To have dominion over a planet, yet small tomato gardens.

To speak with universal meaning, yet with a local accent.

To feel from the soul, yet at the mercy of chemicals.

To need solitude, yet also community.

To be individuals, yet tribal members.

To have thoughts, yet also moods.

To have regret, yet forgiveness.

To seek variety, yet continuity

To be a soul, yet also dust.

Modalism: Strongly refuted by the relationship and distinction between the Father and the Son. Oh, the Father gushes with love over the Son! “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!” The Father sent the Son. The Son glorifies the Father, the Father glorifies the Son. The Son does what he sees the Father doing. The Father works through the Son. The Father bears witness of the Son, and the Son bears witness of the Father.

Arianism: Strongly refuted by the glory of the Son. He is the Yahweh whom Isaiah saw in glory. The Lamb “standing as though it had been slain” is worshipped by the myriads, just as the one sitting on the throne is. He was equal with God, yet condescended to become human, even a human servant, even a human servant who died on a cross! All should honor the Son, just as they honor the Father.

Tritheism: Strongly refuted by the supremacy and oneness of God. He is the Most High. He alone is God. There is none like Yahweh. None before and none after. He knows of none other. He is a jealous God and will not give his glory to another. He does it “for his own sake, COMMA, for his own sake.” All things are from him, and through him, and to him. To him be all the glory, forever. Amen!

---

The arguments for the Trinity are strong and conclusive. But even if we supposed that the arguments for it are weak, it still wins out against the competing options (tritheism, modalism, Arianism), since the arguments *against* the competing options are strong and conclusive.

In other words, if in the “live pool” of options all your possible interpretations are weak, but one stands out above the others, the strongest is the most rational choice to make.

“It was a continuous astonishment to him that anyone should not desire to be clarified or corrected.” (CS Lewis on “Kirk” in Surprised by Joy)

In law, policy, and codes of conduct, ambiguous words with a broad range of strong and weak definitions seem to intentionally overreach to enable enforcement with subjective discretion.

It’s like saying, “No jerks allowed.”

And then, “With common sense exceptions.”

And then, “We get to decide what jerks and common sense exceptions are.”

1. Correlation and causation.

2. Probability and possibility/necessity. The language of possibility and necessity can obfuscate matters of probability, and the language of probability can understate what is actually a matter of possibility, impossibility, or necessity.

3. Weak inference (greater than 50%) and strong inference (much more). Some things have or need merely greater than 50% probability (to simply be more likely than not), other things have or need even more burden of proof (for example, evidence beyond a “reasonable doubt”).

4. Generalization (what is usually the case) and stereotype (what is always the case). Adding confusion, sometimes generalization is rhetorically emphasized with the language of stereotype, or stereotype obfuscated with the language of generalization.

5. Distinct qualities (particular, but perhaps shared) and unique qualities. It doesn’t need to be peculiar in order for it to be particular.

6. Distinct but connected vs. different and separate.

7. Complement and dichotomy — both/and vs or.

8. Entitlement and obligation. For example, I am not necessarily entitled to receive what others are obligated to give.

9. Value-neutral and value-ridden. Superficially neutral language can obfuscate what is fundamentally about ethical and aesthetic values.

10. Affirmation/denial and emphasis. What is described as “more” and “less” may actually be about “is” and “is not.” The language of emphasis can obfuscate what is fundamentally about the affirmation and denial of truth-claims, and the language of affirmation and denial can obfuscate what is actually a matter of emphasis.

11. Accuracy and precision/exhaustion (HT: Rob B). Approximations can be accurate within a margin, and true claims can describe something without describing everything.

12. Epistemic possibility and ontological possibility. Something may be entertained or considered as a possibility yet be actually impossible.

He warrants a mansion, yet is born in a manger.

He is worth Judean prestige, but grows up in hick Nazareth.

He could be among Jerusalem elites, but teaches ordinary folk ’round Galilee.

He hasn’t sinned, yet participates in a baptism of repentance.

He is owed all taxes, yet pays his taxes.

He deserves a majestic entrance, yet rides in on a donkey.

He is the final judge, yet undergoes a trial.

He doesn’t deserve death, yet dies a shameful execution.

While forgiving his enemies.

And telling a disciple to take care of his mom.

The self-sacrificial love of Jesus on the cross is reason enough to trust God over difficult issues in the Bible.

The cross is why you should trust (and patiently inspect) the Bible on miracles, demons, angels, dietary restrictions, ceremonial cleanliness, sexual ethics, marriage, divorce, hell, election, predestination, slavery, and violent conquest.

Electively killing an unborn royal baby seems especially wrong. But since every man and woman is God’s royal, kingly or queenly representative on earth, elective abortion is always wrong.

Every elective life-ending act of violence on an innocent, vulnerable king or queen is a scandal.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27)

A seemingly overlooked passage in the creation accounts debate:

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the Lord God had made.” (Genesis 3:1)

The serpent’s craftiness is obviously a sinful craftiness. But not even young earth creationists seem/tend to think that other animals had varying degrees of sinful craftiness. “In the hierarchy of all animals, which have varying degrees of evil craftiness, the serpent was on top!” No.

Yet this is how Genesis 3 situates “the” serpent among others. This seems like a flag or signal that Genesis 3 is meant to be read a certain way. At the very least, not like a modern science textbook.

It’s not enough to show that a word *can* mean something. The same word can mean different things, but if it has a general (most probable) usage, then that meaning should be our starting assumption unless context demands otherwise.

If the context reinforces the general usage, then it is even less probable that it is an edge case.