Glad to see this series continued!

Love what you do so much as a Canadian I say Fantastic.

Those first four minutes? 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥 (In the best way.) My Canon+ sub is the absolute best value of any subscription I’ve had, bar none.

“Obedience is a way of talking about the son’s fromness”. When talking about the whole man as head, and a woman submits, and the two became one makes more sense to me now. Woman was taken from man 😊

Good effective conversation, it does strengthen my discerning of the Godhead. Thank you to you all!

Excellent, well done.

Do one with Dr. James white !

You don’t set anything In nicene boundaries, you believe in the filique. Which is exactly why the Spirit is not actually a person, but a mere expression of “love” or “obedience” between Father and Son.

More Dr Harmon!

Nate’s voiceover for the Canon+ ad 🔥 🔥

Excellent conversation

Sola Scriptura but not Solo Scriptura

Keep a count how many times scripture is referenced vs how many times traditions of men are mentioned.

@KingdomInContext

4 ай бұрын

great comment. 💪

I'm not smart about these things, but something that I think is related to this conversation is my dislike of the teaching that "submission is only submission when there's disagreement." Is authority only authority when there's disagreement? No. There's some sort of inherent nature of authority and submission that goes all the way through and characterizes the whole relationship even if there could be perfect, sinless harmony.

Does it bother anyone else that Rigney has his iPad upside down?

Thank you for this!

Red pen logic has a good articulation of the differences between a being and a person. Rock is neither A Rat is a being and not a Person I am a being and a Person God is 1 being and 3 Persons

You know that guy in the office in the background is playing Call of Duty.

@Ahmayzin

4 ай бұрын

Cool..

What does the HolySpirit look like?

I appreciate Ben stating clearly from the outset that the tradition must guide our understanding of the biblical language. (But which tradition should guide us Mr. Ben? what standard helps you understand your "standard"?) I also appreciate Doug acknowledging the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed which was written by the bishops of the church. He also accepts the church father's trinitarian theology as guard rails even though he doesn't really because he accepts the filioque heresy. These men were bishops who prayed to Mary, and believed in the Eucharist, and who believed they had apostolic succession who also wrote canons to govern the life of the church. Why does he trust them when it comes to their trinitarian theology but nothing else? If he picks them to be his guide rails then why doesn't he go all the way and really listen to them. He picks and chooses. But that is protestantism. I also like how Doug Wilson claims that God has one will (which is actually true), but he is a calvinist so he doesn't believe that at all.

@gladtidings6020

4 ай бұрын

Tradition? Tradition? Have you not read Mark 7:9? Colossians 2:8? You are off the road. No tradition of men ever trumps truth.

@john-markharris6068

4 ай бұрын

@@gladtidings6020 Yes I love those passages and I try to obey them. That is why I am no longer protestant because they add and take away from the scriptures and pick and choose from the true tradition however they see fit. I also try to follow Paul’s command to hold fast to the "tradition" which was received “by word or by epistle”. So according to Paul in 2 Thessalonians his epistle to them IS tradition. That tradition is bigger than scripture but scripture fits within it. That’s why the early church looks a lot different than the protestant reformers and all protestants today. The church fathers held fast to the apostolic tradition and did not follow the traditions of men. That has continued today in the church because it has continued to be handed down. And I assume you are protestant and that means you have no legitimate way to actually fight against the traditions of men because you are outside the true tradition. I am not trying to be rude here but trying to get you and others to see it differently. This is why I said that about Ben’s remarks. He claims a tradition to guide him when going to the text. That means he can’t go to the text “alone” or by itself. But he actually has no such tradition as an authority so he gets to pick and choose and not actually submit to it. He claims a tradition outside of scripture to guide him but the scriptures don’t tell him which tradition. Therefore every protestant follows the tradition of “whatever I want to be true”. You may not think that but that’s how it actually works out.

@Robb3348

4 ай бұрын

Your point about having a standard for what standard to use invokes the ancient "problem of the criterion," beloved of Pyrrhonian skeptics. Careful, your faith might not survive a careful consideration of this problem! By what standard do you accept the Bible as authoritative? and what is your criterion for choosing a standard? (infinite regress)

@john-markharris6068

4 ай бұрын

@@Robb3348 I'm glad you asked. I trust the church which is the Pillar and ground of truth. The church is the body of Christ and because the church has Christ as it's head and she possesses the mind of Christ and the life of Christ.

@john-markharris6068

4 ай бұрын

@@Robb3348 the bible I believe in is actually a little different than the one most protestants have. I believe the scriptures because the bible is the church's book. My faith is empirical not theoretical. It's not based on rationality but it's empirically based.

7:41 That's French theologian Jean Calvin.

Edifying conversation. You all agree that there is only one will shared by the three persons. So how do you interpret Matthew 26:39 "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will"? This suggests that the incarnate Son has a will potentially independant from the Father's will. Or is he saying that his natural human desires make him want to avoid the pain and suffering of the cross, whereas the divine will (at one with the Father) is for the Son to be crucified ? In this Jesus is a model for us to follow, foregoing pleasure, and suffering deprivation and suffering in striving to follow the will of God.

@LanceJRoberts

4 ай бұрын

He had a human will, which he subordinated to the divine will.

@DevinMork

4 ай бұрын

Like when he prays at Lazarus' resurrection. When Jesus prays, it's not because he requires an outside power to help, it's "for [our] sake" that we might benefit.

@mateusmartins5220

4 ай бұрын

Your question is pertinent, but I would like to make an observation: In this passage, the cup does not mean the suffering of the cross, but the Wrath of God.

@cassidyanderson3722

4 ай бұрын

The 6th Ecumenical Council deals with the question of Christ’s human and divine wills.

@john-markharris6068

4 ай бұрын

There is one divine will in the Godhead. Christ has that will but Christ also took on human nature in the incarnation. His human nature has a will. Christ had and has a divine and human will. He submits his human will to the divine. There is only one person or subject in christ but he possesses two wills. I'd suggest looking up what St Maximus the Confessor says about this passage.

From the Ligonier Ministries youtube video "Lawson, MacArthur, Mohler, and Sproul: Questions and Answers" of March 21, 2017 In this video, R.C. Sproul, not long before his death, is hooked up to an oxygen tank and at 40:45 - 41:16 he says the following: "I believe the first question, if I'm not mistaken, was something about what is Reformed theology? What does it mean to be Reformed? And anybody who is Reformed is first of all catholic, namely that we embrace the classic ecumenical truths of the ecumenical councils, the Council of Nicea, the Council of Chalcedon, and so on, that we all share the same basic structure of Christianity."

Are they blurring the distinction between divine simplicity and the unity of God in the opening ten minutes? Isn’t simplicity more often used to refer to the identity of God’s essence with each of His attributes?

@colinsamul

4 ай бұрын

Yes. I thought the same thing. They did not affirm simplicity in the mode of classical theology.

As a loose analogy, I think of our God, the Author of, well, ALL of this, writing Himself into His story many times, as 3 persons. What is a person? Well, a person has relationships with other persons. Our God relates to us as one God, but as 3 persons. As the Holy Spirit, he dwells in the believer. He compels. As the Son, he creates and guides. As the Father, he knows and is. Something like that. Is this ok as an analogy? Even if not perfect? The persons are distinct, but they’re all the same God.

@User_at_777

4 ай бұрын

@theMcGloneCode Here are some questions Scripture forced me to ask: 1- If Jesus is the only one who has ever seen the Father, how is it that “God the Holy Spirit” is co-equal in the one God, but He's never seen the Father? John 6:46 YLT not that any one hath seen the Father, *_except he who is from God, he hath seen the Father._* 2- And why do only the Father and Son bear witness of each other, and not three persons? John 8:18 KJV I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. 3- Why did Apostle John say the true God is only two, not three? 1 John 5:20 KJV And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, *_that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life._* 4- Why did Jesus say He and His Father are one, not we three are one? John 10:30 KJV *_I and my Father are one._* 5- And why did Jesus say life eternal is in knowing ONLY two - the Father and the Son? (I thought the third was co-equal and indispensable). John 17:3 KJV *_And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent._* 6- Why does the Father confess His love for the Son, and have names for Him, but neither have ever spoken directly to, or given names, to a third person? (Jesus is the Comforter, Spirit of Truth and the Advocate - John 14:18; 1John 2:1) 7- Why doesn't the co-equal third person ever appear once on the throne of God with the other two anywhere in both Testaments? 8- Why are only the Father and Son referred to in the singular “His” and “Him” (below), and not all three co-equal persons being “Him”? Revelation 22:3 KJV And there shall be no more curse: but *_the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:_*

@pj1683

4 ай бұрын

​@@User_at_777Friend, all of these questions would be easily answerable if one understands basic Athanasian and Cappadocian theology. I would highly recommend reading On Not Three Gods by Gregory of Nyssa, as well as his Epistle to Eustathias, as he goes into specifically the question of the Holy Spirit's divinity. I would also highly recommend Dr Beau Bransons work, he has done many livestreams discussing the question of Trinitarian theology in the context of the Cappadocian fathers.

This is wayyy over my head guys. Is there father with no son, is there son with no father, is there either with no love? Forgive me if i speak false of Him i only seek to understand His glory as far as I am allowed to

@SamPWCF

4 ай бұрын

You cannot have the Father without the Son.

@cinematogcw

4 ай бұрын

All three persons of God have to have love, that I do know. And from the best I can tell, they are always in fellowship with one another. I don't think they can separate or would want to, but this is going beyond my understanding lol.

I think the doctrine of the Trinity is crucial as any Christian should, but I do think this conversation can be hard to follow precisely at times, which I understand can be hard to flesh things out entirely under an hour. I do think if we talk about that particular doctrine we have to clearly establish what it is and what it teaches - putting aside the obvious questions about why you would accept the Nicene Creed or any of the councils that produced it as binding or authoritative - the teaching around the Monarchia of the Father seems to be missing from this conversation - along with a clear discussion of person and essence. I found the following talks very informative to gain some deeper understanding of the doctrine itself and how it should be understood - God bless! Presentation on the competing models of the Trinity - skip to 1:04:00 if you only want to watch the presentation. kzread.info/dash/bejne/oYNoqraYk9msqco.html&ab_channel=FaithUnaltered Another good discussion on the doctrine itself - it's history, context, and proper understanding. kzread.info/dash/bejne/qXWf2s6LZ7eygps.html&ab_channel=JayDyer

@nattybumppo4151

4 ай бұрын

Doesn’t the kingdom of heaven belong to such as children? Have you ever tried to explained the trinity to a 5 year old? These men can’t even explain it to themselves.

Feed yourself poison you will become poisonous, whoever feeds off of you will become poisoned. To live a righteous life by whoever God you believe in, do whatever is pure and just then apply that to the activities you do, the food you eat, and the way you speak. Of course we can’t physical see and talk to God because God is not a physical being like us. He’s the energy that keeps every living thing living. It is up to YOU to put the work in to nourish your body and mind to continue to walk on this land.

So at the baptism of Jesus where the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are all present can anyone explain that away biblically, that God is not three persons. Please show me. I would like to hear this.....

@DrMox-ny8qs

Ай бұрын

God is not a being, God is a cosmic board of directors. God is actually a cosmic corporation.

@godsson491

Ай бұрын

@DrMox-ny8qs That's a weird, unbiblical opinion...

@DrMox-ny8qs

Ай бұрын

@@godsson491 But it works if you think about it.

We should all agree that we need to be grafted into the father because he is the vinedresser.

Father son and Holy Spirit have one will.

@DevinMork

4 ай бұрын

St. John of Damascus: Describing the Trinity is like depriving fire. Fire requires heat, light, and shape. But if you eliminate one, you no longer have fire. And each of the three isolated from the others cannot be said to be "fire." "An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" from ~750AD

@Guy-xr8lj

4 ай бұрын

@DevinMork I prefer to do theology from scripture not based on observation of elemental gnostism.

@nattybumppo4151

4 ай бұрын

@@DevinMork Straight from philosophy.

@nattybumppo4151

4 ай бұрын

Give a scripture for that.

@Guy-xr8lj

4 ай бұрын

@nattybumppo4151 Sin is to be outside the will of God. Jesus can't sin because he is God, and said I can only do what I see my father in heaven doing.

Starting at about 40:45, the bald man is spot on. The missions (which includes the obedience of the Son) reveal the fromness of the Son (His eternal generation), but that’s IT. The fromness does not entail obedience. The obedience ought not be read back into that eternal relation of origin (his eternal generation). To do so NECESSITATES two (three?) wills. After getting to the root of the matter, Doug in typical Doug fashion talks in a million circles until the bald man affirms his orthodoxy. Notice the bald man said “because you have the guardrails up… you’re in the box.” Here lies the problem. Doug SAYS he affirms one will, but then his formulation necessitates more than one will. So he affirms one will on the face of it but denies one will but his other affirmations (eternal obedience of the Son to the Father).

@andrewphilipbarlow

3 ай бұрын

Exactly! I think Rigney should have pressed wilson on that. Instead he just gave him a pass.

I am hopeful you would share your perspective of 1 John 5:7 as translated from Textus Receptus. Is that rightfully in scripture or as some suggest, was it added later. It is certainly one of the most clearly stated text on the trinity.

@mikebrown9850

4 ай бұрын

1 John 5:7-8 was added by those who obviously could not prove the doctrine of the trinity otherwise. Read the margin in the NIV.

@paulmcwhorter

4 ай бұрын

‘Look in the margin of the NIV’ . . . No thank you. I was hoping for response from canon press.

The word is authoritative and the authority commands, and the commands animate authoritativly, and so on and so forth.

"Going back to Augustine.." and there lies the problem.

@joaomatheusbeck7664

4 ай бұрын

Let's go back to the Scriptures

@nattybumppo4151

4 ай бұрын

@@joaomatheusbeck7664They never really mentioned scripture now did they? Interesting.

Luk 9:27 But I tell you of a truth, there be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the kingdom of God. This is evidence that Jeremiah 31 is The Kingdom of God.

For the algorithm

@DeaconBean

4 ай бұрын

Adore

First, this is why I'm not fit to be in leadership, but that said, isn't 'divine simplicity' (which was originally one man's attempt to do the math) an attempt by the fathers to do the math? It's pure philosophical conjecture in the absence of special revelation. Just take it back one step and say, 'we don't know, we can't understand, but we'll find out soon.' As it is, the 'It must go something like this, divine simplicity + irreducible complexity + ... = scholastic Trinity' causes λογομαχία among brothers.

@tylerbaker7057

4 ай бұрын

Definitely not. Divine Simplicity teaches God is not made up of parts - ‘simply’ put 😉. Further, Divine Simplicity rolls out into, love is not a part or an accident (a part that’s not necessary) of God; rather, God is love. That is also to say, God is His nature. Again, God isn’t merely righteous, but is righteousness. He isn’t made up of parts, properties, etc, but instead, He is simple in that respect. Hence, Divine Simplicity. God bless!

@gianthebaptist

4 ай бұрын

Divine Simplicity is necessary if we're going to affirm the aseity or self-sufficiency of God. There's no way around this. Otherwise you must say that God is somehow dependent on something other than himself to be.

@nattybumppo4151

4 ай бұрын

You’re just quoting Plato my friend. As are these men.

Authority is a divine attribute of both the Son and the Father

@User_at_777

4 ай бұрын

Yes. But Jesus was given all authority from His Father. Not co-equal as the source. The immortal invisible God never changed. The Word did voluntarily humble Himself to change form, from God to man. (Php 2:6-8)

@DevinMork

4 ай бұрын

But not the Spirit?

@markevans9372

4 ай бұрын

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have authority as a divine attribute (ad intra). The authority given to Christ, mentioned at the end of Matthew’s gospel, is given ad extra and does not reflect the eternal relation between the Father and Son.

I'm paying s montly fee. But thing is pumped into my living room. I have access to a menu and search bar, and can *select* what stream to *pull* into my living room, just like I'm selectivrly pulling *your* video into my living room from now. Yiu make it sound like streaming technology precludes agency.

Honestly speaking, if you were to ask these 4 men privately to define the doctrine of the Trinity you’d get 4 different answers. How can THE central doctrine of Christendom generate so much philosophical speculation and hermeneutical variation? Kudos to Drs. Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware for kickstarting the conversation.

No scripture ever mentions the Trinity Doctrine. “Progressive revelation” is a tacit admission that at some point, Yahweh was believed to be only one individual. That changed several years after the apostolic age.

You can't have three persons without three wills, that would be incoherent

@nattybumppo4151

4 ай бұрын

Welcome to the trinity doctrine. Where logic goes out the window.

It’s very difficult for me to see how what Doug’s arguing for isn’t ESS… He used different terminology (“the Son is the command”) to try to soften his words quoted to him, and then a couple minutes later is saying “The Father is authority” the “Son is obedience” - this language absolutely necessitates multiple divine wills.

@arcanum3882

4 ай бұрын

How so?

@tylerpedersen9836

4 ай бұрын

The one willingly submitting to an authority is always submitting to the will of another. This requires two wills...@@arcanum3882

@tylerpedersen9836

4 ай бұрын

We see obedience in the economic activity, everyone agrees with that. It's controversial and historically unorthodox to conceive of the Son's existence as "obedience"... which is what Doug says in the video. "The Son is obedience." This claim only makes sense if there are two divine wills. One for the Son to submit to, and one (His) that enables Him to submit. Such a bifurcation is not classical Trinitarianism, neither is the language. @@arcanum3882

@tylerpedersen9836

4 ай бұрын

It's controversial and historically unorthodox to conceive of the Son's existence as "obedience"... which is what Doug says in the video. "The Son is obedience." This claim only makes sense if there are two divine wills. One for the Son to submit to, and one (His) that enables Him to submit. Such a bifurcation is not classical Trinitarianism, neither is the language. @arcanum3882 @@arcanum3882

@georgeluke6382

4 ай бұрын

@@tylerpedersen9836 Does the giving and receiving of being in the Godhead require multiple divine wills, on the same logic? Or the uniqueness of relations of origin?

Don’t those who subscribe to ESS have to affirm two wills in God? Otherwise, how could the Son eternally submit to His Father’s will?

@enaykalyk

4 ай бұрын

No, they don't.

@tylerpedersen9836

4 ай бұрын

Can you explain how ESS doesn't require two wills? What is the Son eternally submitting to if not the Father's will? And how could He submit without a will of His own?@@enaykalyk

Nicene creed is not the Bible

From the beginning the idea of a trinity was explained with word salad and language that does not comport to making any logical sense. This is a very old lie that has deceived tbe simple and kept them hidden from who they are in Christ. It doesn’t matter how many degrees you have, these are men who have worked their whole lives to squeeze this heresy into a palatable doctrine. It’s a very wicked and makes Jesus an idol. Thou shalt have no others before me! (especially my Son)

This conversation has helped to clarify for me, perhaps for the last time necessary, why I have for quite some time now stood in doubt of this “doctrine.” So utterly clear to the self-confident systematicians, but so utterly absent from the minds of every single writer of Holy Scripture. Not one of whom can be shown to have ever heard of it, conceived of it, consciously believed it, advocated for it, proclaimed it, or defended it. This idea, this “concept,” is demonstrably unknown to Scripture. But created by post-apostolic theologians, the first tier of whom, historically, were heavily tainted with Greek philosophical notions. The very things which ARE particularly, specifically, denounced IN Scripture, repudiated as FOOLISHNESS to the God of ALL wisdom. I would agree to the proposition that there most assuredly IS what might justly be considered a “tri-unity” of Father, Son, and Spirit. But that is far from the idea of a Triune Godhead, aka, “Trinity.” God the Father is God proper. That’s clear. Jesus is the corporeal manifestation of God, his Logos to be precise. The Spirit OF God is the non-corporeal, immaterial manifestation of God. So far so good. But how is the Spirit-of God/of Christ-to be considered a separate “person”? That simply doesn’t compute. “God (God proper) IS a Spirit.” In what context? “The Father” seeking “true worshippers,” who will worship HIM in spirit and in truth. So the Spirit is God. But in what sense a distinct and separate PERSON from the Father??? I have to conclude that the Trinity is a false construct. It is artificial to biblical revelation, in my estimation. Literally unknown to the Bible, and therefore to be repudiated.

Exodus 19 is not a trinity. God says himself and all of heaven will support his Messiah. Leviticus 16 speaks of the atonement with Aaron’s 2 sons. You should read Dr. Michael Heiser’s book The Unseen Realm.

The best argument for the Trinity is the doctrine of 2 Powers in Heaven from 2nd Temple Judaism. Jesus made it clear the Holy Spirit is a distinct member as well rounding out the Trinity. 2 Powers in Heaven was declared heretical in the 2nd Century as a response to the emergence of the Church. The Jews have no standing to criticize the Trinity.

@faturechi

4 ай бұрын

ROFLOL. Did Jeremiah know there were Jewish polytheists? There have always been Jews who believed in many gods. Christians just continue that tradition.

@charliedontsurf334

4 ай бұрын

@@faturechi Your response just shows how little you know about history. The Jews accepted that God existed as more than one person and that still being monotheistic before the emergence of Christianity. When Christians starting showing that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of Man of Daniel 7:13 the Jews changed their theology.

@theeternalsbeliever1779

4 ай бұрын

Christ never mentioned anything about the Holy Spirit being God. Trinitarians make this claim because they don't understand Greek grammar. The Bible refers to wisdom as a woman in Proverbs, so does that mean it is an actual woman just because it's referred to in the feminine sense? Ofc not. Use common sense.

The only way Trinity works is that God is a cosmic corporation and not a being.

Honestly just stop using the terms “authority” and “submission” and stick to Nicene terms (unbegotten, begotten, procession). It doesn’t cause confusion.

@tylerpedersen9836

4 ай бұрын

Amen.

@nattybumppo4151

4 ай бұрын

So stop reading 1 Corinthians 15? Got it.

@tylerpedersen9836

4 ай бұрын

Are you familiar with ad intra and ad extra distinctions? @@nattybumppo4151

@winstonsol8713

3 ай бұрын

@@nattybumppo4151 Don’t use millenial “gotcha” phrasing used to dunk on people and boost ego… to discuss the Bible. Or somebody might do the same to you for clearly disregarding Biblical passages about being charitable. Your choice.

@nattybumppo4151

3 ай бұрын

@@winstonsol8713 1 Corinthians 15 is “millennial “gotcha” phrasing”? Ok. Guess we will have to tell Paul that when we meet him. 😂

-- If the Father is the one true God, and -- if the Son is the one true God, and -- if the Son _IS_ the Father who manifested himself on earth in genuine human form, -- *then the one true God IS the one true God* who manifested himself on earth in genuine human form. -- If the Father is the one true God, and -- if the Son is the one true God, and -- if the Son is _NOT_ the Father, -- *then the one true God is NOT the one true God.* Scriptural revelation: 1 Self-refuting philosophy: 0 *1 TIMOTHY 3:16 (KJV)* And without controversy *great* is the *mystery* of godliness: *GOD was manifest in the flesh,* justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

The Son “is the command” is worlds apart from Doug’s quoted words, “the Son is obedience.” Why not use “the Son is the command” in the first instance to avoid all the subsequent confusion?

@arcanum3882

4 ай бұрын

How’s it controversial to say the Son is obeying the Father? We clearly see that played out in the New Testament, like the Garden of Gethsemane for example

@tylerpedersen9836

4 ай бұрын

It's controversial to say that the Son obeys the Father ETERNALLY. In his incarnate state nobody denies that He obeys the Father's will.@@arcanum3882

@tylerpedersen9836

4 ай бұрын

We see obedience in the economic activity, everyone agrees with that. It's controversial and historically unorthodox to conceive of the Son's existence as "obedience"... which is what Doug says in the video. "The Son is obedience." This claim only makes sense if there are two divine wills. One for the Son to submit to, and one (His) that enables Him to submit. Such a bifurcation is not classical Trinitarianism, neither is the language.@@arcanum3882

Luke Ch.1:32NIV"He will be great and will be called the Son of the MOST HIGH. The LORD God will give him the throne of his father David," John Ch.10:29NIV"My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than ALL c ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. " The God and Father of Jesus christ is the MOST HIGH God and thus is co equal to no one. John Ch.8:54NIV"Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. " According to Jesus his God and Father is the one and only God of Israel . By common consent the God and Father of Jesus is not triune. Therefore the one and only God of Israel is not triune. John ch.20:17NIV"Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”" The God and Father of Jesus is not triune by common consent . The God and Father of Jesus is also the God and Father of Jesus' disciples . Therefore the God and Father of Jesus' disciples is not triune. Matthew Ch.24:36NIV"“But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, f but ONLY the Father. " ONLY the God and Father of Jesus Christ is omniscient thus only the God and Father of Jesus Christ is the MOST HIGH God. Roman's Ch.1:9EHV"To be sure, (the)God, whom I serve with my spirit by proclaiming the gospel of his Son, is my witness to how constantly I make mention of you. In all my prayers, " Roman's Ch.3:30NIV"since there is only ONE(Grk.eis) God, who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through that same faith. " Paul was an actual monotheist and thus rendered exclusive sacred service to one most high God. Whom he clearly identifies as the God and Father of Jesus Christ. Matthew Ch.16:16NKJV"Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”" not merely the living Father but the living God to whom all believers owe EXCLUSIVE Devotion/Sacred Service. Malachi Ch.2:10NIV"Do we not all have one Father b ? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?" The God and Father of Jesus Christ is the only true God.

@fanman8102

4 ай бұрын

Okay but you left out all of the passages in the Gospel of John where Jesus repeatedly claimed to be the Father. And the passage in Roman’s where Paul said that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ. I see where you’re going but I prefer a holistic reading of the Scriptures not using various passages to support my own point of view.

@aservantofJEHOVAH7849

4 ай бұрын

@@fanman8102 where did Jesus claim to be the father. That is contrary to orthodox trinitarian dogma.John Ch.14:28NKJV"You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’ If you loved Me, you would rejoice because [h]I said, ‘I am going to the Father,’ for My Father is greater than I" John Ch.20:17NKJV"Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God.’ ” John ch.8:50NKJV"And I do not seek My own glory; there is One who seeks and judges. " A Thing JEHOVAH Would never say. John Ch.5:19NKJV"Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. " Another thing JEHOVAH Would never say. Numbers ch.23:19NKHV"“God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" JEHOVAH is neither man nor son of man neither can he become a creature because he us UNCHANGEABLE. Malachi Ch.3:6NKJV"For I am the LORD, I DO NOT change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob."

Why does the ad at the beginning have edgelord qualities to it? That sort of worldly appeal is part of the problem. Yall take half measures and pat yourself on the back. I'd like to see further sanctification over time.

Irenaeus of Lyons, France (c. 130 - c. 202 AD) was of Greek origin from Smyrna who knew Polycarp, bishop of that city, who in turn had known John, beloved disciple of Jesus and one of the twelve apostles. John was the author of the fourth and last gospel of the New Testament, in addition to several other canonical writings. From Irenaeus of Lyons' work Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 6, No. 1 [written c.180]: "Now God shall be glorified in His handiwork, fitting it so as to be conformable to, and modeled after, His own Son. For by the hands of the Father, that is, by the Son and the Holy Spirit, man, and not [merely] a part of man, was made in the likeness of God." Response: 1. If the Son and the Holy Spirit are the two hands of the Father in an analogy initially premised on the human body, then a distinction readily can be made between them. Irenaeus himself stated that these two divine hands were involved in the creation of man revealed in Genesis 1:29 (ESV): "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them." 2. Quoting the Scientific American's November 1, 2001 article 'Why are more people right-handed?': "Most humans (say 70 percent to 95 percent) are right-handed, a minority (say 5 percent to 30 percent) are left-handed, and an indeterminate number of people are probably best described as ambidextrous." 3. Therefore, when this prominence of right handedness is extrapolated to authority, to sit at the right hand indicates the second greatest position and ahead of one who sits at the left hand. 4. The Bible confirms this regarding Christ's authority in Hebrews 1:3, ESV: "He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high ..." 5. So if the Son 'is' (Irenaeus) or 'at the' (Hebrews) right hand of the Father, it would follow then that the Holy Spirit 'is' or 'at the' left hand of the Father. 6. Therefore, it would appear that there is a moral hierarchy in the ordering of the equality of Persons as when Jesus Christ, as part of what is referred to as The Great Commission in Matthew 28:19 (ESV), proclaimed: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." 7. Indeed, for those churches that regard baptism as a sacrament whose action performs regeneration, such as Catholic, Orthodox, Assyrian and various Protestants including Anglicans and Lutherans, the rite would be null and void if there was an incorrect ordering of Persons, say if one was erroneously baptized 'in the name of the Father, and of the Holy Spirit and of the Son'. 8. Further, with regard to the Holy Spirit as the left hand of the Father based upon the analogy with the human person, the left hand supports the right hand in the actions of the majority population of right-handers, and in the same way that the right hand supports the left hand in the minority population of left-handers. 9. Since this integral connection between the right and left hands exists as one of leading and supporting in the majority of right handers and vice versa in left handers, might this then be reflective of the interior relations of the Holy Trinity regarding the Son and the Holy Spirit beneath the directing headship of the Father, where the Son secondarily leads and the Holy Spirit lends support?

A whole hour of Protestant theology talk. Not one single Bible verse in the entire video.

@DevinMork

4 ай бұрын

I thought they'd at least consist St. John about the Filioque...

Jesus’ body was/is not “eternally begotten”. His body was created, on our finite timeline, in the likeness of Adam's flesh (Mary), and also in the exact image of His Father (Spirit); not from all dirt, as Adam’s body was. In Adam's descendants, both strands of DNA come from two bodies, joining as one, and the woman births children after their kind (flesh). Christ's DNA was half from flesh, and half from His Father’s Spirit, and Christ gives new birth to children from above, after their kind (Spirit). After the Ascension, the Father joined Christ's Risen Body with Himself (Acts 2:32-33; John 17:5), allowing Jesus to give birth to a new creature on earth after Christ’s likeness (Gal 6:15), Spirit and flesh. Jesus is the firstborn of every creature (Col 1:15). Jesus (the Son) was always with the Father spiritually (He came down from Heaven), but not physically (His body ascended to Heaven). This is why to bless us He had to go away to the Father, in order for the Father to share a portion of His selfsame Spirit (1Cor 12:11), through Christ (Gal 4:6) with every Believer. The conduit of the Father's Spirit on earth is Christ, the holy Spirit, not a third person. 2 Corinthians 3:17 KJV *_Now the Lord is that Spirit:_* … 2 Corinthians 13:5 KJV … *_Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?_* How do we know the Son’s Body isn't eternally begotten and was not present at Creation? Because nothing that is visible was created by anything that was visible. Jesus had a visible body, so it was the pre-incarnate Christ, the invisible Word, who created the universe. This is proof for Unitarians to grasp that Jesus existed (not physically) but as the invisible Word of God who was with God, and He was God -- and became flesh later (Php 2:6-8). Hebrews 11:3 … the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible. Lastly, If only Christendom could understand Jesus spoke extensively “IN the third person” and never “ABOUT a third person”, we would stop diminishing the praise and honor due the Person of Jesus. Just a few examples of Jesus speaking IN the third person (not about a third person): John 3:16-17 John 4:14 John 5:18-23, 26 John 6:40, 46 Very important is John 14:16-17. Jesus tells us HE is the Comforter and Spirit of Truth in verse 18. He tells us He and His Father come to live in the Believer John 14:23, not a third person. The manifestation of the holy Spirit of God (the Father Himself) is Christ Himself: 1 Corinthians 12:7 KJV But the *_manifestation of the Spirit_* is given to every man to profit withal. John 14:21 YLT … he who is loving me … *_I_* … will *_manifest myself_* to him.' Ephesians 2:18 KJV For *_through him_* we both have access *_by one Spirit_* unto the Father. 2 Corinthians 3:17 KJV *_Now the Lord is that Spirit:_* …

Liked. Now, bring in a Oneness Pentecostal. That would be a GREATER Elephant Room. Or are you chicken? I'm working on a MAJOR next-step revamping almost everything - originating from that stream of word-for-word Biblical trust. Sometimes One Must ReInvent The Wheel. Or point me to the authority higher than the books of the Bible and their constructions?

@thereisnopandemic

4 ай бұрын

Oneness are not brothers in Christ. I believe this is a dialog between fellow Christian’s. Oneness falls in the same line as Mormonism, jehovah witness and other cults that fall out of Biblical orthodoxy. There is time to debate against apostates, there are videos out there Dr James White vs Roger Perkins is a good one, if you want to see Trinity vs Oneness debate.

@erhardtharris8727

4 ай бұрын

That is the last time I reply directly to @thereisnopandemic as a thread. He deleted my gracious and precise reply. (Which was, in fact, much better than my original comment!) There was nothing offensive about it - quite the contrary - and it was better than his comment as well. Maybe that's why he deleted it. Cuz it doesn't appear now. Such a gracious advocate of speech. (Not.) I shall endeavor to recreate what I failed to copy/backup. I mean, surely Trinitarians aren't censorious, right? Surely a trinitarian who goes by "thereisnopandemic" is forthright, above board, and on the up and up. (As we can see, not really.)

Only the father is autotheos. The son and spirit are from the father. Just read the nicene creed guys. Read church fathers not modern theologians

Ah, the Trinity. The thing no one understands, but everyone wants to make different churches and hate each other about. XD

Unfortunately, these other guys can't make you sound orthodox here, Doug, hard as they tried 😉

Sucking what? Suggestive language perhaps one of those things people been letting in through the airwaves while there feet are up ? Are your scribes library of works an offering? Or once our money's changed by your accountants a suitable sacrifice . As an authority yourself and I need your intercession I'm so glad you wrote it down surely now I'll follow . The map to pure religion. In A book I didn't see on your list a guy said he had done what we needed and a work was finished! But your list says no. you say I for a nominal fee have the word and the word is with me. The commercial value is remarkable and shouldn't be understated. Woe to those who are lost sheep and find themselves toiling and have suffered so long entangled by thorn , thistle and troubles of widows and orphans the time for praying without ceasing is over . But verily verily Canon press tells you they're knowledge of the law holds the grace necessary so you might live? And supporting a podcast and your preferred reading list nay my works came to save you ... I for one am rejoicing. But I only have 1 dollars worth of gold to my name. And just don't have the means to buy in and am left behind in a race to work out my own salvation oh well who ever said it was a free gift. Of course you can put a number on what God and his son has done for us so. I will work and save and pray. And pay. What did you say $24.99 whatever it is my soul is on the line. Fuck me I got better shit to do that's a rap though not bad for right off the head huh. I got a way with the word too

@lectorintellegat

4 ай бұрын

… are you ok? Do you need help?

Eternal Subordination is false. Augustine makes it clear in Book 2 of De Trinitatis that Christ did not merely obey the Father's will but also obeyed His own will. This entire issue is what occurs when Protestants, poorly educated in patristics, bumble around without doing their homework. Catholics and even Orthodox are FAR better on this type of theology.

@garyboulton2302

4 ай бұрын

A comment happens like this when people bumble around uneducated in what Protestants actually teach.

@ethanmulvihill7177

4 ай бұрын

Did you even watch the video?

@mosesking2923

4 ай бұрын

@@ethanmulvihill7177 First Doug says that the Son is the command of the father. Then he says that the Son is obedience. The confusion and lack of clear, precise theology is astounding.

@ethanmulvihill7177

4 ай бұрын

@@mosesking2923 Well those are both things that are said in the Bible and he clarifies how he's attempting to systematize them later. I'd suggest not calling scriptural categories unclear and confusing and watching the full video before saying anything.

@LanceJRoberts

4 ай бұрын

His will was to submit to the Father's will. There is no conflict. He ALWAYS does the will of the Father.

Jesus said HE was GOD, the Pharisees understood it that way and took up stones to kill HIM. Jesus told Thomas HE is GOD. REVERSE ENGINEER ADAM:spirit, soul, body. GOD=Is a Spirit Holy Ghost= nefesh, soul Body= Jesus, made a body and God indwelt human suit.❤ One Adam, One GOD, NOT three people

@warriorandscholar6692

4 ай бұрын

No, Jesus said he is the Son of God. And no, he didn't tell Thomas he is God.

@shulamiteKINGSbride

4 ай бұрын

You should read scripture. ​@@warriorandscholar6692

@shulamiteKINGSbride

4 ай бұрын

Emmanuel =GOD WITH US. Jesus is GOD. JOHN 1. JESUS IS the Word become Flesh and dwelt with us​@@warriorandscholar6692

@africandaisy.3

4 ай бұрын

@@warriorandscholar6692 John 20’s language use.

@fanman8102

4 ай бұрын

@@warriorandscholar6692 - that is incorrect. Read the Gospel of John where you see Jesus repeatedly makes the claim he is the Father.

Okay I was watching but got frustrated and had to quit. While I agree with the Trinity I do not agree with the way it is taught. Who is “they?” If God is One then there is no they. Second, all the Apostles were Jews so I’m thinking they would not agree with the “they” terminology. The Jews have always described a trinity even in Genesis; the Father, the Spirit and God in human form. But, always, God is One. In the Gospel of John he states Jesus repeatedly made the claim that he is the Father. In Romans Paul calls the Holy Spirit the Spirit of Christ. Then the Doctrine of the Trinity, as it is taught now, was not established until 325AD. The Apostles did not teach what we teach now. In this respect I totally agree with Wesley. You think you know and can explain God? Good luck with that! Still….please don’t stop having these conversations. Although I can’t hang in there with this one, I do enjoy them. Thank you!

@DevinMork

4 ай бұрын

Have you looked at how the Orthodox Church articulates the Trinity? I'd be curious to know how you feel about it.

@fanman8102

4 ай бұрын

I apologize for the delay. I didn’t realize you responded until today. The one thing I like about the Orthodox view is the statement “God reveals himself….” God, or Yahweh, has been revealing himself as three persons, or forms, to his creation since the creation but that does not necessarily mean Yahweh is actually three persons. Another thing that Wesley said was that the original Creed is the best we can do. The rest is based in our own arrogance. I remember one of my professors saying, “What you believe about the Trinity depends on where your theology is based. Is your theology based in Rome, Constantinople or Jerusalem?” After thinking about it I realized two things. First, his statement is correct and second, we are arguing about something we truly do not understand. One says you’re a heretic if you don’t believe this. Another says you’re a heretic if you don’t believe that. What I know is that at a certain point in time I will stand before Jesus Christ, The Most High, and he will determine if I am a heretic or not. All this stuff we argue about is like two blind men fencing.