Bill you ask Tuggie a question in this next clip.

Let's go to this one, number three.

To Dale Tuggie then, in your closing statement, you say,

an army of apologists and conservative systematic theologians assure us that some

Trinity doctrine or other is clearly implied by all that scripture says. In contrast, none of this book's Trinity Theory

defenders agrees that any such doctrine is part of the contents of the New Testament books being obviously

implied or assumed by such. That's exactly what I believe, so I wonder, how could you have so seriously misread me?

Well, I remember in part of the book, you, I believe, if I remember right,

correct me if I'm wrong, that he said the rival hypothesis T is something that no Trinitarian

would stand up to because it was basically an anachronism.

So it was the claim that the one God is the Trinity and each of the persons are fully divine or something like that.

I think that was the reason.

Hasker, by the way, clearly agrees with me.

It's not part of the contents of the New Testament, but he thinks it's kind of the best explanation of what's there

Right I would be the one who thinks there is a biblical doctrine of the Trinity and well sorry

Yeah, your minimal view isn't going to count doesn it doesn't have enough claims, it doesn't mention a trium god.

Even though it meets the desiderata for a back from the Trinity that you lay out in the Stanford

Encyclopedia Philosophy article on the Trinity that you wrote.

No, because I say it's popularly expressed that way.

Commonly expressed.

Yeah, like not well.

He refers to your minimal view there, Bill.

...