Very helpful and clarifying talk. There seems to be a tremendous surge in Muslim/Christian discussion and debate over the last few years. I’m praying our Muslim friends and family will see Jesus for who He truly is.
Brilliant lecture, David Bercot. This is in accord with the Nicene Creed, all Christians for the first 300 years (Irenaeus' Proof of the Apostolic Preaching pts 4-7 and 47, for example), and the best scholarship of Eastern Orthodoxy on the Trinity by Dr. Beau Branson and John Behr. We Christians need to be clear: we believe in One God the Father Almighty, and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the true Son of the One God.
I do credit David Bercot in his effort to attempt an explanation for this baffling doctrine. There are very few in the Anabaptist realm that would be so daring.
Hahaha yes Mr. Bercot has hootspah but this doctrine is clearly rooted in Greco-Roman philosophy and not in anything having anything to do with Jesus. I appreciate some of your videos and the Muslim metaphysician has put out some videos folks should be aware of where he reads the ante Nicene writers and shows where their doctrines obviously differ from the current Orthodox Trinity doctrine and the Nicene trinitarian doctrine. Nobody can agree on the Trinity because it doesn't exist
I like the hermeneutics which insist that we use Scripture words to describe spiritual things. Therefore, it is suggested, use the word "Godhead" instead of trinity. The term "trinity" restricts what we think about God. Bercot even points out...God is LOVE. Listen...God is Creator, is Jesus, is the Holy Spirit, is the Word and is Love...and the reverse is true...the Creator is God, Jesus is God in the Flesh, the Holy Spirit is God, the Word is God and Love is God, etc. Oh, the fights we have fought over the man-made term, trinity. The biblical term "Godhead" leaves us free to think about God in a more expansive and glorious way than the limited, human term "trinity."
I’m just confused at how Jesus can have an origin if he’s always existed. Also, how can one be a father and the other be his son if they both always existed.
After watching this video, I had a sense that something is off with the teaching. Somehow it translated to me as making Christ somewhat lesser or “downstream” from God the Father.
That's precisely what the Bible teaches. Jesus says "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) and says He received His life from the Father (John 5:26). Paul says there are many gods and lords, but the One God is the Father (1 Corinthians 8:5-6). All Christians for the first 300 years of Christianity believed there was One God, who just is the Father, and Jesus is His Son, begotten before all ages "God from God," not the One God. Just as the AD 325 Nicene Creed says. St. Irenaeus in the earliest summary of Christian doctrine, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching pts 4-7, says the first point of the faith is that the One God is the Father, and the second point is that Jesus is the Son of God. If what you believe is some Augustinian accretion not found in the Nicene Creed, it's because it's not true.
@@IAmisMaster interesting. I guess what I'm struggling with is the juxtaposition of time as we understand it & eternity. The question I want to ask is if there was a time in the "eternal realm" and "before all ages" when Jesus wasn't around? But something tells me that might not be the right question. Thoughts?
@@rogerdiller1595 Bercot addressed this. As the Nicene Creed says, Jesus was begotten "before all ages" so in terms of time, He has always existed. We have no reason to believe there is such thing as a "time before time." All early Christians believed Jesus was eternal. Irenaeus says in Against Heresies "God (meaning the Father) "was always with His Word (meaning Jesus) and Wisdom (meaning the Holy Spirit)." I recommend you watch Eastern Orthodox Dr. Beau Branson explain the Trinity. It is basically totally in line with what Bercot says, but more philosophically detailed. He has a PHD in analytic philosophy. I'm not Eastern Orthodox, but Bercot agrees that many in the Eastern Orthodox teach correctly on the Trinity. John Behr is also good on this topic. Not all do, though. Some in Eastern Orthodoxy still teach Augustinian three-brothers like false Trinity theology. In all honesty, Tertullian had strange philosophy that led him to says that, before our time, there was some sort of time before Jesus existed, and God was not a Father. But this is a fringe view. Tertullian still said Jesus was eternal in relation to our time, but his stoic Latin philosophy made everything temporal and spatial. It's best to stick with Middle Platonist philosophy of guys like Justin, since it makes no sense to say God the Father is within any sort of time. He created time, and since all things were created through Christ as Scriptures say, then Jesus preexisted all time.
@@IAmisMasterthe Nicene Creed might say that Jesus , or the spirit person that became Jesus existed ‘before all ages’ but the Nicene Creed is not the inspired scriptures . The scriptures just say that he is God’s ‘only begotten Son’ It says nothing about ‘time’
The Concept of the “Trinity “ in its formal iteration is defined by Roman law under the reign of Emperor Theodosius in 381 AD and Consolidated by Emperor Justinian in 451 AD. The Creeds fashioned in this era were produced to support the Political apparatus.Christendom became the State religion and religious expression became illegal. This topic of Trinity came up during the Reformation. Unfortunately, those who questioned this concept were often persecuted out of existence. With the exception of the Unitarian Brethren in Poland ,Transylvania and some brilliant thinkers in England the Orthodoxy of Rome maintained its sway. This presentation is timely and should provoke listeners to examine the biblical identity of Jesus the Son of who was begotten of Mary by the Spirit of the One True God.
Yes David is using the word "orthodoxy" not Orthodoxy. In other words, what the word means Orthos ορθος from Greek means Straight (and metaphorically "correct" meaning)... and "doxy" from Latin for "teaching"... so he is just saying "correct teaching" and I am sure his intent is to indicate "Apostolic teaching" or "Historic Teaching". However, not sure if every Orthodox priest would explain this historic perspective correctly, but in general, the Orthodox church still teaches the Trinity correctly.
I affirm the constubstantiality of the three and the Monarchy of the Father Unbegotten, the Son who proceeds by generation, and the Spirit who proceeds from the substance of the Father alone through the operation of the Son. I affirm logical sequence in the Trinity, Father first and eternal, the Son second, generated without the Helper, and the Third the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Substance of the Father alone through the Instrumentality of the Son. Where I differ is that there actually was a point before all ages where the Father was indeed alone and not "Father" to us or Christ. I affirm the Apostalic constitutions are indeed inspired, and they teach this very thing in several places. Thus I agree with Origen in that the Son is "older than He (the Holy Spirit"
I would give some deference to church history on that point. Maybe consider these points, though there are more: If the son is not eternal, then he is a created thing; which would make Colossians 1:16 false when it says Christ is “before all things”. How can He be before all things if he is also a thing? Hebrews 1:3 calls Christ the “brightness of the Glory” of the father. How can there be a time when the father did not have glory that emanated brightness? In revelation 1:18 Jesus calls himself the “alpha and omega, the beginning and end”. If the son is created at a point in time, he is not THE beginning, but instead a creation within the beginning. Also, it is your error to call the apostolic constitutions “divinely inspired”. No one in church history felt the same.
Irenaeus of Bishop of Lyon, and Epiphaneus of Salimas affirmed the existence of the Apostalic Constitutions and their inspiration. The last time the Roman Pope was in the east until modern times was around the time of the last of the seven ecumenical council and at that time they affirmed also that the apostles gave us the 85 canons and to this day they are hypocritically held as part of the canon law of the Antiochian Orthodox Church. They also make up part of the canon of the Oriental Orthodox Church and appear in a translation of Geez. John of Damascus references them as inspired and so does the Symeon the new theologian of the eastern orthodox church, I think someone is not at all informed or intentionally lying about their support in church history, unless you mean Augustinian gnostic "Church" perhaps? I don't really care what a 1600 year old church thinks.
@@calebpearce9334 The ages were made through Jesus the Only Begotten Son. So He is eternal in a sense as he is generated before "the morning star", the first of GOD'S creatures exnihillo
@@calebpearce9334 one more thing for you to consider is if the Father is like a nucleus and the Son a ray and the Spirit the heat, how does Jesus say that He is in the Father? And how is the Father omni present? You see? And also there must be a denial of Psalm 2:7 because there was no sequence and no point before the ages where the Father said anything because it is just a big timelessness. And why then affirm the Son's person is caused if there really isn't an eternal day when GOD was not a Father?
Collosians tells us that God created all things by Jesus Christ. Genesis rings out with the words, "and God SAID". JOHN 1 proclaims "and the WORD became flesh". Before he was born in human flesh Jesus was the voice of God.
Did the Father begin to love you only after he created you? No. The Father loved you, and every single human being he has ever created or will ever create, _from eternity._ He doesn't need the mythical "eternally begotten Son" to be an eternally loving Father.
The one true God - the Father - _is_ love. And the greatest demonstration of love is to *lay down one's **_own_** life* for others (John 15:13). The trinitarian version of "God the Father" did not lay down his own life for anyone. So the trinitarian version of "God the Father" is not the one true God.
The one and only true God - God the Father, "The everlasting Father" (Isa.9:6) - is the unipersonal Spirit who "came down from heaven" _without leaving heaven,_ and who manifested _himself_ on earth in genuine human form, as _his own_ Son, so that he could *lay down **_his own_** life* for us, raise _himself_ from the dead, and give eternal life to all who believe on _him._
And the _name_ of this unipersonal, *self-sacrificing* Spirit is revealed to be the name which is above _every_ name: *JESUS.*
*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.
Patripassionist KJV heretic, stop blaspheming the One God, the Father. Paul also says in 1 Timothy 6:15-16 that God (the Father) dwells in unapproachable light and is invisible. It's not even possible to see Him. Yet you, the Sabellian, teach that the Father Himself was touched, died, and was visible in flesh.
'Bercot refutes you with 1 Timothy 6:16 in this very video. 39:11. The Father is unapproachable, and it's not even possible to see Him. Yet you believe the Father is synonymous with Jesus, somehow became a man, and was seen and touched by humans. What patripassionist heresy.
It's not wise to acknowledge importance of a late 2nd century tradition makering theologian crafted doctrine. Makes no sense to recognize it. In reality there no such biblical thing as "trinity". It only exists in the mind of the theologian tertullian who was well known as a tradition maker who confessed was void of any scriptural support. In the old and new testimant the Holy Spirit is called The Spirit of God. Over and over again. Jesus said God's a Spirit. Jesus explained who the Holy Spirit was. Why is it everybody rejects Jesus all the time and then turns to theologians. Respectfully, that's kinda evil. The night before His death Jn14, Jesus defined Him, “I AM INSIDE MY FATHER , and YOU ARE INSIDE ME (in christ) , and I AM INSIDE YOU ." John 14 [11] Believe Me that I am inside the Father and the Father inside Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves. [15] “If you love Me, keep My commandments. [16] And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be inside you. [20] At that day you will know that I am inside My Father, and you inside Me, and I inside you. Note :the inner mixing of the Father Spirit with Christ Spirit and the hosting temples (our) spirit. [23] Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. " [26] But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you " Jn17 Jesus praying to the Father again reinnerates the mixing of the Spirits [21] that they all may be one, as You, Father, are inside Me, and I in You; that they also may be one inside Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I inside them, and You inside Me; that they may be made perfect inside one"
ENORMOUS PROBLEM at 29:50 David appears to deny the humanity of Christ! Jesus is truly God and truly man. If Christ is not God, his death is insufficient for our sins; but if He is not also man, his death cannot redeem man. A lot of this talk was on John 1 but does David not understand that the word became FLESH? When the old and new testaments mention the “son of man” this is to emphasize that the redeemer is truly a man. Scripture refers to Christ as the second Adam. 1 John 4:2 teaches that Jesus has come in the flesh, and calls those Antichrist who deny this. I assume this is simply a misspeak on David’s part, but if he is going to give lectures on trinitarianism, he should try to be careful about his terms. If David truly persists in denying the humanity of Christ, he must be avoided.
@@calebpearce9334Like you, Anabaptist Perspectives affirms the humanity of Christ. The 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith states, "We believe in Jesus Christ the divine Son of God, who was with the Father from all eternity, who for our salvation took upon Himself human nature... We believe in His full deity and full humanity according to the Scriptures." The Nicene Creed states, "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ... he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man." We agree with both of these statements.
@@AnabaptistPerspectivesthank you! I appreciate all your work. I only mention it because I wouldn’t want someone to take a clip like that out of context and use it to paint anabaptism as an unorthodox sect. One of the major values of your channel is for it to be a resource to see into the theology of anabaptism from the inside, so it’s important that we be precise about what we believe.
@@AnabaptistPerspectiveshahaha Kierkegaard and others have spoke wisely when they said Christianity is a creedal religion which Jesus would not recognize. You hold fast to your creeds, as if God cares at all about your creeds.
You are misunderstanding. Bercot clearly believes Jesus is a human today, and will always remain a human. But Jesus has not always been a human. When Jesus appeared to Abraham, He was not yet incarnated as a human.
"How can he (Jesus) be eternal???" You ask. Godo question. But I have a better one for you- IF Jesus is 'eternal' but can't be considered 'created/made'- HOW do trinitarians believe that they are going to inherit 'eternal life' when none of you is eternal especially like God or the lesser one existing because of Jehovah God -Jesus/Michael?? No understanding of the non-biblical doctrine of the trinity(s0 is true If you don't want to accept the view of Jesus being Michael the arch angel THEN perhaps go learn about the Unitarians (NOT unitarian Universalist).
I "made" a son of my own substance when I begat him. I did not "create" him out of nothing (exnihillo) which is something only GOD can do through Christ. Actually I do understand the Trinity. As Eve proceeds from the substance of Adam by the operation/Instrumentality of the Son, so too the Spirit proceeds from the Substance of the Father alone through the Son. It is very simple but even David is a little off as are all those who affirm the Nicean Anathema
Thank you for this sermon. The deity of Christ is under greater attack than ever now, even from professing Christians.
Very helpful and clarifying talk. There seems to be a tremendous surge in Muslim/Christian discussion and debate over the last few years. I’m praying our Muslim friends and family will see Jesus for who He truly is.
🙏
Brilliant lecture, David Bercot. This is in accord with the Nicene Creed, all Christians for the first 300 years (Irenaeus' Proof of the Apostolic Preaching pts 4-7 and 47, for example), and the best scholarship of Eastern Orthodoxy on the Trinity by Dr. Beau Branson and John Behr. We Christians need to be clear: we believe in One God the Father Almighty, and in One Lord Jesus Christ, the true Son of the One God.
Thank you for this feedback.
I do credit David Bercot in his effort to attempt an explanation for this baffling doctrine. There are very few in the Anabaptist realm that would be so daring.
Hahaha yes Mr. Bercot has hootspah but this doctrine is clearly rooted in Greco-Roman philosophy and not in anything having anything to do with Jesus. I appreciate some of your videos and the Muslim metaphysician has put out some videos folks should be aware of where he reads the ante Nicene writers and shows where their doctrines obviously differ from the current Orthodox Trinity doctrine and the Nicene trinitarian doctrine. Nobody can agree on the Trinity because it doesn't exist
I like the hermeneutics which insist that we use Scripture words to describe spiritual things.
Therefore, it is suggested, use the word "Godhead" instead of trinity. The term "trinity" restricts what we think about God. Bercot even points out...God is LOVE.
Listen...God is Creator, is Jesus, is the Holy Spirit, is the Word and is Love...and the reverse is true...the Creator is God, Jesus is God in the Flesh, the Holy Spirit is God, the Word is God and Love is God, etc.
Oh, the fights we have fought over the man-made term, trinity.
The biblical term "Godhead" leaves us free to think about God in a more expansive and glorious way than the limited, human term "trinity."
@@studiodemichel godhead is not in scripture
Very helpful! I'm curious if it is proper to address prayers to Jesus as opposed to just the Father?
I disagree with his point on love. It says God is love not that God has love. Once a characteristic. The other ones in action.
I’m just confused at how Jesus can have an origin if he’s always existed. Also, how can one be a father and the other be his son if they both always existed.
After watching this video, I had a sense that something is off with the teaching. Somehow it translated to me as making Christ somewhat lesser or “downstream” from God the Father.
That's precisely what the Bible teaches. Jesus says "the Father is greater than I" (John 14:28) and says He received His life from the Father (John 5:26). Paul says there are many gods and lords, but the One God is the Father (1 Corinthians 8:5-6). All Christians for the first 300 years of Christianity believed there was One God, who just is the Father, and Jesus is His Son, begotten before all ages "God from God," not the One God. Just as the AD 325 Nicene Creed says. St. Irenaeus in the earliest summary of Christian doctrine, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching pts 4-7, says the first point of the faith is that the One God is the Father, and the second point is that Jesus is the Son of God. If what you believe is some Augustinian accretion not found in the Nicene Creed, it's because it's not true.
@@IAmisMaster interesting. I guess what I'm struggling with is the juxtaposition of time as we understand it & eternity. The question I want to ask is if there was a time in the "eternal realm" and "before all ages" when Jesus wasn't around? But something tells me that might not be the right question. Thoughts?
@@rogerdiller1595 Bercot addressed this. As the Nicene Creed says, Jesus was begotten "before all ages" so in terms of time, He has always existed. We have no reason to believe there is such thing as a "time before time." All early Christians believed Jesus was eternal. Irenaeus says in Against Heresies "God (meaning the Father) "was always with His Word (meaning Jesus) and Wisdom (meaning the Holy Spirit)."
I recommend you watch Eastern Orthodox Dr. Beau Branson explain the Trinity. It is basically totally in line with what Bercot says, but more philosophically detailed. He has a PHD in analytic philosophy. I'm not Eastern Orthodox, but Bercot agrees that many in the Eastern Orthodox teach correctly on the Trinity. John Behr is also good on this topic. Not all do, though. Some in Eastern Orthodoxy still teach Augustinian three-brothers like false Trinity theology.
In all honesty, Tertullian had strange philosophy that led him to says that, before our time, there was some sort of time before Jesus existed, and God was not a Father. But this is a fringe view. Tertullian still said Jesus was eternal in relation to our time, but his stoic Latin philosophy made everything temporal and spatial. It's best to stick with Middle Platonist philosophy of guys like Justin, since it makes no sense to say God the Father is within any sort of time. He created time, and since all things were created through Christ as Scriptures say, then Jesus preexisted all time.
@@IAmisMasterthe Nicene Creed might say that Jesus , or the spirit person that became Jesus existed ‘before all ages’ but the Nicene Creed is not the inspired scriptures .
The scriptures just say that he is God’s ‘only begotten Son’
It says nothing about ‘time’
The Concept of the “Trinity “ in its formal iteration is defined by Roman law under the reign of Emperor Theodosius in 381 AD and Consolidated by Emperor Justinian in 451 AD. The Creeds fashioned in this era were produced to support the Political apparatus.Christendom became the State religion and religious expression became illegal. This topic of Trinity came up during the Reformation. Unfortunately, those who questioned this concept were often persecuted out of existence.
With the exception of the Unitarian Brethren in Poland ,Transylvania and some brilliant thinkers in England the Orthodoxy of Rome maintained its sway.
This presentation is timely and should provoke listeners to examine the biblical identity of Jesus the Son of who was begotten of Mary by the Spirit of the One True God.
Yes David is using the word "orthodoxy" not Orthodoxy. In other words, what the word means Orthos ορθος from Greek means Straight (and metaphorically "correct" meaning)... and "doxy" from Latin for "teaching"... so he is just saying "correct teaching" and I am sure his intent is to indicate "Apostolic teaching" or "Historic Teaching". However, not sure if every Orthodox priest would explain this historic perspective correctly, but in general, the Orthodox church still teaches the Trinity correctly.
This is correct.
I affirm the constubstantiality of the three and the Monarchy of the Father Unbegotten, the Son who proceeds by generation, and the Spirit who proceeds from the substance of the Father alone through the operation of the Son. I affirm logical sequence in the Trinity, Father first and eternal, the Son second, generated without the Helper, and the Third the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Substance of the Father alone through the Instrumentality of the Son. Where I differ is that there actually was a point before all ages where the Father was indeed alone and not "Father" to us or Christ. I affirm the Apostalic constitutions are indeed inspired, and they teach this very thing in several places. Thus I agree with Origen in that the Son is "older than He (the Holy Spirit"
I would give some deference to church history on that point. Maybe consider these points, though there are more:
If the son is not eternal, then he is a created thing; which would make Colossians 1:16 false when it says Christ is “before all things”. How can He be before all things if he is also a thing?
Hebrews 1:3 calls Christ the “brightness of the Glory” of the father. How can there be a time when the father did not have glory that emanated brightness?
In revelation 1:18 Jesus calls himself the “alpha and omega, the beginning and end”. If the son is created at a point in time, he is not THE beginning, but instead a creation within the beginning.
Also, it is your error to call the apostolic constitutions “divinely inspired”. No one in church history felt the same.
Irenaeus of Bishop of Lyon, and Epiphaneus of Salimas affirmed the existence of the Apostalic Constitutions and their inspiration. The last time the Roman Pope was in the east until modern times was around the time of the last of the seven ecumenical council and at that time they affirmed also that the apostles gave us the 85 canons and to this day they are hypocritically held as part of the canon law of the Antiochian Orthodox Church. They also make up part of the canon of the Oriental Orthodox Church and appear in a translation of Geez. John of Damascus references them as inspired and so does the Symeon the new theologian of the eastern orthodox church, I think someone is not at all informed or intentionally lying about their support in church history, unless you mean Augustinian gnostic "Church" perhaps? I don't really care what a 1600 year old church thinks.
@@calebpearce9334 The ages were made through Jesus the Only Begotten Son. So He is eternal in a sense as he is generated before "the morning star", the first of GOD'S creatures exnihillo
@@calebpearce9334 and one more thing, Irenaeus condemned internal and external beginning less emanation of the Logos even as he affirmed generation
@@calebpearce9334 one more thing for you to consider is if the Father is like a nucleus and the Son a ray and the Spirit the heat, how does Jesus say that He is in the Father? And how is the Father omni present? You see? And also there must be a denial of Psalm 2:7 because there was no sequence and no point before the ages where the Father said anything because it is just a big timelessness. And why then affirm the Son's person is caused if there really isn't an eternal day when GOD was not a Father?
I like to use the analogy of water. Water is H2O and is 1 thing.
Yeah, but that’s more modal ism.
@@Sirach144 Water also has 3 states. Vapor, liquid and solid. Is that modalism too?
Collosians tells us that God created all things by Jesus Christ.
Genesis rings out with the words, "and God SAID".
JOHN 1 proclaims "and the WORD became flesh".
Before he was born in human flesh Jesus was the voice of God.
Did the Father begin to love you only after he created you? No. The Father loved you, and every single human being he has ever created or will ever create, _from eternity._ He doesn't need the mythical "eternally begotten Son" to be an eternally loving Father.
The one true God - the Father - _is_ love. And the greatest demonstration of love is to *lay down one's **_own_** life* for others (John 15:13). The trinitarian version of "God the Father" did not lay down his own life for anyone. So the trinitarian version of "God the Father" is not the one true God.
The one and only true God - God the Father, "The everlasting Father" (Isa.9:6) - is the unipersonal Spirit who "came down from heaven" _without leaving heaven,_ and who manifested _himself_ on earth in genuine human form, as _his own_ Son, so that he could *lay down **_his own_** life* for us, raise _himself_ from the dead, and give eternal life to all who believe on _him._
And the _name_ of this unipersonal, *self-sacrificing* Spirit is revealed to be the name which is above _every_ name: *JESUS.*
*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.
Patripassionist KJV heretic, stop blaspheming the One God, the Father. Paul also says in 1 Timothy 6:15-16 that God (the Father) dwells in unapproachable light and is invisible. It's not even possible to see Him. Yet you, the Sabellian, teach that the Father Himself was touched, died, and was visible in flesh.
'Bercot refutes you with 1 Timothy 6:16 in this very video. 39:11. The Father is unapproachable, and it's not even possible to see Him. Yet you believe the Father is synonymous with Jesus, somehow became a man, and was seen and touched by humans. What patripassionist heresy.
It's not wise to acknowledge importance of a late 2nd century tradition makering theologian crafted doctrine.
Makes no sense to recognize it.
In reality there no such biblical thing as "trinity". It only exists in the mind of the theologian tertullian who was well known as a tradition maker who confessed was void of any scriptural support.
In the old and new testimant the Holy Spirit is called The Spirit of God. Over and over again. Jesus said God's a Spirit.
Jesus explained who the Holy Spirit was. Why is it everybody rejects Jesus all the time and then turns to theologians. Respectfully, that's kinda evil.
The night before His death Jn14, Jesus defined Him, “I AM INSIDE MY FATHER , and YOU ARE INSIDE ME (in christ) , and I AM INSIDE YOU ."
John 14
[11] Believe Me that I am inside the Father and the Father inside Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves.
[15] “If you love Me, keep My commandments. [16] And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever- the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be inside you.
[20] At that day you will know that I am inside My Father, and you inside Me, and I inside you.
Note :the inner mixing of the Father Spirit with Christ Spirit and the hosting temples (our) spirit.
[23] Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. "
[26] But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you "
Jn17 Jesus praying to the Father again reinnerates the mixing of the Spirits
[21] that they all may be one, as You, Father, are inside Me, and I in You; that they also may be one inside Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I inside them, and You inside Me; that they may be made perfect inside one"
Trinity is always going to be false. God is one. Jesus is God. Start there.
Why is Jesus called the son and begotten? How can Jesus be begotten ?
ENORMOUS PROBLEM at 29:50 David appears to deny the humanity of Christ!
Jesus is truly God and truly man. If Christ is not God, his death is insufficient for our sins; but if He is not also man, his death cannot redeem man. A lot of this talk was on John 1 but does David not understand that the word became FLESH? When the old and new testaments mention the “son of man” this is to emphasize that the redeemer is truly a man. Scripture refers to Christ as the second Adam.
1 John 4:2 teaches that Jesus has come in the flesh, and calls those Antichrist who deny this.
I assume this is simply a misspeak on David’s part, but if he is going to give lectures on trinitarianism, he should try to be careful about his terms. If David truly persists in denying the humanity of Christ, he must be avoided.
Does anabaptist perspectives want us to go around teaching people that Jesus is not human?
@@calebpearce9334Like you, Anabaptist Perspectives affirms the humanity of Christ.
The 1963 Mennonite Confession of Faith states, "We believe in Jesus Christ the divine Son of God, who was with the Father from all eternity, who for our salvation took upon Himself human nature... We believe in His full deity and full humanity according to the Scriptures."
The Nicene Creed states, "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ... he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man."
We agree with both of these statements.
@@AnabaptistPerspectivesthank you! I appreciate all your work. I only mention it because I wouldn’t want someone to take a clip like that out of context and use it to paint anabaptism as an unorthodox sect. One of the major values of your channel is for it to be a resource to see into the theology of anabaptism from the inside, so it’s important that we be precise about what we believe.
@@AnabaptistPerspectiveshahaha Kierkegaard and others have spoke wisely when they said Christianity is a creedal religion which Jesus would not recognize. You hold fast to your creeds, as if God cares at all about your creeds.
You are misunderstanding. Bercot clearly believes Jesus is a human today, and will always remain a human. But Jesus has not always been a human. When Jesus appeared to Abraham, He was not yet incarnated as a human.
"How can he (Jesus) be eternal???" You ask.
Godo question. But I have a better one for you- IF Jesus is 'eternal' but can't be considered 'created/made'- HOW do trinitarians believe that they are going to inherit 'eternal life' when none of you is eternal especially like God or the lesser one existing because of Jehovah God -Jesus/Michael??
No understanding of the non-biblical doctrine of the trinity(s0 is true If you don't want to accept the view of Jesus being Michael the arch angel THEN perhaps go learn about the Unitarians (NOT unitarian Universalist).
I "made" a son of my own substance when I begat him. I did not "create" him out of nothing (exnihillo) which is something only GOD can do through Christ. Actually I do understand the Trinity. As Eve proceeds from the substance of Adam by the operation/Instrumentality of the Son, so too the Spirit proceeds from the Substance of the Father alone through the Son. It is very simple but even David is a little off as are all those who affirm the Nicean Anathema