Sam, thanks for taking such time to interact with my video. I watched the first hour or so, then skipped ahead to problem 6 (because it looked interesting). I hope I can finish watching soon. I already emailed a few thoughts. And yes, let's talk more. Briefly: I think you interpreted my video too self-referentially. It was not about you. It was primarily in response to the scores of non-Protestants saying, "if the assumption of Mary is an accretion, so is the Trinity!" The first 25 minutes or so here has a lot of unnecessary speculation. Related to that, I think you misunderstood the purpose of my video. It was not to establish Trinitarianism over Unitarianism per se. It was to argue the Trinity is not an accretion like the assumption of Mary or the veneration of icons. To do that, it is not necessary to establish that my 7 building blocks must necessarily be interpreted one way or another. Their mere presence in the apostolic deposit differentiates the trinity from accretions like the assumption of Mary or the veneration of icons, which have no comparable foundation. You try to give some foundation for Mary's assumption later when you talk about her being blessed among women and close to God, but this same argument could be made for any godly person (say, John the Baptist). There is no reason why these facts would even make someone think of an assumption to heaven. Further, I argue at length that the evidence is not merely silent about Mary's assumption, but strongly AGAINST it. Same with icon veneration. That is not comparable to the Trinity, where I would argue we don't have any evidence AGAINST it (caps not me shouting, just for emphasis). There were other smaller points I disagreed with, but that is the heart of the matter. We also need to talk about whether Jesus was worshiped. God bless.
I am glad that you have responded so respectfully. Well done. Regarding the doctrine of the Trinity being an accretion, I do not believe (cannot believe) that the apostles of Christ were Nicene-type Trinitarians. They simply couldn’t have been, because there is absolutely no language in the New Testament writings that describes God as a coequal, consubstantial triad of persons. It took a great deal of theological development to arrive at that conclusion. I write this as a Protestant (albeit in the more “radical reformation” vein) and Trinitarian myself. I simply wish that more Trinitarians, such as yourself, could be more honest about post-biblical theological development. Nicene-type Trinitarianism *may* be true, but it is also thoroughly post-biblical. Being honest about that is the beginning of constructive dialogue.
@@AaronGardner98 thanks for the comment! oh, I certainly don't deny development. No doubt about it. Watch my initial video. The question is the nature of the development. Right away (so I argue) Christians are worshiping Jesus as God. He accepts that worship and calls it belief. I mean, wow! In a Jewish monotheistic context, that is striking. It demands an interpretation. Then you have other data, like Trinitarian baptism. I think what ends up as the full-blown Trinity is the best way to make sense of all the data. But whether it is or not, the point of my video is that this is nothing like the assumption of Mary. There is a big difference between possible alternative ways of putting the puzzle pieces together vs. not having puzzle pieces to begin with.
@@TruthUnites thank you for your response and thoughtful engagement. May I ask you directly - how do think that historical subordinationists (Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian…) would be treated if they were to attend or attempt to “join” a mainstream Protestant or evangelical church today?
As Sam demonstrates in this video-in the OT, NT, and all pre-Augustine Christian writers (give or take Athanasius/Hilary): - "The one true God" is consistently, frequently, and unambiguously said to be exactly one person-the Father. - God is never called "triune", "tri-personal", "three", "three-and-one", "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", or any other word that denotes three-ness - Jesus is consistently, frequently, and unambiguously said to be someone other than (and subordinate to) God-God's servant, God's son, God's messiah, the one sent by God, etc. Honest question: if this is not "evidence against the trinity", what would be?
@TruthUnites The reason they were worshipping him is because he waa curing incurable diseases and because he is immortal ( which the crucifiction proved) and nor because he is the almighty creator. If a human walked around today curing cancer and autoimmune diseases while being able to survive death penalties he would naturally be worshipped as divine but would not be considered the Creator of the Universe.
When you said "backwards compatible" in the steel man, that was the first time i've heard this term, and I think it fits very well. I've heard "reverse engineered" before.
The primacy of the doctrine of the trinity seems to be based upon the theory that, the farther we get from the First Century, the better our understanding of the truth?
You are correct, it predates the Apostles. To the garden itself. A book I recommend for all interested to see the idea existing well before the Apostles is Alan F. Segal's "The Two Powers in Heaven.."
@PracticalChristianLessons Do not dig that hole for yourself. The two powers in heaven has nothing to do with the plurality of God. Rather it is an artefact of pre Yahweh-only ancient israelite religion where Yahweh was one of many gods who made up the Council of Gods. If you read God-an anatomy by Francesca Stravopoglu these artefacts in the old testament become very evident.
58:45, Just read the patristics, St Basil, St Augustine and others. One "Being" (God) three "Persons" (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Similarly to how we are body, soul, and mind. You are your body, you are your soul, you are your mind. Your mind is you, your soul is you and your body is you, undivided and yet separate. Also, properly addressed as you when referenced separately. You are sick, when you have a cold, is perfectly reasonable to say even though your soul is not sick. You think foolishly though your body does not think. Even when the soul is away from the body in death; are you buried in the grave, or are you are with the Lord? Reasonable and revealed in scripture. Simple, only complicated to the heretics and the haughty.
Your patristics seem to be later than people like Tertullian who obviously did not believe the son was eternal. He said there was a time when God was alone, (and he obviously meant the father, because he said there was a time when God was not a father because there was a time there was no son.
@@rsk5660 early doesn't mean right. I am not appealing to when they made there arguments but what they said. Tertullian is was wrong, not just on this point. I am sure you do not agree with him on everything he said. My point was the arguments of others are better and the questions were addressed long ago.
@@jacobojala3767 At the time of Tertullian, no one was excommunicating him, just disagreeing with him, and there was liberty to think for yourself. The Catholic Church is now obliged to call Tertullian a heretic since he did not believe orthodoxically. There is no more room to think for yourself in orthodoxy. It is so easy now to condemn people in the past. As I read the bible for myself, I can't help noticing apparent differences with orthodoxy. My experience is that when I ask questions I am seen as evil rather than just inquisitive, and I find the answers unsatisfacory. Most Christians, and I don't blame them, because they may have more important things to do for God, don't ask the questions I ask, and so, don't get into the bad books of the chuch leaders.
@@rsk5660 Respectfully, it is not about the questions asked, it is about the assertion that the Church is not only wrong but oppressing the truth. Can you not see that this causes issues among the people. The East, Rome, and the Reformers were and are on the same page; the Trinity is what has been revealed by scripture. You will trust the Church to preserve the scripture and determine the canon, by the Holy Spirit. But not teach you about God, with His help, from the scripture? You are the example of being your own pope that Rome accuses every Protestant of being, it is honestly embarrassing. The whole Church is harmed when it is belittled by little popes, reading an English translation given to them by the Church, deciding that they know better, the Church is corrupted, the teachers of the Church from Irenaeus, Augustine, Cyril, Basil, Calvin, Wesley, and the local Baptist pastor down the street are the real heretics. Repent, not of being wrong, but of your divisiveness; there are enough divisions that hurt our witness, don’t add to them.
I (as a unitarian) used to think that Christology should be a first-tier issue. But realising that excommunicating most of the Christians that ever lived is not an option, made me change my opinion. As you said, how should we react when Tertullian or Origen would walk into our church? And I love the example you used in another video about Justin Martyr being friends with Christians who didn't believe in Jesus' pre-existence. As long as Christians accept that Jesus is the Messiah and that he came in the flesh (i.e., not gnostic), we can be in fellowship. This also gives church members the opportunity to go on a Christological journey without having to fear that they might have to leave their church. Thank you for me helping me think about this.
@@transfigured3673 I have a dog and my trinitarian friend has a dog but I never get anywhere with him when talking about the trinity. He might respect me more if I had a dog-collar.
Also, at what point, historically, does the church arrive at a “full blown” trinity theory? The Catholic Church continued to narrow the field of orthodoxy re: Trinity and Christology throughout the 600s at least.
Great video, I hope Gavin takes the time to give it a fair listen. My only critique is that your flowchart for determining what Gavin thinks is an accretion didn't help your case for wanting charitable discussion between the two of you. That one strayed a bit ad hominem-you could have left it at "I can't tell how Gavin decides what is or isn't an accretion, so I'd be interested in talking with him about it", because the flowchart painted a rather negative picture of Gavin's fair-mindedness rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt
@@transfigured3673 Yeah I think especially given the fact that Gavin is one of the most outspoken protestants when it comes to prioritizing theological triage (and thus promoting cross-tradition/cross-denomination Christian unity), saying he considers anything outside of "baptist orthodoxy" an accretion could give the impression that you either don't understand his views or are ok with misrepresenting them. This coming from someone who would love to see a dialogue between you two!
To be fair it doesn't prove the Trinity as a whole because the Holy Ghost isn't revealed to be divine there. But I don't think anyone today rejects the Holy Spirit alone, they usually go for both the Son and the Holy Spirit
@Testimony_Of_JTF The Gospel of Luke makes it clear that the Holy Ghost is not one of God’s persons but is rather God’s power which he GRANTS to Mary so that she may give birth to the human son of the Most High God: ”The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.”Luke 1:35
You should maybe talk to Nathan Jacobs about this. The most coherent explanations of the trinity often just seem like philosophical sleight of hand with “natures/persons” Either way, I appreciate the vids big bro! ❤
I'm convinced. Perhaps the simplest way to think about the rigidity and often violent enforcement of the Trinity in the history of the Church is as a concise "loyalty test." A common tactic to reinforce ingroup/outgroup boundaries is to require outlandish shibboleths as a condition of participation, the more outlandish the better because it weeds out the skeptics.
I think you hit the nail on the head Rod. The trinity is perfect for this purpose. -It is a claim about the top of the ontological hierarchy, so therefore is fittingly important -The trinity can be highly specific when needed, but also very vague when needed -It meshes well with clericalism. Only the experts get to think about it, you just accept it -As you said, it filters for people who will accept what is taught to them, even if it smacks against the most basic levels of common sense
@@transfigured3673 Yes Sam. I have a personal rule of respecting people's religious beliefs. "I don't argue with a man's religion on his deathbed." Until I found myself in the merry band of misfits we're calling TLC I wasn't even really aware of the Trinity, never mind how central it is to how most of Christianity is practiced today. I have found it difficult to adhere to my rule and keep a straight face when people have tried to make a coherent case for it, it really verges on incoherence. Then Jacob F. comes along and introduces the martyr Michael Servetus to me, and I learn his dying words, as he's being burned the stake, were "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me." This takes this out of the realm of a mildly distracting theological parlor game into the realm of a significant stain on the history of the Church. Perhaps this is why it is so viscerally defended even in present day.
Right. But *personal* pronouns (eg "me, myself, I", etc) correspond to that *person*, not their "abstract essence". A nature/essence doesn't say "I stretched out the heavens..." A *person* says that. Likewise, when someone says "He" is our God, the antecedent of that *He* is not an abstract nature, but a person. The Trinitarians who insist on saying God is one "what" and three "who's", while simultaneously calling that "what" a "He", are deserving of derision and mockery. It's best they give up calling their God "He" and instead say "It".
1:07:43 with this, i'd say consider the two relations (Man and Woman, God and Christ) with Christ as head of humanity linking the two. there is a form of hierarchy amidst true equality within humanity between man and woman. there is also a form of hierarchy amidst true equality within the Divinity between the Father and the Son and Spirit-one reason for the former hierarchy being to type the latter. and Christ as head, which links the two, being the Incarnation. what do you think?
I mean, if you set aside the actual doctrine of the Holy Trinity as taught by the Church, I probably agree with Sam that these lame Protestant versions are heretical accretions.
Another example of Christ’s subordinationism is the scene of his prayer to his God in the Garden of Gethsemane (as portrayed in the synoptic gospels) *Matthew 26:39* (LEB) And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, *NOT AS I WILL, but AS YOU WILL.”*
I'm a trinitarian by parentage & tradition. And having gone through evangelicalism's churches and seminary, I much rather listen to Sam about the Trinity than to most evangelicals
here is the thing with your point at 47:25 most academic scholars would be heretical in most things. such as the exodus or the composition of the torah or who wrote the gospels. And I think with the information age the idea of being a true Christian is becoming more and more difficult.
I'm fascinated with this topic, this kind of video is so helpful for me to understand my own thoughts on God and the Trinity. I'm very aware that this debate about the Trinity always leaves out the 3ed member in the conversations, the Holy Spirit. If you truly believe in the reality of the Holy Spirit and you believe that the church followers were being led by it than there is no such thing as an "Acression" in the Church. If the Christian theology is truly divine and being guided by God and not just another flawed human project then there is nothing that can grow or build upon that isn't under God's control. The barnacles you wish to chip off might not be defects but have been placed there by God himself for a specific reason. As for one of your final points, "what changes without the Doctrine of the Trinity", I think God's character changes completely without the Trinity. Without the Trinity you open the door to the Gnostic Demiurge interpretation of Christianity. A King who inflicts suffering on his subjects can be seen as an evil king, even if he is doing it for the best reasons. A king who suffers WITH his people can't so easily be seen as evil. Christ is God suffering WITH us and showing us how to overcome the worst things in this Universe with the tools he's given us.
The word god generally refers to a powerful personality in the heavens somewhere. Trinitarianism changes this normal meaning of a word and applies it to three persons. We get so accustomed to this change that we don't notice it. I used to be trinitarian and know that this happened to me. Now that I am a unitarian, I recently noticed that the God of the old testament who must be the trinity, calls himself a king. If a trinitarian noticed that God calls himself a king, which conjures up a man sitting on a throne on earth, it would be harder for him to think of a tripersonal king. So, I was wondering what you have in mind as to your king suffering with you. One question I asked myself as I began doubting the trinity was, if God (the Father) is so loving, why did he not come himself instead of sending his son. So, in one sense the king did not come himself.
@@rsk5660 I agree that the word "god" has changed a lot over the eons. Let's start off with God as the Creator of all things, the supreme One who created the Heavenly world of Spirits and the physical world of Earthly matter (the Heavens and Earth as described in Genesis). Since God the creator made both spirit and matter he must be outside and beyond both of them; just as any human creator is outside and beyond the things he creates. In the spirit world there are many powerful entities that might want to claim the title of "god" but they are still just tiny pieces of the whole, they are all placed there by God the creator. In the physical world there are many powerful entities that might want to claim the title of "god" but they are still just tiny pieces of the whole, they are all placed there by God the creator. The Creator can reach into the spirit world and create a being to be his avatar and to control the spirits he made. Hence his Hebrew name in the spirit world: YHWH "to be", "to exist", "to cause to become", or "to come to pass" The Creator can also reach in the physical world and create a being to be his avatar, this was the man Jesus Christ. Since "Man" is both a creature of Spirit and Matter the symbol of a man is the perfect representation of unifying both worlds. He came to rescue the physical world from from sin and death and to realign it with his original grand design. Once Christ died and ascended to the spirit world, like all humans can do by nature of our dual natures as spirit and matter, he takes the throne in Heaven and starts realigning the spirits that dominated the world. YHWH and Jesus Christ become one being, both names represent the Creator who is within and beyond both all Spirit and Matter. From that point onward the Creator spreads his controlling influence from the tiny Jewish community around Jerusalem and into every gentile/pagan society in the world. Taking over the Roman Empire within a few hundred years and expanding outward from there. The Holy Spirit is any time the Creator directly intercedes into the Spirit or Physical world and creates something new. He has the power to act in every cell and to animate any spirit to his will. His fingerprints are everywhere on Earth. We are so limited we may see contradictions and he sees only a Universe being transformed into the Kingdom of Heaven he intended all along. The life of suffering that Christ lived is a demonstration to use how he creates new things out of pain and suffering. To be like him, to feel the Holy Spirit acting through you, is to transmute your pain and suffering into something good. It's no coincidence that the best artists (musicians, comedians, writers, painters) are all people who suffered horrific things in their lives. If we strive to consciously do this in every aspect of our lives we will channel the Holy Spirit and align our spirit with the Creator's. For doing this he has promised us that when we leave this physical world our spirit will be placed alongside him in Heaven. That has always been the Saintly message of Christianity, to be an avatar for God and to take our part in the unfolding of creation.
@@EricYoungArt Thanks for taking so much time to reply. Just a few questions to try to understand you. Do you believe Jesus is a created representative of God or the second person of the eternal trinity incarnated in a human? Why did you not mention the resurrection of Jesus and then his bodily ascension? How can God and Christ become one being? Where did you get this idea from, thanks
@@rsk5660 "Do you believe Jesus is a created representative of God or the second person of the eternal trinity incarnated in a human?" - Yes, sorry If I was not clear. When I said God created Jesus to be his avatar in the physical world, I'm saying God(the creator of all things) incarnated into a human body through Mary. "How can God and Christ become one being?" - Wrong framing, each person is always two beings. You are a physical being in the physical world and you are simultaneously a spiritual being in the spirit world. You can prove this to yourself simply by choosing to extend conscious effort externally to effect the external world or you can extend conscious effort internally and interact with the spirits of your Heart/Mind/Imagination/Unconscious (you pick the word that feels best, they all mean the same thing.) There is no escaping this dual nature that we are all born into. When Jesus was born he was fully physical as we all are but when he turned his mind's eye inward he did not have the spirit of a simple carpenter but the spirit of the Creator, YHWH. That internal spirit is what guided his ministry and mission on Earth and when he died his Spirit returned to the spirit world. But that Spirit now had a new name, a human Jesus Christ. YHWH and Jesus become names for the same Spirit in Heaven, the spirit of the Creator. " Why did you not mention the resurrection of Jesus and then his bodily ascension? " - The physical, body resurrection of Jesus is mysterious in the Gospel. But if you're the creator of Heavens and Earth there's nothing you can't do. If you wanted to manifest a physical body for himself like the Gospels say he did there's no reason he can't create that reality. If you can manifest a sperm inside the womb of a virgin you can manifest the body of a man inside a locked room. The resurrection of the Saints after Christ's death is more mysterious. There's many reports over the last 2000 years of Christian Saints manifesting in unexpected locations and performing miracles all over the world. It would seem this ability to physically manifest after death is part of the "new life" he has promised us; as if we are no longer bounded by time and space but can move about it at will. But we can only guess at this until we make the journey ourselves. "Where did you get this idea from" -Wide range of study. CS Lewis's has various essays on Christianity that I really like and GK Chesterton's books Orthodoxy and the Everlasting Man were really helpful to me when it came to thinking about the Creator like a Trinitarian. I had some mystical experiences myself and those have really helped me think about life, creativity and my own mind in a new light.
I had a weird experience maybe about six months ago. I wrote some TLC people, didn't get a response and a few days later PVK made a video seemingly about the messages I sent and the video had a less than charitable tone. I reached out to him and he told me the video wasn't about me. I don't think he was lying. However, given that he repeated some of the specific language I used in his video I think he clearly had been speaking to people about the topic. I can't help but wonder if something similar happened with Gavin where the topic had been brought up with people he was around but he hadn't watched or responded to your video specifically. Either way I commend your continued effort at dialogue.
@@transfigured3673 Well I'll say this if you're mind works the way mine does you're probably replaying specific things said in Gavin said. Pray, I'll be praying with you and have faith that God and his only Son will be glorified.
Download free " hope for all by Gerry Beauchemin PDF" and "hope beyond hell by Gerry Beauchemin PDF " and " the christian doctrine of apokatastasis a critical assessment from the bible to Eriugena by illaria ramelli PDF ". Check out " the inescapable love of God " by Thomas Talbot 😊
1:18:26 I am duly annoyed at leaving aside the monarchical Trinity so I am leaving a comment as instructed 😂. The historical doctrine of the Trinity *is* the monarchical Trinity. The core idea of the Trinity therefore is not an idea that encompasses both egalitarian and monarchical theories as if these are later developments of an earlier, more primitive trinitarianism. You yourself just noted that Athanasius is a monarchical trinitarian if I heard you correctly. The core idea of the Trinity *is* full-blown monarchical trinitarianism, which I think is clearly stated in the scriptures - that there is one God, the Father Almighty, that Jesus Christ is one Lord who is the only-begotten Son of the Father, true God from true God, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is worshipped together with the Father and the Son.
Son of God is true God from true God? Huh!? True God was never begotten. The Son was. God is true God alone. He made his Son Lord of lords. But nobody made the true God into anything. Trinitarianism is illogical from beginning to end.
@@colingr318 I mean I can cite you all the usual Trinitarian/Unitarian debate passages but I'm guessing you have your Unitarian interpretation all mapped out; I'm not going to convince you on a UA-cam comment chain. I'm not a Protestant, I get my map of scripture by receiving it from the Church, and that's going to create quite a large methodological gap between us. God bless you. I wish you well on whatever journey you're on.
1:44:47 Oh i should have waited to post my previous comment! Your exegesis of the Nicene Creed is pretty spot on! As someone who actually believes the Nicene Creed as it is written, this is exactly why Gavin's trinitarianism is not actually historical trinitarianism, and the core idea of the doctrine of the Trinity is not "a tripersonal God" which is a formulation I'm pretty uncomfortable with. Augustine's trinitarianism is a departure from the tradition, so yeah, a tripersonal God is an accretion! I'm with you, as a trinitarian!
I wish you stated that one of the most difficult thing a trinitarian *has* to admit that there is no implicit or explict passage that shows the three are in one. At best granting every interpretation of Trinitarians only show three gods.
@AaronGardner98 Agreed, good point. I was a former "trinitarian" but when I look back, it's more accurate to say I was a tri-theist (and my wife was also a "trinitarian" but thinking about it, she says she was actually a modalist). In fact, at one point I was willing to accept the tri-theist label. I didn't stay there long. Now I'm a Biblical Unitarian.
This is an excellent response video, Sam. One of the things I found helpful was your extended discussion about how the "Seven Bullet Points" are insufficient to establish the core concept of the doctrine of the Trinity. Also, you made some points about the assumption of Mary (with regard to "valid development vs accretion") that Gavin really needs to answer if his argument is going to have any force. And I am so glad that you brought up the subject of theological triage. I haven't read Gavin's book, so this isn't necessarily directed at him. But an important element that is missing in theological triage models - at least in the ones that I've seen - is this question: Which doctrines fall into the "essential" tier? You would think a question like that would have an obvious answer. After all, if something is truly essential for the salvation of my soul, I need to know what every last "essential" doctrine is. Simply saying that doctrines _like_ the deity of Christ and the Trinity belong on the top tier, doesn't go far enough. Are those the only two doctrines that fit that category, or are there more? If there are more, how many more? Joe Rigney (former president of Bethlehem College and Seminary), introduces a few additional doctrines that he thinks should go on that "essential" tier. He appeals to several scriptural passages, then concludes by saying, "This means, in addition to the Trinity, Christology, and soteriology, fundamental errors about God’s good design in creation, about the basic nature of humanity, and about the identification of sin and violations of God’s moral law ought to be regarded as first-tier issues. Put more simply, some denials of natural revelation place one outside the kingdom." (www.desiringgod.org/articles/triage-in-the-trenches) Whether you agree with Rigney's assessment or not, it confirms what I've suspected: there are more doctrines on the essential tier than is commonly acknowledged. It's a start, but I need more than that. What, exactly, do I need to believe _about_ God's good design in creation, _about_ the basic nature of humanity, and _about_ the identification of sin and violations of God's moral law? And once those questions have been answered, I'm still left wondering, "Is that the _complete_ list?" Why or why not? (Or could it be that the list of doctrines on the "essential" tier is _already_ too long?)
Yes, the cappadocian fathers. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa invented the vocabulary of person (hypostasis) and being (ousia) to describe what made God 3 and what made God 1.
@@transfigured3673 I think it's more accurate to say that they invented novel, unconventional USES of "hypostasis" and "ousia". Those terms already existed and had certain uses in metaphysical/ontological discourse. A "hypostasis" was a concrete instance, a being. To speak of my hypostasis was to speak of my "being". My hypostasis is a concrete instance of the "ousia" called human. What the Cappadocian theologians did was change "ousia" to refer to the "being" itself, and bifurcate the category of "person" from "being", placing the former within "hypostasis". This unconventional usage was necessary in order to formulate their innovation of a multipersonal being.
Greetings Sam. Point 2 in your Admissions slide seems mistaken; Tertullian wrote Against Praexas in 216 AD which is the earliest use of the term Trinity in association with the doctrine in its simple form, though I would say Ireneaus is our earliest patristic reference that explicitly describes a doctrine of the Trinity in Against Heresies Book 10, 180AD(earlier references are arguable so I won't assume). So the 4th century reference here is about technical formulation of doctrine, not presence of trinitarian thought and relevant descriptions thereof. There's a difference between being explicit and being comprehensive and/or systematic. I understand that you are defining 'Trinitarianism' as the precise dogmatic statement of the Nicene Creed but that comes across as a motte and bailey argument when Gavin is only claiming that Ante-Nicene fathers were talking in Trinitarian terms and beliefs well before this dogma. I recognise they may not have condemned subordinationism, for better or worse, but Gavin readily admits they can make mistakes. Also a little baffled that you're decrying this sinister 'Trinitarian Guild' while then appealing to liberal scholars who are often sceptical of basic claims the Bible makes. This isn't making you sound more compelling to Christians given the mainstream scholars reject all forms of theism or supernaturalism in their historiography and take an openly naturalist approach. So no, the %99 don't believe what you believe; their interpretation is influenced most strongly by German scepticism of the 19th century which more or less assumes Christianity arose from sociopolitical factors and can be explained by anthropology. It's a vanishingly small number of people in Biblical scholarship that are believing Unitarians. Otherwise I think the idea that the 7 Facts are 'too open to interpretation' presupposes something like the word 'God' being open to a diversity of senses within the applications in the list which I'm not sure if you believe that is what Gavin meant by his list or just being deliberately obtuse on that point. If you're going to accuse Gavin of failing to define Trinity at least try to understand what he intended by including the facts that comprise what he's getting at. I think you did a good job in your steelmanning section but drifted away from that attitude throughout the video.
I have a specific video about Tertullian's Christology you might find interesting. Also, you might want to check out my overall Development and Diversity of Christology as well. But thanks for your detailed comment. I also said "evangelical trinitarian apologist guild" i believe. Many catholic or orthodox and even other protestant scholars also agree with my overall point. It's not just secular liberals.
@@transfigured3673 I stand corrected on the precise wording there, though I don't think my paraphrase was unfaithful. The point I'm making is that the very Critical Scholarship in question aligns with liberal ideals by nature and its post-Enlightenment scepticism of supernatural explanations of anything has affected the majority of academia at this point. I learnt Critical Method at an evangelical Christian college where some of our coursework involved dissecting differences between the Gospels(redaction criticism) rather than reading them contextually as their own narratives, for example. Rome and the Orthodox often parrot the same arguments because it supports their own intramural apologetics in regards to claiming the fullness of the faith and denying this to Protestantism(which tragically seems at least as important to them as converting unbelievers and that's why I'm thankful for what Gavin does). So maybe Gavin is a hypocrite regarding trusting climate science and not trusting these aspects of scholarship but that's beside the point. Also the latter is an area he has his own expertise in. To be clear critical scholarship can be a positive thing but it's formally a separate discipline from theology that typically assumes only naturalistic explanations are permissible. I do think there's very strong reasons to question the scholarly consensus when it gives sociological answers to spiritual questions. Ps, Sorry if I'm rambling too much.
Before stumbling upon TLC, I briefly engaged with Christian UA-cam content, but I found myself disillusioned by its somewhat callous demeanor toward one's opposition. It was through your channel, Sam, that I first encountered the interpersonal approach to addressing (while ironically not addressing) our differences. However, I soon noticed that, despite the focus on collaboration, there was a notable lack of direction. The relationships among various religious and denominational camps, specifically within Paul's space, seemed to lack a deeper purpose. They seemed to depend more on a shallow desire for personal validation of one's beliefs rather than collaborating towards a genuine understanding of the world and of God. I believe that both Christian UA-cam and emerging interpersonal spaces like TLC share the same shortcoming. One approach tends to prioritize ideas over individuals, while the other focuses on personal narratives at the expense of core principles. In my view, both perspectives reflect a lack of faith and trust in God. As a consequence of this common deficiency, both camps aim for control by attempting to affirm their beliefs, either through strict rationality or deep relationality. While I do feel that siloing ouselves by clinging to incorrect propositional beliefs leads to confusion and misdirection, responding to external (political) pressures with excessive openness and ecumenism offers no clear direction. So my question is: how can we engage in respectful conversations while ensuring that our personal desires for affirmation and comm-unity don't overshadow the biblical call to maintain true beliefs? Essentially, how can we promote faith in God above our traditions, relationships, and personal interpretations during these interfaith discussions? BTW, if you have the chance to talk to Gavin, be sure to ask him what it feels like to be wrong, since clearly, that’s an experience Biblical Unitarians are unfamiliar with. Just kidding:)
I think it's pretty clear that I'm not a big supporter of TLC. I know we might not see eye to eye on this, but my lack of appreciation for TLC i.e., Paul's perspective on interpersonalism, has its reasons. The main issue is that it doesn't offer a clear and discernable vision. It often stops at the level of human relationships, leading to a kind of self-fascination instead of fostering true top down connections with others. In contrast, interpersonalism itself -the skill of effectively engaging with others-is incredibly valuable, especially when it's aimed at the ultimate good, which is a relationship with God. I feel that what you're doing on your channel doesn't completely align with Paul; it seems more like a blend of TLC and CYT. Am I off base here? If I am, I’d love to hear your perspective. Some folks (PVK) would rather label me as Satan "the accuser" than actually discuss my views on TLC and explain why they disagree.
I think you are right that I am a mix of TLC and CYT. And maybe just a little different from both. Also, you are not the accuser or satan. That's obviously anselman's job.
Wouldn't, in 51 minute mark and slide 20, be a categorical error with the term 'God.' Isn't it assumed when God is spoken of, it isn't a lower g God, but Yhwh? So you can't actually agree with that position fully? The same with Arians?
I think that Gavin is assuming that, but he never explicitly states that. The word "god" is used more broadly in the Bible than just referring to YHWH.
I have been a Trinitarian my whole life, mostly because it is church doctrine (in other words, I “have” to believe it). But when I read the NT, I cannot find any language which describes God as a coequal, consubstantial triad of persons. By contrast, I see loads of subordinationist language. So I suppose I am already an unorthodox, subordinationist trinitarian. I suspect that many would see this as a slippery slope to biblical unitarianism.
This was a long time coming. He asks such good questions regarding many of the roman catholic doctrines and expresses a healthy dose of skepticism, but when it comes to the Trinity, it's almost a presupposition for him.
I think that's exactly right. It's a presupposition. He never asks "What does the bible teach about God and Jesus?" he asks "Is the doctrine of the trinity biblical?"
I don't view 1 Corinthians 11:3 as being about submission. (But my egalitarianism influences my reading.) Kephalé, most often translated as "head", can also mean "source". Christ is the source of life for us. And according to Genesis 2, man is the source of woman. For OEC en YEC Christians that is clear. As an EC (evolutionary creation) Christian I can still accept Paul's main point: men and women were created differently by God (yet equal, 1 Cor 11:11-12). So I think Paul is trying to say that men and women are different, and that's why we shouldn't crossdress. God then being the source of Christ still signifies they are not the same. Just as men and women are not the same.
@@EmJay2022 Good question. The genealogy immediately follows the account of Jesus' baptism, where God declares Jesus his son. I think the genealogy ending with "son of Adam, son of God" means that Luke wants to tell us that Jesus is the son of God in the same way as Adam was. He is the representative of mankind. Adam should have been the ideal human, but he failed. The genealogy is followed by the Temptation story. The first and last test begin with: "If you are the son of God...". But Jesus succeeds and shows that he IS the ideal man. So even though I do not believe in a historical Adam, I believe in the theological message of the genealogy: 1. that he is our representative (and could give his live for us because of that); 2. and that he is the ideal human so we should try to emulate him.
@@ivarkoedijker168 There are many verses that confirm that at least the writers of scripture viewed Adam as an actual historical figure. In Jude, for example, the author identifies “Enoch” as descended from Adam, in the seventh generation from Adam. Doesn't the fact that Enoch is identified as “the seventh from Adam” not only confirm Enoch’s historicity but also assumes Adam’s historicity? How do you deal with these kinds of passages? The way the apostles speak about Adam does not indicated in any way an allegorical understanding of him. Do you believe they were all just ignorant? Also, judging from Paul’s assertions, we can arrive at two conclusions. First, the parallels he draws between Adam and Christ necessitates that both are representative figures, emphasizing their humanity (1 Cor. 15:21). Taking that into account, if one were to undermine the humanity of one, it would inevitably question the humanity of the other. Second, Paul’s teachings regarding Adam and Christ are central to his gospel message. The resurrection is a fundamental aspect that Paul identifies in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. By linking the resurrection of Christ to the death introduced by Adam, Paul firmly connects the historical realities of both figures to the resurrection narrative. Thus, we can say that the historicity of Adam is integral to Paul’s teachings on Christ’s resurrection. What would you say to that?
@@EmJay2022 Yes, I do think the NT authors believed in a historical Adam. But I don't think it changes the point they were trying to make. My focus is on what Paul is saying about Jesus by using Adam as an antitype. By using a literary example his listeners knew (Adam), Paul explained what Jesus accomplished. Today Paul could use the example of Aslan in Narnia to make clear what Jesus did. (Btw, I respect your view! And there are EC Christians who do believe in a historical Adam. One of the views is that God selected an early human couple to be his priests = Adam and Eve.)
@@ivarkoedijker168 It's important to note that Jesus also mentioned a historical Adam. To suggest that the founder of the faith and all the prophets before him were ignorant of history through their belief in a historical Adam is a rather bold position to hold. The example you provided is comparing apples to oranges for the reason that Aslan doesn't have a detailed geneology that is purported to be historically accurate and grounded. The crux of the matter is that without a concrete origin for sin in a historical human being, Jesus's death becomes unnecessary and personal accountability and repentance futile. We could easily explain our imperfections as a result of evolutionary processes, suggesting that sin is something that will eventually correct itself. Essentially, viewing Christianity through an evolutionary lens renders it unintelligible.
To be fair, the reason Trinitarians mark the doctrine as First Order is because you cant evangalize if you think there is ambuigity about your understanding and relationship with your God or that you are not near God because of said ambiguity. Thats my social/psychological critique
@@remymargaux1233 Sam Shamoun is the embodiment of what Sam Tideman calls "Christian UA-cam" or UA-cam apologetics. This approach often prioritizes victory over meaningful connections. I tuned into one of his livestreams for about 15 minutes, during which he insulted someone's mother. Shamoun him.
@transfigured3673 There is a possbility that the Quran takes a position against the incarnation but not against the trinity per se. The verses that talk about God not having a son are probably talking against those that deny the virgin birth. So the Quran might be more trinitarian than the Bible and you should use this when pushing back against dogmatic trinitarians that accuse you of being a muslim. Also trinitarians do not like it when you say The Living God, who never dies. Are you up to date on the philosophy of Philoponos and Nestorius?
@reevertoun The reason why you think it missunderstands the trinity is because you think it is speaking against the trinity when it is in fact speaking against incarnatiion. Another reason for why you may think that the Quran has missunderstood the trinity is because when you think it is speaking against the trinity the Quran is in fact adressing the tritheism of Philiponos. Kafiiroon= believers in the incarnatiion Mushrikeen= philiponos tritheists
Great video Sam. You really cooked him. Three things. 1. Will you do a video "responding" to Monarchial Trinitarianism? 2. A la 47:27, how do you, or how should people in general, interact with "modern biblical scholarship"? Should one just accept what they have to say and take the liberal Christian pill? Seems like you don't take that approach. Should one take a progressive or anti-progressive view of biblical scholarship? Progressive: we used to believe all these wrong ideas surrounding the Bible and every year we get closer and closer to the truth. Anti-Progressive: we used to believe all these wrong ideas(1) surrounding the Bible, and the ideas(2) we replaced them with were also wrong, and those ideas(3) were also wrong. so what we believe now(4) surrounding the Bible is also most likely wrong. 3. Related to a video that Dr. Nemes did recently called: "Marcionite priority and the Irenaean myth of apostolic Christianity". The bible, at least the NT, wasn't composed in the apostolic period. I'll leave the exact dating aside. How do we know that no "accretions" haven't crept into the Bible itself? The oldest full texts we have are 4th century, with plenty of accretions abound. And Marcion's Luke was shorter than the one we have now. Are those extra sections accretions then? Thanks.
Regarding the implications of the Trinity or Christology in general, my perspective iwill undeniably be controversial, but I firmly stand by its validity. First off, I believe it's essential to understand that merely embracing the Christian faith does not guarantee a person salvation. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that not all practices surrounding the Eucharist hold the same significance. We have to ask the question: Do all eucharistic rituals connect with Jesus in the heavenly temple? As Biblical Unitarians, if we assert that the doctrine of the Trinity is essentially an idol of the mainline Christian church, we must thoughtfully reflect on the implications of offering bread and wine to an idol (1 Corinthians 8:1). Assuming that this is a valid argument, then regardless of one's theological knowledge, participating in a trinitarian Eucharist leads one into idolatry, whether they are conscious of it or not. It's essentially a crime committed in ignorance. This underscores the importance of Christology. I believe our efforts as Unitarians should of course be aimed at the unlearned but, as importantly, extend beyond to include those who are educated, particularly toward those in leadership positions who oversee the Eucharist. I believe we have to be sensitive to the fact that Christians who have yet to achieve salvation and find themselves caught in idolatry through the Eucharist can be significantly impacted in their spiritual walk. We should not be too quick to assume their security. The words of Matthew 23:13 come to mind. This, Sam, is where I believe the essence of this theological debate lies. As dramatic as it may sound, if we have love for Christ's church, we must ensure to the best of our ability that Christians are not trapped in idolatry, as their salvation may be at stake. It's that important, in my view.
I hear you EmJay and I admit I sometimes agree with this train of thought and sometimes don’t. But it’s perfectly valid to poke at me in this direction so I don’t get too complacent
@@Phlebas9202 Not really. I have a deep distaste for simplistic theology. Protestantism is simply a parasitic "accretion" of Catholic & Orthodox theology.
On Problem 8. There is a strategic reason to not be verbal with your doctrines. As soon as a doctrine is written down it allows them to be brittle and defined by the words. Councils and creeds have only been used historically when the need to unite the church superseded the general desire to keep the doctrine in the hearts of the people instead of on paper.
One thing I find ironic is that within TLC, Sam strikes me as one of the strongest believers of the hand of God in evolution, and if ideas also follow evolutionary processes, I would suspect the magesterium of the church develops according to the same pattern. Curious how you would respond to that, Sam.
There is always evolution. Even the gospels themselves show evolution. Synoptics all have their own focus and John's gospel has its own unique flavor. Arguments about the necessity of circumcision in Acts and so forth. Revelation at the end.
A comparison of the Apostles Creed to the Nicene Creed could provide a good argument for the Trinity being an Acretion. For the most part, the ideas which Nicea asserts, and the Apostle’s Creed does not, are neither clear, no clearly biblical, and continued to be the occasion of dispute in the decades following Nicea.
this is an absolute falsely represented presentation that seems like a someone who is arguing fairly ....the ancient seemingly incurable tendency of reading the bible with one eye closed
@@transfigured3673 The gospels/NT clearly show accretions within itself. John is different than the synoptics. Paul's writings contain many things not in the gospels. The Acts tells of a group of people sharing all things in common. There is already development evident from the very beginning. In addition, the gospels are written decades after Jesus' death. How close are they to representing the actual life and words of Jesus?
Jews only became monotheist under Muslim pressure 1000 years ago. Before that they had 10 gods (sephirot). Belief in Satan and angels and demons was common into the modern period. Depends on how you define "deity". Even Jesus, rhetorically, calls humans gods. John 10:34-38.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? 37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. 38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
If you are trying to use the belief in the ten sephirot as proof Jews were not Monotheistic at the time of Christ (regardless of how much composition is or is not allowed in a model of God for it to be considered a monotheistic one), you are off by seven hundred years, the concept of the sephirot did not take off until after the writing of the Zohar.
@@williambranch4283 This is entirely irrelevant to my point, first of all, and second what definition of monotheism are you working under that the existence of spirits violates it? Because it is a stupid definition that no one who has ever called himself a monotheist would fall under.
*Matthew 7:21-23* (CEB) [21] “Not everybody who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom of heaven. *ONLY THOSE WHO DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN WILL ENTER.* [22] On the Judgment Day, many people will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name and expel demons in your name and do lots of miracles in your name?’ [23] Then I’ll tell them, ‘I’ve never known you. Get away from me, you people who do wrong.’ *Matthew 12:50* (LEB) For whoever does *THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN,* he is my *BROTHER* and *SISTER* and *MOTHER.”*
Sam: The reason why this is so confused is because there is a story. When Jesus talks about the son not knowing the hour, he’s talking about the son in the midst of the story. When he’s talking about the father and son being one, he’s talking about the son at the end of the story (but also in the beginning). Truth is a person, the Son of Man, and his story. In the story of God, the one becomes many and then the many become one. Asking the question, “Well, is God one or many?” misses the point. The point is to enter into the story and navigate it.
Identifying as one or the other between Unitarian or Trinitarian is misguided. Identify with the self, or the Son of Man, or eternal life, or the new kingdom, or the resurrection, or the soul. Wake up Christians!
Honestly, I don’t know how someone could be aware of all this and remain a Trinitarian. This presentation was so clear, on point and direct. I’d rate it a five star rebuttal. I’d say you definitely hit a theological home run! Thankyou brother for all you do!
(for the algorithm) Another good Trinitarian-denying verse in the New Testament is from Paul: *1 Timothy 1:17* (LEB) Now to the *KING OF THE AGES,* *IMMORTAL,* *INVISIBLE,* to *THE ONLY GOD,* be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
Sam, thanks for taking such time to interact with my video. I watched the first hour or so, then skipped ahead to problem 6 (because it looked interesting). I hope I can finish watching soon. I already emailed a few thoughts. And yes, let's talk more. Briefly: I think you interpreted my video too self-referentially. It was not about you. It was primarily in response to the scores of non-Protestants saying, "if the assumption of Mary is an accretion, so is the Trinity!" The first 25 minutes or so here has a lot of unnecessary speculation. Related to that, I think you misunderstood the purpose of my video. It was not to establish Trinitarianism over Unitarianism per se. It was to argue the Trinity is not an accretion like the assumption of Mary or the veneration of icons. To do that, it is not necessary to establish that my 7 building blocks must necessarily be interpreted one way or another. Their mere presence in the apostolic deposit differentiates the trinity from accretions like the assumption of Mary or the veneration of icons, which have no comparable foundation. You try to give some foundation for Mary's assumption later when you talk about her being blessed among women and close to God, but this same argument could be made for any godly person (say, John the Baptist). There is no reason why these facts would even make someone think of an assumption to heaven. Further, I argue at length that the evidence is not merely silent about Mary's assumption, but strongly AGAINST it. Same with icon veneration. That is not comparable to the Trinity, where I would argue we don't have any evidence AGAINST it (caps not me shouting, just for emphasis). There were other smaller points I disagreed with, but that is the heart of the matter. We also need to talk about whether Jesus was worshiped. God bless.
I am glad that you have responded so respectfully. Well done.
Regarding the doctrine of the Trinity being an accretion, I do not believe (cannot believe) that the apostles of Christ were Nicene-type Trinitarians. They simply couldn’t have been, because there is absolutely no language in the New Testament writings that describes God as a coequal, consubstantial triad of persons. It took a great deal of theological development to arrive at that conclusion.
I write this as a Protestant (albeit in the more “radical reformation” vein) and Trinitarian myself. I simply wish that more Trinitarians, such as yourself, could be more honest about post-biblical theological development. Nicene-type Trinitarianism *may* be true, but it is also thoroughly post-biblical. Being honest about that is the beginning of constructive dialogue.
@@AaronGardner98 thanks for the comment! oh, I certainly don't deny development. No doubt about it. Watch my initial video. The question is the nature of the development. Right away (so I argue) Christians are worshiping Jesus as God. He accepts that worship and calls it belief. I mean, wow! In a Jewish monotheistic context, that is striking. It demands an interpretation. Then you have other data, like Trinitarian baptism. I think what ends up as the full-blown Trinity is the best way to make sense of all the data. But whether it is or not, the point of my video is that this is nothing like the assumption of Mary. There is a big difference between possible alternative ways of putting the puzzle pieces together vs. not having puzzle pieces to begin with.
@@TruthUnites thank you for your response and thoughtful engagement. May I ask you directly - how do think that historical subordinationists (Justin Martyr, Origen, Tertullian…) would be treated if they were to attend or attempt to “join” a mainstream Protestant or evangelical church today?
As Sam demonstrates in this video-in the OT, NT, and all pre-Augustine Christian writers (give or take Athanasius/Hilary):
- "The one true God" is consistently, frequently, and unambiguously said to be exactly one person-the Father.
- God is never called "triune", "tri-personal", "three", "three-and-one", "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", or any other word that denotes three-ness
- Jesus is consistently, frequently, and unambiguously said to be someone other than (and subordinate to) God-God's servant, God's son, God's messiah, the one sent by God, etc.
Honest question: if this is not "evidence against the trinity", what would be?
@TruthUnites
The reason they were worshipping him is because he waa curing incurable diseases and because he is immortal ( which the crucifiction proved) and nor because he is the almighty creator.
If a human walked around today curing cancer and autoimmune diseases while being able to survive death penalties he would naturally be worshipped as divine but would not be considered the Creator of the Universe.
When you said "backwards compatible" in the steel man, that was the first time i've heard this term, and I think it fits very well. I've heard "reverse engineered" before.
The primacy of the doctrine of the trinity seems to be based upon the theory that, the farther we get from the First Century, the better our understanding of the truth?
You are correct, it predates the Apostles. To the garden itself. A book I recommend for all interested to see the idea existing well before the Apostles is Alan F. Segal's "The Two Powers in Heaven.."
I'm just a statistician, not a mathematician, but does two = three?
@@transfigured3673 In this case it's one equals 3.
@PracticalChristianLessons
Do not dig that hole for yourself. The two powers in heaven has nothing to do with the plurality of God. Rather it is an artefact of pre Yahweh-only ancient israelite religion where Yahweh was one of many gods who made up the Council of Gods.
If you read God-an anatomy by Francesca Stravopoglu these artefacts in the old testament become very evident.
@@transfigured3673😂😂😂
@@PracticalChristianLessons 1=2 "I and the father are one" John 10:30
58:45, Just read the patristics, St Basil, St Augustine and others. One "Being" (God) three "Persons" (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). Similarly to how we are body, soul, and mind. You are your body, you are your soul, you are your mind. Your mind is you, your soul is you and your body is you, undivided and yet separate. Also, properly addressed as you when referenced separately. You are sick, when you have a cold, is perfectly reasonable to say even though your soul is not sick. You think foolishly though your body does not think. Even when the soul is away from the body in death; are you buried in the grave, or are you are with the Lord? Reasonable and revealed in scripture. Simple, only complicated to the heretics and the haughty.
Your patristics seem to be later than people like Tertullian who obviously did not believe the son was eternal. He said there was a time when God was alone, (and he obviously meant the father, because he said there was a time when God was not a father because there was a time there was no son.
@@rsk5660 early doesn't mean right. I am not appealing to when they made there arguments but what they said. Tertullian is was wrong, not just on this point. I am sure you do not agree with him on everything he said. My point was the arguments of others are better and the questions were addressed long ago.
@@jacobojala3767 At the time of Tertullian, no one was excommunicating him, just disagreeing with him, and there was liberty to think for yourself. The Catholic Church is now obliged to call Tertullian a heretic since he did not believe orthodoxically. There is no more room to think for yourself in orthodoxy. It is so easy now to condemn people in the past. As I read the bible for myself, I can't help noticing apparent differences with orthodoxy. My experience is that when I ask questions I am seen as evil rather than just inquisitive, and I find the answers unsatisfacory. Most Christians, and I don't blame them, because they may have more important things to do for God, don't ask the questions I ask, and so, don't get into the bad books of the chuch leaders.
@@rsk5660 Respectfully, it is not about the questions asked, it is about the assertion that the Church is not only wrong but oppressing the truth. Can you not see that this causes issues among the people. The East, Rome, and the Reformers were and are on the same page; the Trinity is what has been revealed by scripture. You will trust the Church to preserve the scripture and determine the canon, by the Holy Spirit. But not teach you about God, with His help, from the scripture? You are the example of being your own pope that Rome accuses every Protestant of being, it is honestly embarrassing. The whole Church is harmed when it is belittled by little popes, reading an English translation given to them by the Church, deciding that they know better, the Church is corrupted, the teachers of the Church from Irenaeus, Augustine, Cyril, Basil, Calvin, Wesley, and the local Baptist pastor down the street are the real heretics. Repent, not of being wrong, but of your divisiveness; there are enough divisions that hurt our witness, don’t add to them.
@@jacobojala3767 Join the church that put people to death?
I (as a unitarian) used to think that Christology should be a first-tier issue. But realising that excommunicating most of the Christians that ever lived is not an option, made me change my opinion. As you said, how should we react when Tertullian or Origen would walk into our church? And I love the example you used in another video about Justin Martyr being friends with Christians who didn't believe in Jesus' pre-existence.
As long as Christians accept that Jesus is the Messiah and that he came in the flesh (i.e., not gnostic), we can be in fellowship.
This also gives church members the opportunity to go on a Christological journey without having to fear that they might have to leave their church. Thank you for me helping me think about this.
Thanks for the shoutout.
Always deserved
Can’t wait to watch this later!
Excited to hear your thoughts
I thought you had said you were planning on making a short response- but I'm not complaining I'll always take more top tier Sam content!
Lol, it was hard to get started and not make it longer
5:26 is proper knowledge person-centric or info-centric?
One is relational ontology and one is substance ontology.
I think the first is true.
You'd be more convincing if you had dogs
@@transfigured3673 I have a dog and my trinitarian friend has a dog but I never get anywhere with him when talking about the trinity. He might respect me more if I had a dog-collar.
Also, at what point, historically, does the church arrive at a “full blown” trinity theory? The Catholic Church continued to narrow the field of orthodoxy re:
Trinity and Christology throughout the 600s at least.
You should have Blake Ostler and Robert Boylan on your show to discuss these issues.
I always appreciate good suggestions from the audience. Thanks!
Love the intro. We see you Sam.
Thanks Chezi
Great video, I hope Gavin takes the time to give it a fair listen.
My only critique is that your flowchart for determining what Gavin thinks is an accretion didn't help your case for wanting charitable discussion between the two of you. That one strayed a bit ad hominem-you could have left it at "I can't tell how Gavin decides what is or isn't an accretion, so I'd be interested in talking with him about it", because the flowchart painted a rather negative picture of Gavin's fair-mindedness rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt
Fair enough, that was the strongest punch in the presentation.
@@transfigured3673 Yeah I think especially given the fact that Gavin is one of the most outspoken protestants when it comes to prioritizing theological triage (and thus promoting cross-tradition/cross-denomination Christian unity), saying he considers anything outside of "baptist orthodoxy" an accretion could give the impression that you either don't understand his views or are ok with misrepresenting them. This coming from someone who would love to see a dialogue between you two!
Enjoying your new mic setup, sounds nice!
Thanks! Hope it was worth it
Very well done, Sam. I hope he wants to talk.
Thanks Luke
Luke 1 refutes this btw
Refutes what exactly?
@@transfigured3673 The idea the Trinity is not apostolic since Luke 1 reveals the divinity of Christ
To be fair it doesn't prove the Trinity as a whole because the Holy Ghost isn't revealed to be divine there. But I don't think anyone today rejects the Holy Spirit alone, they usually go for both the Son and the Holy Spirit
let me know when you've watched the video
@Testimony_Of_JTF
The Gospel of Luke makes it clear that the Holy Ghost is not one of God’s persons but is rather God’s power which he GRANTS to Mary so that she may give birth to the human son of the Most High God:
”The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God.”Luke 1:35
You should maybe talk to Nathan Jacobs about this.
The most coherent explanations of the trinity often just seem like philosophical sleight of hand with “natures/persons”
Either way, I appreciate the vids big bro! ❤
I think Nathan Jacobs would be an interesting. He is one of those monarchical trinitarians I mentioned.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Joe Mama is imaginary
I'm convinced. Perhaps the simplest way to think about the rigidity and often violent enforcement of the Trinity in the history of the Church is as a concise "loyalty test." A common tactic to reinforce ingroup/outgroup boundaries is to require outlandish shibboleths as a condition of participation, the more outlandish the better because it weeds out the skeptics.
I think you hit the nail on the head Rod. The trinity is perfect for this purpose.
-It is a claim about the top of the ontological hierarchy, so therefore is fittingly important
-The trinity can be highly specific when needed, but also very vague when needed
-It meshes well with clericalism. Only the experts get to think about it, you just accept it
-As you said, it filters for people who will accept what is taught to them, even if it smacks against the most basic levels of common sense
@@transfigured3673 Yes Sam. I have a personal rule of respecting people's religious beliefs. "I don't argue with a man's religion on his deathbed." Until I found myself in the merry band of misfits we're calling TLC I wasn't even really aware of the Trinity, never mind how central it is to how most of Christianity is practiced today. I have found it difficult to adhere to my rule and keep a straight face when people have tried to make a coherent case for it, it really verges on incoherence. Then Jacob F. comes along and introduces the martyr Michael Servetus to me, and I learn his dying words, as he's being burned the stake, were "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me." This takes this out of the realm of a mildly distracting theological parlor game into the realm of a significant stain on the history of the Church. Perhaps this is why it is so viscerally defended even in present day.
amen
@@roderickhare Psalm 116:15
@@faturechi የቅዱሳኑ ሞት በእግዚአብሔር ፊት የከበረ ነው።
30:36 what is primary information or persons?
Look for Jess and my forthcoming talk on nonduality.
Buddha approves ;-)
Looking forward
I largely agree with Sam on the importance of the Trinity.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Joe Mama
Thanks Andrew
1:02:40 I am pretty sure that they are speaking about the Essence (which is shared by the three persons) when they say “God himself”
Right. But *personal* pronouns (eg "me, myself, I", etc) correspond to that *person*, not their "abstract essence". A nature/essence doesn't say "I stretched out the heavens..." A *person* says that. Likewise, when someone says "He" is our God, the antecedent of that *He* is not an abstract nature, but a person.
The Trinitarians who insist on saying God is one "what" and three "who's", while simultaneously calling that "what" a "He", are deserving of derision and mockery. It's best they give up calling their God "He" and instead say "It".
Been waitin on this baby! Let’s go!!
1:07:43 with this, i'd say consider the two relations (Man and Woman, God and Christ) with Christ as head of humanity linking the two. there is a form of hierarchy amidst true equality within humanity between man and woman. there is also a form of hierarchy amidst true equality within the Divinity between the Father and the Son and Spirit-one reason for the former hierarchy being to type the latter. and Christ as head, which links the two, being the Incarnation.
what do you think?
1:33:18 Woman came forth from Man's side.
“I’m gonna ignore the monarchical Trinitarians for now” 😡😡😡😡😡
I mean, if you set aside the actual doctrine of the Holy Trinity as taught by the Church, I probably agree with Sam that these lame Protestant versions are heretical accretions.
This video was made as a response to Gavin, not MTs
I want in on this too. What about henotheists?
Another example of Christ’s subordinationism is the scene of his prayer to his God in the Garden of Gethsemane (as portrayed in the synoptic gospels)
*Matthew 26:39* (LEB)
And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, *NOT AS I WILL, but AS YOU WILL.”*
I'm a trinitarian by parentage & tradition. And having gone through evangelicalism's churches and seminary, I much rather listen to Sam about the Trinity than to most evangelicals
Kind words, thanks Tony.
here is the thing with your point at 47:25 most academic scholars would be heretical in most things. such as the exodus or the composition of the torah or who wrote the gospels. And I think with the information age the idea of being a true Christian is becoming more and more difficult.
That is very true as well.
100+ comments on 700 views is insane engagement.
Insane by some standards, minuscule by others. But I’m grateful and thrilled when anyone voluntarily listens to what I have to say
Are there any books you'd recommend as an introduction to Unitarianism? It's history, scriptural points, and arguments for it?
I recommend "Christ Before Creeds" by Jeff Deuble as a start. Then I recommend "The God of Jesus in Light of Christian Dogma" by Kegan Chandler.
@@LoveAndLiberty02Kegan’s book is excellent
The two books already mentioned are what I would recommend as well "Christ before Creeds" by Deuble and "The God of Jesus" by Chandler
@@LoveAndLiberty02 Thaaanks
@@transfigured3673 noted
I'm fascinated with this topic, this kind of video is so helpful for me to understand my own thoughts on God and the Trinity.
I'm very aware that this debate about the Trinity always leaves out the 3ed member in the conversations, the Holy Spirit. If you truly believe in the reality of the Holy Spirit and you believe that the church followers were being led by it than there is no such thing as an "Acression" in the Church. If the Christian theology is truly divine and being guided by God and not just another flawed human project then there is nothing that can grow or build upon that isn't under God's control. The barnacles you wish to chip off might not be defects but have been placed there by God himself for a specific reason.
As for one of your final points, "what changes without the Doctrine of the Trinity", I think God's character changes completely without the Trinity.
Without the Trinity you open the door to the Gnostic Demiurge interpretation of Christianity.
A King who inflicts suffering on his subjects can be seen as an evil king, even if he is doing it for the best reasons.
A king who suffers WITH his people can't so easily be seen as evil.
Christ is God suffering WITH us and showing us how to overcome the worst things in this Universe with the tools he's given us.
The word god generally refers to a powerful personality in the heavens somewhere. Trinitarianism changes this normal meaning of a word and applies it to three persons. We get so accustomed to this change that we don't notice it. I used to be trinitarian and know that this happened to me. Now that I am a unitarian, I recently noticed that the God of the old testament who must be the trinity, calls himself a king. If a trinitarian noticed that God calls himself a king, which conjures up a man sitting on a throne on earth, it would be harder for him to think of a tripersonal king.
So, I was wondering what you have in mind as to your king suffering with you. One question I asked myself as I began doubting the trinity was, if God (the Father) is so loving, why did he not come himself instead of sending his son. So, in one sense the king did not come himself.
@@rsk5660 I agree that the word "god" has changed a lot over the eons.
Let's start off with God as the Creator of all things, the supreme One who created the Heavenly world of Spirits and the physical world of Earthly matter (the Heavens and Earth as described in Genesis). Since God the creator made both spirit and matter he must be outside and beyond both of them; just as any human creator is outside and beyond the things he creates.
In the spirit world there are many powerful entities that might want to claim the title of "god" but they are still just tiny pieces of the whole, they are all placed there by God the creator. In the physical world there are many powerful entities that might want to claim the title of "god" but they are still just tiny pieces of the whole, they are all placed there by God the creator.
The Creator can reach into the spirit world and create a being to be his avatar and to control the spirits he made. Hence his Hebrew name in the spirit world: YHWH "to be", "to exist", "to cause to become", or "to come to pass"
The Creator can also reach in the physical world and create a being to be his avatar, this was the man Jesus Christ. Since "Man" is both a creature of Spirit and Matter the symbol of a man is the perfect representation of unifying both worlds. He came to rescue the physical world from from sin and death and to realign it with his original grand design.
Once Christ died and ascended to the spirit world, like all humans can do by nature of our dual natures as spirit and matter, he takes the throne in Heaven and starts realigning the spirits that dominated the world. YHWH and Jesus Christ become one being, both names represent the Creator who is within and beyond both all Spirit and Matter. From that point onward the Creator spreads his controlling influence from the tiny Jewish community around Jerusalem and into every gentile/pagan society in the world. Taking over the Roman Empire within a few hundred years and expanding outward from there.
The Holy Spirit is any time the Creator directly intercedes into the Spirit or Physical world and creates something new. He has the power to act in every cell and to animate any spirit to his will. His fingerprints are everywhere on Earth.
We are so limited we may see contradictions and he sees only a Universe being transformed into the Kingdom of Heaven he intended all along. The life of suffering that Christ lived is a demonstration to use how he creates new things out of pain and suffering. To be like him, to feel the Holy Spirit acting through you, is to transmute your pain and suffering into something good. It's no coincidence that the best artists (musicians, comedians, writers, painters) are all people who suffered horrific things in their lives.
If we strive to consciously do this in every aspect of our lives we will channel the Holy Spirit and align our spirit with the Creator's. For doing this he has promised us that when we leave this physical world our spirit will be placed alongside him in Heaven. That has always been the Saintly message of Christianity, to be an avatar for God and to take our part in the unfolding of creation.
@@EricYoungArt Thanks for taking so much time to reply. Just a few questions to try to understand you. Do you believe Jesus is a created representative of God or the second person of the eternal trinity incarnated in a human? Why did you not mention the resurrection of Jesus and then his bodily ascension? How can God and Christ become one being? Where did you get this idea from, thanks
@@rsk5660 "Do you believe Jesus is a created representative of God or the second person of the eternal trinity incarnated in a human?"
- Yes, sorry If I was not clear. When I said God created Jesus to be his avatar in the physical world, I'm saying God(the creator of all things) incarnated into a human body through Mary.
"How can God and Christ become one being?"
- Wrong framing, each person is always two beings. You are a physical being in the physical world and you are simultaneously a spiritual being in the spirit world. You can prove this to yourself simply by choosing to extend conscious effort externally to effect the external world or you can extend conscious effort internally and interact with the spirits of your Heart/Mind/Imagination/Unconscious (you pick the word that feels best, they all mean the same thing.) There is no escaping this dual nature that we are all born into.
When Jesus was born he was fully physical as we all are but when he turned his mind's eye inward he did not have the spirit of a simple carpenter but the spirit of the Creator, YHWH. That internal spirit is what guided his ministry and mission on Earth and when he died his Spirit returned to the spirit world. But that Spirit now had a new name, a human Jesus Christ. YHWH and Jesus become names for the same Spirit in Heaven, the spirit of the Creator.
" Why did you not mention the resurrection of Jesus and then his bodily ascension? "
- The physical, body resurrection of Jesus is mysterious in the Gospel. But if you're the creator of Heavens and Earth there's nothing you can't do. If you wanted to manifest a physical body for himself like the Gospels say he did there's no reason he can't create that reality. If you can manifest a sperm inside the womb of a virgin you can manifest the body of a man inside a locked room.
The resurrection of the Saints after Christ's death is more mysterious. There's many reports over the last 2000 years of Christian Saints manifesting in unexpected locations and performing miracles all over the world. It would seem this ability to physically manifest after death is part of the "new life" he has promised us; as if we are no longer bounded by time and space but can move about it at will. But we can only guess at this until we make the journey ourselves.
"Where did you get this idea from"
-Wide range of study. CS Lewis's has various essays on Christianity that I really like and GK Chesterton's books Orthodoxy and the Everlasting Man were really helpful to me when it came to thinking about the Creator like a Trinitarian.
I had some mystical experiences myself and those have really helped me think about life, creativity and my own mind in a new light.
@@EricYoungArt thanks for answering my questions.
I had a weird experience maybe about six months ago. I wrote some TLC people, didn't get a response and a few days later PVK made a video seemingly about the messages I sent and the video had a less than charitable tone. I reached out to him and he told me the video wasn't about me. I don't think he was lying. However, given that he repeated some of the specific language I used in his video I think he clearly had been speaking to people about the topic. I can't help but wonder if something similar happened with Gavin where the topic had been brought up with people he was around but he hadn't watched or responded to your video specifically. Either way I commend your continued effort at dialogue.
The human mind naturally sees itself as the center of everything. It just so happens that every once and a while, it's actually true.
@@transfigured3673 Well I'll say this if you're mind works the way mine does you're probably replaying specific things said in Gavin said. Pray, I'll be praying with you and have faith that God and his only Son will be glorified.
Download free " hope for all by Gerry Beauchemin PDF" and "hope beyond hell by Gerry Beauchemin PDF " and " the christian doctrine of apokatastasis a critical assessment from the bible to Eriugena by illaria ramelli PDF ". Check out " the inescapable love of God " by Thomas Talbot 😊
POV: The Good News of "everyone is saved anyway" must be spread
1:18:26 I am duly annoyed at leaving aside the monarchical Trinity so I am leaving a comment as instructed 😂. The historical doctrine of the Trinity *is* the monarchical Trinity. The core idea of the Trinity therefore is not an idea that encompasses both egalitarian and monarchical theories as if these are later developments of an earlier, more primitive trinitarianism. You yourself just noted that Athanasius is a monarchical trinitarian if I heard you correctly. The core idea of the Trinity *is* full-blown monarchical trinitarianism, which I think is clearly stated in the scriptures - that there is one God, the Father Almighty, that Jesus Christ is one Lord who is the only-begotten Son of the Father, true God from true God, and that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is worshipped together with the Father and the Son.
Holy spirit worshipped??? Bible verse please.
Son of God is true God from true God? Huh!?
True God was never begotten. The Son was.
God is true God alone.
He made his Son Lord of lords. But nobody made the true God into anything.
Trinitarianism is illogical from beginning to end.
@@colingr318 I mean I can cite you all the usual Trinitarian/Unitarian debate passages but I'm guessing you have your Unitarian interpretation all mapped out; I'm not going to convince you on a UA-cam comment chain. I'm not a Protestant, I get my map of scripture by receiving it from the Church, and that's going to create quite a large methodological gap between us. God bless you. I wish you well on whatever journey you're on.
Why Chalcedon? 🤷♂️🤷♂️🤷♂️
1:44:47 Oh i should have waited to post my previous comment! Your exegesis of the Nicene Creed is pretty spot on! As someone who actually believes the Nicene Creed as it is written, this is exactly why Gavin's trinitarianism is not actually historical trinitarianism, and the core idea of the doctrine of the Trinity is not "a tripersonal God" which is a formulation I'm pretty uncomfortable with. Augustine's trinitarianism is a departure from the tradition, so yeah, a tripersonal God is an accretion! I'm with you, as a trinitarian!
I wish you stated that one of the most difficult thing a trinitarian *has* to admit that there is no implicit or explict passage that shows the three are in one. At best granting every interpretation of Trinitarians only show three gods.
I thought I came pretty close to saying that
Most Trinitarians (and I nominally am one) are in fact either modalists or tri-theists. Without question.
@AaronGardner98 Agreed, good point. I was a former "trinitarian" but when I look back, it's more accurate to say I was a tri-theist (and my wife was also a "trinitarian" but thinking about it, she says she was actually a modalist). In fact, at one point I was willing to accept the tri-theist label. I didn't stay there long. Now I'm a Biblical Unitarian.
This is an excellent response video, Sam.
One of the things I found helpful was your extended discussion about how the "Seven Bullet Points" are insufficient to establish the core concept of the doctrine of the Trinity.
Also, you made some points about the assumption of Mary (with regard to "valid development vs accretion") that Gavin really needs to answer if his argument is going to have any force.
And I am so glad that you brought up the subject of theological triage.
I haven't read Gavin's book, so this isn't necessarily directed at him. But an important element that is missing in theological triage models - at least in the ones that I've seen - is this question: Which doctrines fall into the "essential" tier? You would think a question like that would have an obvious answer. After all, if something is truly essential for the salvation of my soul, I need to know what every last "essential" doctrine is. Simply saying that doctrines _like_ the deity of Christ and the Trinity belong on the top tier, doesn't go far enough. Are those the only two doctrines that fit that category, or are there more? If there are more, how many more?
Joe Rigney (former president of Bethlehem College and Seminary), introduces a few additional doctrines that he thinks should go on that "essential" tier. He appeals to several scriptural passages, then concludes by saying, "This means, in addition to the Trinity, Christology, and soteriology, fundamental errors about God’s good design in creation, about the basic nature of humanity, and about the identification of sin and violations of God’s moral law ought to be regarded as first-tier issues. Put more simply, some denials of natural revelation place one outside the kingdom." (www.desiringgod.org/articles/triage-in-the-trenches)
Whether you agree with Rigney's assessment or not, it confirms what I've suspected: there are more doctrines on the essential tier than is commonly acknowledged. It's a start, but I need more than that. What, exactly, do I need to believe _about_ God's good design in creation, _about_ the basic nature of humanity, and _about_ the identification of sin and violations of God's moral law?
And once those questions have been answered, I'm still left wondering, "Is that the _complete_ list?" Why or why not? (Or could it be that the list of doctrines on the "essential" tier is _already_ too long?)
High quality comment
Sam is it fair to say that trinitarians invented the distinction between "being" and "persons" so that they can still identify as monotheistic?
Yes, the cappadocian fathers. Basil the Great and Gregory of Nyssa invented the vocabulary of person (hypostasis) and being (ousia) to describe what made God 3 and what made God 1.
@@transfigured3673 I think it's more accurate to say that they invented novel, unconventional USES of "hypostasis" and "ousia". Those terms already existed and had certain uses in metaphysical/ontological discourse. A "hypostasis" was a concrete instance, a being. To speak of my hypostasis was to speak of my "being". My hypostasis is a concrete instance of the "ousia" called human.
What the Cappadocian theologians did was change "ousia" to refer to the "being" itself, and bifurcate the category of "person" from "being", placing the former within "hypostasis". This unconventional usage was necessary in order to formulate their innovation of a multipersonal being.
Greetings Sam.
Point 2 in your Admissions slide seems mistaken; Tertullian wrote Against Praexas in 216 AD which is the earliest use of the term Trinity in association with the doctrine in its simple form, though I would say Ireneaus is our earliest patristic reference that explicitly describes a doctrine of the Trinity in Against Heresies Book 10, 180AD(earlier references are arguable so I won't assume). So the 4th century reference here is about technical formulation of doctrine, not presence of trinitarian thought and relevant descriptions thereof. There's a difference between being explicit and being comprehensive and/or systematic.
I understand that you are defining 'Trinitarianism' as the precise dogmatic statement of the Nicene Creed but that comes across as a motte and bailey argument when Gavin is only claiming that Ante-Nicene fathers were talking in Trinitarian terms and beliefs well before this dogma. I recognise they may not have condemned subordinationism, for better or worse, but Gavin readily admits they can make mistakes.
Also a little baffled that you're decrying this sinister 'Trinitarian Guild' while then appealing to liberal scholars who are often sceptical of basic claims the Bible makes. This isn't making you sound more compelling to Christians given the mainstream scholars reject all forms of theism or supernaturalism in their historiography and take an openly naturalist approach. So no, the %99 don't believe what you believe; their interpretation is influenced most strongly by German scepticism of the 19th century which more or less assumes Christianity arose from sociopolitical factors and can be explained by anthropology. It's a vanishingly small number of people in Biblical scholarship that are believing Unitarians.
Otherwise I think the idea that the 7 Facts are 'too open to interpretation' presupposes something like the word 'God' being open to a diversity of senses within the applications in the list which I'm not sure if you believe that is what Gavin meant by his list or just being deliberately obtuse on that point. If you're going to accuse Gavin of failing to define Trinity at least try to understand what he intended by including the facts that comprise what he's getting at. I think you did a good job in your steelmanning section but drifted away from that attitude throughout the video.
I have a specific video about Tertullian's Christology you might find interesting. Also, you might want to check out my overall Development and Diversity of Christology as well. But thanks for your detailed comment.
I also said "evangelical trinitarian apologist guild" i believe. Many catholic or orthodox and even other protestant scholars also agree with my overall point. It's not just secular liberals.
@@transfigured3673 I stand corrected on the precise wording there, though I don't think my paraphrase was unfaithful.
The point I'm making is that the very Critical Scholarship in question aligns with liberal ideals by nature and its post-Enlightenment scepticism of supernatural explanations of anything has affected the majority of academia at this point. I learnt Critical Method at an evangelical Christian college where some of our coursework involved dissecting differences between the Gospels(redaction criticism) rather than reading them contextually as their own narratives, for example.
Rome and the Orthodox often parrot the same arguments because it supports their own intramural apologetics in regards to claiming the fullness of the faith and denying this to Protestantism(which tragically seems at least as important to them as converting unbelievers and that's why I'm thankful for what Gavin does).
So maybe Gavin is a hypocrite regarding trusting climate science and not trusting these aspects of scholarship but that's beside the point. Also the latter is an area he has his own expertise in.
To be clear critical scholarship can be a positive thing but it's formally a separate discipline from theology that typically assumes only naturalistic explanations are permissible. I do think there's very strong reasons to question the scholarly consensus when it gives sociological answers to spiritual questions.
Ps, Sorry if I'm rambling too much.
Before stumbling upon TLC, I briefly engaged with Christian UA-cam content, but I found myself disillusioned by its somewhat callous demeanor toward one's opposition. It was through your channel, Sam, that I first encountered the interpersonal approach to addressing (while ironically not addressing) our differences. However, I soon noticed that, despite the focus on collaboration, there was a notable lack of direction. The relationships among various religious and denominational camps, specifically within Paul's space, seemed to lack a deeper purpose. They seemed to depend more on a shallow desire for personal validation of one's beliefs rather than collaborating towards a genuine understanding of the world and of God.
I believe that both Christian UA-cam and emerging interpersonal spaces like TLC share the same shortcoming. One approach tends to prioritize ideas over individuals, while the other focuses on personal narratives at the expense of core principles. In my view, both perspectives reflect a lack of faith and trust in God. As a consequence of this common deficiency, both camps aim for control by attempting to affirm their beliefs, either through strict rationality or deep relationality. While I do feel that siloing ouselves by clinging to incorrect propositional beliefs leads to confusion and misdirection, responding to external (political) pressures with excessive openness and ecumenism offers no clear direction.
So my question is: how can we engage in respectful conversations while ensuring that our personal desires for affirmation and comm-unity don't overshadow the biblical call to maintain true beliefs? Essentially, how can we promote faith in God above our traditions, relationships, and personal interpretations during these interfaith discussions?
BTW, if you have the chance to talk to Gavin, be sure to ask him what it feels like to be wrong, since clearly, that’s an experience Biblical Unitarians are unfamiliar with. Just kidding:)
I think you give TLC too little credit EmJay, but with that said, I always look forward to reading your comments
I think it's pretty clear that I'm not a big supporter of TLC. I know we might not see eye to eye on this, but my lack of appreciation for TLC i.e., Paul's perspective on interpersonalism, has its reasons. The main issue is that it doesn't offer a clear and discernable vision. It often stops at the level of human relationships, leading to a kind of self-fascination instead of fostering true top down connections with others. In contrast, interpersonalism itself -the skill of effectively engaging with others-is incredibly valuable, especially when it's aimed at the ultimate good, which is a relationship with God. I feel that what you're doing on your channel doesn't completely align with Paul; it seems more like a blend of TLC and CYT. Am I off base here? If I am, I’d love to hear your perspective. Some folks (PVK) would rather label me as Satan "the accuser" than actually discuss my views on TLC and explain why they disagree.
I think you are right that I am a mix of TLC and CYT. And maybe just a little different from both. Also, you are not the accuser or satan. That's obviously anselman's job.
So, TLC is an ongoing battle between Anselman and Luke Thompson? Round and round we go.
@@sunrhyze You got it. Haha.
Wouldn't, in 51 minute mark and slide 20, be a categorical error with the term 'God.' Isn't it assumed when God is spoken of, it isn't a lower g God, but Yhwh? So you can't actually agree with that position fully? The same with Arians?
I think that Gavin is assuming that, but he never explicitly states that. The word "god" is used more broadly in the Bible than just referring to YHWH.
🔥👏👏👏👏
Thanks for listening
I have been a Trinitarian my whole life, mostly because it is church doctrine (in other words, I “have” to believe it). But when I read the NT, I cannot find any language which describes God as a coequal, consubstantial triad of persons. By contrast, I see loads of subordinationist language.
So I suppose I am already an unorthodox, subordinationist trinitarian. I suspect that many would see this as a slippery slope to biblical unitarianism.
Really this is so bad. Unitarians.
Gah
So bad.
Thanks for the substantive and detailed feedback. I’ll take that into consideration
@@IRMOKE Lmaooooo mans is DISGUSTED 🤢 🤢🤮
Lmaooo mans was DISGUSTED 🤢 🤢🤮
Lmao mans was DISGUSTED 🤢🤢🤮
This was a long time coming. He asks such good questions regarding many of the roman catholic doctrines and expresses a healthy dose of skepticism, but when it comes to the Trinity, it's almost a presupposition for him.
I think that's exactly right. It's a presupposition. He never asks "What does the bible teach about God and Jesus?" he asks "Is the doctrine of the trinity biblical?"
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Joe Mama
I don't view 1 Corinthians 11:3 as being about submission. (But my egalitarianism influences my reading.) Kephalé, most often translated as "head", can also mean "source". Christ is the source of life for us. And according to Genesis 2, man is the source of woman.
For OEC en YEC Christians that is clear. As an EC (evolutionary creation) Christian I can still accept Paul's main point: men and women were created differently by God (yet equal, 1 Cor 11:11-12). So I think Paul is trying to say that men and women are different, and that's why we shouldn't crossdress.
God then being the source of Christ still signifies they are not the same. Just as men and women are not the same.
I'd be curious to know how you make sense of the geneology in Luke through an evolutionary framework?
@@EmJay2022 Good question.
The genealogy immediately follows the account of Jesus' baptism, where God declares Jesus his son.
I think the genealogy ending with "son of Adam, son of God" means that Luke wants to tell us that Jesus is the son of God in the same way as Adam was. He is the representative of mankind. Adam should have been the ideal human, but he failed.
The genealogy is followed by the Temptation story. The first and last test begin with: "If you are the son of God...".
But Jesus succeeds and shows that he IS the ideal man.
So even though I do not believe in a historical Adam, I believe in the theological message of the genealogy:
1. that he is our representative (and could give his live for us because of that);
2. and that he is the ideal human so we should try to emulate him.
@@ivarkoedijker168 There are many verses that confirm that at least the writers of scripture viewed Adam as an actual historical figure. In Jude, for example, the author identifies “Enoch” as descended from Adam, in the seventh generation from Adam. Doesn't the fact that Enoch is identified as “the seventh from Adam” not only confirm Enoch’s historicity but also assumes Adam’s historicity? How do you deal with these kinds of passages? The way the apostles speak about Adam does not indicated in any way an allegorical understanding of him. Do you believe they were all just ignorant?
Also, judging from Paul’s assertions, we can arrive at two conclusions. First, the parallels he draws between Adam and Christ necessitates that both are representative figures, emphasizing their humanity (1 Cor. 15:21). Taking that into account, if one were to undermine the humanity of one, it would inevitably question the humanity of the other.
Second, Paul’s teachings regarding Adam and Christ are central to his gospel message. The resurrection is a fundamental aspect that Paul identifies in 1 Corinthians 15:3-4. By linking the resurrection of Christ to the death introduced by Adam, Paul firmly connects the historical realities of both figures to the resurrection narrative. Thus, we can say that the historicity of Adam is integral to Paul’s teachings on Christ’s resurrection. What would you say to that?
@@EmJay2022 Yes, I do think the NT authors believed in a historical Adam. But I don't think it changes the point they were trying to make.
My focus is on what Paul is saying about Jesus by using Adam as an antitype. By using a literary example his listeners knew (Adam), Paul explained what Jesus accomplished.
Today Paul could use the example of Aslan in Narnia to make clear what Jesus did.
(Btw, I respect your view! And there are EC Christians who do believe in a historical Adam. One of the views is that God selected an early human couple to be his priests = Adam and Eve.)
@@ivarkoedijker168 It's important to note that Jesus also mentioned a historical Adam. To suggest that the founder of the faith and all the prophets before him were ignorant of history through their belief in a historical Adam is a rather bold position to hold.
The example you provided is comparing apples to oranges for the reason that Aslan doesn't have a detailed geneology that is purported to be historically accurate and grounded. The crux of the matter is that without a concrete origin for sin in a historical human being, Jesus's death becomes unnecessary and personal accountability and repentance futile. We could easily explain our imperfections as a result of evolutionary processes, suggesting that sin is something that will eventually correct itself. Essentially, viewing Christianity through an evolutionary lens renders it unintelligible.
You should still boil it down to less than a minute.
That would require too much discipline
@@transfigured3673 Easy. I did it for you. "Biblical Unitarianism true. Trinitarianism false."
To be fair, the reason Trinitarians mark the doctrine as First Order is because you cant evangalize if you think there is ambuigity about your understanding and relationship with your God or that you are not near God because of said ambiguity.
Thats my social/psychological critique
Debate Jay Dyer or Sam Shamoun lol
Sam is the worst apologist ever. Ignorant too.
@@TikkunFiat Have you debated him before? He does livestreams, go on and debate him
@@remymargaux1233 Sam Shamoun is the embodiment of what Sam Tideman calls "Christian UA-cam" or UA-cam apologetics. This approach often prioritizes victory over meaningful connections. I tuned into one of his livestreams for about 15 minutes, during which he insulted someone's mother. Shamoun him.
Why do you think Satan wanted to teach everyone proper theology with Islam Sam, what do you think is going on there
What does this even mean.
No muslims believe that Jesus is the son of God?
@transfigured3673
There is a possbility that the Quran takes a position against the incarnation but not against the trinity per se. The verses that talk about God not having a son are probably talking against those that deny the virgin birth. So the Quran might be more trinitarian than the Bible and you should use this when pushing back against dogmatic trinitarians that accuse you of being a muslim.
Also trinitarians do not like it when you say The Living God, who never dies.
Are you up to date on the philosophy of Philoponos and Nestorius?
The Quran seems to completely misunderstand the Trinity so I don't know how seriously we should take it.
@reevertoun
The reason why you think it missunderstands the trinity is because you think it is speaking against the trinity when it is in fact speaking against incarnatiion.
Another reason for why you may think that the Quran has missunderstood the trinity is because when you think it is speaking against the trinity the Quran is in fact adressing the tritheism of Philiponos.
Kafiiroon= believers in the incarnatiion
Mushrikeen= philiponos tritheists
Great video Sam. You really cooked him. Three things.
1. Will you do a video "responding" to Monarchial Trinitarianism?
2. A la 47:27, how do you, or how should people in general, interact with "modern biblical scholarship"? Should one just accept what they have to say and take the liberal Christian pill? Seems like you don't take that approach. Should one take a progressive or anti-progressive view of biblical scholarship? Progressive: we used to believe all these wrong ideas surrounding the Bible and every year we get closer and closer to the truth. Anti-Progressive: we used to believe all these wrong ideas(1) surrounding the Bible, and the ideas(2) we replaced them with were also wrong, and those ideas(3) were also wrong. so what we believe now(4) surrounding the Bible is also most likely wrong.
3. Related to a video that Dr. Nemes did recently called: "Marcionite priority and the Irenaean myth of apostolic Christianity". The bible, at least the NT, wasn't composed in the apostolic period. I'll leave the exact dating aside. How do we know that no "accretions" haven't crept into the Bible itself? The oldest full texts we have are 4th century, with plenty of accretions abound. And Marcion's Luke was shorter than the one we have now. Are those extra sections accretions then?
Thanks.
Those are all good suggestions and questions.
Regarding the implications of the Trinity or Christology in general, my perspective iwill undeniably be controversial, but I firmly stand by its validity. First off, I believe it's essential to understand that merely embracing the Christian faith does not guarantee a person salvation. Furthermore, we must acknowledge that not all practices surrounding the Eucharist hold the same significance. We have to ask the question: Do all eucharistic rituals connect with Jesus in the heavenly temple? As Biblical Unitarians, if we assert that the doctrine of the Trinity is essentially an idol of the mainline Christian church, we must thoughtfully reflect on the implications of offering bread and wine to an idol (1 Corinthians 8:1).
Assuming that this is a valid argument, then regardless of one's theological knowledge, participating in a trinitarian Eucharist leads one into idolatry, whether they are conscious of it or not. It's essentially a crime committed in ignorance. This underscores the importance of Christology. I believe our efforts as Unitarians should of course be aimed at the unlearned but, as importantly, extend beyond to include those who are educated, particularly toward those in leadership positions who oversee the Eucharist.
I believe we have to be sensitive to the fact that Christians who have yet to achieve salvation and find themselves caught in idolatry through the Eucharist can be significantly impacted in their spiritual walk. We should not be too quick to assume their security. The words of Matthew 23:13 come to mind. This, Sam, is where I believe the essence of this theological debate lies. As dramatic as it may sound, if we have love for Christ's church, we must ensure to the best of our ability that Christians are not trapped in idolatry, as their salvation may be at stake. It's that important, in my view.
I hear you EmJay and I admit I sometimes agree with this train of thought and sometimes don’t. But it’s perfectly valid to poke at me in this direction so I don’t get too complacent
As a Oneness proponent I appreciate your research.
Thanks for listening!
Is Gavin the best theologian that Eva can offer. He is sorta like the Chicago White Sox. Yes they are in the major leagues but they do not deserve it.
Ouch
Hank you speak from such deep hurt.
@@Phlebas9202 Not really. I have a deep distaste for simplistic theology. Protestantism is simply a parasitic "accretion" of Catholic & Orthodox theology.
@@Phlebas9202 Hank is not bearing fruit personified.
@@reevertoun I'm happy to stand by my statement. Sam literally eviscerated him. Gavin is not very good at Trinitarian theology.
On Problem 8. There is a strategic reason to not be verbal with your doctrines. As soon as a doctrine is written down it allows them to be brittle and defined by the words. Councils and creeds have only been used historically when the need to unite the church superseded the general desire to keep the doctrine in the hearts of the people instead of on paper.
It would be similar to the Ten Commandments. Jacob does not articulate them but God did not thing Jacob was less sophisticated then Moses.
One thing I find ironic is that within TLC, Sam strikes me as one of the strongest believers of the hand of God in evolution, and if ideas also follow evolutionary processes, I would suspect the magesterium of the church develops according to the same pattern. Curious how you would respond to that, Sam.
I know almost nothing about Newman’s theory on the development of doctrine, but perhaps I will look into it more.
There is always evolution. Even the gospels themselves show evolution. Synoptics all have their own focus and John's gospel has its own unique flavor. Arguments about the necessity of circumcision in Acts and so forth. Revelation at the end.
13:25 Beautiful things don’t ask for attention
very true
A comparison of the Apostles Creed to the Nicene Creed could provide a good argument for the Trinity being an Acretion.
For the most part, the ideas which Nicea asserts, and the Apostle’s Creed does not, are neither clear, no clearly biblical, and continued to be the occasion of dispute in the decades following Nicea.
this is an absolute falsely represented presentation that seems like a someone who is arguing fairly ....the ancient seemingly incurable tendency of reading the bible with one eye closed
very unclear comment
What's wrong with accretions? Aren't the gospels accretions?
I think the real deeper question that you are hinting, is how do we evaluate the authority of new revelations?
@@transfigured3673 The gospels/NT clearly show accretions within itself. John is different than the synoptics. Paul's writings contain many things not in the gospels. The Acts tells of a group of people sharing all things in common. There is already development evident from the very beginning. In addition, the gospels are written decades after Jesus' death. How close are they to representing the actual life and words of Jesus?
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Truth
Jews only became monotheist under Muslim pressure 1000 years ago. Before that they had 10 gods (sephirot). Belief in Satan and angels and demons was common into the modern period. Depends on how you define "deity". Even Jesus, rhetorically, calls humans gods. John 10:34-38.
34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
Ummm. False. Completely false. Not even close to true.
If you are trying to use the belief in the ten sephirot as proof Jews were not Monotheistic at the time of Christ (regardless of how much composition is or is not allowed in a model of God for it to be considered a monotheistic one), you are off by seven hundred years, the concept of the sephirot did not take off until after the writing of the Zohar.
@@Wully02 What is "ha Kodesh" aka "deity" who is Maimonides? Islam isn't monotheist, they have Iblis and Jinn ;-)
@@williambranch4283 This is entirely irrelevant to my point, first of all, and second what definition of monotheism are you working under that the existence of spirits violates it? Because it is a stupid definition that no one who has ever called himself a monotheist would fall under.
*Matthew 7:21-23* (CEB)
[21] “Not everybody who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will get into the kingdom of heaven. *ONLY THOSE WHO DO THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN WILL ENTER.* [22] On the Judgment Day, many people will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophesy in your name and expel demons in your name and do lots of miracles in your name?’ [23] Then I’ll tell them, ‘I’ve never known you. Get away from me, you people who do wrong.’
*Matthew 12:50* (LEB)
For whoever does *THE WILL OF MY FATHER WHO IS IN HEAVEN,* he is my *BROTHER* and *SISTER* and *MOTHER.”*
Sam: The reason why this is so confused is because there is a story. When Jesus talks about the son not knowing the hour, he’s talking about the son in the midst of the story. When he’s talking about the father and son being one, he’s talking about the son at the end of the story (but also in the beginning).
Truth is a person, the Son of Man, and his story.
In the story of God, the one becomes many and then the many become one. Asking the question, “Well, is God one or many?” misses the point.
The point is to enter into the story and navigate it.
Identifying as one or the other between Unitarian or Trinitarian is misguided. Identify with the self, or the Son of Man, or eternal life, or the new kingdom, or the resurrection, or the soul. Wake up Christians!
Count me in as "one of the worst heretics".
welcome to the club
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Is that a question?
(real)
Honestly, I don’t know how someone could be aware of all this and remain a Trinitarian. This presentation was so clear, on point and direct. I’d rate it a five star rebuttal. I’d say you definitely hit a theological home run! Thankyou brother for all you do!
Thank you for listening!
(for the algorithm)
Another good Trinitarian-denying verse in the New Testament is from Paul:
*1 Timothy 1:17* (LEB)
Now to the *KING OF THE AGES,* *IMMORTAL,* *INVISIBLE,* to *THE ONLY GOD,* be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
we cannot trust Paul he was not an apostle