36:00 Concerning Philippians 2, I would assert beyond Clement's perspective that Jesus not only embraced a humble mindset but also adopted a humble physical appearance. These two aspects are biblically inseparable in my view. Monarchs don regal attire, and similarly, sinless humans, akin to a prefallen Adam, don garments of glory. Had Jesus chosen to manifest his eternal inheritance, which encompasses sharing in the Father's glory, he would have approached humanity not only with a commanding mental presence but also in a state of physical magnificence. Such an approach would have rendered him inaccessible to fallen humanity, and the manifestation of God's physical glory (and implied in it eternal life) would have undermined his atonement by preventing his death on the cross. This is my understanding of Philippians 2's reference to "form," which pertains to Jesus' outward appearance primarily along with the associated implications, including his mental attitude towards sinful humanity
@@transfigured3673 Sure, we will contrast it alright. There is no comparison between a human & Christ, and St. Paulus description is even spoken clearly as a total distinct category than the temporal example you gave, same with St. Joannes the Apostle.
Are you saying that God (or as you would specify the Father) is not approachable because He comes/reveals His Glory to humanity in "majesty" and "magnificence". That the Father made a mistake by appearing to the Psalmist and at Sinai in this way (which ofc are both revelations to a Fallen Humanity)?
@@yosefrazin6455 The Father never appeared Himself, no one can see God because He is incorporated & invisible, that is why He has His Son, His Logos to represent Him as the Mediator & Link between God & Man! And the Son never appeared in the OT anyway, only in Speech (Logos) to Moses alone, while the other prophet were speaking through Angels & heard Angels.
@@EasternRomanOrthodox. I'm not saying they physically saw the Father but they certainly saw His Glory - are you claiming that instead you read every theophany as an appearance of Jesus?
47:00 Sam, I'm interested to hear your thoughts and Dustin's scholarly opinion on whether or not this idea makes sense. I personally believe that the phrase "Let us make" in Genesis 1 refers to angels for the reason that, well, it's where my intuition leads me, and second, we see similar language in the story of Babel. Some argue that angels can't create, but the scripture doesn't explicitly state that they can't take part in the process of creation. To me, there's a difference between creating (ex nihilo) and assembling creation. For example, if you ask who invented the first consumer automobile by means of the assembly line, you'd say Henry Ford, even though many individuals were involved in assembling the first Model A cars in Ford factories. Even if you claim that Henry Ford built the first Model A car entirely on his own, you must consider all the individuals who contributed to producing the individual parts that made up his initial prototype and then the others that participated in the subsequent Model A's assembly lines. So, while Henry Ford conceptualized and designed the first mass produced automobile, many others played a role in its creation and distribution, both directly and indirectly. Could the same be true of angels in relation to humanity? Could it have been God's voice that conveyed the specific instructions, while angels acted as intermediaries between heaven and the dust of the earth? I don't see why that couldn't be true, since it was ultimately God who created/provided the basic elements (dust), the design for a human being, and also the "image/likeness" of angels that was adopted to humanity (scripture does portray angels as having a human form), not to mention the breath of life, so it makes sense that God would involve angels, but also having all the credit given to Him ultimately as the creator as angels merely acted as the assembly line workers. John 1:13 clearly states that God does not directly create individuals. If humans have the capacity to bring a human being into the world through procreation, why is it difficult to consider that angels might have had a similar role in the creation of the first human being? Plurality of majesty just doesn't make sense because, for all other instances of creation, God didn't feel the need to express Himself in that manner. Instead of saying "Let us make," he would have simply declared "Let there be" if there wasn't another party involved in the assembly of the first human. In conclusion, just as Adam played a role in the creation of Eve, who was formed in his image, angels also participated in the creation of Adam, who was made in the likeness of angels. Am I just rambling, or do I actually have a point here?
I think you are right. In the first few chapters of Genesis the Serpent claims Adam and Eve will be like gods, not God, but gods. We see a few verses later that God agrees with the assessment, saying man has become like one of us. The clear context is that man has become like one of the gods, which, assuming monotheism, can only refer to angels or perhaps preexisting souls.
34:20 I’ll have to do more research on the Greek, but the passage in question about whether the Holy Spirit “lives” is as follows: “ζή ό κύριος Ιησούς Χριστός καϊ τό πνεύμα τό άγιον,” This second instance of “zoe” apparently can be plural applied to both the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. To boldly say Bart Ehrman is wrong on his translation choice needs more support. It appears at very least ambiguous whether the second zoe applies to only Christ or both Christ and the Holy Spirit, since grammatically it’s like saying “Jesus and the Holy Spirit live” with the conjunction connecting to subjects that together live. This makes sense that the Father is stated separately “As God lives” since He is the subject of the 2 Kings passage, and then Christ and the Holy Spirit live derivatively, but in the same way. This is consistent with Monarchical Trinitarianism.
@@transfigured3673 I also think 1 Clement 16.2-.3 indicates the Holy Spirit is considered a divine person. Here it is: "The scepter of the majesty of God, even our Lord Jesus Christ, came not in the pomp of arrogance or of pride, though He might have done so, but in lowliness of mind, according as the Holy Spirit spake concerning Him. For He saith Lord, who believed our report? and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? We announced Him in His presence. As a child was He, as a root in a thirsty ground. There is no form in Him, neither glory. And we beheld Him, and He had no form nor comeliness, but His form was mean, lacking more than the form of men. He was a man of stripes and of toil, and knowing how to bear infirmity: for His face is turned away. He was dishonored and held of no account." This indicates Clement understood the passage as the Holy Spirit speaking to God the Father about their joint report ("Lord, who believed our report?") about Jesus.
Clement of Rome, one of the earliest Apostolic Fathers of the Church, is not considered a Unitarian. His writings, particularly the Epistle to the Corinthians, emphasize church unity and the authority of bishops but do not delve deeply into detailed theological discussions about the nature of the Trinity or the nature of Christ in a way that would classify him as a Unitarian. Early church fathers like Clement of Rome were more focused on pastoral care, maintaining church order, and addressing immediate challenges faced by early Christian communities.
Correct. You see, the guy thinks that if you believe that the One God is the Father & greater than His Son & Spirit, that denies the Trinity - no actually that is the view of the Nicene Creed & Orthodoxy, since we are not Modalists, while Sam is an Arian (the other extreme).
Thanks Sam. I am not entirely convinced by your interpretation of Philippians 2 and the associated statement by Clement. It can definitely be read from a pre-existence point of view but also in the manner you suggest. I do agree, though, that many of his statements seem to designate Jesus as separate from the Father. I don't know if you are interested in a convo with a LDS scholar about Christology but I sent you an email a while back. Let me know.
33:41 so what is it instead saying? what does "and the Holy Spirit" mean there if not that He also lives? why is this included in the statement? seems to me to pretty clearly be a stylistic/rhetorical phrasing.
Sam thinks Trinity means Sabellianism, he doesn't understand the Orthodox view of the Trinity. He went to the other extreme - Arianism. There is no such thing as "unitarian" or "trinitarian", there is only Christian, which already by definition entails a (correct) belief in the Trinity, so anybody who uses those stupid modern terms not only legitimized unitarians, but also mocks our faith, as the heretical Thomists constantly do with their sick Modalistic mental gymnastics.
Here is an example of the phrase "according to the flesh" being used of someone else. Romans 4:1 - What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh?
Justin Martyr’s view is weirdly resonant with the gnostics whom Irenaeus argues against. In so far as he insists that there must be an even more transcendent superior god behind and above the god we interact with.
It's very true. The main difference is that Justin thinks the god we interact is Jesus who is in cooperation with the High God, while gnostics think the god we interact is an evil bad god and Jesus is a messenger from the High God to alert us about the bad god. But there is a shared notion that there must be a high and transcendent God above the god of the OT.
No, it doesn't. You western Christians constantly misinterpret St. Martys, and that is why you claim he literally meant that Christ is Angel of God in the OT. You want to ask something about a Church father, ask us easterners, not some American youtube gifter like Lofton and his ilk.
No it doesn't. You westerners constantly misinterpret St. Martys, and that is why you hermetically claim he meant literally that Christ is an Angel of God in OT.
Irenaeus is in perfect agreement with Justin on this point and even cites Justin as an approved apologist of the faith. You misunderstand Irenaeus’ anti-Marcionite polemics. Both agree that the One God (Irenaeus’ choice term), or “Most High God” (Justin’s choice term) is the Father alone, and Jesus Christ is His divine mediator, “God” in the sense of being a preexistent divine being who acts on behalf and in harmony with the One God.
This was really great Maestro and what is important Here is that Clement believed in the Virgin birth so he cannot be labeled adoptionist. Your conference is gonna be closer to home for me this time and my wife has always wanted to visit England.
I'm studying theology on my own, and I've taken a Unitarian belief that Jehovah God created everything, including the being that later became known as Jesus Christ. Assertion is also that before Jesus was known by that name, he was the Arcangel Michael.
By the way Sam I do not believe Gavin will dare to appear on your channel. His evangelicals are attacking him for his stance on climate change. They even wrote a book about it LOL! Imagine what they would to him if he appeared on your channel.
@transfigured I was kinda hoping that he would come to your show to at least talk about the less controversial topics like evolution but after this defamation campaign I am in serious doubt.
@@transfigured3673 "Do not dispute over the truth with someone who does not know the truth; but from the person who is eager to know the truth, do not withhold words from him." - St. Isaac the Syrian. You are clearly the former.
@@transfigured3673 Your name and the Orthodox iconography you are using of the Transfiguration are part of scripture that literally condemns anything you believe, and here you are posting it on the Feast of the Transfiguration. Absolutely demonic.
As to nomenclature for the christology of BUs, I have suggested "Exaltation" christology which can be either virginist or adoptionist The nomenclature comes directly from the text in both Philippians 2 in Hebrews 1
Jesus also said that he is a door, that he is bread, a sheepherder, that he is physical light, and a grapevine, none of which are literally true. It's called metaphorical language. This is your lesson for the day. Be careful that you are not projecting.
Clement used tripartite formulas and used OT phraseology reserved only for Yahweh for Jesus and the Holy Spirit...so, Clement was not a 'unitarian' nor was anyone else. They all taught: 1. There is one God. 2. Father, Son and Spirit are God. 3. Father, Son and Spirit are not the same person. The language later made this more clear so its a good thing God invented Greek which had the vocabulary to clear it up. Lastly, Jesus said the church with the office of Peter will bind and loose on earth and heaven (infallibly) The church with the office of Peter made binding decisions on this matter. Therefore, if Jesus was who He said he was then these decisions are ratified by Him. p1. Jesus said the church founded upon Peter will 'bind and loose on earth and heaven'. (Matt 16:19) p2. Binding and loosing only pertains to offices of authority that continue into the future (an historical fact: authority to declare Halakhah) c1: Therefore, the church with the office of Peter will bind and loose on earth and heaven. (authority to declare Halakhah infallibly) p3. If the church with the office of Peter made binding decisions on the tripartite nature of God then that declaration is infallible per the promise of Christ. p4: The church with the office of Peter made binding decisions regarding the tripartite nature of God. Conclusion: Therefore, that declaration is infallible per the promise of Jesus.
Dustin and I covered the "tripartite formulas" and they even further reveal his unitarianism. We repeatedly showed that Clement taught that the Father alone was the True God. He never calls Jesus "god" once. He also doesn't seem to think the holy spirit was even a distinct person. You said "no one else" was a unitarian. Was Theodotus of Byzantium a Unitarian?
Not even one early Christian writer believed the One God is the Trinity until Augustine. Even Justin, Irenaeus, Origen, etc. plainly taught the Father alone is the One God, the Most High God, the Only True God, etc, and they believed in a Trinity of three divine persons much like monarchical trinitarianism just with a higher emphasis on subordination. If you are arguing that any proto orthodox ante-Nicene Christian believed in Augustinian trinitarianism, you are guilty of unabashed anachronism.
@@IAmisMaster "Not even one early Christian writer believed the One God is the Trinity until Augustine" Sorry this is false and all of the early Christians taught the following: 1. There is one God. 2. Father, Son and Spirit are God 3. Father, Son and Spirit are not the same person. This follows to either Modalism or a Tripartite theolgy and precludes any form of arianism.
@@transfigured3673 Sorry there is nothing you guys argued supports unitarianism over tripartite theology. Furthermore, Clement equated Jesus to Yaweh. A point you seem to ignore. Furthermore, the argument provided proves the case. Lastly, no unitarian being can be omniscient which means no unitarian being can be God. The moment scripture teaches 'God is love', there is no escape from a tripartite theology.
@@tysonguess the three points you laid out do not prove Augustinian trinitarianism. Yes, they believed in One God...the Father. They believed that Jesus was also God "because that which is begotten of God is God" as Irenaeus says in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching pt 47, so it is in the generic sense of being divine. Justin says in Dialogue with Trypho ch 56 that Jesus is another God (heteros theos) than the Father, so nice try, Jesus being God doesn't make Him the One God. And 2. is simply false. There is no evidence any Christian called the Holy Spirit God until Turtullian, and even when Tertullian said it, he meant it in a similar subordinate divine person sense, just like Tertullian said for Jesus. Tertullian says Jesus is only God like a ray to the Sun, but in comparison to the Father, who is the Source and Monarch, then Tertullian retracts the title "God" from Jesus and attributes it to the Father, the One God. Of course no early Christian was a modalist. Hippolytus and Tertullian decimated modalism in Against Praxaeus and Against Noetus. These very books also contradict Augustinian Trinitarianism.
☦️My conclusion: 1. The God is the Father alone, the One God is numerically the Father in Scriptures (YHVH = the Father/Elohim = Trinity), so you only refute Modalism not Orthodoxy. 2. Jesus and the One God are distinct. What does the Nicene Creed states, Sam? God is the Father, Christ is Lord *yet* being of the same essence he is also God from God, so you haven't refuted anything here other than Modalism. 3. The Holy Spirit is NOT described "lesss personal" only 3rd in rank, which is what he is. The Trinity is a hierarchy. The Father Superior to His Son, and the Son superior to the Holy Spirit. Again, only Sabellianism is refuted. 4. Comments on 2 Phillipians is not in a "unitarian" manner, as I explained to you - having a hierarchy in the Trinity doesn't exclude the divinity of the persons. 5. He doesn't need to mention Jesus as involved in creation - the Bible does it (all things made through him), it goes without saying. 6. As I explained to you - the theophanies does not mean that Christ was literally seen nor the Father. God always revealed Himself in the OT through *Angels* so this argument collapses. 7. The pre-existence is in the Gospel of Joannes which is very clear, yet you insist on playing mental gymnastics, but God is not the author of confusion. St. Clemens doesn't have to mention every single thing, that is why we have different fathers like different Gospels, and also not all his writings survived, so no, wrong again, Sam. 8. Why should Jesus not be treated in the right context as human, when our Christology clearly teaches that he is *fully human* - weak argument again alcollapses. 9. Theodotus was a minority and a gobbler, in the time when the majority said the opposite. Marcion was another early freak, so those examples are very weak.
@@EasternRomanOrthodox. I made historically accurate statements about what titles the early Christian saints attributed to the Holy Spirit and what Augustine’s Trinitarian theology was as plainly written in his On the Trinity. I don’t have anything to retract. BTW I am not Eastern Orthodox, so I do not share your sensitivity regarding my criticism of Augustine. I am a monarchical trinitarian Christian who follows the evidence where I believe it leads. I read Augustine very plainly saying Jesus is the One God in the same way the Father is and failed to distinguish the persons in a coherent way.
@@IAmisMaster Excuse me? There is no such thing in Christianity, and we are not "trinitarians" or any other ism. We are Christians and that entails by definition a belief in the Trinity so you only legitimize unitarians. No, either you choose Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy, if not that you are not part of the Apostolic Catholic Orthodox Church Christ establish. None of the fathers had any heretical ideas, so stop defaming the Saint just because you don't understand what he meant. The same thing you do on the west when you think that St. Martys literally meant that Jesus is an Angel of God in the OT, you constantly take him out of context.
☦️Clemens of Rome was not a unitarian!)) None of the Fathers were, so this is pure ignorance. You think believing that the Father is The One God & has supremacy over His Logos Christ & His Holy Spirit means "unitarianism"? I already explained to you how it doesn't & it is exactly what is stated in the Nicene Creed, so just give up, because we are not Modalists, and not Arians also, as you are. You both represent *2 extremes*
@@internautaoriginal9951 If you mean Roman Catholic saints, that is certainly correct. At very least Pope Zephyrinus and Pope Callistus were both modalists. Their contemporary St. Hippolytus tells us they were modalists in Refutation of All Heresies. Wikipedia says Pope Zephyrinus is venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy but I'm not sure.
I'd argue that the letter from the 60s since the author speaks of the temple as if it's still operational
Clement of Rome was a Catholic pope.
36:00 Concerning Philippians 2, I would assert beyond Clement's perspective that Jesus not only embraced a humble mindset but also adopted a humble physical appearance. These two aspects are biblically inseparable in my view. Monarchs don regal attire, and similarly, sinless humans, akin to a prefallen Adam, don garments of glory. Had Jesus chosen to manifest his eternal inheritance, which encompasses sharing in the Father's glory, he would have approached humanity not only with a commanding mental presence but also in a state of physical magnificence. Such an approach would have rendered him inaccessible to fallen humanity, and the manifestation of God's physical glory (and implied in it eternal life) would have undermined his atonement by preventing his death on the cross. This is my understanding of Philippians 2's reference to "form," which pertains to Jesus' outward appearance primarily along with the associated implications, including his mental attitude towards sinful humanity
Good points. Compare and contrast with Acts 12:20-23 when Herod was struck down for receiving glory like a god in his royal robes.
@@transfigured3673 Sure, we will contrast it alright. There is no comparison between a human & Christ, and St. Paulus description is even spoken clearly as a total distinct category than the temporal example you gave, same with St. Joannes the Apostle.
Are you saying that God (or as you would specify the Father) is not approachable because He comes/reveals His Glory to humanity in "majesty" and "magnificence". That the Father made a mistake by appearing to the Psalmist and at Sinai in this way (which ofc are both revelations to a Fallen Humanity)?
@@yosefrazin6455 The Father never appeared Himself, no one can see God because He is incorporated & invisible, that is why He has His Son, His Logos to represent Him as the Mediator & Link between God & Man! And the Son never appeared in the OT anyway, only in Speech (Logos) to Moses alone, while the other prophet were speaking through Angels & heard Angels.
@@EasternRomanOrthodox. I'm not saying they physically saw the Father but they certainly saw His Glory - are you claiming that instead you read every theophany as an appearance of Jesus?
47:00 Sam, I'm interested to hear your thoughts and Dustin's scholarly opinion on whether or not this idea makes sense. I personally believe that the phrase "Let us make" in Genesis 1 refers to angels for the reason that, well, it's where my intuition leads me, and second, we see similar language in the story of Babel.
Some argue that angels can't create, but the scripture doesn't explicitly state that they can't take part in the process of creation. To me, there's a difference between creating (ex nihilo) and assembling creation. For example, if you ask who invented the first consumer automobile by means of the assembly line, you'd say Henry Ford, even though many individuals were involved in assembling the first Model A cars in Ford factories. Even if you claim that Henry Ford built the first Model A car entirely on his own, you must consider all the individuals who contributed to producing the individual parts that made up his initial prototype and then the others that participated in the subsequent Model A's assembly lines. So, while Henry Ford conceptualized and designed the first mass produced automobile, many others played a role in its creation and distribution, both directly and indirectly. Could the same be true of angels in relation to humanity?
Could it have been God's voice that conveyed the specific instructions, while angels acted as intermediaries between heaven and the dust of the earth? I don't see why that couldn't be true, since it was ultimately God who created/provided the basic elements (dust), the design for a human being, and also the "image/likeness" of angels that was adopted to humanity (scripture does portray angels as having a human form), not to mention the breath of life, so it makes sense that God would involve angels, but also having all the credit given to Him ultimately as the creator as angels merely acted as the assembly line workers.
John 1:13 clearly states that God does not directly create individuals. If humans have the capacity to bring a human being into the world through procreation, why is it difficult to consider that angels might have had a similar role in the creation of the first human being?
Plurality of majesty just doesn't make sense because, for all other instances of creation, God didn't feel the need to express Himself in that manner. Instead of saying "Let us make," he would have simply declared "Let there be" if there wasn't another party involved in the assembly of the first human.
In conclusion, just as Adam played a role in the creation of Eve, who was formed in his image, angels also participated in the creation of Adam, who was made in the likeness of angels.
Am I just rambling, or do I actually have a point here?
I think you are right. In the first few chapters of Genesis the Serpent claims Adam and Eve will be like gods, not God, but gods. We see a few verses later that God agrees with the assessment, saying man has become like one of us. The clear context is that man has become like one of the gods, which, assuming monotheism, can only refer to angels or perhaps preexisting souls.
Hey Sam, do you have any videos discussing Melito of Sardis?
Good presentation, Sam and Dustin. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks for listening
34:20 I’ll have to do more research on the Greek, but the passage in question about whether the Holy Spirit “lives” is as follows:
“ζή ό κύριος Ιησούς Χριστός καϊ τό πνεύμα τό άγιον,”
This second instance of “zoe” apparently can be plural applied to both the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. To boldly say Bart Ehrman is wrong on his translation choice needs more support. It appears at very least ambiguous whether the second zoe applies to only Christ or both Christ and the Holy Spirit, since grammatically it’s like saying “Jesus and the Holy Spirit live” with the conjunction connecting to subjects that together live. This makes sense that the Father is stated separately “As God lives” since He is the subject of the 2 Kings passage, and then Christ and the Holy Spirit live derivatively, but in the same way. This is consistent with Monarchical Trinitarianism.
Interesting point. Let me know what you find. I'll leave the finer points of greek grammar to Dustin.
@@transfigured3673
I also think 1 Clement 16.2-.3 indicates the Holy Spirit is considered a divine person. Here it is:
"The scepter of the majesty of God, even our Lord Jesus Christ, came
not in the pomp of arrogance or of pride, though He might have done
so, but in lowliness of mind, according as the Holy Spirit spake
concerning Him.
For He saith Lord, who believed our report? and to whom was the arm
of the Lord revealed? We announced Him in His presence. As a child
was He, as a root in a thirsty ground. There is no form in Him,
neither glory. And we beheld Him, and He had no form nor
comeliness, but His form was mean, lacking more than the form of
men. He was a man of stripes and of toil, and knowing how to bear
infirmity: for His face is turned away. He was dishonored and held
of no account."
This indicates Clement understood the passage as the Holy Spirit speaking to God the Father about their joint report ("Lord, who believed our report?") about Jesus.
Awesome material!
Thanks for listening
Clement of Rome, one of the earliest Apostolic Fathers of the Church, is not considered a Unitarian. His writings, particularly the Epistle to the Corinthians, emphasize church unity and the authority of bishops but do not delve deeply into detailed theological discussions about the nature of the Trinity or the nature of Christ in a way that would classify him as a Unitarian.
Early church fathers like Clement of Rome were more focused on pastoral care, maintaining church order, and addressing immediate challenges faced by early Christian communities.
was this comment written by chatGPT?
Correct. You see, the guy thinks that if you believe that the One God is the Father & greater than His Son & Spirit, that denies the Trinity - no actually that is the view of the Nicene Creed & Orthodoxy, since we are not Modalists, while Sam is an Arian (the other extreme).
@@transfigured3673yes. Is there a problem with that?
@@BiglariProductions Yes, It means you are a plagarist and plagarism is not a virtue in case you did not know..
@@EmJay2022 nonsense...
Awesome video really made me think.
Thanks for watching and commenting!
Thanks Sam. I am not entirely convinced by your interpretation of Philippians 2 and the associated statement by Clement. It can definitely be read from a pre-existence point of view but also in the manner you suggest. I do agree, though, that many of his statements seem to designate Jesus as separate from the Father. I don't know if you are interested in a convo with a LDS scholar about Christology but I sent you an email a while back. Let me know.
33:41 so what is it instead saying? what does "and the Holy Spirit" mean there if not that He also lives? why is this included in the statement?
seems to me to pretty clearly be a stylistic/rhetorical phrasing.
Sam thinks Trinity means Sabellianism, he doesn't understand the Orthodox view of the Trinity. He went to the other extreme - Arianism. There is no such thing as "unitarian" or "trinitarian", there is only Christian, which already by definition entails a (correct) belief in the Trinity, so anybody who uses those stupid modern terms not only legitimized unitarians, but also mocks our faith, as the heretical Thomists constantly do with their sick Modalistic mental gymnastics.
That is a fair question. One of the other commenters made a similar point.
Here is an example of the phrase "according to the flesh" being used of someone else.
Romans 4:1 - What then are we to say was gained by Abraham, our ancestor according to the flesh?
good point
Justin Martyr’s view is weirdly resonant with the gnostics whom Irenaeus argues against. In so far as he insists that there must be an even more transcendent superior god behind and above the god we interact with.
It's very true. The main difference is that Justin thinks the god we interact is Jesus who is in cooperation with the High God, while gnostics think the god we interact is an evil bad god and Jesus is a messenger from the High God to alert us about the bad god. But there is a shared notion that there must be a high and transcendent God above the god of the OT.
No, it doesn't. You western Christians constantly misinterpret St. Martys, and that is why you claim he literally meant that Christ is Angel of God in the OT. You want to ask something about a Church father, ask us easterners, not some American youtube gifter like Lofton and his ilk.
No it doesn't. You westerners constantly misinterpret St. Martys, and that is why you hermetically claim he meant literally that Christ is an Angel of God in OT.
Irenaeus is in perfect agreement with Justin on this point and even cites Justin as an approved apologist of the faith. You misunderstand Irenaeus’ anti-Marcionite polemics. Both agree that the One God (Irenaeus’ choice term), or “Most High God” (Justin’s choice term) is the Father alone, and Jesus Christ is His divine mediator, “God” in the sense of being a preexistent divine being who acts on behalf and in harmony with the One God.
This was really great Maestro and what is important Here is that Clement believed in the Virgin birth so he cannot be labeled adoptionist.
Your conference is gonna be closer to home for me this time and my wife has always wanted to visit England.
Great! and thanks
Very interesting. Definitely pre-Tertullian. I agree there is only one Father, but I am satisfied by not fully understanding what that means.
Good video as always Sam. I really appreciate that you make the Patristics accessible to non-scholars.
I'm studying theology on my own, and I've taken a Unitarian belief that Jehovah God created everything, including the being that later became known as Jesus Christ. Assertion is also that before Jesus was known by that name, he was the Arcangel Michael.
Out of curiosity, what are you basing this assertion on?
By the way Sam I do not believe Gavin will dare to appear on your channel. His evangelicals are attacking him for his stance on climate change. They even wrote a book about it LOL!
Imagine what they would to him if he appeared on your channel.
Ya, that has crossed my mind. When political tensions increase, open minded theological dialogue is one of the first casualties.
@transfigured
I was kinda hoping that he would come to your show to at least talk about the less controversial topics like evolution but after this defamation campaign I am in serious doubt.
Imagine being this deluded
Looking forward to your constructive refutation of my points then!
@@transfigured3673 "Do not dispute over the truth with someone who does not know the truth; but from the person who is eager to know the truth, do not withhold words from him." - St. Isaac the Syrian. You are clearly the former.
Thanks for the detailed and helpful feedback!
@@transfigured3673 Your name and the Orthodox iconography you are using of the Transfiguration are part of scripture that literally condemns anything you believe, and here you are posting it on the Feast of the Transfiguration. Absolutely demonic.
Let me know your thoughts on the video!
As to nomenclature for the christology of BUs, I have suggested "Exaltation" christology which can be either virginist or adoptionist
The nomenclature comes directly from the text in both Philippians 2 in Hebrews 1
What are you hectics talking about
Jesus says "I AM THE ALPHA AND THE OMEGA"
So what are your impressions of Clement of Rome's theology?
Jesus also said that he is a door, that he is bread, a sheepherder, that he is physical light, and a grapevine, none of which are literally true. It's called metaphorical language. This is your lesson for the day.
Be careful that you are not projecting.
@@EmJay2022 Alpha and Omega is not figurative language buddy
@@transfigured3673 I could care less. Whats important is the precious word of God.
@BiglariProductions So God is two Greek letters of the alphabet? OK buddy.
Clement used tripartite formulas and used OT phraseology reserved only for Yahweh for Jesus and the Holy Spirit...so, Clement was not a 'unitarian' nor was anyone else.
They all taught:
1. There is one God.
2. Father, Son and Spirit are God.
3. Father, Son and Spirit are not the same person.
The language later made this more clear so its a good thing God invented Greek which had the vocabulary to clear it up.
Lastly, Jesus said the church with the office of Peter will bind and loose on earth and heaven (infallibly)
The church with the office of Peter made binding decisions on this matter.
Therefore, if Jesus was who He said he was then these decisions are ratified by Him.
p1. Jesus said the church founded upon Peter will 'bind and loose on earth and heaven'. (Matt 16:19)
p2. Binding and loosing only pertains to offices of authority that continue into the future (an historical fact: authority to declare Halakhah)
c1: Therefore, the church with the office of Peter will bind and loose on earth and heaven. (authority to declare Halakhah infallibly)
p3. If the church with the office of Peter made binding decisions on the tripartite nature of God then that declaration is infallible per the promise of Christ.
p4: The church with the office of Peter made binding decisions regarding the tripartite nature of God.
Conclusion: Therefore, that declaration is infallible per the promise of Jesus.
Dustin and I covered the "tripartite formulas" and they even further reveal his unitarianism. We repeatedly showed that Clement taught that the Father alone was the True God. He never calls Jesus "god" once. He also doesn't seem to think the holy spirit was even a distinct person. You said "no one else" was a unitarian. Was Theodotus of Byzantium a Unitarian?
Not even one early Christian writer believed the One God is the Trinity until Augustine. Even Justin, Irenaeus, Origen, etc. plainly taught the Father alone is the One God, the Most High God, the Only True God, etc, and they believed in a Trinity of three divine persons much like monarchical trinitarianism just with a higher emphasis on subordination. If you are arguing that any proto orthodox ante-Nicene Christian believed in Augustinian trinitarianism, you are guilty of unabashed anachronism.
@@IAmisMaster
"Not even one early Christian writer believed the One God is the Trinity until Augustine"
Sorry this is false and all of the early Christians taught the following:
1. There is one God.
2. Father, Son and Spirit are God
3. Father, Son and Spirit are not the same person.
This follows to either Modalism or a Tripartite theolgy and precludes any form of arianism.
@@transfigured3673
Sorry there is nothing you guys argued supports unitarianism over tripartite theology. Furthermore, Clement equated Jesus to Yaweh. A point you seem to ignore.
Furthermore, the argument provided proves the case.
Lastly, no unitarian being can be omniscient which means no unitarian being can be God.
The moment scripture teaches 'God is love', there is no escape from a tripartite theology.
@@tysonguess the three points you laid out do not prove Augustinian trinitarianism. Yes, they believed in One God...the Father. They believed that Jesus was also God "because that which is begotten of God is God" as Irenaeus says in Proof of the Apostolic Preaching pt 47, so it is in the generic sense of being divine. Justin says in Dialogue with Trypho ch 56 that Jesus is another God (heteros theos) than the Father, so nice try, Jesus being God doesn't make Him the One God.
And 2. is simply false. There is no evidence any Christian called the Holy Spirit God until Turtullian, and even when Tertullian said it, he meant it in a similar subordinate divine person sense, just like Tertullian said for Jesus. Tertullian says Jesus is only God like a ray to the Sun, but in comparison to the Father, who is the Source and Monarch, then Tertullian retracts the title "God" from Jesus and attributes it to the Father, the One God.
Of course no early Christian was a modalist. Hippolytus and Tertullian decimated modalism in Against Praxaeus and Against Noetus. These very books also contradict Augustinian Trinitarianism.
☦️My conclusion:
1. The God is the Father alone, the One God is numerically the Father in Scriptures (YHVH = the Father/Elohim = Trinity), so you only refute Modalism not Orthodoxy.
2. Jesus and the One God are distinct. What does the Nicene Creed states, Sam? God is the Father, Christ is Lord *yet* being of the same essence he is also God from God, so you haven't refuted anything here other than Modalism.
3. The Holy Spirit is NOT described "lesss personal" only 3rd in rank, which is what he is. The Trinity is a hierarchy. The Father Superior to His Son, and the Son superior to the Holy Spirit. Again, only Sabellianism is refuted.
4. Comments on 2 Phillipians is not in a "unitarian" manner, as I explained to you - having a hierarchy in the Trinity doesn't exclude the divinity of the persons.
5. He doesn't need to mention Jesus as involved in creation - the Bible does it (all things made through him), it goes without saying.
6. As I explained to you - the theophanies does not mean that Christ was literally seen nor the Father. God always revealed Himself in the OT through *Angels* so this argument collapses.
7. The pre-existence is in the Gospel of Joannes which is very clear, yet you insist on playing mental gymnastics, but God is not the author of confusion. St. Clemens doesn't have to mention every single thing, that is why we have different fathers like different Gospels, and also not all his writings survived, so no, wrong again, Sam.
8. Why should Jesus not be treated in the right context as human, when our Christology clearly teaches that he is *fully human* - weak argument again alcollapses.
9. Theodotus was a minority and a gobbler, in the time when the majority said the opposite. Marcion was another early freak, so those examples are very weak.
good points
Whoever commented, I cannot see it, youtube does it a lot. Terrible platform.
@@IAmisMaster Thanks, brother. So now would you take back what you said about the Holy Spirit and St. Avgustinus?🙏
@@EasternRomanOrthodox.
I made historically accurate statements about what titles the early Christian saints attributed to the Holy Spirit and what Augustine’s Trinitarian theology was as plainly written in his On the Trinity. I don’t have anything to retract. BTW I am not Eastern Orthodox, so I do not share your sensitivity regarding my criticism of Augustine. I am a monarchical trinitarian Christian who follows the evidence where I believe it leads. I read Augustine very plainly saying Jesus is the One God in the same way the Father is and failed to distinguish the persons in a coherent way.
@@IAmisMaster Excuse me? There is no such thing in Christianity, and we are not "trinitarians" or any other ism. We are Christians and that entails by definition a belief in the Trinity so you only legitimize unitarians. No, either you choose Roman Catholicism or Orthodoxy, if not that you are not part of the Apostolic Catholic Orthodox Church Christ establish. None of the fathers had any heretical ideas, so stop defaming the Saint just because you don't understand what he meant. The same thing you do on the west when you think that St. Martys literally meant that Jesus is an Angel of God in the OT, you constantly take him out of context.
☦️Clemens of Rome was not a unitarian!)) None of the Fathers were, so this is pure ignorance. You think believing that the Father is The One God & has supremacy over His Logos Christ & His Holy Spirit means "unitarianism"? I already explained to you how it doesn't & it is exactly what is stated in the Nicene Creed, so just give up, because we are not Modalists, and not Arians also, as you are. You both represent *2 extremes*
You definitely have modalist saints !
@@internautaoriginal9951 If you mean Roman Catholic saints, that is certainly correct. At very least Pope Zephyrinus and Pope Callistus were both modalists. Their contemporary St. Hippolytus tells us they were modalists in Refutation of All Heresies. Wikipedia says Pope Zephyrinus is venerated in Eastern Orthodoxy but I'm not sure.
@@internautaoriginal9951 Name 1 & explain why, then watch how this defamation is debunked & destroyed
@@IAmisMaster brother, our mutual catholic-orthodox Saints none of them are Modalists, I hope you mean Saints that are only in Catholicism.
@@IAmisMaster Also, St. Pope Zephyrinus only was accused by some for being allured by Monarchian views, but that was a lie. He is our Saint too.