First DL from Mobile Command Center, Then Dale Tuggy Punches Low

Mobile Command Center and Upcoming Travel Plans

But we are in the Alpha and Omega travel rig, I'm not sure what it's called, a fifth wheel. I'm so new to the RV world that I had heard of fifth wheels and toy haulers, but I had no idea what any of that stuff meant, I just didn't know.

And so when I rented that little RV that I went back to Oklahoma with and met some people who know about RVing, then I started learning stuff and learning how a fifth wheel is attached to your truck right over the back axle, and so it's more stable and better turning radius and stuff like this, and to make a long story short, that wasn't that long ago and here we are.

I've been putting some stuff away, I've got the app working that allows me to sit in the truck and control everything in the unit, put the slide out, do all that kind of stuff. Now I'm hearing myself, they're coming back to me.

I'm sure they can hear that too. So, amazingly, the only problem we're having is on Rich's end, and everybody else can hear you too, I'm sure, but I bet they can because I can hear you through my speakers and that's where my microphone is, so yes, they can hear you just fine.

Anyway, so it's working. I could see situations where it might be a bit challenging, but hey, for the first shot, not bad. I'm not out on the road yet, we are where our unit is stored at the moment, and so next week I'm going to be taking her out on the road, I'm going to be taking her up what's called Five Mile Hill, and everybody in Phoenix knows Five Mile Hill.

It's a challenge, no two ways about it, and we'll see how the truck does and all the rest of that fun stuff in the process, but we'll set up and we'll be in a sort of a remote location, and that way we'll really find out how well this will work.

Now, it's supposed to have Wi-Fi, so we'll see. That'll be interesting to see if we can, you know, it's a grand experiment, and you get to come along with us. I do want to express my sincere thanks to all of you who have given to the Travel Fund to help defray the beginnings of this journey, this trip.

I'm going to be going out on the first major trip starting, I believe, at the end, yeah, right at the end of July into August, and already have set up a number of, going to be doing a little mini conference with Jason Lyle.

I'll be speaking at Redemption Hills Church in Denver, and of course, I'll be up at the Grace Agenda Conference in Moscow, and as far as I know, speaking at Christ Church on the following Sunday, and then, so lots of cool stuff that we're going to be able to do, and then this is how I'm getting the G3, and I'm working on the trips, the stops on the way out and on the way back as far as G3 is concerned, and looking forward to seeing everybody there.

Really, at one point, I thought about, what if I worked it out to where I could take this and park it near wherever we're going to be and have a special little study in here with about, I don't know, we could probably fit a good 10 people in here, maybe do something fun like that.

I don't know if I want to go through all that, so it depends on the weather and everything else back there, but here we are. And so, again, many thanks to everyone who's made this possible and will continue to make this possible.

I mean, one of the things I was thinking about as we decided to do this was, if Joe Biden has his way, a gas that could cost $10 a gallon by next year, and of course, the only thing I can think of that might keep that from happening is the fact that all the people in Congress want to get reelected, and they don't have the control of the voting machines that the President does, so maybe that won't happen, I don't know.

But anyway, there'll be costs down the road, and so to everyone, thank you very, very much, and then let's just see, starting next week, how doing. We're good. My plan is to have the doors right here, and I've got the awning out a little bit to provide some shade from the sun.

This would have been perfect yesterday, with the rain and all. It would have been, I mean, it only got up to 80-something while it was raining, and then it got to 100 later. But yeah, there you go. We will be doing dividing lines from out there.

I mean, I could put this computer and this light and this camera on a picnic bench underneath the awning and show you the great outdoors, if that's the way we need to do it, depending on where I am and how the Wi-Fi works, so there you go.

So we wanted to try to make this work. It's working, and we're excited about that, and hopefully you are as well. Just a couple things. I don't know how long we'll go today. Like I said, we've got a little generator running outside.

That's how the air conditioner up there is working, and it'll be easier, and we can just plug in and do things like that. But so I don't want to, well, I don't like the phrase, push our luck, because I don't believe in luck, but I want to do things appropriately, shall we say.

Dale Tuggy, Unitarianism, and the Priority of Divine Revelation

But anyway, interesting stuff yesterday. I mentioned at the end of the program that, yeah, don't push your providence is what Rich says. I mentioned at the end of the program from the large studio that I was going to listen to an interview that Jake, the Muslim metaphysician, did with Dale Tuggy.

Now, we've talked a little bit about Dale Tuggy in the past. There's been a lot of interaction. He is a Unitarian, primarily a philosophical Unitarian, and the Unitarian folks, the Buzzard group, oh, I guess I can move my table over there.

The Buzzard group, those folks, he's sort of their big philosopher type guy, and Buzzard's their exegesis guy, and they all have different views. Unitarians have never been overly... So Unitarians are primarily held together by their denial of Christian theology, not by anything overly positive that would actually do much.

But anyway, so I found the time to listen to the interview that Jake did with Dale Tuggy, and I'm just going to be perfectly honest with you. I've listened to Dale Tuggy stuff in the past, and every single time I have the exact same thought.

This is just stultifyingly boring. I mean, just dry as the desert. There's no passion. There's no excitement. It's just sort of like, no, no, no, no, no. Okay, all right, whatever. And so I'm just sort of listening along going, okay, we're going to talk about this, that, and of course, Jake's real into philosophy, analytical philosophy, and so they're doing their conversation and talking about how analytical philosophy is where it's at.

If you're not into analytical philosophy, you're really not anybody anymore, and all this kind of stuff. Finally, about 45 minutes in, Tuggy started getting a little more animated because he started talking about apologists.

Now, I first started seeing his name back, oh, I don't know, 15 years ago, maybe, somewhere around there. I forget exactly where it was, but it was on Triablog primarily, and I was seeing these long articles that I think Jason Engler and James Anderson, I know, engaged with him and stuff like that, and I wasn't exactly sure where these debates were taking place.

They were primarily written debates and stuff like that, but I just sort of remembered the name, didn't find it all that interesting to get involved with, but I saw some fairly interesting articles in response to him and things like that, and then I've heard some of the debates that have happened over the past couple of years.

I know Michael Brown did one with him, and Chris Date, I think, did one with him as well, as I recall. I think that's the case. Anyway, he's been rather fully responded to by all sorts of other folks, and he's extremely dismissive.

I mean, the man just, I don't know if he just doesn't reflect upon his own words or whatever, but he's just incredibly dismissive of any Trinitarian perspective. It comes out in what we're going to play here in a moment.

Well, the issue comes up with the Doctrine of Trinity, and I think we can learn a few things by listening to what a Unitarian says about the Doctrine of the Trinity, the distinction of being in person.

They just basically say you can't really consistently come up with a meaningful differentiation. It helps here. Also, then, some of the church history stuff. Tuggy is not an exegete, even though he's doing a paper on John Monroe.

I'm really looking forward to seeing that. That one, I'll interact with. That'll be well worth it, because Unitarians can never, ever, ever hold a fully orthodox view of Scripture. Unitarianism has always led to a collapse of a view of the highest view of Scripture.

Always has. Just look at history. It's plain as the nose on your face, but he's going to be doing something on John 1. I can't wait to interact with that, because he's not an exegete, and he is not a historian, but he makes claims in both those areas.

Really, there's nothing that Tuggy doesn't address, that he just doesn't view himself as really the cat's meow, as far as his expertise on things. When he got into this stuff, I started listening a little more closely.

Okay, well, that's interesting. Wow, boy, is he really dismissive, and yeah, I didn't understand that one, right? Then, eventually, he started naming names, and that's when it got really interesting. He'll discover that I hate, according to Dale Tuggy, I personally, James White, hate William Lane Craig, which, of course, is a lie.

It's not true. I do not hate William Lane Craig, but the reason why I allegedly hate William Lane Craig is the most interesting part, because it really reveals the self-importance of these analytical philosophers.

They really do believe they are the high priests of knowledge, and what all of this, you may go, well, I'm not really interested in you having a fight on the internet with some of these folks. Here's the issue.

If you want to know why this is important, other than if you've encountered the Unitarians and their arguments and things like that, here's why it's important. Over and over again, as I was listening to Tuggy making his claims and being so dismissive about the Doctrine and Trinity and things like that, what struck me over and over and over again was, interestingly enough, as an analytical philosopher, he seems utterly oblivious to the presuppositional nature of the problems he has with the Doctrine and the Trinity, and specifically, he doesn't seem to have thought through, and most people haven't, but this guy claims to, I mean, this is his thing.

I mean, he is a self-citation machine. Well, you just need to look at episode 302 of my Trinity's broadcast, and I wrote an article on this, and I contributed to the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy article on the Trinity and just had a look at that.

So he just loves fighting himself. So he puts himself in that position. He's making these claims for his own expertise. So he seems completely oblivious to the reality, as most people are, and I don't want our listeners to be, to the reality of the fact that what you have when we talk about the philosophical implications of issues such as being in person, for example, why do we even use terms like this when they're not Biblical terms?

Sure, you can come up with things similar to that in Scripture, but it's not being used specifically to talk about Greek philosophical categories or continental philosophical categories or analytical categories or anything else.

That's not what the Biblical authors are referring to, and there have been many who have said, hey, look, the real problem here with you folks, you Christians, you Trinitarians, is over time you have moved so far away from what the Apostles taught that what you're now saying is orthodoxy and necessary to believe, they wouldn't have even understood or recognized.

At the same time, when we look historically, we realize the reason these issues came up is that as the Gospel goes out into the world, it encounters all these differing philosophies and worldviews and things like that, and so what are you supposed to do in the midst of something like that?

Are you just supposed to say, well, we can only answer in Biblical categories and in Biblical language? Well, no, because the Gospel is supposed to go out to all the world. And so what happened, and there's no question that this happened, anyone familiar with history knows that what happened was that as we develop language, as we develop vocabulary, that dealt with these issues, at the same time there was a diminishment in the emphasis upon Scripture itself, its primacy and its centrality.

Over time, you have the development of a view of history that makes that history, I'm sorry, the development of tradition that makes that tradition, that which becomes the lens through which Scripture is interpreted.

Now, 23 years ago, I wrote a book, so it's probably about 24 years ago, almost a quarter of a century ago, I was sitting in a hotel in Chicago working on the Trinity book, and I wrote the line, I am a Biblical Trinitarian, and then I explained what that meant.

I'm a Biblical Trinitarian in the sense that I am forced to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity by believing in Sola Scriptura and Tota Scriptura. Now, Tuggy lied about me in the interview, he said, well, White just bangs on the table and says that if you just know Greek and you do exegesis right, you'll come to the right conclusion.

Well, I think that's his sort of twisted way of maybe saying what I do say, and that is the reason for Christians to be Trinitarians is not just because in the past this is how great men of God who honored the Word of God came to their conclusions.

The primary reason to believe in the doctrine of Trinity is because of the nature of revelation, similar to the issue with Sola Scriptura. When Jimmy Akin misidentified and misdefined Sola Scriptura, it's because he doesn't either remember or never understood or no longer wants to accurately represent what we believe about the not just the primacy of Scripture, but its absolutely unique nature as being God speaking, not just God inspiring men to say certain things, but there is a supernatural nature to the divine revelation that makes it the ultimate authority in all things.

All the rest of human, yes, even analytical philosophy must be subject to Scripture. And the philosopher goes, it can't be because you have to have a philosophy of language to read Scripture. It's a philosophy has to be primary.

It has to, it must be. That's the mindset of the philosopher and the mindset of the person who views Scripture as secondary to human experience and to human philosophy. But if you recognize that when Adam was made, Adam was dependent upon God.

Even in the unfallen state, Adam was dependent on revelation from God. So how much more in the fallen state must we be dependent upon the revelation that God has given to us? And if we did not have, if the one who came out of the empty tomb had not had such a high view of Scripture, we would not have a foundation for holding this high view of Scripture.

But he did. That's the point. That's the point. So what we'll need to illustrate over and over again in our discussions and as we deal with this, as we deal with the simplicity issue, as we deal with so many things, we have to come back to our central foundations.

And those central foundations are going to bring us back to the fact that we have a divine revelation in Christ, the incarnation, the greatest revelation of God that could ever be imagined. All right, so in the incarnation, we have the whole ministry of Christ, the incarnation, death, burial, resurrection, center point of history.

Here is your ultimate level of epistemology, God revealing who he is and what he's doing. As we come along, we have that divine revelation in Scripture, and now we need to communicate it to all sorts of different kinds of people.

And so we seek to faithfully use lesser categories, lesser means, human language, to communicate to these individuals in various places, in Eastern religions or Western religions and Western philosophy, these types of things.

But we always must remember that the categories that we are using when they are outside of Scripture are subscriptural and hence are never fully able to communicate the essence of biblical truth so that what we have to be very, very careful that never happens is that we take divine revelation and then we take these philosophical categories and we compress, constrict, exclude portions of divine revelation, all because we are putting our ultimate authority in the definitions of philosophy itself.

So, for example, when we talk about being in person, if you take your definitions of being in person from out here in the philosophical realm, and there's all sorts of ways of doing that in the philosophical realm, and then enforce them in a constricting, defining way upon divine revelation, you're going to end up destroying the continuity and consistency of that revelation.

You must always recognize that to define being in person, you do so in such a way that it is then consistent with the divine revelation. See, mankind goes the opposite way. So, what you have, and Jake, this is what you do, you use particular definitions, and for Jake, you can't do this because you got the Qur 'an.

That's where you're in a tough spot because if you apply the same things to your own faith and the supremacy of the Qur 'an, you're going to end up creating the same problems in your own faith you think you're creating in the Christian faith.

More on that later. But the point is that secular man, philosophical man, what he does is he starts down here with the definition of being in person and then constricts scripture, constricts the revelation of God to fit into those parameters, and then turns around and says, see, there's all these different theories because people come with all sorts of different definitions.

And since they come with all sorts of different definitions, then they create different theologies because they're importing it from outside rather than having a consistent scriptural foundation for these things.

So, that was, I'm sorry, that gets a little deep, but it's extremely important to understand the direction of where the knowledge is coming from and how scripture must override and determine the philosophical categories, the terminology that we're using, because we're seeking to reflect what it's saying.

Once we make those definitions our highest standard, then that determines what scripture can say. See the difference? That's a very important thing. So, I'm going to look at Rich. Rich, see the difference?

Okay, Rich is my only audience right now, so, and he turned his hat backwards, which I just find, I'm sorry, from a guy from Prescott, you know, the backwards hat thing, if it was a cowboy hat, it'd be worse, but there you go.

All right, so now here's, we didn't get a chance to test this, all right? We didn't get a chance to test this. So, Rich, I'm going to try to play a video here, and you just, you tell me on Signal whether it's understandable or not, because if it's not understandable, then we've got to go a different direction.

I just got to sort of summarize some stuff, we'll go from there. If you can make it understandable, then we can listen to some of this and go from there. So, Rich is standing by. I suppose I should mute that so that we don't hear the ding, ding, ding.

I don't even know if you can hear the ding, ding, ding. But, all right, here we go. This is from, I could share this, let's just, let's not try to get too complicated here right now. Here is part of Jake and Dale, Tuggy, as they are discussing Trinities.

Obviously, you kind of chuckled there.

So, why do you think that this isn't sufficient to solve the problems, and why is it the case that so many popular Christian Trinitarian apologists think that it is?

Okay, I started that, I was rushing toward the end. He's talking here about the distinction between being in person, and I pointed out to Jake that I think one of the weaknesses in his interaction with Biblical Trinitarianism is that he's never, ever, to my knowledge, ever even mentioned the reality of the fact that in Scripture, you have the one name of the Covenant God of Israel, the Creator of all things, Yahweh, and the Bible's insistence on describing three persons, and Tuggy agrees there are three persons in the sense that they have communication, relationship, so on and so forth.

So, he's not a modalistic Unitarian, he's a subordinationist Unitarian. But you have three persons, and each one is identified with the divine name. So, whatever we do with our inferior philosophical categories, we have to make those categories match the divine revelation, not the other way around.

The divine revelation is the one name of the one true God is used of three persons, okay? So, that's what gives rise to the distinction between being in person, the being of God that is Yahweh, who often speaks in a singular, and yet three persons who are identified in that way.

So, this comes to us from seeking to accept only Scripture and all of Scripture. That's where the distinction between being in person comes from. And so, when he had raised this, Tuggy had dismissively just like, yeah, and laughed about it.

And that's what's the background of Jake's question.

It's part of apologetics lore, okay? I don't mean to laugh at it, like I think it's something stupid. It's not stupid because they are realizing that if you were to say three persons and not three persons, that's a contradiction.

If you said one being and not one being, that would be a contradiction. And so, they want to say, look, we're not saying those things, okay? We're distinguishing between being in person. The only reason I was chuckling, it's not because I think they're stupid or anything like that.

It's just that these terms being in person can be interpreted in many different ways. Catch that?

They can be if the source of your definition is Greek philosophy, Continental philosophy, whatever, how it's used in your culture, whatever, they can be. But not if you are seeking to consistently identify them in the light of Biblical categories.

There's the issue.

And I have a couple of chapters. I think I have two chapters in my book, What is the Trinity? One is about different ways to interpret the term being, and one is about different ways to interpret the term person.

So, just to point out that there's a distinction in the Trinity theory between being and person. I mean, that's nice, but everybody knows that, right?

No, the vast majority of Muslims I have ever spoken to did not know that. Did not know.

I have a blog post about this. I call it the standard opening move. And, okay, so you're not saying three persons and one person, that's great. So what are we saying? But the problem is, you know, the problems arise when you start to say what you mean by being or what you mean by persons, right?

So, for instance, for a social Trinitarian, and when you're just thinking about the New Testament picture of the Father and the Son generally, like when we say person there, like a person is a certain being.

It means like an intelligent being or something like that. Or a being with a point of view, you know, which can engage in friendships and has knowledge and will. So any person, just by virtue of being a person, is a certain being.

So then, you know, three persons does imply three beings, and then if each of those beings is divine, it looks like we have three gods. Now, being could also be interpreted, for instance, as a universal essence.

So maybe it's just, you know, like a universal divinity. So if there's this thing called humanity, and it's in all the humans, it's that which makes any individual that has a human being. If there's such thing as this platonic universal humanity, suppose there's this universal essence divinity.

Okay, but again, you've just told me that the Father's different than the Son, and that Son's different from the Spirit. So there's really three things, and if each one of those has divinity, and all of divinity, not just a portion of it, then again, it looks like three gods.

So yeah, the standard opening move is fine. It's just an attempt to clarify kind of what Trinitarians are up to, but it really doesn't go very far in addressing concerns about coherence.

Concerns about coherence, so not concerns about accurately representing scriptural revelation, but you have an external set of tests that you're putting on this that are defined by philosophical categories, rather than what we're doing, and that is, here's how God has revealed himself.

And so we have to expand our philosophical categories to fit the greatness of his revelation, rather than what Unitarianism does. Unitarianism shrinks down the revelation so it can fit into human categories.

That's why you always end up with this human Jesus type of situation. That's the problem in applying these things to theology all along.

Okay, now, you know, I think a lot of Christian apologists don't really understand that, that it's fine, but it's not necessarily sufficient to get the job done. And this was evident in a debate I had, blah, blah, blah, like they just, and, you know, I was trying to say that to establish that, look, like what you said, Dr. Tuggy, one being three persons, first of all, how do you define those things?

And then within that, you have different permutations. It's just not enough information. So he couldn't understand why I didn't say it was a contradiction on the previous slide, but then when he got to the next point, I did.

So it's kind of interesting.

You know, popular Christian apologists, typical Christian apologists that deal with the Trinity, they're kind of a waste of time because...

Philosophical Categories, Trinity Theory, and the Charge of Coherence

Okay, so here's where we get to the fun stuff. As far as I can understand what Dale Tuggy is saying is that, you know, he has no interest in any of us out here. We are a waste of time. We are beneath his notice.

And so, you know, that's fine. We'll just keep demonstrating the holes in his arguments and go on from there, but we're just a waste of time. And so that's fine. But this is where it started getting at least somewhat interesting.

They either don't want to or don't have the skills to delve into the analytic literature that deals with actually different Trinity theories. And just as apologists, you know, they're kind of... They're not scholars, okay?

They read all each other's junk and they just rehash the same junky arguments, the same misinterpretations, ad nauseum. And, you know, it's part of the ideology. It's kind of small C Catholic and Protestant ideology.

It's part of the ideology. Hey, this is just what Christians say. This is just, you know, historic Christianity. Blah, blah, blah. Like they just don't care to know about the differences. They're not interested in the truth of the matter so much as kind of a culture war.

Defending their version of Christianity against the dastardly outsiders, whether it's Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses or evil Unitarians like me. But, you know, truth seeking is not their thing.

So, you know, I think there's a great... Oh, broad brush. That's what it's called. Broad brush. It's just... Wow. But this is really what Tuggy is all about. This is... Most people have known this for a long time, but there you go.

And they get a big status boost in the community from standing up and saying, Hey, guys, this tranny thing that you all are avoiding, it's really important. I talk about this in my podcast, 302, The Stages of Trinitarian.

See?

Who has he cited every time so far? Himself. It's a number 302. It's a number 260. It's just like, wow, I could no more do that than the man on the moon. I mean, I'm able to go. It's in a certain book that I wrote.

But the dividing line on such and such a date? Nah, I don't think so.

But you get a big ego boost, a big status boost as an apology, because all the other Christians are really afraid to delve into these super confusing topics. And you're standing up. No, this all makes sense.

It's all reasonable. It's better. Everybody else's conception of God is faulty except for this. And yeah, this is just one thing. We've been saying the same thing the whole time. They're not serious. I mean, if they were serious, they would read stuff that's in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on the Trinity.

Which he contributed to. So if you're serious, Dale Tuggy is the standard of serious. Wow. I was watching this just going, okay, wow.

It's written by actual truth-seeking scholars. Truth-seeking scholars. It's really more kind of culture war defense game that they're playing. And it's kind of a waste of time for the serious inquirer.

And I would say... So if you get the idea that he's serious, he's a truth Seeker, the rest of us, not at all.

Look, if I'm right, that this later stuff is separable from New Testament Christianity, then it's a waste to get all caught up in this. I mean, the real issue is New Testament Christianity, isn't it? So if you're considering Islam to be your religion, what you want is Islam properly understood.

If some later medieval Shia came along and said this and that, well, you don't want to get all distracted by this and that.

You want to get... Smart work. Throw out a shot at the Shias while speaking to the Sunni.

That's how you do it. To what you think the proper understanding of the tradition is. Right. And for Christians or anybody who's investigating Christianity, the source is really Jesus and his apostles.

And our best guides of those are the books that's in the New Testament. So if you're going to get all caught up in this realm of propaganda, defending speculations from the 4th century, that's going to actually keep you from investigating the truth of Christianity per se.

Christianity went along for quite a while without any Trinity theory. There weren't any Trinity theories in the 1st century. There weren't any in the 100s. There weren't any in the 200s. By the time you get to the second half of the 300s, people are starting based on Nicene, on the 325 Nicene Creed.

They're starting to go in the direction of Triune God. But that doesn't get made official doctrine until 381.

So. Fascinating and twisted view of history. As I pointed out, I provided a quote. And Tuggy, actually, I need to do this. I know Rich is getting worried about how long we're writing in general. It's supposed to run, but it's hot.

OK, the whole place explodes. You know what happened if it just goes up in a blinding, blinding sheet of flame. You'll know what happened. But I just had to at least briefly. I had to at least briefly pull this up.

This is from about 265. Now, Tuggy tries to say this isn't a Trinitarian theory because all philosophy has are theories. OK, that's just the best you can even pull up. You can't talk about a divine revelation or truth or anything like that.

It's just this theory versus that theory. That's really all Unitarianism offers to you. But let me give you some words from about 265. OK, and I'll span upon this. I had the Greek up. I'm going to have to skip that.

We'll have to do it in the next program when we're not sitting in the. Well, I may be sitting in the RV, but connected to power rather than generator. Let me just read you this 265. This is 120 years before when he's saying and they're starting to get around to it.

There is one God, the father of the living logos, who is the father's personal wisdom, power and eternal image. God is the one who perfectly begets the perfect begotten. He is the father of his only begotten son.

There is one Lord, the only one from the only one God from God, the image likeness of the deity, the all accomplishing logos, the wisdom who embraces the fashion of all things. The power who forms the whole creation, the true son, the true father, the invisible from the invisible, the incorruptible from the incorruptible, the immortal from the immortal, the eternal from the eternal.

And there is one Holy Spirit who has his personal existence from God and is manifested by the son to humankind. He is the image of the son, the perfect image of the perfect. He is the life, the cause of all living things.

He is the fountain of holiness. He is sanctity, the source and leader of sanctification. In him is manifested God, the father who is above all and in all and God, the son who is through all. There is a perfect trinity existing in glory and eternity and sovereignty without division or separation.

There is nothing created in the trinity nor anything in servitude. There is nothing added as if it did not previously exist but was introduced later on. Thus, the father never lacked the son and the son never lacked the spirit, but without alteration or change, the same trinity endures forever.

265. Oh, that's not the trinity. That's a triad. Well, like I said, I've got the Greek. We'll look at it when we have a little bit more time. But just be aware of the fact that Unitarians have a goal as well.

And it's been very often demonstrated. Look at how, for example, Anthony Buzard just destroys Hebrews chapter 1 and Psalm 102. That'll give you an idea of how far you're willing to go either with historical sources or biblical sources to attempt to defend that.

But I do want to very quickly here finish up with this.

If you accept the Protestant idea that there are some mistakes in the development of mainstream Christianity, you ought to consider that. Well, wait a second. What if Christianity makes sense without trinity and without incarnation?

I think it does. That's why I'm still a Christian.

Right. Now, kind of going back to the logical problem of the trinity, one of the ways that it's expressed is, and how I've kind of used it, is the way that Dr. Bo Branson expresses it, in his seven premises, pritheism or partialism.

Yeah, so this is a new piece of apologetics lore that was introduced very recently, I think maybe in the last 30 years or so. And this move is given by philosophers like William Lane Craig and J .P. Moreland, who understand the logic of numerical identity in modern logics.

And so they can see that there's a severe problem with saying that three different things are each numerically identical to the same thing, right? Because that's just to say that there are three different things and they're the same, and they're not three different things.

It's just nonsense.

And so... Which, of course, is not what we're saying. And if Dale Tuggy cannot understand that, then he's never even started to actually understand what he's critiquing, because that's not what we're saying.

Now, he's stuck in his philosophical world and his very narrow man-created categories, and that's not big enough for divine revelation. That's why he is not a Christian. Unitarianism is not Christianity.