Trinitarian Classical Theism with Craig Carter (Intro to Trinitarian Theology)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 2 พ.ค. 2021
- Our website: www.justandsinner.org
Patreon: / justandsinner
Publishing: www.jspublishing.org
On this podcast, I was joined by Dr. Craig A Carter to discuss his recent book: Contemplating God with the Great Tradition: Recovering Trinitarian Classical Theism.
![[TH] Esports World Cup : Grand Final](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sedbKhFYDMo/mqdefault.jpg)
![[TH] VCT Pacific Stage 2 - Playoffs Day 2 // PRX vs GEN | DRX vs TLN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gmrSk-_ahlA/mqdefault.jpg)
This Craig fellow is brilliant.
Just finished his "Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition." Looking forward to reading the rest!
I am greatly enjoying your book Baptized into Christ. It is extremely enlightening, packed with information, and pleasant to read. Thank you so much. Blessings on all that you do.
I could listen to you guys all day.
This was a phenomenal interview. Thank you!
This is excellent.
This discussion is fantastic!
Thank you so much for this....
These recent videos on the Trinity have been superb! Please make more of them.
The fact that the systematic theologians and patristic scholars were having such a disconnect I believe is a testament to the problem of over specialization present today
Keep battling brothers.
Great interview! Now I want to buy the series.
Thank you. This is very helpful and illuminating. By the way, Mark Smith is a close colleague of mine. He is a wonderful person, but I’ve always been uncomfortable with his theology and his work on the Bible. Thank you for giving a name to what he is doing.
This was a great conversation, it would be great if you could bring him back for more. Maybe a discussion on Gnosticism as he suggested.
Just got his book on Scripture interpretation. Now, I look forward to his newest book. Thansk!
Wonderfulinteraction. I, too, would be very interested in a discussion about Gnosticism in present day popular culture/theology.
You too Jordan.
🔮Firmament of Power 🔮
Do the Gnosticism episode! Pt. 2 :)
This was good but too little of the discussion was on Classical Theism. Next time, focus more on classical theism.
Nonetheless, this was really good.
"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." ~ Gen 1:1
"By the word of the LORD the heavens were made,
and by the breath of His mouth all their host ... For He spoke, and it came to be;
He commanded, and it stood firm." ~ Psalm 33:6, 9
"All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made." ~ John 1:3
"but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." ~ Hebrews 1:2
"By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." ~ Hebrews 11:3
That's all I need to know that God created everything ex nihilo.
God bless you brother and sister, children suffering from (leukemia) we need to help them, contact me on this email (Gracefoundation54@gmail.com).
Cosmos out of chaos.
Music to my ears!
However, throwing Derrida in with Hume in terms of skepticism is way too fast! Anyone who has not read Derrida's _The Gift of Death_ remains unaware of the heart of his philosophy. The book treats multiple passages from Matthew's Gospel (Mt 6: 19-23 on the lamp of the eye) on the Father who "sees in secret" and the economy of the kingdom of heaven (to give without looking for earthly reward, trusting a reward in heaven). It treats the _mysterium tremendum_ and locates the question of "European Responsibility" as it arrives from the Christian heritage of thinking the Soul, which supercedes both orgiastic mystery and Platonism. Major influences on the work include Kierkegaard's _Fear and Trembling,_ Levinas's theory of the transcendence of the Other, and Nietzsche's comments on the "Genius of Christianity" and justice. Probably not the deconstructionist con so lambasted by everyone wary of post-modernism! The honest reader will find a thinker desperately passionate for truth. I might also recommend Derrida's text on St. Paul, titled "A Silkworm of One's Own" collected in _Acts of Religion._ Of course this is no guarantee he will be to the reader's taste, but it seems worth doing better justice to the scope of his thinking. Who knows, there may even be something to think through there. Here's a clip:
"On what condition is responsibility possible? On the condition that the Good no longer be a transcendental objective, a relation between objective things, but the relation to the other, a response to the other; an experience of personal goodness and a movement of intention. That supposes, as we have seen, a double rupture: both with orgiastic mystery and with Platonism. On what condition does goodness exist beyond all calculation? On the condition that goodness forget itself, that the movement be a movement of the gift that renounces itself, hence a movement of infinite love. Only infinite love can renounce itself and, in order to become finite, become incarnated in order to love the other, to love the other as a finite other. This gift of infinite love comes from someone and is addressed to someone; responsibility demands irreplaceable singularity. Yet only death or rather the apprehension of death can give this irreplaceability, and it is only on the basis of it that one can speak of a responsible subject, of the soul as conscience of self, of myself, etc. We have thus deduced the possibility of a mortal's accession to responsibility through the experience of his irreplaceability, that which an approaching death or the approach of death gives him. But the mortal thus deduced is someone whose very responsibility requires that he concern himself not only with an objective Good but with a gift of infinite love, a goodness that is forgetful of itself. There is thus a structural disproportion or dissymmetry between the finite and responsible mortal on the one hand and the goodness of the infinite gift on the other hand. One can conceive of this disproportion without assigning to it a revealed cause or without tracing it back to the event of original sin, but it inevitably transforms the experience of responsibility into one of guilt: I have never been and never will be up to the level of this infinite goodness nor up to the immensity of the gift, the frameless immensity that must in general define (in-define) a gift as such. This guilt is originary, like original sin. Before any fault is determined, I am guilty inasmuch as I am responsible. What gives me my singularity, namely, death and finitude, is what makes me unequal to the infinite goodness of the gift that is also the first appeal to responsibility. Guilt is inherent in responsibility because responsibility is always unequal to itself: one is never responsible enough. One is never responsible enough because one is finite but also because responsibility requires two contradictory movements. It requires one to respond as oneself and as irreplaceable singularity, to answer for what one does, says, gives; but it also requires that, being good and through goodness, one forget or efface the origin of what one gives."
That is perfect " Is matter self-moving? I have Jesus what do you got" There are serious problems with Darwinian evolution.
What does Barth mean when he states ‘The Bible reads me?’
🤣🤣🤣 Sounds like something out of Tropic Thunder!
Kevin Sandusky : You guys all read the script, right?
Kirk Lazarus : I don't read the script, script reads me.
[pause]
Kevin Sandusky : What the hell does that even mean?
True. 😂
Second use of the Law.
🤔
C’mon with the reformed baptists Dr. Coop
Hey, I'd be happy if Lutherans were publishing more on these topics. But for whatever reason, some of the people writing most clearly about Nicene Orthodoxy right now are Baptists.
@@DrJordanBCooper that's because early Particular Baptists had a strong rooting in the Great Tradition contra to the many popular twitter level Reformed Baptists. I'm thankful for the modern Particular Baptists who are doing the heavy lifting and rooting themselves in the Great Tradition as their early forefathers did.
All we need to know about metaphysics we can learn from the teachings of Jesus in the gospels. Notice that Jesus and his teachings were totally absent from this (over one hour long) conversation. What philosophy can best describe these teachings of Jesus? I believe a phenomenological approach is best.
God bless you brother and sister, children suffering from (leukemia) we need to help them, contact me on this email (Gracefoundation54@gmail.com).
It is clear that the Father (who is a spirit) is INSIDE Jesus "The words I say to you, I say not on my own but from the Father who DWELLS IN ME." It is also clear that ONLY THE FATHER is inside Jesus "Yet, I am not ALONE because the Father is with me". This means that the Holy Spirit inside Jesus is the Father (who is a spirit of course).
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all. (2 Corinthians 13:14
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.
John 14:26
1 Thessalonians 4:8 So, he who rejects this is not rejecting man but the God who gives His Holy Spirit to you.
Luke 3:21-22 Now when all the people were baptized, Jesus was also baptized, and while He was praying, heaven was opened, and the Holy Spirit descended upon Him in bodily form like a dove, and a voice came out of heaven, “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”
@@Mygoalwogel If the Trinity theory is here now, this of course happens because the Gospels HAVE BEEN MISUNDERSTOOD. Thus, it's no use that you quote later scriptures that already include those false ideas (Paul).
As to your arguments referring to the disclosure of the Gospels:
John 14:26 Both Jesus and the second Comforter have the HOLY SPIRIT INSIDE THEM. Jesus: "What things I [1] SPEAK, just as the Father has [2] SAID them to me, I [3] SPEAK them just so.". Second Comforter: "FOR he will not [1] SPEAK from himself, but rather, whatever things he [2] HEARS he will [3] SPEAK ". The Comforter (Counselor, Paraclete, Helper..) is thus just a person, not an omnipotent God-person. Most probably the gospel has been tampered with (using a marginal note?) and the word "Holy Spirit" added to "But the Helper, XXXXX whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." You can see that the verse makes perfect sense even without that word.
Luke 3:21-22 : the Holy Spirit - i.e. the Father who is a spirit - SAID " “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”
The strawmaning of Neoclassical thiesm is making this unwatchable.
Please, elaborate on this. Genuinely curious.