature.

On the Eastern fathers’ view, because aseity is an incommunicable idiomata of the Father’s hypostasis, the begotten Son and spirated Spirit can both be of the divine nature.

In other words, the Son and Spirit can be both fully divine--fully identical to the divine nature--and yet remain begotten and spirated, respectively, while the Father alone is a se--”having no cause whatsoever.”

Using the logic that arises from their view of natures, Jacobs says the Eastern fathers push further into their disagreement with the Eunomian position:

The Cappadocians point out that the Eunomians commit a category error in this claim [the Father is ontologically superior because he is a se], confusing efficient cause (how a thing is) with formal cause (what a thing is). All three have the same nature but the Father has it from no one, while the Son has it by begetting and the Spirit by spiration. Just as Adam, Eve, and Abel have three different efficient causes (unbegotten of man, proceeding from Adam, and begotten of Adam) but share a common nature, and are thus ontological equals, so the divine hypostases differ in efficient cause (unbegotten, begotten, and procession) but share a common nature, being ontological equals [in other words, not subordinate].

Thoughts

If Jacob’s reading of the Eastern fathers is correct, it has important historical and theological significance for pro-Nicene logic and trinitarianism. 

Importantly, for my interests, this view also accords beautifully with the strong Monarchy of the Father view of the Trinity. The one God is the Father, the a se hypostasis. He is the source and cause of the Son and the Spirit (with all the appropriate qualifications, of course).

Additionally, because the Father is the principle of existence, not the divine nature, it is he that communicates his nature to the Son and the Spirit. They are identical to his divine nature. They are homoousios with him. The Father then is both the source of unity and distinction in the Trinity.

An important question is how might Jacob’s observation be understood in light of Western or Latin views that argue for the essential aseity of the Son? I’d love to hear from others on that question.

My only caution, as I’ve written about before, is that as this question is addressed that we not flatten or bend pro-Nicene trinitarianism so as to remake it in the image of current in-favor idioms. 

[aclayjar]

Aseity is one of the attributes of God. It essentially means that God is self-existent. His existence is not dependent on anyone or anything else. I believe that the name God uses for himself when talking with Moses at the burning bush describes this attribute well. God tells Moses that his name is “I Am". God just is. Necessary and Contingent Philosophers use a pair of words in describing existence. A being, or thing, is either necessary or it is contingent. A necessary being is one that must exist. There is no possibility of its non-existence. A contingent being, on the other hand, depends on something else for its existence. And a contingent being does not have to exist. For example, I am contingent. I did not have to be born. And my continued existence depends on many other things. I am contingent on the decision of my parents to have me, a suitable environment to sustain me, and the ongoing existence of the universe. The universe itself is contingent. The universe has not always existed. Nor is there any known physical reason why it exists rather than not. It could just as easily not have been. Inherent in the attribute of aseity is that the God of the Bible is a necessary being. He has always existed and there is no possibility of his non-existence. And, he is the ultimate cause behind every contingent being or thing. Eternal A necessary being is necessarily an eternal being. Since there is no possibility of its non-existence, it must be eternal. Without beginning and without end. Our finite human minds do not comprehend eternity very well. At least mind does not. Trying to imagine an existence that has always been is hard. And it is an existence that precedes everything else. Before the universe existed, God was. But just because I struggle with imagining the eternal existence that is a part of aseity does not negate it. Something must of necessity have existed before the universe in order to bring it into existence. In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment.Like clothing you will change them and they will be discarded.But you remain the same, and your years will never end.Psalm 102:25-27 NIV Where Did God Come From? Some will argue, who created God. This is really only a silly argument from an atheist who has not thought it out very well. All of existence is dependent on something that necessarily exists. Otherwise we have to speculate an infinite regress of contingent causes that ultimately produced the universe. But if the causal chain was infinite, it could never have reached the point of creating us and our universe. So, if there is not a necessary God, then some other universe creating mechanism must be necessary. And that is really no better than accepting God as necessary. Related Links The Attributes of God?The Nature of GodThe Joy of the Lord: Joy As an Attribute of GodTop 10 Reasons Why I Believe in GodWhy the Christian God?

[trinitiesblog]

Debating Dale Starter Pack

Please don’t take this personally, but in all likelihood, I’m not willing to debate you. I can only do so much with my time, and I am always over-committed. Also, I have to think you’re a worthy opponent. There have to be things I deeply respect about you and about your scholarly work. Most likely, though not necessarily, you will have a PhD in some relevant field and some relevant professional publications in philosophy or theology journals. So don’t get your hopes up. Still, if you were thinking about debating me, or just refuting me – here are some things you should study.

Absolute required reading: What is the Trinity? and “Trinity.” These will help you to understand why I’m going to ask you to clarify what Trinity theory you’re defending, or why I won’t allow you to smudge the difference between a Trinity theory and a claim that “Jesus is God” or that he is divine. (More on these below.) And if we are debating the Trinity, you will have to explain (at least) these six facts, facts which trinitarians who assume that Christians have always been trinitarian have heretofore not been able to account for. (See also here.)

I’m not going to be impressed if you urge that John 17:1-3 doesn’t say that only the Father is the only true God. (See also here.)

I will object if you argue that when a NT author says that Jesus fulfills some OT prophecy that was originally about Yahweh, this is the author’s way of saying that Jesus is Yahweh. I explain this fulfillment fallacy here and here and here. It is a beginner’s mistake in reading the NT, not any kind of deep insight, despite being endorsed by an embarrassing number of recent evangelical scholars.

Are you going to hit me with Richard Bauckham’s confused and confusing neologisms about “divine identity”? I really wish you wouldn’t, but if you must, you’ll want to read the published critique he’s been ignoring since before it was published, and also this and this.

You should think this is a sound argument. If you think a premise is false, you should have a strong reason to give for that claim, because as I explain here and in follow-up posts and podcast episodes, there are strong reasons for a Christian to agree with each premise. Evangelical apologists have been almost to a man ignoring this argument for years now, to their shame. Don’t join their ranks! If you’re unclear what a “sound” argument is, consult standard sources, like this.

These two talks explain why I will not be impressed with the points that Jesus is referred to as “God” and as “Lord” in the NT. In short, those terms are ambiguous in the NT, and these usages are not at all a way of hinting that Jesus “is God.” These authors never confuse Jesus and God.

“But Jesus is worshiped!” Yes, he is and he should be, but this is not a problem for biblical unitarian theology. Here’s a problem for trinitarians: justifying the speculative claim that one should only worship someone if they have the divine nature or essence. It’s neither self-evident nor is it found in the Bible. It’s only an inference from post-biblical catholic traditions. In this talk below (or in this podcast) I explain why I worship Jesus without embarrassment, even though I don’t confuse him with God and do not think he “has a divine nature,” and why this isn’t idolatry, by NT standards. In brief: I go back to the original justification for worshiping the exalted Lord Jesus.

Two natures theories about Christ are and always have been… to put it nicely, difficult, and it is not true there is some straightforward New Testament teaching here which is been the same from the beginning. For a historical overview of the speculations that led to Christ being called one Person in two natures, please see this, which distills a lot of information from a college course I have taught on the development of incarnation theories in Christian theology:

Notice that back then (from Origen on) most of them did not construe the “natures” merely as essential properties – also see podcasts 143 and 144. But if we go with that properties interpretation of the “natures,” here are some problematic properties which are arguably essential to God which seem like they cannot be essential to any human: uncreatedness, aseity, omniscience, omnipotence, immunity to temptation, immortality/immunity to death. Yes, one can try to go the way of recent kenosis theories, but these go against Chalcedonian tradition and really have no New Testament support, with Philippians 2 being the only passage that even kind of sort of sounds like that.

Apologists and others treat appeal to “two natures” as a sort of one-size-fits-all solution to looming christological contradictions. How can Jesus have a god if he is God? Two natures! How can he be created and uncreated? Two natures! How can he know all yet be limited in knowledge? Two natures! How can he be immortal and yet die? Two natures.

I am convinced that there is a lot of hand-waving and fakery here. I’m not going to stand idly by and let you assert that appeal to two natures solves the problem at hand. I’m going to press you to explain how it actually solves that problem without creating christological problems which are just as bad. For a preview of that:

podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!

(Click through the slides linked near the bottom to follow this.)

But isn’t preexistence still a slam-dunk as far as the NT is concerned? Surprisingly, no!

(For a bit more on John see podcast 70.)

And if we are debating the Trinity or “the deity of Christ,” I will be pointing out that if Jesus existed before his human life, it does not follow that he is one of three “Persons” in the triune God, or even that he is divine. In fact, people held such theories for about two centuries before it was popular to say that the Word is divine in the same way the Father is, and more than two centuries before confession of a triune God was made mandatory. If you are going to trot out standard apologists’ lists of early “fathers” calling Jesus “God” or “a god,” I will be pointing out that monarchians aside, they all held that Jesus (or the Word) was a lesser divine being, and that none of them so much as mention any triune God, at any time before the second half of the 300s. Propagandistic historical narratives, anarchonistic readings of the Bible, and sophistical traditional catholic arguments must yield to knowable historical facts. You don’t have to be a philosopher to debate me, but it will help if you aren’t scared by analytic philosophy, and if you have a healthy respect for honest history and for careful, charitable, non-anachronistic reading of historical works.

Here below is more against confusing Jesus with God, and untangling some common point-missing re: John 17 and John 20. You’ll have to be patient and work with the logic here. If you think logic should not be used in theology, I will not be interested in debating you. To me, use of logic is just due diligence in careful, critical reflection on divine revelation (loving God with all one’s mind), and use of clear, refutable arguments is a sign of humility and intellectual honesty, not of some sin called “rationalism.” It is the arrogant speculator who is offended at the very idea that he should have to submit to reason.

Want to try to prove the Trinity apart from the Bible, using reason alone, arguing that God wouldn’t be perfectly loving unless God is multiple Persons? Really, it’s a bad idea, as I explain here and also in a forthcoming co-authored paper.

I’m probably leaving some things out, but I think this will give you plenty to chew on. To refute or debate me you will need to do more than to point out standard proof-texts or gesture at a vague idea of an argument for the Trinity or for the deity of Christ.

https://trinities.org/blog/debating-dale-starter-pack/

[aclayjar]

The Greek word chara is translated in the New Testament as joy, rejoicing, or happiness. Typically this word is used in connection with God's people and their response to what he has done. As believers, we experience joy in God's presence and in the salvation he gives us. But does God experience joy? The Character of God It is very easy to read the Old Testament and come away with the picture of God as an angry and spiteful deity. A God who is demanding and who ruthlessly punishes disobedience. Calling for the extermination of whole people groups. Killing people for minor infractions of his laws. Sometimes it seems like he just got up on the wrong side of the bed. The New Testament would seem to soften the image of God as a God of love. But even it is filled with expressions of the wrath of God. However, when you look a little deeper you find in both testaments that God loves his creation, and especially his people. And it is clear that the expressions of wrath are really a reflection of his righteous nature. God is righteous, and that is reflected in everything he does. God is also love, and that also is reflected in all that he does. But God's righteousness and love are not two distinct parts of his nature. Instead, they are two aspects of a fully integrated nature. He is fully and completely both righteous and love. Defining Joy The Hebrew words śimḥâ and śāśôn, along with the Greek word chara are most often translated into English as joy. But they also are sometimes translated as gladness, delight or happiness. In Nehemiah 8:12, in response to the reading of the Law, "all the people went away to eat and drink, to send portions of food and to celebrate with great śimḥâ, because they now understood the words that had been made known to them." In Psalm 51:12, David prays that God would "Restore to me the śāśôn of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me." And, in 1 Thessalonians 1:6 Paul tells this church that "You became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you welcomed the message in the midst of severe suffering with the chara given by the Holy Spirit." These, and many other passages, express the joy that we have in knowing God and his will for our lives. And, that the joy we have is not of ourselves, but that it comes from God. He is the source of our joy. Joy As an Attribute of God We should, first, think that God leads a very interesting life, and that he is full of joy. Undoubtedly he is the most joyous being in the universe. The abundance of his love and generosity is inseparable from his infinite joy. All of the good and beautiful things from which we occasionally drink tiny droplets of soul-exhilarating joy, God continuously experiences in all their breath and depth and richness."The Divine Conspiracy" by Dallas Willard - God's Joyous Being Is joy a fundamental attribute of God. An attribute that is essential to his nature? Most would agree that attributes like his omnipotence, omniscience, aseity, and transcendence are basic to who God is. And moral attributes like love, goodness, righteousness, and mercy are also fundamental to God's nature. But what about joy? Wikipedia has a list of 28 attributes for God. And joy is not included. I have seen countless attribute lists for God over the years. And I cannot recall ever seeing joy on one of these lists. Yet on reflection it would seem like it would be an attribute of God. God is not a sour pussed deity looking for someone to smite. But he is joyous, taking delight in the work of his hands. The rejoicing in heaven when a lost one is saved is surely led by the God who created that one who has been found. Joy In His Image Bearers The first chapter of Genesis affirms that humanity was made in the image of God. At least of part of being made in God's image would be that we reflect his moral attributes. We love, not because we are loving. But because God is love and we are made in his image. The same would be true of goodness, righteousness, mercy and other moral attributes, including joy. That people can experience and live in joy is another indication that joy is a part of the nature of God. It is not something that we just inexplicably have. Rather, we can know joy because God is joy. Entering Into God's Joy In Matthew 25:14-30 is found the parable of the talents. In this parable a man entrusts three servants with some money to invest for him while he is away. When he returns he calls each of the servants in to give an account of their stewardship. Two of the three have done well and are commended for their efforts. In verses 21 & 23 the master says to the two, "Well done, good and faithful servant! You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things. Come and share your master's happiness!" In these verses the word translated as happiness is chara, translated elsewhere as joy. These faithful servants are invited to share in the joy of their master. This is one of the kingdom parables, describing what the kingdom of heaven is like. The master here represents God, with us as his servants. And his faithful servants will partake of God's joy. Living a Life of Joy In Ephesians 5:12 Paul tells us to follow God's example, walking in the way of love. And in 1 Peter 1:15-16 we are called to be holy because God is holy. As children of God we should seek to be like him as much as we can. And that would seem to include joy. In Philippians 4:4 Paul twice tells us to rejoice in the Lord. To have joy as God's people. All too often as Christians we seem to wear a frown, looking like we have just sucked on a lemon. And while there certainly may be times when that is appropriate, it should not be our default face. Rejoice in the Lord. Let God's joy fill us and flow out to those we come into contact with. Let's be a people of love, holiness, and joy. Passages of Joy Old Testament Neh. 8:10 - Nehemiah said, “Go and enjoy choice food and sweet drinks, and send some to those who have nothing prepared. This day is holy to our Lord. Do not grieve, for the joy of the Lord is your strength.”Psalm 16:11 - You make known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.Psalm 21:6 - Surely you have granted him unending blessings and made him glad with the joy of your presence.Psalm 51:12 - Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me.Psalm 65:8 - The whole earth is filled with awe at your wonders; where morning dawns, where evening fades, you call forth songs of joy.Psalm 106:5 - that I may enjoy the prosperity of your chosen ones, that I may share in the joy of your nation and join your inheritance in giving praise.Isaiah 58:14 - then you will find your joy in the Lord, and I will cause you to ride in triumph on the heights of the land and to feast on the inheritance of your father Jacob.” For the mouth of the Lord has spoken. New Testament John 15:11 - I have told you this so that my joy may be in you and that your joy may be complete.John 17:13 - “I am coming to you now, but I say these things while I am still in the world, so that they may have the full measure of my joy within them.Romans 14:17 - For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit,1 Thess. 1:6 - You became imitators of us and of the Lord, for you welcomed the message in the midst of severe suffering with the joy given by the Holy Spirit.Hebrews 12:2 - fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.Hebrews 12:22 - But you have come to Mount Zion, to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. You have come to thousands upon thousands of angels in joyful assembly,

[trinitiesblog]

explaining why God has the ability to love another

Slanderin’ Steve has responded to my recent post. I love it how he invariably describes me as “attempting to” respond, and never as actually responding. What a guy.

[Dale:] Steve, you’re the one trying to make a problem here; it is incumbent on you to show some impossibility.

No, it’s not incumbent on me to show some “impossibility”. Rather, I only need to show that there are philosophical reasons to doubt unitarianism. There’s no general principle that philosophical objections must show the “impossibility” of the alternative. Dale is rigging the game. 

Steve seems to understand how this sort of game works. In trying to come up with a purely philosophical argument against unitarianism, what we’re working with, at bottom, is intuitions about what must be and what can’t be, and about what’s consistent with what. It all has to do with impossibility. He should ask himself why trinitarian philosophers like Davis, Swinburne, and Morris are all trying to show it to be impossible that God is unipersonal. His crying about me supposedly changing the rules on him is sad. A humbler man would realize that he’s out of his depth here, that the trinitarian philosophers, the relevant experts here, understand what must be done, to have a philosophical argument from theism to Trinity. This is how you would beat unitarian theology with a philosophical argument – if that can be done. Just asserting that unitarianism has some problem in this regard, without showing how, is just time-wasting bluster.

[Dale:] But let’s not lose where we are in the argument. Suppose that divine-person to divine-person love would be qualitatively better than divine-person-human love. But, why must a divine person enjoy that better kind of love? Because he’s “perfectly loving.” That’s a clear non sequitur, though. One can be perfectly loving without actually loving another. To have the perfectly loving character trait does not imply engaging in the best kind of love.

��my argument isn’t dependent on “perfect” love. Dale keeps substituting an easier target to attack.

What Slanderin’ Steve tries to frame as shiftiness here is merely me trying to interpret him charitably! Why should we think that God must enjoy this (allegedly) best kind of love? Morris, Swinburne, Davis say, “Because he’s perfect in love.”

In contrast, Steve seems to lack any reason. As far as I can see, he just asks, “How could a God who ‘is love’ never love another?” Of course, a plausible answer is: because that God doesn’t need anything or anyone else, and is plausibly thought to have been free not to create. Against this, our little apologist seems to have nothing.

He then reproduces a long exchange of ours, and then throws out a few of the cuff remarks:

i) Notice that Dale can never provide an actual explanation for why a unitarian God necessarily has a capacity for interpersonal relationships or loving another. All he does is to repeat the same circular appeal. But the appeal is groundless. 

In fact, I explained how such capacity seems to logically implied by other divine attributes, attributes agreed to be essential by most trinitarians and unitarians, such as absolute perfection and aseity. Oddly, he seems to not understand. There’s no circularity in what I said; in other words, I never assume the conclusion in giving plausible reasons for the conclusion.

But here’s another argument, this time, for his convenience, in numbered steps, and in all small words:

By his essence, God is perfect in power.

By his essence, God is able to love another.

This ability should be included in omnipotence, in divine power, right? So, it seems that 2 follow from 1. This seems to be a sound argument, and Steve has not lifted a finger to cast any doubt on the truth of 1, or on 1’s implying 2. Moreover he agrees with 1! So his only option, logically, is to try to argue that 2 doesn’t follow from 1 – in other words, that it is possible for 1 to be true while 2 is false. Good look with that!

But let’s try to help him, and see how the dialectic goes:

“Aha, but there must be another to love.”

Right, divine power includes the ability to create a love-ee.

“But this recipient of love must be a peer of God, for peer-to-peer love is the best kind!”

Let’s set aside that there’s no obvious reason why we must think that God must have the best kind of love. Let’s grant that for the sake of following out this argument. Divine power plausibly implies the ability to create a peer, someone to engage in a love relationship that can be compared to that between a husband and a wife, or between a king and his adult subjects. There are your “peers” – God and humans, who are made in God’s image, so that this love is not like mere parent-infant or person-pet love. Note that even if such peers don’t actually exist, still, God is able to make them, and so will be, it seems, able to love a peer. He’ll just have to make one first.

“No, by ‘peer’ I mean a being with the divine essence.”

Now, I think we’ll have to draw the line, and demand reasons why we should think that (1) the peerhood required for the best kind of love must be peerhood of essence, and (2) more that one being (both lover and beloved) can have the divine essence. (1) strikes me as hopeless. Why couldn’t, say, a human and an intelligent Martian enjoy the best kind of love? (Swinburne has some speculations here, but I won’t got into them here.)

Back to our lovable little internet polemicist:

Compare that to Trinitarian theism. That provides an underlying reason. God has an intrinsic capacity for interpersonal relationships because God is intrinsically interpersonal. God essentially has the potential to love creatures because that’s an extension of the intra-Trinitarian fellowship.

Certainly, if anyone actually does A, that implies that they had the capacity for A-ing. So if one essentially does A, then essentially, one is able to A. Woo-hoo! Win for the Trinity, right?

Actually, no. Both sides agree that God has a feature F. Steve-o asserts that on his Trinity theory, God must have F. Okey-dokey. But I showed how just plain old unipersonal theism also seems to imply that God has F. All Steve’s managed to do here, is to display how proud he is of his own theory. For in entailing F (granting for the sake of argument that it does), his theology is no different than unitarian theism!

In principle, he could try to argue that the trinitarian’s explanation is better. He could try to deploy criteria that philosophers of science use to compare explanations in various ways.

But so far, he just willfully refuses to try to understand the unitarian’s explanations. Slanderin’ Steve prefers to just assert that the other side’s got nuthin’ – nuthin‘ I say! Hoo haw! Take that, foul apostate!

He’s welcome to re-read the middle of my last post, if he wants to actually engage, or the considerations above.

http://trinities.org/blog/explaining-why-god-has-the-ability-to-love-another/

[trinitiesblog]

podcast 178 - Apologists on how God can die - Part 1

Can evangelical apologists answer the question “How can God die?”

Back in episode 145, I laid out a triad of claims which can’t all be true:

1. Jesus died. 2. Jesus was fully divine. 3. No fully divine being has ever died.

I argued that a Christian who wants to be faithful to the New Testament, even when it conflicts with catholic traditions, should affirm 1 and 3, and so deny 2.

But this is not an answer you’re likely to hear from evangelical apologists. Here in part 1, we examine answers by Dr. David Wood and by Mr. Jay Smith. They’re arguing with Muslims, but of course anyone can notice that 1-3 above can’t all be true, and that arguably 1 and 3 are claims that no Christian should deny. A Christian ought to know which of the above to reject, and why.

Do their answers hold up to scrutiny?

Along the way we discuss immortality, essential attributes, perfect being theology, necessary existence, divine aseity, omnipotence, dualism, death, docetism, and the difference between the concepts of theophany and incarnation.

Apologists answer: How can God die?

Tweet This

Links for this episode:

podcast 145 – ‘Tis Mystery All: the Immortal dies!

Did God Die for Our Sins?  – Sh. Dr. Shabir Ally vs Jay Smith

David Wood: How Can God Die?

Jay Smith on the John Ankerberg Show – The Crucifixion: Can God Die?

Jay Smith 2011 Australian show “Worlds Apart” show: How could God die? Why did Jesus die?

Jay Smith: Can God become a Man?

John 20:17, Acts 2:22-24, 1 Timothy 1:17, 6:13-17.

This week’s thinking music is “Hands of a Pedestrian” by Jesse Spillane.

  http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-178-apologists-on-how-god-can-die-part-1/