The Trinity and Jonathan Edwards / Joe Rigney & Doug Wilson
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 бер 2012
- President of Bethlehem College and Seminary Joe Rigney and Pastor Doug Wilson sit down to discuss how Jonathan Edwards moved the doctrine of the Trinity forward in Christian Theology.
UA-cam Playlist of all 7 topics: • Playlist
This is so good !
A Holy Love has an Holy Object!!)
It's funny that the interviewer seems to know much more about Edwards than the interviewee. I've read a lot of JE and as I'm listening I keep thinking it is Doug Wilson that should have been the one asking questions
Of course that would damage the image of a "celebrity pastor"
No offense to Doug Wilson on this, he is a product of people wanting one man with all the answers.
For Christians tho, we have that one Man already.
@@AnHebrewChild Doesn’t Doug Wilson interview people all the time? This video might have been an editorial mistake (Ie. 10 years ago someone didn’t realise Ben was more of an expert and scheduled the conversation regardless), but there’s no reasonable case to be made that DW needs to be seen to know it all in general. Again, he is frequently seen on this channel putting himself in position of the taught rather than the teacher.
Late into the study of Trinitarianism comes Edwards. Not totally comfortable with him. However, he is a brilliant theologian and sadly ignored.
Acht, I know these settings can get quite comfortable but calling God a Megalomaniac because a man does His will is problematic precisely because we're supposed to be men doing His will.
9:00 ... YES! And Prov. 8:22 says Yeshua (Wisdom) was *created* - so in good conscious, it's hard for me to deny the Arian view... this is why I consider myself a Postmill-Arian-Christian and I get so annoyed when Arianism gets lumped in with Mormanism, JW's, Unitarians/Oneness etc. ...are Arians not apart of the body of Christ? I wish Doug can chime in on this because this Arian walk is lonely, but I'm determined to stand up for it...
Yeshua (aka "wisdom", "the word") was before us, before mankind, before Earth, but he was after God. Father of mankind, but Son of the Father. The NET footnote says: There are two roots קָנָה (qanah) in Hebrew, one meaning “to possess,” and the other meaning “to create.” The earlier English versions did not know of the second root, but suspected in certain places that a meaning like that was necessary (e.g., Gen 4:1; 14:19; Deut 32:6). Ugaritic confirmed that it was indeed another root. The older versions have the translation “possess” because otherwise it sounds like God lacked wisdom and therefore created it at the beginning. They wanted to avoid saying that wisdom was not eternal. Arius liked the idea of Christ as the wisdom of God and so chose the translation “create.” Athanasius translated it, “constituted me as the head of creation.” The verb occurs twelve times in Proverbs with the meaning of “to acquire,” but the Greek and the Syriac versions have the meaning “create.” Although the idea is that wisdom existed before creation, the parallel ideas in these verses (“appointed,” “given birth”) argue for the translation of “create” or “establish” (R. N. Whybray, “Proverbs 8:22-31 and Its Supposed Prototypes,” VT 15 [1965]: 504-14; and W. A. Irwin, “Where Will Wisdom Be Found?” JBL 80 [1961]: 133-42).
If anyone's interested to learn more historical facts regarding Arianism, check out arius. yeshuan. org ...much love! 🙏🏾
The clear interprets the unclear, John 1:1 demonstrates clearly that Jesus is God, the one true God. Yet the one who is the true God is with another agent who is the one true God: the Trinity.
Edit: also read the NET Bible’s notes on John 1:1. Arianism is indeed heresy and anti-Christian
@@jaxonspage4514 I've read the NET footnote on John 1:1 numerous times, it clearly proves the Arianism interpretation is a valid exegesis by saying:
Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (theos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. *However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand,* that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite.* --- keywords: merely permits, but does not demand.
Then further in the footnote it says: "This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”)" --- are we equal gods with Yeshua or the Father? No right? But it says we can be one with God how Jesus is one with the Father, so think about that... what does that imply?
Yeshua is God of all things created after Him since He created it, but He did that according to the Father's will, and He can do nothing without the Father, He is the only Heir to the Father who inherits the Father's glory as 1/3 of the trinity, but He is subordinate to the Father as well. *Arianism is not a heresy and is actually an Early view of the Church* ... *FUN FACT:* The theologian who first coined the term “the Trinity” was Tertullian (written in 213 AD to explain and defend the Trinity against the Monarchian heresy), and he said: *"For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole"* (source: "Against Praxeas", Chapter 9).
Much love.
I find myself agreeing with Doug on many things but this, as with all Trinitarian explanations, seems so unbiblical. Such an unnecessary distraction full of speculation and philosophical mumbo jumbo. I don’t blame Doug though. If you believe the Trinity, that’s pretty much the only option you have when discussing it.