Activity
Mon
Wed
Fri
Sun
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
What is this?
Less
More

Memberships

Inspiring Philosophy Academy

67 members • $25/month

3 contributions to Inspiring Philosophy Academy
How Many Gods Died on the Cross?
Let’s say a Muslim asks “how many gods died on the cross?” It seems like every obvious answer seems to land you in heresy: Say “one” and it sounds like you’re either claiming the Father suffered (patripassianism) or that there are multiple gods and one of them died (tritheism). Say “zero” and you’ve denied that God truly died for humanity. Say “the Trinity died” and you’ve collapsed the distinction between the persons. The model of Conciliar Trinitarianism dissolves the puzzle through a careful equivocation on the word “God.” Predicatively, “God” works like a descriptor, it applies to anything that exemplifies the divine nature. In this sense, the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are each “God,” because each exemplifies the one divinity-attribute. Nominally, “God” works as a proper name, and it refers to one entity alone: the Father, who is the unsourced source of the Son and the Spirit. There is exactly one “God” in this sense. With this distinction in hand, the crucifixion question splits in two: Nominally: zero gods died. The one God, the Father, did not suffer or die. Patripassianism is avoided. Predicatively: one entity that is “God” died. The Son, who genuinely exemplifies divinity, truly died on the cross. The reality of the incarnation and atonement is preserved. Without the equivocation, you’re trapped. Univocal use of “God” forces you to either deny the Son’s death, implicate the Father in suffering, or count multiple gods. The two-sense distinction lets you affirm what orthodoxy requires: the one God (the Father) did not die, and God (the Son, predicatively) genuinely did. This way, monotheism stays intact and the persons stay distinct. Thus, the Christian is not forced to take on unwanted consequences.
1 like • 1d
I've always wondered, do the human Spirit, soul and body reflect the trinity, one but distinct? - The body - The Son incarnated - Soul - functions without physical contact in our dreams, will, in thoughts and intellect - The Father who has the will, - Spirit is the source of life - the Holy Spirit
0 likes • 8h
@Josh Oastler thank you
The story of Noah's Ark might need a better theodicy
Lately I’ve been thinking about the moral problems that the Bible often presents. When this topic comes up, the first thing that comes to mind is God’s command to kill the Canaanite children, and although many apologists like William Lane Craig have tried to argue that such an act was morally correct, the most adequate response is to affirm that the text is a hyperbole that does not imply that children actually died in the conquest. However, that problem can be transferred to the flood that occurred in the time of Noah, and although it can also be applied to other cases (such as the death of David’s newborn son or Sodom and Gomorrah), this is simply the clearest example that comes to mind. I want to carry out a process that I like to call “evaluation of theodicies under restricted conditions.” I’ve been thinking about this and I cannot find any that are truly satisfactory, and many of them simply seem like attempts to avoid facing the real problem and to downplay it. I would be especially interested in hearing new responses or stronger versions of existing ones, because so far none seem successful to me. First, I want to clarify the framework I am assuming in order to avoid answers that change the playing field. 1. The flood in the Book of Genesis corresponds to a real historical event (although possibly regional rather than global). 2. The event was caused or intentionally brought about by God. 3. God is morally perfect and omnipotent. 4. The flood was carried out as a punishment for human beings. 5. Children below a certain age do not have full moral responsibility, and therefore are not guilty of wrongdoing. 6. No one who is morally upright would want to kill innocent children when there is a way to avoid it. Under these conditions, I am evaluating theodicies with a very specific criterion: is the flood morally justifiable? The focus of this post is on children because it is easier to empathize with children than with animals or plants, since although they share innocence, there is debate about whether they have souls, suffer, or even consent to death, but the argument could also be extended to them.
0 likes • 20h
Hi Jorge, thanks for this thought provoking question. I enjoyed reading through everyone’s comments and your feedback, and I was compelled to leave my thoughts. - It would have been impossible to separate the children from their parents without creating another crisis. The trauma of watching their parents judged while Noah’s family was preserved would not simply disappear. Those children could have grown up with resentment and vengeance, turning against Noah, his family, and even future generations. They would not have been neutral survivors; they would have possibly carried the pain of that judgement into the new world. So separating them from their parents would not have preserved peace or righteousness. It would likely have reproduced the same cycle of hostility and corruption that God was judging. - In the biblical framework, parents are responsible for their children. This is seen in Noah’s case, where his household was preserved with him. God chose Ham even though He knew Ham would later pioneer a new breed of unrighteous behaviour after the flood; he was still saved as part of Noah’s family. This suggests that preservation was not based on individual moral perfection, but on God’s broader covenantal decision. - Another approach would be to evaluate the extent of man’s corruption by looking at the few expositions in Scripture. We cannot fathom the magnitude of Adam’s sin, which plunged the whole creation into death and separation, but to have a glimpse into how grievous his sin was, we look at the punishment. If man’s rebellion was so severe wherein the least of creation, who was given dominion and called first over all, rebelled against an eternal God, plunging all of creation into corruption and suffering, then the weight of that offence becomes clearer. The first animal was killed and skinned to cover man in the garden, an innocent animal. The consequence of Adam’s sin was so severe that God expressed His regret in creating man, mentioning that all of His creation had been corrupted by man. Man sinned against God, and man’s judgement is determined by God. The Bible records that “all have sinned,” meaning that the overarching judgement for the nature of sin is death, regardless of human size; it is only quite unfortunate that every human must start from infancy. Whether a child or an adult, death became the reward for man’s new nature. The question then becomes: what would the nature of physical death be for each person as they wait for God’s redemptive plan? a gunshot or an earthquake or a flood? whichever, man was to be judged.
⚠️NEW MEMBERS START HERE!
STEP 1: Download the Skool App and turn on notifications. STEP 2: Comment below on this post with the following: - Who are you, and where are you from? - What is your current role or interest in apologetics? - What do you hope to achieve as a member of this community? STEP 3: Attend the weekly live mentorship calls hosted by me or a scholar/specialist! Check the calendar for the call schedule. During these calls, you can ask questions to support your journey in building a strong and confident worldview. Missed a live session? No worries—recordings will be available within 48 hours! Please remember to follow the community rules and guidelines to keep this space positive and productive. Violators will be removed. If you have any questions, feel free to DM me.
1 like • 1d
Hi everyone, I am Ruth Akachukwu (Ah-kah-chu-qwu) from Sydney, Australia. (Akachukwu means the Hand of God). I am a youth Bible Study Coordinator and have loved the scripture since I encountered Christ. I see the world through the lens of the Scripture and love how it has a clear stance on all aspects of life. The scripture has formed my socio cultural, political, scientific and religious ideologies and this has plunged me into conversations and great/fun arguments with friends and anyone who tries to have a conversation with me. I have followed amazing uncles like Ravi Zacharias, Voddie Baucham, Charlie Kirk of course, Tim Keller, Nabeel Qureshi, John Lenox, and recently been closely following the OG’s turning the world upside down today - David Wood, God Logic, IP, Chinasa, Kaleeah, etc! I was refered here by IP and looking forward to a great foundation in apologetics. - I hope to have a more structured and organised mindset or frame of mind when debating. I also would love to learn managing my tone, emotions, to thinking before speaking whist thinking proactively. So informally, I’ve had to defend my faith from my personal study, but a more excellent way, I believe is to learn from those with great experience and remain grounded. Thank you.
1-3 of 3
Ruth Okezie
1
3points to level up
@ruth-okezie-2083
Akachukwu

Active 7m ago
Joined May 1, 2026
Powered by