Відео

The step about perfect love can’t be contained between two but need at least one more to be complete is very interesting but hard to conceive. I have to think hard about that one.

You sat here just to describe the Logos as the Fathers Self. Not another Person….

Very interesting & helpful. I wonder if reading Rahner might be helpful to me spiritually.

I respect your videos, which I’ve begun watching. I also enjoy your approach. I’m familiar with the material being a convert of 25+ years to Orthodoxy. The conclusions reached here - that scripture cannot resolve the issue and that both are valid - strike me as glib, which took me by surprise. I didn’t expect a conclusion, but it strikes me that one oughtn’t judge such great luminaries as St Mark of Ephesus or St Thomas Aquinas or St Gregory Palamas or St Anselm and many others as being incorrect, since they all seemed to think otherwise, albeit on different sides. In our day, the debate continues amongst great saints & theologians, and quite apart from “politics,” which can’t judge an issue. Considering the eternity of God, we’re just getting started at these wondrous mysteries of life & grace. It’s way too soon to reach either conclusion (lack of scriptural authority & validity of each belief), isn’t it?

I assume readers can immediately refer to biblical answers for the final questions posed to Zizoulas. How the Incarnate Word speaks of His Father clearly indicates a “priority” of the Father with the Divine Unity. And the promises of the Gospel are also clear: “The Father shares all things with the Son,” says the Word Incarnate. “Christ has given us all things,” teaches Paul. Other than the being the Father, what has the Father withheld from the Son? And, inheriting everything as the Son, what, other than being by nature God, what has the Son not shared with those “in Him”?

Great teaching sir,i am writing thesis on Moltmann's Trinity

Good video

Social trinitarian cry at the end

I have had a cross over my bed for many years, and I have never once thought of the Trinity or even God the Father when I looked at it. The cross is about Jesus. Everything you say that Moltmann says sounds like nonsense, to me.

I just ordered Richard of St. Victor's book (in English translation, of course) on the Trinity, having come across him during the course of my studies with the Cambridge Institute of Orthodox Christian Studies. I can't believe I've never heard of him before.

Beautifully articulated. Thank you for the wisdom.

But then, this position excludes the simultaneous omnipotence and omniscience nature of God. In that, in this position, the two thoughts proceeding from God only refers to just a particlar subject at a time! For example "Chocolate". But God focuses ALL subjects with an equal intensity at ALL times forever!! It would be reasonable to argue that both the son and the spirit are equally omnipotent and omniscient therefore equally perform eternally in the same manner on an overall scale. In that case, the salvation of makind from sin would just be one of the countless events merely caught up in the operative nature of the divine qualities of God, not as the demonstration of the love of specifically aimed at saving mankind from sin. It would just be a casual occurence in the mysterious event of God simply doing God! The delibrate element of God stepping out with grace towards man will become irrelevant! I would not agree with Thomas Quinas!

Please keep going. God bless you.

Why do we need this word “person”? What does it explain that other words like “human being” doesn’t already convey?

Thank you for this video. Much appreciated.

I cannot believe that this presentation has only 36 likes (one of which is mine). I think that this is a fantastic presentation of Augustine's analysis of the Trinity, which I have always found very beguiling and compelling (and it is an analysis one finds repeated in Thomas Aquinas). I have always found this take on the Trinity quite intoxicating, especially when I have been drinking. Thank you! I think you are a great presenter of complex theological issues. Thank you for this wonderful presentation!

how would rhaner see the church today? would he be pleased his views have taken us here? was he really a mediator?

Helpful and to the point. Thank you!

Modern Theology Class X: The Influence of Zizek!

Crystal clarity... wow! Inspiring. Thank you!

I can't tell you how helpful this video was. Very thorough. I had to watch it a few times to soak in every aspect.

I have watched some of your videos and really enjoy them. Could you kindly do a video on Paul Tillich?

For the individual looking at the chocolate, he has a real, physical image of the chocolate to give him an image in his mind. In other words, he doesn't have to make up an image of the chocolate because he can see it physically. How is this the case with the trinity? "No man has seen God at any time." So how can we have a proper picture of something we've never seen? The answer is, you cannot. You can't even perceive it to begin with, much less formulate a mental image of it. God, who is invisible, made himself visible through the Word. The Word was God's sole image. The Word became flesh, therefore Jesus Christ is now, and forever will be, the sole image of God. God also made himself known through the activity of His Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not seen, but like Jesus told Nicodemus in John 3, it is felt. So, it is ONE God with ONE image and ONE Spirit and ONE name - Jesus. Case closed.

🤣 When a dad becomes a professor! This is a great video! I'm so glad I found this channel!!!! I am looking forward to watching every video! God bless you for uploading 🙏🏿

I have watched so many videos on this topic, and yours is my favorite. God bless!

You explained it very well. Thanks!

I've always found Moltmann stimulating and look forward to this book one day (so many books, so few years). I'm also pleased that he was born the same year as my dear late parents! FWIW.

Now I understand the filioque ! Finally

Patriarchy is filled with gold coins and propaganda. I personally believe we came from chaos to order. the female stretches into male and back and forth.

Great job.

🎉ua-cam.com/video/3Oa9k44UC0s/v-deo.htmlsi=oMwURWs6FjXqG9-c🎉 İşAllahaShem beşiktaş protestan kilisesi YeşuAlmighty BiblicallAkbar 🎉🎉

Of course lumen gentium qualifies that inclusivism by saying, "But often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator.(129) Or some there are who, living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair. Wherefore to promote the glory of God and procure the salvation of all of these, and mindful of the command of the Lord, "Preach the Gospel to every creature",(130) the Church fosters the missions with care and attention.".

I can't understand why so many commentators see universalism as a problem. Quite a few early church Fathers were clear universalists. Universalism has held a place in Christian teaching in certain quarters for 2000 years. It is not a matter of God "forcing" people into heaven but winning them over by the power of his great love. Jesus said in John's gospel that when he is lifted up ( crucifixion) he would draw ( with strength or drag) all people to himself. Barth actually believed it would be most likely all would be saved but didn't want to second guess God on this. Paul himself certainly seemed to promote universalism in Romans, 1 Corinthians 15. I can't see a problem with it. It would seem to me pretty darn good news that God's love eventually wins the day. How say you?

Excellent presentation. The only thing is that when you outline weaknesses, the tendency towards universalism, I see no problem here at all. In fact it becomes a strength because as we know God longs for the salvation of all. Why can we assume God's will, will not finally be done. I believe the Love of God is ultimately sovereign and that ultimately it will pierce even the hardest heart. But in order to believe that, I would argue that an individual's eternal fate is not determined by his/her response to God at the point of physical death. I believe hell is ultimately redemptive until we come to our senses like the Prodigal Son did.

It's rather odd that so many thought Jesus had two natures. The Bible does not present him that way. His miracles were from the Father working in and through him. He never took credit for his miracles, but always deferred it to the Father. "Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father” (John 10:37-38). He was given the Holy Spirit without measure, so the Father worked through the Holy Spirit. The Kenosis theory is more accurate in that he left his divine attributes when he became a man. What was deity in Jesus? His identity as the Logos did not change in the Incarnation, so he was always deity. Now in his exalted state he has all attributes back again.

Would you consider doing a video on the implications of Zizioulas's trinitarian theology? Particularly on ecclesiology? Unpacking that final element of his book and so on..? Thank-you for this video, such a help to my studies.

5:43 bookmark

Fascinating.

I just wanted to say that all your classes are amazing. Very clear and easy to understand. Reached class 9 in Soteriology and I'm so grateful to God I took this course. I never knew all this. I'm so grateful also for all the church fathers who spent their lives debating, studying and correcting what they learnt which has passed down us because of their faithfulness to God.

Did the 3rd Ecumenical Council (or others) say anything about the Jews?

The apostate trinity takes Jehovahs love right out of the picture Stop fooling yourself with lies from satan

Doesn't take a genius to understand the bible Jehovah is not the author of confusion Trinity Is an apostate teaching that developed through creeds 300 years after apostles died

Wow! Great stuff. This is a really good presentation. I tried reading Jenson's Systematic Theology and gave up. I found it too dense and boring. It appears that if you are going to really stand out and be influential as a theologian these days (like Moltmann and Jenson) you have to get a lot of things wrong...like denying the bodily resurrection of Jesus himself!

Excellent! Very helpful. This is definitely a confusing topic. Maybe we need to let the classical notion of attributes and the modern notion work themselves out dialectically. I can see much truth coming from both classical and modern but alone they both seem to be missing something

Good stuff but the 'J' in Jurgen is pronounced like a 'Y'

HYPOSTASIS IS ALWAYS TAKEN WITH THE SUBSTANCE ONE DOESN' COME BEFORE THE OTHER THEY ARE CO-ETERNAL BY GOD WE ALWAYS MEAN THE THREE PERSONS IN THEIR SUBSTANCE AND ONE WILL WHO ARE IN ETERNAL LOVE AMONG THEMSELVES EMANATING IT TO The CREATION, THIS is THE LIVING GOD, NOT JUST THE FATHER! THERE IS NO EAST WEST DIFFERENCE, ORTHODOXY IS THE SAME ANYWHERE UNIVERSALLY, LEARN DAMASCENE AND GET SOBER U ARE DRUNK! BY GOD WE ALWAYS MEAN LOVING LIVING TRIUNE GOD WITH HIS SUBSTANCE AND WILL!

I'm a student at the Presbyterian Theological Seminary. I'm studying your videos I'd like to put the video link above in the graduate school presentation I'd like to tell them the source, so could you tell me the denomination?

I am a Open Theist not sure if you are but I am currently addicted to your channel content especially on the topic of the Trinity

This presentation ends abruptly. Is there more to come?