Basil of Caesarea's 234th Letter with Uncle Jimmy
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 11 ก.ย. 2024
- James read through Basil’s comments in his Epistle 234 relating to simplicity and knowing God. This led to an “in house” discussion about the rise of a new Thomistic Orthodoxy in the Reformed Baptist movement.
All Dividing Line Highlights' video productions and credit belong to Alpha and Omega Ministries®. If this video interested you, please visit aomin.org/ or www.sermonaudi... for more of A&O ministry's content.
#natural #theology #simple #divine #simplicity #energy
For a second there I thought that said Basil Poledouris.
Christ knew the essence of man and God
I'm not so sure I understand why Dr. White is leading in this direction. Has his "orthodoxy" been put into question or something?
Summa Theologica: Part 1; question 12: How is God Known by us? I love you James White; in no way am I trying to call you Heterodox, just think this may be the reason your refutes are falling upon death ears since all of these issues are very clearly laid out rather plainly by Aquinas. Deals with all of the issues raised here almost word for word, would like to see what your thoughts are?
Aquinas is not authoritative. What are you talking about?
@@thomasglass9491 - who said he was Authoritative? Nothing to do with that. highlighting that he is pretty blatantly misrepresenting Thomas’ views does not mean that I think Aquinas is “authoritative”. James white is also not authoritative fyi.
@Fndr R Yeah but you use him as “But aquinas said this”, and my argument is: so?. James white is not authoritative, only the Bible. Tradition is helpful.
@@thomasglass9491 - not quoting him because he’s authoritative. It’s because he’s being misrepresented - lacking a very basic understanding of what Aquinas is actually saying. Seems like a good place to start would be actually understanding the position before critiquing it 🤷.
Aquinas goes against saint Basil the great says
Yes the energies are different from God's essence James but they are still of God. It's not something else that isn't of God, we arent participating in the atheistic energies of God James. Hopefully you can grasp that concept.
Also the essence and energies distinction is found in scripture. For instance who can say they know the mind of God? And also it is God has done a good work (energia) in you etc
Not to mention secret decrees is not biblical so James White should reject Calvinism by his own standard.
if there are no secret decrees, how do you explain job, joseph, david, christ? all of this stuff was not understood by humans until after the fact, but scripture says that god had a plan
@@ConciseCabbage
God never secretly decreed rape.
@@ThruTheUnknown why are you mentioning rape out of nowhere? in any case, the decree is god’s plan. the decree is how he works things for good in the end.
@@ConciseCabbage
Because it's apparently part of his secret decree but these decrees are absolutely unbiblical. God did not secretly decree infant sacrifice to Molech it did not even enter his thoughts for them to do that. Ergo when Calvinists read all things work for good you interpret it in an absolutely unbiblical manner.
God decreed Christ's death, which was way worse than any rape or infant sacrifice... though it was evil, God meant it for good.
Also no it's not in general if you don't hold io the essence energies distinction in Eastern Orthodox you hold to a hetrodox position.
Essential energies doctrine was developed in the 14th C. And you’re saying that everyone, for 1,300+ years before this revelation, were damned? So Christ was weak, YHWH was weak, and didn’t reveal a gravely important doctrine of His own nature until 1,300 years after Christ’s earthly ministry? Christ didn’t see fit to teach us ANY of this in His words we have recorded in Scripture? That is not sensical. You’re making a long-after, developed doctrine an essential tenet.
@@KristiLEvans1
No it wasn't developed in 14th century. It has been part of St Maximus the Confessor's theology which was incorporated in the 6th ecumenical council & goes all the way back to St Irenaeus. You're very ignorant on this my friend.... and very hypocritical as well... as the same would also apply to Martin Luther and imputed righteousness, even he admitted Augustine (let alone the other church fathers) did not hold his view. 😳
@@ThruTheUnknown yes, it is developed. Even if you are correct, and I take leave to doubt that, as defining it is attributed to St. Gregory Palamas, it was still something that originated HUNDREDS and hundreds of years after Christ’s ministry. That’s a development. A doctrine of men.
@@KristiLEvans1
It didn't develop it has always been there. Heck you can even find it mentioned in philo of Alexandria's work. He explains the glory Moses saw the same way the Eastern orthodox understand it.
What did develop was imputed righteousness even luther admitted no one before him believed his nonsense.
@@ThruTheUnknown prove it. Even if you can dig out 6th C. hints of mysticism and torture and expand it into doctrine, you can find absolutely nothing for HUNDREDS of years AFTER Christ’s ministry. And He and the apostles most definitely did not teach it in Scripture. If you’re going to attempt to hang a sectarian, developed doctrine as an anchor to a man’s soul, AND you know Christ taught it, provide the data.
I agree with uncle Jimmy but I do think William Craig is too far outside of scripture to be considered within the gospel. The point of all this knowledge is to form an apologia and for discipleship. If your teaching molanism or armininianism it's basically a graceless salvation. If things start with degenerate humans our hearts will continually choose evil. When you look at a chair, the chair has attributes which makes it recognizable as a chair. God has described his attributes. But the essences are found in humans when we are with God. I.e. the fruits of the spirit, being salt and light.
I think the context for this particular video is not Dr. White arguing against William Craig, but against the Thomistic philosophy about God's nature that is being brought into Reformed Baptist circles.
@@BanishTheShadow it's the second half of a video released on alpha and omega you tube channel where the other issues are addressed. Since the comments are turned off on that channel I comment on here.
Non-Calvinist soteriology is not graceless. This is an uncharitable misrepresentation. No one is saved apart from grace, and that extension of grace is entirely God’s prerogative. No works or merits ever earn God’s grace.