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.

Hey everyone! Just wondering what y’all’s thoughts on the abortion debate from a philosophical standpoint. I know that many people believe that something is not a “person” until it has a mind. Dustin Crummett gave a couple of arguments in favor of this position in a video on Joe Schmid’s channel “Majesty of Reason” where he was debating Trent Horn on abortion. One argument he gave was called the cerebrum transplant argument, where he essentially said that if one’s mind and organism separate, one goes with the mind and not the organism. Hence, one must be their mind, and not their organism. What are y’all’s thoughts on this?

In GodLogic’s discussion with Mohammad Hijab, Hijab asked GL this question. And to many people this seemed like a slam dunk on GL. However, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Wanted to do a temperature check on your guys’ intuitions and thoughts here. What do you guys think?

Some time ago I asked a muslim apologist in Brazil how does he explain the historical fact of Christ crucifixion. His response: "God (allah) wanted that all eye witness of Christ crucifixion had the hallucination that he was crucified to give faith to his followers till Mohammed would appear, but in reallity it never happened and he was normally buried." 😂😂😂😂😂

Dropping this for everyone: The One & the Three, a concise handbook on Conciliar Trinitarianism based on the lecture Joshua Sijuwade gave to us last week. This walks through ancient Jewish monotheism, the fourth-century conciliar debates, grounding, aspects, divine identity, and the aspectival model of the Trinity. The goal is to clarify what the doctrine actually says, cut through common caricatures, and show how Christians can coherently affirm one God, the Father, with the Son and Spirit as relationally distinct divine persons who share the same divinity.