Sorry about the other video that was supposed to post today - the audio got messed up halfway through. I’ll see if I can fix it. For now here’s a much more nerdy and boring video
20:03 "Theology people often use very complex words to explain things that are actually not that complex." And that is why we need apologists, to apologize on their behalf for the excessive use of words that make brain hurty.
I have always had a reformed view of the Trinity, but I will admit, 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 seems a lot like subordinationalism, but I’m also very careful when it comes to my Trinitarian theology. Any advice?
Nerdy Catholic here, thank you for these informative videos. They are great food for thought. Just wanted to say, from the experience of my own catechesis, especially in preparation for Confirmation, the Son's inheritance of the Divine nature was always discussed in the context of understanding the union of Christ's human and divine natures, the former of which submits to the Father as an aspect of the perfect example to humanity of how to follow God and grow ever closer to Him. It was never to deny that the Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal and pre-existent (that would undercut the idea of omniscience). There is also the common association of flexible (not rigidly assigned) roles with each Person of God, being that the Father is associated with authority/law, the Son is associated with redemption/wisdom, and the Holy Spirit is associated with goodness/power. Interestingly, the trinitarian system, where the Persons are interconnected in relationship but all feeding into one continuous Essence makes me think of how God interacts with individuals and more broadly our world falling out of and into states of grace. 1) God tells us what to do, we inevitably fail to live up to divine perfection, so 2) we confess our sins and are forgiven although we are unworthy and 3) if we do truly repent, we will do some form of penance and strive to become better than before. Make of that what you will. Obviously, God's will is not limited to being neatly categorised by this system. It's more like a guideline (a very excellent one, I admit my bias, okay). I also conceptualise these attributes or roles as, shall we say, intrinsically related streams of thought of God that encompass all of existence. Understanding this intelligence/presence is perceiving where/when/how God moves/actuates in relation to His creation. Wordy, I know. So, really, I don't see many points of disagreement, I think that they only turn into something problematic when these nuances about the Trinity feed into supporting other doctrines which I believe to be flawed (or sometimes outright heretical) as a Catholic. At university, I studied linguistics and anthropology, so I totally understand any frustration/confusion when it comes to the Trinity because so often, the conversation about such important philosophical, existential questions turns into a circular, tiring debate about semantics and traditional wording only. Also, I managed to see the flawed Catholic/Orthodox video - looking forward to the re-upload.
Yes, what you said matches my understanding as well. When RedeemedZoomer said that about the Catholic view of the Trinity, I thought, what? that's not what we believe...
Orthodox would absolutely call any of the three divine persons "deity", but we would not call all 3 of them separate deities, there is only one deity, and we can call any one of the three hypostatis as "deity". It's important to understand that "hypostasis" in greek means the equivalent of "personality", but is a separate notion from will. As there is only one will shared between the three hypostatis of the Trinity, with the human will of Jesus following the Incarnation as being separate from His divine will (which is shared among the three). The idea of Auto-theos and Monarchia of the Father is that two of the hypostatis have their eternal, uncreated source, in the Father, which is the Monarch of the Trinity. The original Nicene-Constantinople Creed also cleary states this, as The Son is begotten of the Father (born, not made, True God from True God), and the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father only (and He is Also Lord, giver of Life). Even in terms of the roman-catholic Filioque, if you press roman-catholics with enough theological weight they will eventually admit that the procession of the Spirit via the Son is not eternal, it's a temporal procession, which in greek is actually a different verb than the eternal notion of procession. This is why Jesus says "I will send another". This is why orthodox say that the Son is not the eternal source of the Spirit, only the Father is. This doesn't mean the two other hypostatis are in any way, created, or lesser in essence or nature than the Father, they are only lesser in hypostatic status, or personality. Hierarchy in personality doesn't exclude equality in essence or nature, in this case Divine Essence or Nature. The Son and Spirit are co-eternal with the Father in essence, but they are hypostatically (personally) eternally generated (completely atemporal meaning of the verb) from the Father, they were not "generated in the past", they simply ARE being generated for all eternity from the Father. God the Son a.k.a Jesus Christ cleary says "The Father is greater than I". This is a statement about personality and personal or hypostatic status/authority, NOT about essence, as Jesus cleary also says he shared Glory with the Father from eternity.
@@pop_kiril He might be talking about when Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, “ ‘And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.’ ” ~John 17:5
As a Catholic, going to disagree, because suggesting that the Son and Spirit inherit the Divine Essence on their own accord makes no sense, as there can be only one uncaused cause. Also, "Personhood" is literally defined (at least according to the early Church) as the relationship between the processions and generations of the Divine Essence. Traditionally, the explanation of the existence of the Trinity, is that in the infinite and perfect mind of God, he knows and understands - in a *somewhat* analogous way to the way people think of a WORD or thought in their head - a perfect, complete, and true image of himself, this WORD being the Son. This is why it makes sense to suggest that the Son derives his divinity from the Father, as he is distinguished from the Father as being the one eternally generated - not created - from the Father as his Word. And to your point about Aseity, the personhoods of God are not what depend on Aseity, it is the Divine Essence that carries Aseity, which also happens to exist as three persons.
@@octorock2549 Kind of, the Son can be seen as a perfect reflection or image of the Father, though then again it's virtually impossible to use ordinary language to describe these kinds of things.
@@octorock2549 "Jesus is the manifestation of the Father's understanding of Himself?" This seems to be common to Alexandrians and St. John Damascene. Origen, St. Clement Of Alexandria and St. Didymus The Blind refer to Christ as the Wisdom of the Father iirc.
Please pray for my girlfriend and me. Earlier this year, she stopped using drugs then had a psychotic break for one week. She thinks I am not telling her the truth about what happened that week. We're in love and want to be married and raise a family, but she doesn't trust me now. I've been praying for months but God has not yet chosen to heal her.
I disagree with so much of your theology, but man, I love your mind. You are filled with so much knowledge, and are finding creative ways to share it, and to open conversations like this in your comments. You are a gifted man.
How do you explain statements of Jesus like, “ ‘For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,’ “ ~John 5:26 or “ ‘As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.’ ” ~John 6:57 if He is autotheos?
Bingo! Also, one must not confuse the procession of the Holy Spirit with the sending of the Holy Spirit; they are two different things. The procession deals with the eternal relation between the Father and the Holy Spirit; the sending deals with the temporal relation between the Holy Spirit and sinful humanity. "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John 15:26)
@@bigscarysteve Totally agreed. Jesus says the Father will send the Parakletos is His name, then that He [Jesus] will send Him from the Father, then again that He [Jesus] will send Him. Therefore the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, which we also see in John 20:21-23 when Jesus breathes on them and tells them to receive the Holy Spirit. It seems pretty obvious that this is not speaking of an actual eternal property of the Holy Spirit, rather simply that He will be sent in the fullness of time. And right alongside all of these passages and throughout the gospels Jesus talks about being sent by the Father, the Father who sends Him, how He sends others, etc., etc. The Holy Spirit is only said to proceed, by which it seems to mean an actual property of His being rather than being sent to the disciples in the fullness of time, as you said in John 15:26 where Jesus simply says “who proceeds from the Father” not and the Son. Both of which, the questions of autotheos in the original comment and matters of the Trinity in discussions of the filioque, are resolved perfectly in the Monarchy of the Father in the Eastern Orthodox formulation of the Trinity, as well as all passages where Jesus calls the Father “the only true God” or “My God and your God” or Paul saying “There are many so-called gods and lords, but for us there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (paraphrasing), and all other verses that people like atheists or Muslims use to criticize the Trinity, because the Trinity as they understand it is more like the Calvinist view of the Trinity as presented in this video rather than the Monarchy of the Father (I think RZ called it the simplest view of the Trinity or something, the 3 autotheos persons version)
The interesting part is that Jesus also claims a sort of self-existence when he cleary states "I am that I am" of Exodus, which is also a loose translation of the Tetragrammaton YHWH, this statement is actually the accused blasphemy that prompts His execution. But self-existence of nature/essence is not the same as self-existence of hypostatis. Hypostatic status is related to the energies (works or action in greek) of God, not the essence (ousia) of God. This is why the disctinction between essence and energies is crucial in Orthodoxy, and it's also Scriptural and not purely a development of tradition like some people would claim. I've leave you to re-read all the references to Energeia in the New Testament in contrast with Ousia. The Son, the Spirit and the Father are all self-existing in essence/nature, but cleary there is Scriptural basis for authority and *generation* of hypostatis, generation or "inheritance" of this status to the Son and Spirit from the Father, which is then re-solidified in the Nicene-Constantinapolitan Creed, as i've pointed out in my previous comment.
Yeah, no. Calvinism DOES NOT have the "purest" doctrine of the Trinity, whatever that means... It rather has the form of the Trinity with the most Tritheistic tendencies. Calvin's doctrine of the Son being autotheos denies the Nicene Creed which names the Only-Begotten as "of the essence of the Father, God of God, ..., very God of very God". One cannot believe in the doctrine of the Son and the Spirit being autotheos and simultaneously uphold and revere the Nicene Creed. Aseity is not a positive attribute, it is attributed to God in an apophatic way of negation. But since both the Son and the Spirit are divine, they possess aseity in some way, although they're not autotheos. The Son and the Spirit do not depend on the Father, just because they're not autheos. For the procession of the persons is not any causal dependence, but a relation of origin, like a line proceeding from a point. So, while the line would not exist without the starting point, likewise the Son would not exist without the Father, but this is not a causal dependence. All three hypostases of the Trinity are uncaused. The Father, although He is the principle of origin of the Son, He is not the reason for the existence of the Son, as the procession of the Son could not have not been the case; the Son exists necessarily. Aquinas says in Prima Pars, Q. 33, A.4 that innascibility does not properly belong to the divine essence, innascibility belongs to the person of the Father only. So, as innascibility, when understood to mean "having no principle of origin, no derivation", can be taken as a synonym for aseity, in some sense aseity does not properly belong to the divine essence. To suppose three innascibles, or three authotheos, is to admit three divine natures and thus three gods. That's why, among other things, Calvin had strong Tritheistic tendencies. If the Son does not derive His essence from the Father, He is (God forbid) another god, possessing another essence. Calvinism in general has a problematic Trinitarian theology, Zachary Ursinus even denied that the persons were subsisting relations, but believed that the distinguishing properties of the persons were somehow existing like how different accidents subsist in a common substance.
@@dannyguillaume Well, aseity has to be an essential property, and since the divine essence is one and the same in each hypostasis, all hypostases have to possess aseity. So, the divine essence is "ens a se" or "being from/by itself", since it does not depend on anything outside itself. The Son can only be "ens ab alio" (being from another) with respect to His specific hypostatic existence of being generated by or from the Father. And the Son has to lack personal "aseity", since being a son means being derived from another, namely a father. So, the Son does lack the property of not-being-from-another as a person, but not as possessing the one a se divine essence. One could say He is personally ab alio, while being essentially a se like the Father, just like the Spirit is essentially a se, but personally ab alio.
I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psalm 2:7) For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. (John 5:26) But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. (John 15:26)
I think this is talking more about authority than nature. All three are equally God, the hierarchy comes from their assumed roles. The Son and Spirit set themselves below the Father in authority, though they are all equal in nature. “Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me” John 14:11 Jesus and the Father are co-equal, but Jesus submits himself willingly to the father so that God’s (the full trinity) plan can be fulfilled. They are of one nature and one mind, but they willingly allow hierarchy among themselves .
Though I respect you immensely for the work you're doing to retake the mainline, I have to disagree about subordinationism. You've mentioned in multiple videos that it's a heresy, and I think that claim is very irresponsible. In the first place, I don't understand what you mean when you say "heresy." I thought that a heresy is defined as something you cannot believe and still be saved. Heresy places you outside the Christian family. If the belief is unorthodox but doesn't automatically damn you, we call it heterodox. Defined this way, the distinction is clear and has an important meaning. But you mention something being "not as bad of a heresy" as something else, which doesn't make sense with the word as I understand it. Regarding the doctrine itself, your central argument seems to be that subordinationism forces a separation of the divine will into contrary parts, thus making a sort of soft tritheism. I don't think this is true. I affirm that all the persons share the same will, and that Son submits to the Father, and that the Spirit submits to the Father and the Son. There is nothing contradictory in this. The Father ordains and commands the Son to take various actions, such as in creation, incarnation, and redemption. The Son obediently takes those actions. The Father wills that the Son obey the Father. The Son wills that the Son obey the Father. There is no difference of will, only a difference of person. Further, I think putting such a large emphasis on the difference between Jesus' divine and human will is too close to Nestorianism. I also think your view perpetuates the modern myth that inequality in exercised power necessarily means inequality of essence, dignity, or value. I appreciate your saying that we need more grace on issues of advanced theology, and I'm only being critical to be constructive. As you say, we should argue about what we care about.
So calvinists believe that God is not omnipresent? Hence they deny the real presence? Does God not dwell in us then? Didn't Jesus say He would be with us till the end of the age?
Not an expert on this topic, but we believe in real presence, but in a spiritual sense, because Jesus is physically seated at the right hand of the Father governing this earth. Pretty sure that's the argument.
Calvinists (and all Christians) believe that God, a Spirit, is omnipresent. What the Calvinists are saying is that Jesus' human body cannot be omnipresent, or else He ceases to be human. I agree with that, yet I believe in transubstantiation. Why? Read John chapter 6. It begins with a feeding miracle, where five loaves and two fish feed 5000 people. How were the bread and fish multiplied? By a miracle, of course. It's no accident that this story precedes Christ's telling His followers that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Does that then mean that His body and blood are omnipresent? No! It means that when the priest places the bread and wine on the altar and intones the words of institution, the essence of the bread and wine is transformed into the essence of the body and blood of Christ. The transformed bread and wine on the altar do not fill the whole universe--they do not change in size at all. It is the Calvinist understanding of transubstantiation that is muddled, not the doctrine of transubstantiation itself.
Your videos are very well made and helpful. I also respect that you acknowledge your biases in every video and try to stick to objective truth. We all appreciate the resources to help strengthen our relationship with God and learn where we stand in theology. Thanks for your time and God bless.
Where are you getting your info re: the Orthodox view is the Trinity? From what I’ve read, they are the only Christians (save maybe some members of the ACNA) who still hold to the Cappadocian view of the Trinity, which is the same view as those who wrote the Creed.
At the time that Rome added the filioque to the creed, there were only three significant Christian churches. Rome, and the EO and the OO churches, both of which rejected this new view on the trinity. The reason why nearly every Christian group since that time believes in Rome's view on the trinity is because nearly every Christian group since 1054 has split off from Rome. They simply took this catholic view with them. There aren't many Christian groups who hold to the Cappadocian view of the monarchia of the trinity because the EO and OO churches have had very few schismatic groups in comparison.
@@harrygarris6921 There is also John 15:26, where Christ explicitly states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This seems to be a very simple theological concept and I can’t understand why some add to the scriptures and change the Creed.
@@cassidyanderson3722 Most people can't understand that the procession and the sending are two different things. The procession is the eternal relationship between the Father and the Spirit. The sending is the Spirit's temporal mission to convict humanity of sin. Yet when I explain that to most people, they just can't get it.
@harrygarris6921 1. the Catholics do affirm the monarchy of the Father. 2. Frankly, it was only the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists that split from Catholics. We can't be blamed for the other protestant denominations. They branched out of the original protestants
Subordinationosm isn't that the Son eternally submits to the Father, it says that the Son is ontologically inferior to the Father as opposed to in role alone.
10:26 The Sun was formed 4.6 billion years ago in a cloud of gas and dust called the solar nebula which started to collapse under its own gravity and form a disk. The material then clumped together to become a protostar which would eventually be the Sun.
7:06 To be fair that is literally the analogy used by the St Irenaeus 9:13 I mean, lutherans/catholics/orthodox don't say the Omnipresence is communicated to the human nature of the Son. Being present in more than one place is bi/multilocation, not Omnipresence. We too agree that Omnipotence and Omniscience aren't communicated to the human nature of Christ, btw.
How do you reconcile Trinitarian theology with the Calvinist view of penal substitutionary atonement? In this atonement theory, God the Father despises and rejects God the Son, as God the Son has taken on the sin of the world. If there is a rift between Father and Son, then what does this mean for the co-equal, unending communion of the Holy Trinity?
We Orthodox believe the Son is Hierarchically inferior to the Father but not Ontologically or Substantially. "Thus, the characteristic of the Father’s Person cannot be transferred to the Son or to the Spirit. It is the characteristic of the Father to exist without cause. This does not apply to the Son and the Spirit, for the Son 'went out from the Father.' The scripture states, 'and the Spirit proceeds from God' and 'from the Father.'" - St. Gregory Of Nyssa The Father is the One God and His Son and Spirit are caused but not made by Him nor lacking in Consubstantiality. "in short, if god and father were synonymous terms, the father would be deifier in a sense which would leave the son nothing but a shadow; and the trinity would be nothing more than the union of one god with two creatures." - John Calvin We Orthodox follow the teaching of St. Gregory Of Nyssa believing only One Cause in the Godhead, John Calvin's teaching with relation to the Godhead is blatantly tritheistic and disharmonious with the Christian authors which preceded him like Bp. Peter Lombard and St. Gregory Of Nyssa. "For instance, what avails it to discuss, as Lombard does at length (lib. 1 dist. 9), Whether or not the Father always generates? This idea of continual generation becomes an absurd fiction from the moment it is seen, that from eternity there were three persons in one God." - John Calvin In Eastern Orthodoxy the Father Eternally Generates the latter Two Persons of the Trinity yet all Three remain without beginning but the latter Two are not without cause as the former One of Whom they are the Same God and share the Same Essence which they receive from the Father. Calvin's three cause theory/doctrine continues to provoke needless controversy and confusion and it initially provoked derision from his Lutheran and Roman Catholic opponents, I myself an unconvinced of his orthodoxy.
Zoomer, just wanted to point out that people were making 9/11 jokes in the chat during this video. That's not exactly cool, and you probably don't want stuff like that in your videos.
Loved the video! It was really helpful in understanding the Trinity, but I think you're confusing the actual heresy of subordinationism, which says that Christ + the HS are ontologically inferior, with what guys like Grudem believe. He has said in Systematic Theology that subordinationism is a heresy, but he believes in "ontological equality, but economic subordination." I can't speak for VB, but I know that Doug Wilson doesn't even hold to ESS like Grudem. He said in a sweater vest dialogue w james white that he would side with the position's critics.
I have a serious doubt, can sun or any fire could exist without light and heat? Then how can sun analogy could be arianism because there is no point in time where fire exist without light and heat which perfectly matches with the trinity? I would like to know why you consider it as arianism?
Thought provinking video as usual .I liked your discussion with Jay Dyer especially how you defended penal substitution . Your analogy of going and experiencing jail does not mean that you are necessarily personally guilty of a crime . Calvin also beautifully explains it in his institutes: Yet we do not suggest that God was ever inimical or angry toward [Jesus]. How could he be angry toward his beloved Son, “in whom his heart reposed” [cf. Matt. 3:17]? How could Christ by his intercession appease the Father toward others, if he were himself hateful to God? This is what we are saying: he bore the weight of divine severity, since he was “stricken and afflicted” [cf. Isa. 53:5] by God’s hand, and experienced all the signs of a wrathful and avenging God. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.xvi.11)
I believe in the Trinity, though I do have a question. Mark 13:32 says, “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” How is Jesus truly God if He is not omniscient here?
You should watch Inspiring philosophy video on why Jesus don't know the hour, basically the reason said it doesn't mean Jesus and the Holy Spirit don't know the hour,but But it Jesus was saying according to Jewish marriage tradition
One being with three "personalities" kinda sounds to me like one "intelligent agent" with three avatars. Like, say, imagine you operate on the server in three capacities: The first is as the server console sysop, who's all-powerful, but by default has no physicality within the game world. You also have a moderator account, who can fly round and create items from nothing, can be invisible, can banish people, etc etc... You then also have a normal player account, which you use to take part in the game world as a normal player would. You mine, you build houses with resources you find in the world, you hang out, etc etc. All of those capacities are different from each other, they all do different things, but they all have the same essence, they're all the same being. Problem with that is that, here the avatars could be considered lesser than the being itself, but that's not how God is. This would be more like, what if you *were* the player, you *were* the server console, you *were* the mod, all at the same time.
That’s MODALISM, Patriiiiiick. But seriously though, they cannot be like that or else it makes no sense for Jesus to pray to the Father. They are not simply three manifestations of one that transcends the three who is the fullness of God (which also points to Partialism). Instead, the Jesus and the New Testament affirm over and over that the Father is the one true God and ascribes Him a unique God-ness about Him that is not just incidental to the fact that He “happens” to be the Father. No, the Father eternally begets the Son and eternally processes the Spirit. This is known as the Monarchy of the Father in Trinitarian doctrine. Jesus even says “I live because of the Father” and “As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given the Son to have life in Himself.” So how can Jesus have life in himself the same way the Father does? He explicitly denies that.
There was a nebula, a giant mass of gasses, that was pulled inward by its own gravity and started swirling. Most of it collapsed into the Sun, and the rest formed the planets, dwarf planets, moons, and asteroids.
Only God is eternal. Human beings are creatures. For a human being to be eternal is a contradiction in terms. Jesus Christ became a man 2023 years ago. "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14) Yet the Nicene Creed says, "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made. For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven." The Creed says He was begotten, not made, yet the Bible says He was made flesh. A contradiction? Oh, no! God forbid! What is at question here is called the Hypostatic Union. It is explained in the Chalcedonian Definition. "Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, (1) unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us."
I don't think that God would necessarily be a higher dimensional being I mean like, the concept of dimensions, isn't necessarily a human thing, possibly, but, I think that God would transcend the concept of dimensions. If that makes any sense. God would be the sort of being where... its like, imagine what it would be like to receive and send magnetic waves, as a normal sense. Like sight or sound. You probably can't imagine what that would be like. You can understand the concepts behind it, but the sense itself cannot be comprehended if you don't already know. Just like how, the concept of vision is incomprehensible to people blind since birth. God would be even *beyond* taking that concept to its logical conclusion. God is so incomprehensible that even trying to comprehend their inability to be comprehended would itself be incomplete.
Mathematically, there are infinite dimensions. Because God is omnipresent, He must be present in all of them. So God must be an infinity-dimensional being.
I think there needs to be a hierarchy in the Trinity, I believe they are all truly God of course,but Jesus does not know when he will return only the Father knows that. Furthermore, the Father is the sending out the Holy Spirit to people before the crucifixtion (there is also the argument to be made that Jesus can too, but that just adds to the argument).
Your thinking is muddled. There is no hierarchy in the Trinity. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share a single will, they also share a single mind because mind is a property of the nature, not of the person. Therefore, God the Son knows when Jesus will return because He is omniscient. Just as the man Jesus Christ has a human will, he also has a human mind, and His human mind is not omniscient--hence, He doesn't know in His humanity when He will return. Since God is omniscient, by definition, God cannot learn anything because He already knows it all. But consider the following: "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." (Luke 2:52) This verse proves that Jesus has a human mind in His humanity. Likewise, the Bible shows that Jesus' human will is different than His divine will. "Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42) The sending of the Holy Spirit, which the Bible says is from the Father and the Son, is different from the procession of the Holy Spirit, which is from the Father alone. The sending is a task given the Holy Spirit to convict humanity of sin, holiness, and judgement. Since this is a relation between the Holy Spirit and humanity, it is not a part of the Spirit's divine essence because the Spirit is eternal, but humanity is not. His procession, on the other hand, has to do with the eternal relation between the Father and the Spirit. "But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John 15:26)
@@bigscarysteve This is very well layed out and I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I am not super theologically literate, however in Mark 13:32 it pretty clearly states not even the Son knows the hour which is the divine side of Jesus. "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark 13:32, KJV). I can agree to the Holy Spirit stuff and see that point of view.
What is it with Christians and minecraft? I dont get the appeal. Is it because it's a mainstream family frendly game? It seems like it's a pretty common stereotype.
I’m a member of a Southern Baptist Church and I’m a provisionist like Leighton Flowers. I also hold the spiritual presence view of communion and have a high view of the sacraments. If I was going to join a mainline church which one would be best for me?
@@brnmachoman6480 sacraments are the mark of the new covenant and visible signs of God’s grace. The two Sacraments of the Gospel which were established by Jesus are baptism and the Lord’s supper.
Hey @redeemedzoomer6053 just wanted to let you know that it's super cool that you believe in divine simplicity. It's really more of a fundamental doctrine than people realize, just because of how abstract it can be to talk about.
But none of this is anybody's knowledge. Just thoughts and guesses. None of this is provable? G'Ds revelation? Who dares to claim understanding ? If G'D is selfexisting , then why nothing else is ? Where did Selfexisting go ? Just happened ones and is gone ? Could Person define itself without attributes ? Just by ability to tell itself from anothe itself ? Does G'D see Itself different personally (or in any other way) from us all ? Do we ? And if we do , why ? Why ?
God is our Father, not Jesus, just as Paul tells us: One major revelation that was revealed to me while reading the Word was that Paul always tells us *in the beginning of EVERY chapter* he wrote that *God is our Father, and Jesus is our Lord:* “Grace be to you and peace from *God the Father, AND from our Lord Jesus Christ,”* I see why some people like to discredit Paul, for he spoke the true nature of God. Chosen by the Father to be one of His most prolific writers, despite his sinful past, Paul makes absolutely certain to separate God the Father from Jesus. Jesus is not God, he is the Son of God. The only God is God the Father, as Paul tried to tell us innumerable times: Romans 1:7-8 1 Corinthians 1:3-4 2 Corinthians 1:2-3 Galatians 1:3-4 Ephesians 1:2-3 Philippians 1:2 Colossians 1:2-3 1 Thessalonians 1:1 2 Thessalonians 1:2 1 Timothy 1:2 2 Timothy 1:2 Titus 1:4 Philemon 1:3
John 1:1 John 5:23 John 8:58 What Paul said doesn’t discredit the Divinity of Christ. No one claims that Jesus is our father. The Father is our creator, meaning we are his children and he is our father. You also don’t seem to realize that God the Father was also known as the Lord to the Jews at the time. If Jesus is the Lord as well, he is God
@@KolchaksGhost No, if Jesus is Lord that doesn’t mean he is Hod. Case in point the clear separation here: "But to us there is but *ONE God, the Father,* of whom are all things, and we IN him; and *ONE Lord Jesus Christ,* by whom are all things, and we BY him" (1 Corinthians 8:6) The Father works in and through His Son, which is our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is not God, only the Father can hold that title. Of course Jesus was before Abraham…he created all things using the power given to him by his Father: "Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that *he [the Father] is your God:"* (John 8:54).
@@Shawn-q3x both the terms “God” and “Lord” have divine connotations. “Lord” absolutely was used in reference to God by the Jews. If that verse means Jesus can’t be called God, it would mean that the Father could not be called Lord, when that obviously wasn’t the case. Paul is separating them because they are separate persons, but they are both God. You seem to not understand the significance of John 8:58. Jesus claims to be “I am”. What did God say his name was to Moses? Why was this the moment that the enemies of Christ attempted to stone him? It was blasphemy to claim such a thing. He is not just claiming to have existed before Abraham, he is claiming to be self-existent before Abraham. Something which would only be possible if he were divine. You’re also ignoring the other two verses I cited. The one you have cited does not suggest Jesus is not divine. Furthermore, if you believe Jesus is the creator, how could he not be God? Who does the very first line of the Torah say created the Heavens and the Earth?
Sorry about the other video that was supposed to post today - the audio got messed up halfway through. I’ll see if I can fix it. For now here’s a much more nerdy and boring video
So it wasn’t my phone. Ok
Something something Thomas
Nerdy is why we’re here Zoomer!
maybe they're converting because the Eucharist is really Jesus Christ
This video is gonna make me Catholic and Orthodox
20:03 "Theology people often use very complex words to explain things that are actually not that complex." And that is why we need apologists, to apologize on their behalf for the excessive use of words that make brain hurty.
I have always had a reformed view of the Trinity, but I will admit, 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 seems a lot like subordinationalism, but I’m also very careful when it comes to my Trinitarian theology. Any advice?
Jesus depends on the Father for His ability to exist without depending on anyone or anything else (including the Father)
Have you listened to Dr. Beau Branson refute this? Lol
Redeemed Zoomer what do you think about the ethics of eating meat?
How do you join the server?
Why is the Minecraft chat more interesting then the actual topic of the video??
Drama!
"The woke church is engulfed in lava."
...
"Good."
@@paulsampson6286 😂😂
Nerdy Catholic here, thank you for these informative videos. They are great food for thought.
Just wanted to say, from the experience of my own catechesis, especially in preparation for Confirmation, the Son's inheritance of the Divine nature was always discussed in the context of understanding the union of Christ's human and divine natures, the former of which submits to the Father as an aspect of the perfect example to humanity of how to follow God and grow ever closer to Him. It was never to deny that the Son and Holy Spirit are co-equal and pre-existent (that would undercut the idea of omniscience). There is also the common association of flexible (not rigidly assigned) roles with each Person of God, being that the Father is associated with authority/law, the Son is associated with redemption/wisdom, and the Holy Spirit is associated with goodness/power.
Interestingly, the trinitarian system, where the Persons are interconnected in relationship but all feeding into one continuous Essence makes me think of how God interacts with individuals and more broadly our world falling out of and into states of grace. 1) God tells us what to do, we inevitably fail to live up to divine perfection, so 2) we confess our sins and are forgiven although we are unworthy and 3) if we do truly repent, we will do some form of penance and strive to become better than before. Make of that what you will.
Obviously, God's will is not limited to being neatly categorised by this system. It's more like a guideline (a very excellent one, I admit my bias, okay). I also conceptualise these attributes or roles as, shall we say, intrinsically related streams of thought of God that encompass all of existence. Understanding this intelligence/presence is perceiving where/when/how God moves/actuates in relation to His creation. Wordy, I know.
So, really, I don't see many points of disagreement, I think that they only turn into something problematic when these nuances about the Trinity feed into supporting other doctrines which I believe to be flawed (or sometimes outright heretical) as a Catholic.
At university, I studied linguistics and anthropology, so I totally understand any frustration/confusion when it comes to the Trinity because so often, the conversation about such important philosophical, existential questions turns into a circular, tiring debate about semantics and traditional wording only.
Also, I managed to see the flawed Catholic/Orthodox video - looking forward to the re-upload.
What video
Yes, what you said matches my understanding as well. When RedeemedZoomer said that about the Catholic view of the Trinity, I thought, what? that's not what we believe...
Only real fans saw the catholic/orthodox video
I saw it lol
saw it too
I saw half of it
Real
Tfw I missed it
Orthodox would absolutely call any of the three divine persons "deity", but we would not call all 3 of them separate deities, there is only one deity, and we can call any one of the three hypostatis as "deity". It's important to understand that "hypostasis" in greek means the equivalent of "personality", but is a separate notion from will. As there is only one will shared between the three hypostatis of the Trinity, with the human will of Jesus following the Incarnation as being separate from His divine will (which is shared among the three).
The idea of Auto-theos and Monarchia of the Father is that two of the hypostatis have their eternal, uncreated source, in the Father, which is the Monarch of the Trinity. The original Nicene-Constantinople Creed also cleary states this, as The Son is begotten of the Father (born, not made, True God from True God), and the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father only (and He is Also Lord, giver of Life). Even in terms of the roman-catholic Filioque, if you press roman-catholics with enough theological weight they will eventually admit that the procession of the Spirit via the Son is not eternal, it's a temporal procession, which in greek is actually a different verb than the eternal notion of procession. This is why Jesus says "I will send another". This is why orthodox say that the Son is not the eternal source of the Spirit, only the Father is.
This doesn't mean the two other hypostatis are in any way, created, or lesser in essence or nature than the Father, they are only lesser in hypostatic status, or personality. Hierarchy in personality doesn't exclude equality in essence or nature, in this case Divine Essence or Nature.
The Son and Spirit are co-eternal with the Father in essence, but they are hypostatically (personally) eternally generated (completely atemporal meaning of the verb) from the Father, they were not "generated in the past", they simply ARE being generated for all eternity from the Father.
God the Son a.k.a Jesus Christ cleary says "The Father is greater than I". This is a statement about personality and personal or hypostatic status/authority, NOT about essence, as Jesus cleary also says he shared Glory with the Father from eternity.
Well said, brother!
Can you tell me in which verse Jesus claimed to share eternal Glory with The Father?
@@pop_kiril
He might be talking about when Jesus prays in the Garden of Gethsemane,
“ ‘And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.’ ”
~John 17:5
@@littlefishbigmountain Thanks!
As a Catholic, going to disagree, because suggesting that the Son and Spirit inherit the Divine Essence on their own accord makes no sense, as there can be only one uncaused cause. Also, "Personhood" is literally defined (at least according to the early Church) as the relationship between the processions and generations of the Divine Essence.
Traditionally, the explanation of the existence of the Trinity, is that in the infinite and perfect mind of God, he knows and understands - in a *somewhat* analogous way to the way people think of a WORD or thought in their head - a perfect, complete, and true image of himself, this WORD being the Son. This is why it makes sense to suggest that the Son derives his divinity from the Father, as he is distinguished from the Father as being the one eternally generated - not created - from the Father as his Word.
And to your point about Aseity, the personhoods of God are not what depend on Aseity, it is the Divine Essence that carries Aseity, which also happens to exist as three persons.
simple and based Catholic theology
Thank you for this. His description of the Catholic view wasn’t sitting quite right with me.
So, jesus is the manifestation of the father's understanding of himself?
@@octorock2549 Kind of, the Son can be seen as a perfect reflection or image of the Father, though then again it's virtually impossible to use ordinary language to describe these kinds of things.
@@octorock2549 "Jesus is the manifestation of the Father's understanding of Himself?" This seems to be common to Alexandrians and St. John Damascene. Origen, St. Clement Of Alexandria and St. Didymus The Blind refer to Christ as the Wisdom of the Father iirc.
Dang can’t wait for the video about Catholic/Orthodox!
@ashleyargall8791 so true
What video
Please pray for my girlfriend and me. Earlier this year, she stopped using drugs then had a psychotic break for one week. She thinks I am not telling her the truth about what happened that week. We're in love and want to be married and raise a family, but she doesn't trust me now. I've been praying for months but God has not yet chosen to heal her.
Even with the faith of a mustard seed you can move mountains; the spirit that raised jesus from the dead is in you
20:48 As a Baptist I think I should start keeping track of all of your favorite Baptist preachers
I disagree with so much of your theology, but man, I love your mind. You are filled with so much knowledge, and are finding creative ways to share it, and to open conversations like this in your comments. You are a gifted man.
How do you explain statements of Jesus like,
“ ‘For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted the Son to have life in Himself,’ “
~John 5:26
or
“ ‘As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me.’ ”
~John 6:57
if He is autotheos?
Bingo!
Also, one must not confuse the procession of the Holy Spirit with the sending of the Holy Spirit; they are two different things. The procession deals with the eternal relation between the Father and the Holy Spirit; the sending deals with the temporal relation between the Holy Spirit and sinful humanity.
"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John 15:26)
@@bigscarysteve
Totally agreed. Jesus says the Father will send the Parakletos is His name, then that He [Jesus] will send Him from the Father, then again that He [Jesus] will send Him. Therefore the Holy Spirit is sent by the Father and the Son, which we also see in John 20:21-23 when Jesus breathes on them and tells them to receive the Holy Spirit. It seems pretty obvious that this is not speaking of an actual eternal property of the Holy Spirit, rather simply that He will be sent in the fullness of time. And right alongside all of these passages and throughout the gospels Jesus talks about being sent by the Father, the Father who sends Him, how He sends others, etc., etc.
The Holy Spirit is only said to proceed, by which it seems to mean an actual property of His being rather than being sent to the disciples in the fullness of time, as you said in John 15:26 where Jesus simply says “who proceeds from the Father” not and the Son.
Both of which, the questions of autotheos in the original comment and matters of the Trinity in discussions of the filioque, are resolved perfectly in the Monarchy of the Father in the Eastern Orthodox formulation of the Trinity, as well as all passages where Jesus calls the Father “the only true God” or “My God and your God” or Paul saying “There are many so-called gods and lords, but for us there is one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (paraphrasing), and all other verses that people like atheists or Muslims use to criticize the Trinity, because the Trinity as they understand it is more like the Calvinist view of the Trinity as presented in this video rather than the Monarchy of the Father (I think RZ called it the simplest view of the Trinity or something, the 3 autotheos persons version)
i want the catholic orthodox video
The interesting part is that Jesus also claims a sort of self-existence when he cleary states "I am that I am" of Exodus, which is also a loose translation of the Tetragrammaton YHWH, this statement is actually the accused blasphemy that prompts His execution.
But self-existence of nature/essence is not the same as self-existence of hypostatis. Hypostatic status is related to the energies (works or action in greek) of God, not the essence (ousia) of God. This is why the disctinction between essence and energies is crucial in Orthodoxy, and it's also Scriptural and not purely a development of tradition like some people would claim. I've leave you to re-read all the references to Energeia in the New Testament in contrast with Ousia.
The Son, the Spirit and the Father are all self-existing in essence/nature, but cleary there is Scriptural basis for authority and *generation* of hypostatis, generation or "inheritance" of this status to the Son and Spirit from the Father, which is then re-solidified in the Nicene-Constantinapolitan Creed, as i've pointed out in my previous comment.
Yeah, no. Calvinism DOES NOT have the "purest" doctrine of the Trinity, whatever that means... It rather has the form of the Trinity with the most Tritheistic tendencies. Calvin's doctrine of the Son being autotheos denies the Nicene Creed which names the Only-Begotten as "of the essence of the Father, God of God, ..., very God of very God". One cannot believe in the doctrine of the Son and the Spirit being autotheos and simultaneously uphold and revere the Nicene Creed. Aseity is not a positive attribute, it is attributed to God in an apophatic way of negation. But since both the Son and the Spirit are divine, they possess aseity in some way, although they're not autotheos. The Son and the Spirit do not depend on the Father, just because they're not autheos. For the procession of the persons is not any causal dependence, but a relation of origin, like a line proceeding from a point. So, while the line would not exist without the starting point, likewise the Son would not exist without the Father, but this is not a causal dependence. All three hypostases of the Trinity are uncaused. The Father, although He is the principle of origin of the Son, He is not the reason for the existence of the Son, as the procession of the Son could not have not been the case; the Son exists necessarily. Aquinas says in Prima Pars, Q. 33, A.4 that innascibility does not properly belong to the divine essence, innascibility belongs to the person of the Father only. So, as innascibility, when understood to mean "having no principle of origin, no derivation", can be taken as a synonym for aseity, in some sense aseity does not properly belong to the divine essence. To suppose three innascibles, or three authotheos, is to admit three divine natures and thus three gods. That's why, among other things, Calvin had strong Tritheistic tendencies. If the Son does not derive His essence from the Father, He is (God forbid) another god, possessing another essence. Calvinism in general has a problematic Trinitarian theology, Zachary Ursinus even denied that the persons were subsisting relations, but believed that the distinguishing properties of the persons were somehow existing like how different accidents subsist in a common substance.
Straight fire 🔥
How do you explain the Son having the same attributes of aseity if his essence is derived from the father?
@@dannyguillaume Well, aseity has to be an essential property, and since the divine essence is one and the same in each hypostasis, all hypostases have to possess aseity. So, the divine essence is "ens a se" or "being from/by itself", since it does not depend on anything outside itself. The Son can only be "ens ab alio" (being from another) with respect to His specific hypostatic existence of being generated by or from the Father. And the Son has to lack personal "aseity", since being a son means being derived from another, namely a father. So, the Son does lack the property of not-being-from-another as a person, but not as possessing the one a se divine essence. One could say He is personally ab alio, while being essentially a se like the Father, just like the Spirit is essentially a se, but personally ab alio.
I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. (Psalm 2:7)
For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. (John 5:26)
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. (John 15:26)
I think this is talking more about authority than nature. All three are equally God, the hierarchy comes from their assumed roles. The Son and Spirit set themselves below the Father in authority, though they are all equal in nature.
“Believe me, that I am in the Father and the Father is in me” John 14:11
Jesus and the Father are co-equal, but Jesus submits himself willingly to the father so that God’s (the full trinity) plan can be fulfilled. They are of one nature and one mind, but they willingly allow hierarchy among themselves .
Comment for algorithm, Jesus is King!! ✝️
She's a Trans Queen 😍
Jesus is king
Though I respect you immensely for the work you're doing to retake the mainline, I have to disagree about subordinationism. You've mentioned in multiple videos that it's a heresy, and I think that claim is very irresponsible.
In the first place, I don't understand what you mean when you say "heresy." I thought that a heresy is defined as something you cannot believe and still be saved. Heresy places you outside the Christian family. If the belief is unorthodox but doesn't automatically damn you, we call it heterodox. Defined this way, the distinction is clear and has an important meaning. But you mention something being "not as bad of a heresy" as something else, which doesn't make sense with the word as I understand it.
Regarding the doctrine itself, your central argument seems to be that subordinationism forces a separation of the divine will into contrary parts, thus making a sort of soft tritheism. I don't think this is true. I affirm that all the persons share the same will, and that Son submits to the Father, and that the Spirit submits to the Father and the Son.
There is nothing contradictory in this. The Father ordains and commands the Son to take various actions, such as in creation, incarnation, and redemption. The Son obediently takes those actions. The Father wills that the Son obey the Father. The Son wills that the Son obey the Father. There is no difference of will, only a difference of person.
Further, I think putting such a large emphasis on the difference between Jesus' divine and human will is too close to Nestorianism. I also think your view perpetuates the modern myth that inequality in exercised power necessarily means inequality of essence, dignity, or value.
I appreciate your saying that we need more grace on issues of advanced theology, and I'm only being critical to be constructive. As you say, we should argue about what we care about.
When is zoomer going to find out about scaffolding?
Scaffolding is sovlless modernism infesting Minecraft
Babe wake up new kingdomcraft episode just dropped
Idk if that's an accurate way to describe the Orthodox position on the trintity
God bless redeemedzoomer
What happened to the other video? (Why is everyone becoming Orthodox/Catholic?)
So calvinists believe that God is not omnipresent? Hence they deny the real presence? Does God not dwell in us then? Didn't Jesus say He would be with us till the end of the age?
Not an expert on this topic, but we believe in real presence, but in a spiritual sense, because Jesus is physically seated at the right hand of the Father governing this earth. Pretty sure that's the argument.
Calvinists (and all Christians) believe that God, a Spirit, is omnipresent. What the Calvinists are saying is that Jesus' human body cannot be omnipresent, or else He ceases to be human. I agree with that, yet I believe in transubstantiation. Why? Read John chapter 6. It begins with a feeding miracle, where five loaves and two fish feed 5000 people. How were the bread and fish multiplied? By a miracle, of course. It's no accident that this story precedes Christ's telling His followers that they must eat His flesh and drink His blood. Does that then mean that His body and blood are omnipresent? No! It means that when the priest places the bread and wine on the altar and intones the words of institution, the essence of the bread and wine is transformed into the essence of the body and blood of Christ. The transformed bread and wine on the altar do not fill the whole universe--they do not change in size at all. It is the Calvinist understanding of transubstantiation that is muddled, not the doctrine of transubstantiation itself.
How is Jesus still fully human and fully divine, rather than just fully divine?
*Virgin birth*
Because of the incarnation.
would you consider also posting your videos on another platform? I have stopped using youtube since they want me to disable my adblocker
I always imagined the trinity worked something like a hive mind.
That Muslim kid in the chat was kinda cringe
How so?
@@flameguy3416 just everything he said lol about Mecca and the whole “ you will not separate Islam into sects” lol like bro it already is
Timestamp please
@@WarriorcatGerda throughout the whole video he was in the chat
Your videos are very well made and helpful. I also respect that you acknowledge your biases in every video and try to stick to objective truth. We all appreciate the resources to help strengthen our relationship with God and learn where we stand in theology. Thanks for your time and God bless.
Idk the Calvinist view is kinda goofy imo.
Do you check your instagram messages?
Yo bro, did you just delete your video?
It was just a prank
No the audio just was messed up so I had to take it down to fix
Definitely
@@redeemedzoomer6053I see
@@redeemedzoomer6053Are you going to put it back up today if you can get it fixed in time? Really eager to see it!
The chat on this one is pretty wild.
Thanks for this. Gives me a lot to think about
9:17 That’s denying of bible.
Where are you getting your info re: the Orthodox view is the Trinity? From what I’ve read, they are the only Christians (save maybe some members of the ACNA) who still hold to the Cappadocian view of the Trinity, which is the same view as those who wrote the Creed.
At the time that Rome added the filioque to the creed, there were only three significant Christian churches. Rome, and the EO and the OO churches, both of which rejected this new view on the trinity. The reason why nearly every Christian group since that time believes in Rome's view on the trinity is because nearly every Christian group since 1054 has split off from Rome. They simply took this catholic view with them. There aren't many Christian groups who hold to the Cappadocian view of the monarchia of the trinity because the EO and OO churches have had very few schismatic groups in comparison.
@@harrygarris6921 There is also John 15:26, where Christ explicitly states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. This seems to be a very simple theological concept and I can’t understand why some add to the scriptures and change the Creed.
@@harrygarris6921 The Mennonites removed the filioque from the Creed.
@@cassidyanderson3722 Most people can't understand that the procession and the sending are two different things. The procession is the eternal relationship between the Father and the Spirit. The sending is the Spirit's temporal mission to convict humanity of sin. Yet when I explain that to most people, they just can't get it.
@harrygarris6921 1. the Catholics do affirm the monarchy of the Father. 2. Frankly, it was only the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists that split from Catholics. We can't be blamed for the other protestant denominations. They branched out of the original protestants
Jesus was always divine
Jesus has always been divine.
Subordinationosm isn't that the Son eternally submits to the Father, it says that the Son is ontologically inferior to the Father as opposed to in role alone.
10:26 The Sun was formed 4.6 billion years ago in a cloud of gas and dust called the solar nebula which started to collapse under its own gravity and form a disk. The material then clumped together to become a protostar which would eventually be the Sun.
Redeemed Zoomer: "How did the Sun form?"
A. Gravitational forces.
B. Some gases condensed.
C. It formed in a nebula.
Me: "All of the above!"😉🤓😎
7:06 To be fair that is literally the analogy used by the St Irenaeus
9:13 I mean, lutherans/catholics/orthodox don't say the Omnipresence is communicated to the human nature of the Son. Being present in more than one place is bi/multilocation, not Omnipresence. We too agree that Omnipotence and Omniscience aren't communicated to the human nature of Christ, btw.
How do you reconcile Trinitarian theology with the Calvinist view of penal substitutionary atonement? In this atonement theory, God the Father despises and rejects God the Son, as God the Son has taken on the sin of the world. If there is a rift between Father and Son, then what does this mean for the co-equal, unending communion of the Holy Trinity?
How about apologetics against command attacks from other religions? Muslims, Judaism, Atheism, etc.
Amen ❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉😊😊😊
What’s the music you play in this video? I want to listen.
How do I get on the Minecraft server
Also, these discussions are the best because they are nerdy and fun.
☦️
Amen and God bless
So Calvinist separate person and nature? So the father causes the son, a divine person without the divine essence?
ayo i have a house on the server from 6 months back but im not whitelisted for some reason
3:48 I do think Orthodox consider the Father to be higher than either the Son or the Holy Spirt, but I'm not certain about that
We Orthodox believe the Son is Hierarchically inferior to the Father but not Ontologically or Substantially.
"Thus, the characteristic of the Father’s Person cannot be transferred to the Son or to the Spirit. It is the characteristic of the Father to exist without cause. This does not apply to the Son and the Spirit, for the Son 'went out from the Father.' The scripture states, 'and the Spirit proceeds from God' and 'from the Father.'" - St. Gregory Of Nyssa
The Father is the One God and His Son and Spirit are caused but not made by Him nor lacking in Consubstantiality.
"in short, if god and father were synonymous terms, the father would be deifier in a sense which would leave the son nothing but a shadow; and the trinity would be nothing more than the union of one god with two creatures." - John Calvin
We Orthodox follow the teaching of St. Gregory Of Nyssa believing only One Cause in the Godhead, John Calvin's teaching with relation to the Godhead is blatantly tritheistic and disharmonious with the Christian authors which preceded him like Bp. Peter Lombard and St. Gregory Of Nyssa.
"For instance, what avails it to discuss, as Lombard does at length (lib. 1 dist. 9), Whether or not the Father always generates? This idea of continual generation becomes an absurd fiction from the moment it is seen, that from eternity there were three persons in one God." - John Calvin
In Eastern Orthodoxy the Father Eternally Generates the latter Two Persons of the Trinity yet all Three remain without beginning but the latter Two are not without cause as the former One of Whom they are the Same God and share the Same Essence which they receive from the Father. Calvin's three cause theory/doctrine continues to provoke needless controversy and confusion and it initially provoked derision from his Lutheran and Roman Catholic opponents, I myself an unconvinced of his orthodoxy.
What’s the server ip? I have some nice builds I can share
Zoomer, just wanted to point out that people were making 9/11 jokes in the chat during this video. That's not exactly cool, and you probably don't want stuff like that in your videos.
Loved the video! It was really helpful in understanding the Trinity, but I think you're confusing the actual heresy of subordinationism, which says that Christ + the HS are ontologically inferior, with what guys like Grudem believe. He has said in Systematic Theology that subordinationism is a heresy, but he believes in "ontological equality, but economic subordination." I can't speak for VB, but I know that Doug Wilson doesn't even hold to ESS like Grudem. He said in a sweater vest dialogue w james white that he would side with the position's critics.
I have a serious doubt, can sun or any fire could exist without light and heat?
Then how can sun analogy could be arianism because there is no point in time where fire exist without light and heat which perfectly matches with the trinity?
I would like to know why you consider it as arianism?
Thought provinking video as usual .I liked your discussion with Jay Dyer especially how you defended penal substitution . Your analogy of going and experiencing jail does not mean that you are necessarily personally guilty of a crime .
Calvin also beautifully explains it in his institutes:
Yet we do not suggest that God was ever inimical or angry toward [Jesus]. How could he be angry toward his beloved Son, “in whom his heart reposed” [cf. Matt. 3:17]? How could Christ by his intercession appease the Father toward others, if he were himself hateful to God? This is what we are saying: he bore the weight of divine severity, since he was “stricken and afflicted” [cf. Isa. 53:5] by God’s hand, and experienced all the signs of a wrathful and avenging God. (Institutes of the Christian Religion, II.xvi.11)
W video
I believe in the Trinity, though I do have a question. Mark 13:32 says, “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.” How is Jesus truly God if He is not omniscient here?
You should watch Inspiring philosophy video on why Jesus don't know the hour, basically the reason said it doesn't mean Jesus and the Holy Spirit don't know the hour,but
But it Jesus was saying according to Jewish marriage tradition
He is also human remember that. So He was appealing to His human nature
Which was the name of the song that played during the meme with the dog
What do you think about lost bible material like the Q source and whatnot?
God bless ❤🙏 Walk with Jesus and away from sin
One being with three "personalities" kinda sounds to me like one "intelligent agent" with three avatars.
Like, say, imagine you operate on the server in three capacities:
The first is as the server console sysop, who's all-powerful, but by default has no physicality within the game world.
You also have a moderator account, who can fly round and create items from nothing, can be invisible, can banish people, etc etc...
You then also have a normal player account, which you use to take part in the game world as a normal player would. You mine, you build houses with resources you find in the world, you hang out, etc etc.
All of those capacities are different from each other, they all do different things, but they all have the same essence, they're all the same being.
Problem with that is that, here the avatars could be considered lesser than the being itself, but that's not how God is.
This would be more like, what if you *were* the player, you *were* the server console, you *were* the mod, all at the same time.
That’s MODALISM, Patriiiiiick.
But seriously though, they cannot be like that or else it makes no sense for Jesus to pray to the Father. They are not simply three manifestations of one that transcends the three who is the fullness of God (which also points to Partialism).
Instead, the Jesus and the New Testament affirm over and over that the Father is the one true God and ascribes Him a unique God-ness about Him that is not just incidental to the fact that He “happens” to be the Father. No, the Father eternally begets the Son and eternally processes the Spirit. This is known as the Monarchy of the Father in Trinitarian doctrine.
Jesus even says “I live because of the Father” and “As the Father has life in Himself, so He has given the Son to have life in Himself.” So how can Jesus have life in himself the same way the Father does? He explicitly denies that.
Spare me.
What's the server adress for the minecraft realm?
There was a nebula, a giant mass of gasses, that was pulled inward by its own gravity and started swirling. Most of it collapsed into the Sun, and the rest formed the planets, dwarf planets, moons, and asteroids.
What
Gen. 1:1
@@jorgedepow I was explaining the origin of the Sun, which Zoomer mentioned but wasn't sure about.
@@catfinity8799 cool👍
👍
Jesus is the Eternal human being. The Father is without form. Jesus is an icon of the Father, as we are icons of Christ.
Only God is eternal. Human beings are creatures. For a human being to be eternal is a contradiction in terms. Jesus Christ became a man 2023 years ago.
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." (John 1:14)
Yet the Nicene Creed says, "I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven."
The Creed says He was begotten, not made, yet the Bible says He was made flesh. A contradiction? Oh, no! God forbid! What is at question here is called the Hypostatic Union. It is explained in the Chalcedonian Definition.
"Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, (1) unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us."
What do you think of the statement God is a 4th dimensional or higher being?
I don't think that God would necessarily be a higher dimensional being
I mean like, the concept of dimensions, isn't necessarily a human thing, possibly, but, I think that God would transcend the concept of dimensions. If that makes any sense.
God would be the sort of being where...
its like, imagine what it would be like to receive and send magnetic waves, as a normal sense. Like sight or sound.
You probably can't imagine what that would be like. You can understand the concepts behind it, but the sense itself cannot be comprehended if you don't already know. Just like how, the concept of vision is incomprehensible to people blind since birth.
God would be even *beyond* taking that concept to its logical conclusion.
God is so incomprehensible that even trying to comprehend their inability to be comprehended would itself be incomplete.
Mathematically, there are infinite dimensions. Because God is omnipresent, He must be present in all of them. So God must be an infinity-dimensional being.
@@kargaroc386I think God is zero-dimensional(I prefer calling it pre-dimensional). He is spaceless and timeless.
I think there needs to be a hierarchy in the Trinity, I believe they are all truly God of course,but Jesus does not know when he will return only the Father knows that. Furthermore, the Father is the sending out the Holy Spirit to people before the crucifixtion (there is also the argument to be made that Jesus can too, but that just adds to the argument).
Your thinking is muddled. There is no hierarchy in the Trinity. Just as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share a single will, they also share a single mind because mind is a property of the nature, not of the person. Therefore, God the Son knows when Jesus will return because He is omniscient. Just as the man Jesus Christ has a human will, he also has a human mind, and His human mind is not omniscient--hence, He doesn't know in His humanity when He will return.
Since God is omniscient, by definition, God cannot learn anything because He already knows it all. But consider the following:
"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." (Luke 2:52)
This verse proves that Jesus has a human mind in His humanity. Likewise, the Bible shows that Jesus' human will is different than His divine will.
"Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done." (Luke 22:42)
The sending of the Holy Spirit, which the Bible says is from the Father and the Son, is different from the procession of the Holy Spirit, which is from the Father alone. The sending is a task given the Holy Spirit to convict humanity of sin, holiness, and judgement. Since this is a relation between the Holy Spirit and humanity, it is not a part of the Spirit's divine essence because the Spirit is eternal, but humanity is not. His procession, on the other hand, has to do with the eternal relation between the Father and the Spirit.
"But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me." (John 15:26)
@@bigscarysteve This is very well layed out and I appreciate you taking the time to respond to me. I am not super theologically literate, however in Mark 13:32 it pretty clearly states not even the Son knows the hour which is the divine side of Jesus. "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mark 13:32, KJV).
I can agree to the Holy Spirit stuff and see that point of view.
Well this 27 minutes went by quickly
How does you view of Autotheos affect the Filioque debate?
It makes me strongly affirm the Filioque
Thinking of a bedrock server for those on Console?
thank you for this video!
What is it with Christians and minecraft? I dont get the appeal. Is it because it's a mainstream family frendly game? It seems like it's a pretty common stereotype.
great video.
I’m a member of a Southern Baptist Church and I’m a provisionist like Leighton Flowers. I also hold the spiritual presence view of communion and have a high view of the sacraments. If I was going to join a mainline church which one would be best for me?
I'm a Christian. Just asking what is sacraments/what does sacraments mean?
@@brnmachoman6480 sacraments are the mark of the new covenant and visible signs of God’s grace. The two Sacraments of the Gospel which were established by Jesus are baptism and the Lord’s supper.
Thanks
In one year how many times should we do the lord supper Forrestlong7898?
@@forrestlong7898 How many times in one year should we do the lord supper/ how many times per month?
Hey @redeemedzoomer6053 just wanted to let you know that it's super cool that you believe in divine simplicity. It's really more of a fundamental doctrine than people realize, just because of how abstract it can be to talk about.
Thank you! I wish more people believed in it
+
You should look into Matthew Barrett he's a based Baptist when it comes to the trinity.
ZOOOOOOMMMEEERRRR!!
Hello
I think I am first again.
But none of this is anybody's knowledge. Just thoughts and guesses. None of this is provable?
G'Ds revelation? Who dares to claim understanding ?
If G'D is selfexisting , then why nothing else is ? Where did Selfexisting go ? Just happened ones and is gone ?
Could Person define itself without attributes ? Just by ability to tell itself from anothe itself ? Does G'D see Itself different personally (or in any other way) from us all ? Do we ? And if we do , why ? Why ?
Judaizer spotted
Opinion discarded
God is our Father, not Jesus, just as Paul tells us:
One major revelation that was revealed to me while reading the Word was that Paul always tells us *in the beginning of EVERY chapter* he wrote that *God is our Father, and Jesus is our Lord:*
“Grace be to you and peace from *God the Father, AND from our Lord Jesus Christ,”*
I see why some people like to discredit Paul, for he spoke the true nature of God. Chosen by the Father to be one of His most prolific writers, despite his sinful past, Paul makes absolutely certain to separate God the Father from Jesus. Jesus is not God, he is the Son of God. The only God is God the Father, as Paul tried to tell us innumerable times:
Romans 1:7-8
1 Corinthians 1:3-4
2 Corinthians 1:2-3
Galatians 1:3-4
Ephesians 1:2-3
Philippians 1:2
Colossians 1:2-3
1 Thessalonians 1:1
2 Thessalonians 1:2
1 Timothy 1:2
2 Timothy 1:2
Titus 1:4
Philemon 1:3
John 1:1
John 5:23
John 8:58
What Paul said doesn’t discredit the Divinity of Christ. No one claims that Jesus is our father. The Father is our creator, meaning we are his children and he is our father. You also don’t seem to realize that God the Father was also known as the Lord to the Jews at the time. If Jesus is the Lord as well, he is God
@@KolchaksGhost No, if Jesus is Lord that doesn’t mean he is Hod. Case in point the clear separation here:
"But to us there is but *ONE God, the Father,* of whom are all things, and we IN him; and *ONE Lord Jesus Christ,* by whom are all things, and we BY him" (1 Corinthians 8:6)
The Father works in and through His Son, which is our Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus is not God, only the Father can hold that title.
Of course Jesus was before Abraham…he created all things using the power given to him by his Father:
"Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that *he [the Father] is your God:"* (John 8:54).
@@Shawn-q3x both the terms “God” and “Lord” have divine connotations. “Lord” absolutely was used in reference to God by the Jews. If that verse means Jesus can’t be called God, it would mean that the Father could not be called Lord, when that obviously wasn’t the case. Paul is separating them because they are separate persons, but they are both God.
You seem to not understand the significance of John 8:58. Jesus claims to be “I am”. What did God say his name was to Moses? Why was this the moment that the enemies of Christ attempted to stone him? It was blasphemy to claim such a thing. He is not just claiming to have existed before Abraham, he is claiming to be self-existent before Abraham. Something which would only be possible if he were divine. You’re also ignoring the other two verses I cited. The one you have cited does not suggest Jesus is not divine. Furthermore, if you believe Jesus is the creator, how could he not be God? Who does the very first line of the Torah say created the Heavens and the Earth?
@@KolchaksGhost John 17:3, John 5:24, John 5:26 from Jesus himself, all who goes against this is bound for hell.
@@Shawn-q3x none of those refute the Trinity. In context they actually support it
I converted to Jehovah's Witnesses
Why are you watching this video then? Consuming non-JW religious media is forbidden in the JW faith, isn't it?
Why?
Should've gone for the true restored church of latter day saints
@user-ke6zt4fe3w There is no such prescription among JWs.
@BornAgainChris Because it is the true religion