@@joshualeibrant3443 “ one God, the Father, of whom are all things , and we for Him and one Lord Jesus Christ ( powerful and clear affirmation of the equality of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ) through whom are all things and through whom we live.
@@jessyjonas4988 And as the husband is the head of the wife, so Christ is the head of the church and GOD is the head of Christ. As Adam is the head of his comforter Eve who proceeded from him, so the Father is the head of His Comforter, The Holy Spirit who proceeds from Him. There is causation of the Son and Spirit by the Father in the Trinity of three Divine persons.
It is true that in Evangelical circles a soft Open Theology is replacing the orthodox understanding of God. The fact is that a high percentage of Evangelical pastors do not have a very deep training in classic theology. If anything they have been trained in Bible exegesis without a grounding in doctrine or theology. This leaves them open to strange views of God. I know this because I have been an Evangelical pastor for 40 years. However, I am self-taught in Medieval Scholastic theology--as a devotional hobby. This has put me in the company of Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, etc. Suffice it to say, I have heard many heterodox things said from American pulpits.
I listened up to the time when you said that God was three beings in one. But the Lord has made it very simple in that he sent his only begotten son to say his words the words that Jesus said he said we're from the father. And he never said that there was another being called the Holy Spirit just that it was his father and his God that he was ascending to.
There are many good videos on the true Simplicity of God that the Bible teaches. It does not say anywhere that God is three beings like the pagan gods. It says that the father has a begotten son that he sent to die for our sins. Since God cannot die if Jesus was just part of a being that can't die how could he have died for our sins?
While Sinclair’s understanding of simplicity is definitely Augustinian, it is important to know that not all the church Father’s agreed with his understanding of simplicity, namely that all the attributes are identical to each other and identical with the essence and very existence of God. There are Early Christians we know of actually who argued that Simplicity is at odds with an ex-nihilo creation (Clement and Ptolemy). Andrew Radde-Galwitz for instance, even notes how “Gregory of Nyssa ridicules the identity thesis on precisely the grounds that it would make God's action of creating identical with his essence, which he assumes is absurd to his opponents as well as himself: Eun. 2.31-3 (GNO 1: 236-7).” Furthermore, there are many Reformed theologians such as Berkhof and Vos that are extremely cautious when considering identical attributes, which they warn leads toward Pantheism. It is also important to note how Simplicity was a term that arose from biblical exegesis, but that arose and has a long-standing history in Greek Philosophy which the early Church Father’s aimed to borrow, albeit critically and make compatible with the Scriptures. While they clearly took the doctrine and Christianized it, some say not enough, especially in the case of Thomas Aquinas “Pure Act.” All of Sinclair’s proof texts are great though and definitely show how his definition of simplicity isn’t pantheistic, but rather would be considered mainstream western orthodoxy concerning the doctrine of God, and he shows well why it has been the long-standing model for God in himself.
Most of the Protestants in the Reformation were Platonist. The Platonism comes from Augustine who used platonic ideas about simplicity to formulated his theology. Augustine was a Platonist before his conversion. Since the Reformers mostly went with Augustine you will find that platonic ideas are retained in the Reformation. A good presentation on this subject is found here: th-cam.com/video/KFh6pWQ5i_4/w-d-xo.html
Most professing Christians are Arminian and Dispensationalist, both are rank heresy. The Reformers were pure Christians, holding to Biblical Christianity, using a proper hermeneutic. The authority of the Reformers was and is still Scripture only and all of Scripture. You my friend have no clue as to the truth. No doubt you have been brainwashed and believe false teachings. Try reading and studying the Bible.
You have it so backwards. Protestantism stripped the platonism and other greek philosophy from interpretation of scripture. The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy follow Thomas Aquinas. You couldn't even name any other theologians in the reformed tradition apart form St. Augustine who was much too early to even be considered reformed at all. Tell me how Samuel Rutheford, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and Jon Owen are platonists, then we will talk.
@@joeiiiful First of all I was a Reformed Calvinist for over twenty years. So I have a pretty good grasp of the Protestant Reformation. You mentioned Dispensationalists and Arminians. Did you know that Dispensationalism was the fruit of what John Calvin and Martin Luther did in history? The errors of Dispensationalism are directly connected to the Masoretic Text. Which is the basis of the Protestant Canon It was John Calvin and Luther who removed the Deuterocanon from the Orthodox Canon and adopted the Masoretic canon. The Masoretic version of the Septuagint was adopted by unbelieving Talmudic Jews after the time of Christ. The Masoretic Text rejected the Dueterocanon as inspired scripture. Do you know why Talmudic Jews removed the Deuterocanon from the Septuagint? Because the Church Fathers in the early church were using the Deuterocanon to powerfully show that Jesus was the Messiah. Maccabees 1 and 2 in the Deuterocanon gives the historical account of the intertestamental period between the Old and New Testaments. The book of Maccabees establishes the doctrine of Preterism. The Orthodox Church in history held to Preterism because that doctrine is clearly taught in the Deuterocanon. So you can see why unbelieving Talmudic Jews would not like the Deuterocanon in the Septuagint. Because it showed that Jesus was the Messiah. And it taught that the Chuch replaced Israel and was the fulfillment of all the promises made to Abraham. So when John Calvin and Luther assumed the authority to remove the Deuterocanon and adopt the Msseretic canon, they were adopting the canon that Talmudic unbelieving Jews had adopted. Your Protestant Bible is based on the Masoretic canon. So it becomes easy to see how removing the Deuterocanon from the Protestant Bible leads naturally to dispensationalism. If you don't have the correct canon then you don't have the full counsel of God. If you don't have the correct canon then Sola Scriptura doesn't work either. How does someone become so arrogant as to think that they have the authority to reject what had been a finished canon for centuries? Why as a Protestant do you believe that Luther and Calvin were given that authority? Have you made them a Pope in your mind? Furthermore, the Bible came from the Orthodox Church. There were no Protestants during the first thousand years of Church history . The canon of scripture came from the church fathers and church councils over an 800 year period. That finished canon is still printed today and is the Orthodox Study Bible. My point is that the Bible belongs to the Orthodox Church. It does not belong to Protestants. The Bible was not given to the individual. It was given to the Orthodox Church in history. Not only was the Bible given to the Orthodox Church- but the spiritual understanding of the text was also given to the church. That is because the Holy Spirit was with and in the historic Church. So a true understanding of inspiration can only be understood from history. Inspiration means to both have the text and the meaning of the text. Since Reformed theology is nowhere to be found during the first thousand years of church history that means that Luther and Calvin invented a new religion that had never existed in history. So you don't have any notion of what inspiration means at all. Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine. Because it removes the Bible from its historical context. The Protestant Reformation is ahistorical.
@@joeiiiful Actually you would find the Church fathers to be much more profound than Ferguson. You're probably not aware that Western theology is based on the Platonic doctrine of absolute divine simplicity, which is Plato's doctrine of the Monad. The Reformers adopted absolute divine simplicity from Roman Catholic dogma. This issue is at the core of why Eastern Orthodoxy is so different from Catholicism and Protestantism. Because Orthodoxy is the only religion in the world that consistently rejects any platonic notion of God. This issue is quite complex. The best person to listen to on this subject is Jay Dyer. He has multiple videos on absolute divine simplicity from both the Roman Catholic and Protestant perspective. Ferguson will never debate Jay Dyer. The problem is that Protestants don't understand this issue.
Indivisibility is not simplicity. Simplicity is yet another Calvinistic false doctrine. God is not a unity in the Unitarian sense. (And we know that Calvinism tended toward Unitarianism in many places, New England and Wales in particular, though you would of course argue they were never good Calvinists to begin with, using your favorite true Scotsman appeal: a true Christian can't lose his salvation. If someone loses their salvation, they never had it.) God IS divisible into three persons, and while those persons share some divine attributes, there is also some things they do not share*, at least in terms of properties we humans can put a label on. Therefore these things MUST be articulated with more wisdom and less bluster. *the Human nature is the big one. Does the Spirit have a human "nature?" Does the Father have one? If so, what do we mean by human nature? Doe Christ, the preexistent Logos, retain his human nature along with his divine nature in perpetuity? Most importantly, salvation for us sinners is vested SOLELY in the name of the Son. This is the Sola the Reformers missed, and the only only that is valid: ONLY IN THE NAME OF JESUS. "For there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby they might be saved."
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
Preaching of the word of God is solemn. Hearing it in the Scottish accent seems to enhance the solemnity!!
True Exposition ofThe simplicity of our Amazing God. Thank you Sir.
🙌 PRAISE HIS HOLY NAME.
This is GOLD! Such precious teaching… inclines my heart towards God… more than ever ❤️
God keep you teaching Sinclair. You are what we need to know the True exposition of the simplicity of an Amazing God.
Amen Preacher
Everything God does He does in a triune way
Never just the Father
Never just the Son
Never just the Holy Spirit
Great teaching, God keep you healthy for his glory
Mjmpmhmmmmhjluukokojmm look koplmpok uuophuoooo mm little oops no
ALWAYS GLAD TO HEAR SINCLAIR
thank you...Im awestruck! God is so majestic!
Amen
We cannot comprehend it
But we can apprehend it
Who is the one GOD in 1Cor 8?
@@joshualeibrant3443
“ one God, the Father, of whom are all things , and we for Him and one Lord Jesus Christ ( powerful and clear affirmation of the equality of God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ) through whom are all things and through whom we live.
@@joshualeibrant3443 I am born again
@@jessyjonas4988 Equally Divine as an unborn child is equal in humanity or species. But a Father is greater than his Son in authority.
@@jessyjonas4988 And as the husband is the head of the wife, so Christ is the head of the church and GOD is the head of Christ.
As Adam is the head of his comforter Eve who proceeded from him, so the Father is the head of His Comforter, The Holy Spirit who proceeds from Him. There is causation of the Son and Spirit by the Father in the Trinity of three Divine persons.
Amazing just amazing 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Grace and peace! ✌😎✌
“I AM WHO I AM “
The puzzle of theologians
Not at all, He was claiming to be self existent unlike other gods.
@@joshualeibrant3443 👏👏👏
It is true that in Evangelical circles a soft Open Theology is replacing the orthodox understanding of God. The fact is that a high percentage of Evangelical pastors do not have a very deep training in classic theology. If anything they have been trained in Bible exegesis without a grounding in doctrine or theology. This leaves them open to strange views of God.
I know this because I have been an Evangelical pastor for 40 years. However, I am self-taught in Medieval Scholastic theology--as a devotional hobby. This has put me in the company of Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, etc.
Suffice it to say, I have heard many heterodox things said from American pulpits.
This man loves God
This man is a worshiper
thank you Sinclair God bless
Too many people reject this. Classical theism has been replaced by a soft open theism.
This is such an AWEsome truth!
That's the reason for forgiveness
I listened up to the time when you said that God was three beings in one. But the Lord has made it very simple in that he sent his only begotten son to say his words the words that Jesus said he said we're from the father. And he never said that there was another being called the Holy Spirit just that it was his father and his God that he was ascending to.
If there is anyone out there than can share what hymns were sung that evening, which he references in his message, I would be very grateful!
can someone explain Niche’s quote around 15/16 min. mark please?
There are many good videos on the true Simplicity of God that the Bible teaches. It does not say anywhere that God is three beings like the pagan gods. It says that the father has a begotten son that he sent to die for our sins. Since God cannot die if Jesus was just part of a being that can't die how could he have died for our sins?
Wow James White is so heated he responded to Sinclair 6 years later
While Sinclair’s understanding of simplicity is definitely Augustinian, it is important to know that not all the church Father’s agreed with his understanding of simplicity, namely that all the attributes are identical to each other and identical with the essence and very existence of God. There are Early Christians we know of actually who argued that Simplicity is at odds with an ex-nihilo creation (Clement and Ptolemy). Andrew Radde-Galwitz for instance, even notes how “Gregory of Nyssa ridicules the identity thesis on precisely the grounds that it would make God's action of creating identical with his essence, which he assumes is absurd to his opponents as well as himself: Eun. 2.31-3 (GNO 1: 236-7).” Furthermore, there are many Reformed theologians such as Berkhof and Vos that are extremely cautious when considering identical attributes, which they warn leads toward Pantheism. It is also important to note how Simplicity was a term that arose from biblical exegesis, but that arose and has a long-standing history in Greek Philosophy which the early Church Father’s aimed to borrow, albeit critically and make compatible with the Scriptures. While they clearly took the doctrine and Christianized it, some say not enough, especially in the case of Thomas Aquinas “Pure Act.” All of Sinclair’s proof texts are great though and definitely show how his definition of simplicity isn’t pantheistic, but rather would be considered mainstream western orthodoxy concerning the doctrine of God, and he shows well why it has been the long-standing model for God in himself.
Gotta love the "boooosh"
Most of the Protestants in the Reformation were Platonist. The Platonism comes from Augustine who used platonic ideas about simplicity to formulated his theology. Augustine was a Platonist before his conversion. Since the Reformers mostly went with Augustine you will find that platonic ideas are retained in the Reformation. A good presentation on this subject is found here: th-cam.com/video/KFh6pWQ5i_4/w-d-xo.html
Most professing Christians are Arminian and Dispensationalist, both are rank heresy. The Reformers were pure Christians, holding to Biblical Christianity, using a proper hermeneutic. The authority of the Reformers was and is still Scripture only and all of Scripture. You my friend have no clue as to the truth. No doubt you have been brainwashed and believe false teachings. Try reading and studying the Bible.
What in this presentation is Platonic? What do you know about Dr. Ferguson? He is one of the most outstanding Theologians of the last 100 years.
You have it so backwards. Protestantism stripped the platonism and other greek philosophy from interpretation of scripture. The Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy follow Thomas Aquinas. You couldn't even name any other theologians in the reformed tradition apart form St. Augustine who was much too early to even be considered reformed at all. Tell me how Samuel Rutheford, Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and Jon Owen are platonists, then we will talk.
@@joeiiiful First of all I was a Reformed Calvinist for over twenty years. So I have a pretty good grasp of the Protestant Reformation. You mentioned Dispensationalists and Arminians. Did you know that Dispensationalism was the fruit of what John Calvin and Martin Luther did in history? The errors of Dispensationalism are directly connected to the Masoretic Text. Which is the basis of the Protestant Canon It was John Calvin and Luther who removed the Deuterocanon from the Orthodox Canon and adopted the Masoretic canon. The Masoretic version of the Septuagint was adopted by unbelieving Talmudic Jews after the time of Christ. The Masoretic Text rejected the Dueterocanon as inspired scripture. Do you know why Talmudic Jews removed the Deuterocanon from the Septuagint? Because the Church Fathers in the early church were using the Deuterocanon to powerfully show that Jesus was the Messiah. Maccabees 1 and 2 in the Deuterocanon gives the historical account of the intertestamental period between the Old and New Testaments. The book of Maccabees establishes the doctrine of Preterism. The Orthodox Church in history held to Preterism because that doctrine is clearly taught in the Deuterocanon. So you can see why unbelieving Talmudic Jews would not like the Deuterocanon in the Septuagint. Because it showed that Jesus was the Messiah. And it taught that the Chuch replaced Israel and was the fulfillment of all the promises made to Abraham. So when John Calvin and Luther assumed the authority to remove the Deuterocanon and adopt the Msseretic canon, they were adopting the canon that Talmudic unbelieving Jews had adopted. Your Protestant Bible is based on the Masoretic canon. So it becomes easy to see how removing the Deuterocanon from the Protestant Bible leads naturally to dispensationalism. If you don't have the correct canon then you don't have the full counsel of God. If you don't have the correct canon then Sola Scriptura doesn't work either. How does someone become so arrogant as to think that they have the authority to reject what had been a finished canon for centuries? Why as a Protestant do you believe that Luther and Calvin were given that authority? Have you made them a Pope in your mind? Furthermore, the Bible came from the Orthodox Church. There were no Protestants during the first thousand years of Church history . The canon of scripture came from the church fathers and church councils over an 800 year period. That finished canon is still printed today and is the Orthodox Study Bible. My point is that the Bible belongs to the Orthodox Church. It does not belong to Protestants. The Bible was not given to the individual. It was given to the Orthodox Church in history. Not only was the Bible given to the Orthodox Church- but the spiritual understanding of the text was also given to the church. That is because the Holy Spirit was with and in the historic Church. So a true understanding of inspiration can only be understood from history. Inspiration means to both have the text and the meaning of the text. Since Reformed theology is nowhere to be found during the first thousand years of church history that means that Luther and Calvin invented a new religion that had never existed in history. So you don't have any notion of what inspiration means at all. Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine. Because it removes the Bible from its historical context. The Protestant Reformation is ahistorical.
@@joeiiiful Actually you would find the Church fathers to be much more profound than Ferguson. You're probably not aware that Western theology is based on the Platonic doctrine of absolute divine simplicity, which is Plato's doctrine of the Monad. The Reformers adopted absolute divine simplicity from Roman Catholic dogma. This issue is at the core of why Eastern Orthodoxy is so different from Catholicism and Protestantism. Because Orthodoxy is the only religion in the world that consistently rejects any platonic notion of God. This issue is quite complex. The best person to listen to on this subject is Jay Dyer. He has multiple videos on absolute divine simplicity from both the Roman Catholic and Protestant perspective. Ferguson will never debate Jay Dyer. The problem is that Protestants don't understand this issue.
Indivisibility is not simplicity. Simplicity is yet another Calvinistic false doctrine. God is not a unity in the Unitarian sense. (And we know that Calvinism tended toward Unitarianism in many places, New England and Wales in particular, though you would of course argue they were never good Calvinists to begin with, using your favorite true Scotsman appeal: a true Christian can't lose his salvation. If someone loses their salvation, they never had it.)
God IS divisible into three persons, and while those persons share some divine attributes, there is also some things they do not share*, at least in terms of properties we humans can put a label on. Therefore these things MUST be articulated with more wisdom and less bluster.
*the Human nature is the big one. Does the Spirit have a human "nature?" Does the Father have one? If so, what do we mean by human nature? Doe Christ, the preexistent Logos, retain his human nature along with his divine nature in perpetuity?
Most importantly, salvation for us sinners is vested SOLELY in the name of the Son.
This is the Sola the Reformers missed, and the only only that is valid:
ONLY IN THE NAME OF JESUS.
"For there is no other name under heaven given to men whereby they might be saved."