Divine Simplicity is True - Ortlund vs Mullins - Debate Openings
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 вер 2024
- Is Divine Simplicity true? That is the subject for this debate between Gavin Ortlund @TruthUnites and Ryan Mullins @TheReluctantTheologian Gavin will be assuming the Positive Argument, while Ryan assumes the Negative.
We are releasing the Opening Statements here in advance of the debate, so as to facilitate a more robust live discussion between the participants, as well as allow viewers ample time to consider each perspective ahead of the debate.
🙋♂️❓ If you have questions for either Gavin or Ryan, please post them below and we may ask them your question in the upcoming live discussion!
Link to the Live Portion of the debate (hit the notification 🛎️): www.youtube.co...
Gavin Ortlund (PhD, Fuller Theological Seminary) presents his opening statement, defending his claim that Divine Simplicity is True. Gavin has published numerous essays and article on various topics from Sola Scriptura, to the Resurrection, Divine Simplicity and many other topics. He has also published eight books including:
📚 What It Means to Be Protestant: The Case for an Always-Reforming Church (amzn.to/4d6Nxob)
📚 Theological Retrieval for Evangelicals: Why We Need Our Past to Have a Future (amzn.to/3TXk0US)
📚 Humility: The Joy of Self-Forgetfulness (amzn.to/3vNH54n)
Learn more about Gavin's work at Truth Unites:
truthunites.org
Ryan Mullins (PhD, University of St Andrews) presents his opening statement, defending his claim that Divine Simplicity is Not True. Ryan has published over 30 essays on various topics in philosophical theology related to models of God, philosophy of time, personal identity, the problem of evil, disability theology, the Trinity, and the incarnation. He has also published two books:
📚 The End of the Timeless God (amzn.to/3wom1Og)
📚 God and Emotion (amzn.to/3Pri4km).
Ryan has held research and teaching fellowships at the University of Notre Dame, the University of Cambridge, the University of St Andrews, and the University of Edinburgh.
Listen to Ryan's Podcast, The Reluctant Theologian @ www.rtmullins.com/podcast
(We are paid a commission for purchases made through the above links)
#christian #Debate #Philosophy #religion
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
💡 About:
Idol Killer is committed to spreading the Gospel and making disciples of Christ. We are dedicated to promoting classic orthodox Christian doctrine (pre-Augustinian) and in doing so exposing extra-Biblical corrupt philosophies and presuppositions.
📈 Support Idol Killer
Patreon: / idolkiller
PaylPal: www.paypal.com...
⚠️ DISCLAIMER:
Any view expressed by a guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of the host and visa versa.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAIR USE NOTICE
Any use of works in our videos is de minimis, transformative, and constitutes fair use under the Copyright laws of the United States. They are used for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Any improper attempts to takedown or claim our videos may be subject to 17 U.S.C. 512(f) claim for bad faith under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. If you want to discuss any content in our videos, please contact us at idolkiller.com before initiating any takedown requests. Failure to do so may constitute bad faith.
Do you have a question about Divine Simplicity you would like Gavin and Ryan to answer? Post it here!
What early church writer (ante-Nicene) sources have quotable statements that inherently challenge or affirm divine simplicity?
Does divine simplicity presuppose the possibility of composition?
Appealing to false religions doesn't make sense to me. Why use them to bolster your argument? They're wrong altogether as to who God fundamentally is, what good is their theology here about his nature?
It's just feels like "Empty philosophy/high sounding nonsense" NLT or "Empty deciet" NASB Colossians 2:8.
My question is: If God is Divinely Simple like Augustine claimed, how is that different than Panantheism?
Ya hi why did the 2nd guy bring up Islamic/Hindu theology?
Listening to Gavin Ortland for merely 5 minutes on virtually any topic reveals him to be simply one of the clearest thinkers of our day.
What a moronic statement.
@@EgbertWarriorforChrist It is not a moronic statement. Even if you presume Gavin is wrong on this topic. He is an exceedingly clear thinker and communicator.
Ortlund
@@EgbertWarriorforChristI guess you don’t watch him then? Or you’re a troll. Either way I’d encourage you to. @truthunites Gavin Ortlund is a scholar, a true believer and a great teacher. I highly recommend his books too. He’s truly humble, gracious, and kind. It’s obvious btw by how he treats others and it’s clear what he’s after is the truth. Its not about just winning. I see many teachers insulting each other and not acting as Christians are called to act, only seeming to care about winning, but with Gavin I have never seen him act like that. He’s always kind, patient, slow to anger, not to mention has self control. Basically he displays the Fruits of the Spirit consistently.
@@King_of_Blades Yeah... because it has to be one or the other, right? He's not a scholar. He's an apologist. I don't see him as an authority figure.
I love it that you are releasing the opening statements prior to the debate. Excellent choice
Also well done for getting Gavin on. If all Calvinists were more like Dr Ortlund, I would have a lot more hope for the western church.
I love both these guys. So honored to do this.
Dr? Where did he get his degree from? Devry?
@@EgbertWarriorforChrist You can Google that
Even though I disagree heavily with Calvinism and some of Gavin’s beliefs, I love the man to death. I have huge respect for him and I do consider him a brother in Christ! Excited for this debate!
Ah yes, Gavin Ortlund, the winsome, avuncular champion of conforming the God of Scripture to the vain speculations of ancient Greek pederasts. But, you know, he's got a nice smile and winning ways, so it's all good.
@@pontificusmaximus6716 🤦♂
@@pontificusmaximus6716Something is wrong with you. And Gavin is a mild Calvinist, not near White your jaded scorn for the man is misguided at best.
@justchilling704 It's nice to know that Gavin's schtick gives you a warm, tingling sensation, but you do know that wolves in sheep's clothing is a serious thing, right? If the wolves were bumbling, cartoonish caricatures, they wouldn't be a threat worth warning about. Who would need to be warned about something so clumsy and obvious?
Don't get me wrong: I don't know that Gavin is knowingly and intentionally being a wolf. He might basically be a highly functioning NPC at this point. And there is hope that he might repent and be delivered of serving the demonic god of Classical Theism (CT). But right now I discern that he aims to, and thinks he can, win people over to the CT god (whoever that might be), by means of his outsized persona and intellect. What--really ask yourself, what--would motivate a person to do that? Not the Holy Spirit.
Speaking of outsized intellects, I haven't looked too deeply into Blaise Pascal yet, but I do like the saying that he had stitched into his coats: "God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and the intellectuals. The God of Jesus Christ."
Gavin's god is that of the philosophers and the intellectuals. I'll pass.
Of course, none of your nasty comments even attempt to engage the chains of reasoning for affirming DDS...
@@pontificusmaximus6716
I really like this format of posting opening statements before the debate, giving us time to reflect on the content and get excited about the upcoming debate.
Good opening statements from both. My take:
(1) I'm glad that both Gavin and Ryan addressed the question of what "simplicity" means. I agree with Gavin that not all attributions of "simplicity" among the Church Fathers have "absolute" DS (ADS) in mind. Sometimes all it means is that God does not have separable "parts".
(2) Gavin makes clear, however, that he does endorse ADS (God = God's essence). This undercuts the relevance of his claim about simplicity being understood in different ways.
(3) I agree with Gavin (against Ryan) that defenders of ADS can allow for God to have distinct Cambridge properties. Ryan's argument that this can't be allowed because "what can be divided in the mind can be divided in reality" does not strike me as convincing. I'm not inclined to accept that conceptual distinction entails real distinction.
(4) I disagree with Gavin's claim that ADS is compatible with robust relations between God and creation. The problem here is that, if God = God's essence and if creation is contingent, then nothing "in" God corresponds to anything in creation. God, on ADS, must be essentially "indifferent" to creation in that He would be exactly as He is regardless of whether there is ever any creation at all. This seems directly at odds with Christian teaching about God's genuine concern for creation (John 3:16, etc.).
(5) I agree with Ryan that divine freedom in creation entails unactualized potential in God, which conflicts with ADS.
Thanks for your comment Alan, with regards to point (2) it seems that Gavin would have a harder time defending his view if this was a ADS debate and not a DS debate giving him open access to different ways argument of DS that he doesn't even Affirm.
on Point (4) I would agree with you that Gavin has a Hard Dualism Creator Creature Distiction God without Passions that make his view of Robust Relation seem impossible, as Muslims would say God is UNLIKE Creation?
Is this Wrong?
ADS = Dualism (Hard Creator Creature Distiction)
Pure Actuality = Pantheism
How can anybody affirm Both?
It seems to me that the accidental vs intrinsic distinction is manufactured, arbitrary and ultimately useless. It doesn't say anything about how God is, in fact, but instead seems like a form of bait and switch where what you're actually talking about is something external, from which there doesn't actually arise any real relation from which the accidental property might properly be ascribed.
These kinds of comments are the ones that should be at the top, not “great video”
Two heavyweights in their respective views, excellent job my bro this is legendary.
Words can’t describe how happy I am to see this debate is happening!😊
Cool opening statements. I look forward to the dialogue as I've followed some of the work of both of these Christian thinkers (they've both produced a lot!) Thanks, Idol Killer, for hosting the discussion.
I am SO thankful for the ability to listen and learn from Dr. Ortlund and Dr. Mullins on this topic. So looking forward to this. THANK YOU for providing a platform for this discussion, Warren.
Gavin is my favorite Calvinist. He's such a nice guy
Nice profile pic bro. Glad Squidward became a pastor!
@@jacobbyarlay3420 thanks mate. He's portrayed as a reformer that is refuting heretics
@@awesomefacepalm Hey, looks like he enjoys it more than cashiering.
@@jacobbyarlay3420 he finally found his purpose in life
Yeah, the angel of light that Satan disguises himself as (2 Corinthians 11:14) is a "nice guy" too....leading millions to Hell.
That's the whole point.
Satan uses winsome, soft natured people.
Is referring to Islam and Hinduism a good idea?? Why is referring to clear heresy worthwhile?
Maybe I’m being picky. I don’t see the benefit.
The claim I was critiquing is that "most theists throughout history have affirmed simplicity." Since "theists" covers a lot of different religions, I brought in what other thinkers in different religions say.
Maybe because he's drawing on some of the most influential historical philosophers in the area? Christians should not only listen to Christian philosophers - that's a surefire way to be closed-minded.
Thank you for doing this! I'm very curious about how the discussion will turn out
Very helpful distinction that Gavin made around 13:30 mark on the difference between Aquinas' view of "accidental properties" and "Cambridge properties" or, relational properties.
I don't know why Mullins said that Scotus denied simplicity, full-stop...? Yes, it was certainly a more moderate view of simplicity, but to say it wasn't simplicity at all is a stretch!
true, he merely argued for univocity
That is not what I said.
why do you appeal to a supposed arian?
I like Gavin's demeanor as an individual. Here are some thoughts about what he says:
1:28 - Appeal to authority.
3:12 - Setting the stage for motte and bailey.
- At the same time appealing to such a range of options that it's impossible to defeat.
8:25 - We can't criticize divine simplicity using "creaturely logic". This begs the question.
8:50 - The reason why they read scripture through the lens of neo-platonism is that they're so humble.
- Bonus meaning: If you read the Bible literally you're making God less God and more like man. (it begs the question)
9:33 - Begging the question.
10:15 - I appreciate that Gavin here says "it means a little more than that" (oh boy it sure does! xD)
10:30 - It should be mentioned that Islam is also an example of a religion historically rife with classical theism, including divine simplicity.
So, "basic to Christianity" in particular? Not so much.
10:48 - Gavin should be pressed to provide evidence for this claim. I don't see why, if God is a person, *having attributes*
would somehow "in some sense" make the attributes themselves *exist independently*. It feels like this comes from
a presuppositionalist view.
- This point cannot go unpressed.
- It seems to be at least partly a strawman by implication.
12:03 - I appreciate that Gavin admits that divine simplicity is unintuitive.
12:07 - Sadly goes on to motte and bailey.
12:22 - Who God is? More like "what God is", honestly. This equivocation amounts to a fallacy of relevance that feels similar to
appeal to emotion. Divine simplicity couldn't be less important if it's true, (particularly from the perspective of Calvinism),
but important to defeat if not true. If Calvinist divine simplicity is true, well, God ordained all of these dissenting opinions
about His simplicity, but if it isn't true, divine simplicity hides God's active and present involvement.
12:40 - Beware of this throughout the debate. Gavin should not be allowed to accept ANY accidental properties if he defends
a non-accidental variety (honestly that whole distinction seems like a massive cope), and should accept ALL accidental
properties if the inverse is true. What constitutes accidental should be clearly defined.
- Additionally Gavin should be pressed to give a cogent answer as to how this divinely simple being can actually have any
accidental properties, and how this makes sense in relation to classical theism at large
15:32 - From the perspective of God, it's ENTIRELY true that divine simplicity cuts off any real relationship. This is a bait and switch.
The topic is actual ultimate reality, not "you know, we can still love God meaningfully uwu because we fleshbags"
15:41 - "It is that by which God freely relates to the world." WOW THIS IS SUCH A HUGE AND BALD-FACED ASSERTION.
"Stealing thunder"-rhetoric if I ever saw it. It relates to presuppositionalism, where God is "bound by" attributes "He has"
vs. "free" if "He *is* them". Absolutely not true and needs to be proven. Very silly.
15:46 - I'll translate: "We might *speak* of God in ways that creates distinctions, because we're silly fleshbags, but come on,
we're silly fleshbags, our words are only meaningful in the sense that they relate to our fleshbag perception"
Cool, now do Mullins
Spot on, dude!!! Excellent analysis / summary! As to Gavin, do you really like him, or just his schtick?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj no reason to Mullins is correct, DS is a hoax on Christianity, the emperor has no clothes.
Interesting views from both sides (I don't understand a thing)
Appreciate this friendly setup, it'll give me something to think about
I had the very same reaction when I heard about divine simplicity two years back.
It's a really interesting debate once you start to understand it more
Wow! My brain hurts. 🙃
Let's go! I'm sorry Gavin. You know that I love you, brother, but I'm rooting for Ryan on this one.
This is going to be interesting. A concept I’ve never heard of, debated by 2 guys I’m not familiar with. I’m hoping to come to this without any preconceived notions or influences from outside, and come to my own conclusion. Thanks for doing this!
Looking forward to this! 🍿
Gonna need like 7 of those 🍿
Ryan really staked his claims on just a couple of points, the main one Gavin already headed off at the pass. It's going to be a tough hill to climb...
His first two simplicity contradictions both rest on an eternal free choice, so they can be answered together. The Trinty is unique, so that would be the third thing Gavin would need to answer, but if it gets forgotten about almost no one would notice.
1. Differentiate the different definitions of "Divine Simplicity" such as ADS, Property simplicity, etc...
2. Scotus vs Aquinas on definition of different types of "distinction"
3. Ryan: how do you overcome the objection that Composite parts /body object of platonism/neo platonist abstract objects?
4. Ryan: are you in agreement with James White and WLC definitions of Simplicity?
5. Gavin: how do you overcome that if God is impassible, simple, and immutable, how can He interact with the world at all and relate? How do you account for the anthropomorphic language used to describe God in Scripture?
6. Does Aquinas argue for Metaphysical simplicity in Summa Theologia Chapter 1?
7. What are the ramifications of denying Divine simplicity?
8. Why did the church for thousands of years hold to DDS/ADS and is just now is being criticized?
Mullins spent just a bit too much time at the beginning of his opening so that his other arguments felt rushed, but great opeings by both.
One of my questions is that i see how the analogical/univocal distinction (something I have never been convinced of) does not apply to Mullins "divine freedom" argument, but I dont see how Ortlund cant just hand waive away the trinitarian argument with analogical/univocal argument.
Ok so there you have it, Gavin already said Ryan’s arguments will be against a different version of Divine Simplicity that he doesn’t hold to.
So all you have to do is believe in a different version of Divine Simplicity in order to make it unfalsifiable.
And let’s be clear this version of Divine Simplicity isn’t really Divine Simplicity at all.
It’s a version that doesn’t take Divine Simplicity to its logical conclusions.
A better debate and argument should always be against the logical
conclusions of a belief system.
Otherwise you will never win an argument because there’s always countless versions of a belief system and all the person has to do is say oh you’re misrepresenting or you don’t understand x.
We see this all the time in Calvinist debates and I’m betting we’ll see it with this one as well.
So. Spot. On!!!
Really good stuff!!
I was initially irritated about this coming out in parts, but actually a good idea for viewers to actually digest the openings and get to the discussion with some familiarity with this particular topic 👍
This is something I’ve never really given much time or study to. Well done on providing the platform Warren 👍
Gavin like most inconsistent Calvinists have special theological carve outs they don't take their beliefs to their logical conclusion and entailment that's why he can sound so reasonable
EXACTLY!!! 👍
People believed in divine simplicity, documented circa 400 AD, and likely it was held prior. John Calvin lived in the 1500s. Divine Simplicity is not based in Calvinism.
@@Shark_fishing
this is true, but also doesn't go against the OP's point.
I'm a bit dismayed at the idea that divines simplicity seems associated with calvinism of all things when it makes it metaphysically untenable.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj I probably won’t be of much service -
I personally find I cannot explain certain passages away from reformed thought & maintain integrity at the same time. I’ve given the greater part of my life to it.
But take heart- the two are not necessarily interdependent as far as I understand.
@@Shark_fishing Hello, my point was Gavin is an inconsistent Calvinists and doesn't take Calvinism to its logical end and he does the same thing with divine simplicity.
I'm bent on my knees peering into this Rabbit hole. For purposes of entering, how far does it go and is there a bottom? Should I pack a lunch or bring all my belongings?
Oh this rabbit hole goes crazy deep. The analogical vs univocal concept is one that is already deep in and of itself, let alone the accidental vs Cambridge properties.
Well after listening to this I still have no what divine simplicity is or what the opposing view is.
I googled divine simplicity and found the answers equally incomprehensible.
So my question is what are the implications of each view?
How does each view affect how we understand the God of the Bible?
Great video! I still don’t understand what they’re debating or what implications it has for the rest of theology, but I’m ready to learn.
My questions woud be:
1. How the persons of the Trinity aren't "parts" in Divine Simplicity? Seems like every little thing is a part, but yet a person isn't. So, how can you hold to DS and the Trinity at the same time?
2. How an impassible God, incapable of feeling, can be genuinely relational?
3. Which would be the best passages for DS, and which would be the best against it? And why?
PS: I love Gavin, but I still believe that he is wrong in some topics; this is one of them. Yet, he's one of the kindest christians on internet.
PS2: Mullins, please be my friend 😜 I love your podcast, feels like you have great conversation and humour for an amazing carnita asada(bbq in spanish).
I stopped following Gavin after he defended Calvanism. Until that point I.thought he was really great on most issues. There were other reasons that pushed me away as well but that was the straw for me.
I follow other Calvanist's and occasionally watch, but I think I was disappointed in him because I had never seen him mention it before that video.
No friendship for you!!!
@@jrconway3Seems like a poor reason to stop following a channel lol.
WHy is there an appeal to false religions to bolster the case against divine simplicity?
Because the case for divine simplicity is not biblical , but philosophical. The philosophies of Christians are not superior to the philosophies of followers of other religions, if the Christian philosophies are not based on scripture.
@@paulthomson8798 but if something is not in scripture that doesn't mean it's not true
@@JohnCamacho if the Bible contains examples of the contrary being true, then divine simplicity would have to be false. Right?
@@paulthomson8798 I suppose. Depends how it's interpreted.
A few questions: what is God’s relation to abstract objects if God is simple or if God is complex? Why cannot God be the fundamental ground for God’s distinct attributes? Possession is not the same as participation thus God can be the property bearer.
Boy, I really want to know more about why Strong thought DS collapses into pantheism.
It just seems like an obvious conflation between Divine Simplicity and anyone claiming that God is simple. William Lane Craig affirms God is simple and explicitly denies Divine Simplicity.
Does Gavin see the divine processions themselves presuppose a taxis or structure which conflicts with divine simplicity? Structure seems to be an anathema to divine simplicity.
Is DS addressed in the Hebrew Scriptures? Is this a Greek categorical development? Knowing the Genesis of Divine Simplicity seems to this simple man paramount.
Q1: how to avoid modal collapse.
Q2: how can creation have a beginning under simplicity.
Dr. Ortlund is the 🐐
Goat?
@@lonelyguyofficial8335greatest of all time, it's something he kids say
Such a dumb comment. Are you really that naive? He is not impressive.
@@EgbertWarriorforChrist Warrior for Christ huh?
Gavin may be the best Calvinist living in the YT world
“It’s basic” umm no Ortland. Just saying that simplicity is the undergirding of asceity doesn’t make it true
When claims are made about divine simplicity, either for or against, what path do we use to find out whether it's true or not?
reason.
Reason alone won't get you to the truth (not always anyway)
@@JohnCamacho
so how is that related to your original question?
Question for Gavin and Ryan: if Divine simplicity is necessary because a God composed of parts implies something before God that assembled God, yet we believe God is autotheos, self-divine, why can't we also believe God is self-assembling?
Being made of anything makes the anything you're made of prior to the thing itself. God isn't "made" at all. But this confuses what we can often refer to as parts.
I have parts... what parts, well legs, my head, brain... but did someone attack my head to a trunk and sew on my legs? No. I was generated together as a whole and ay my most basic form I didn't have these parts. I had cells, before tgat I had 1 cell, a zygote... but I still had smaller parts, organelles, proteins, lipids, molecules, atoms and subatomic particles. Parts made of parts made of parts.
But yet no one says "hey joe, you dropped some cells after you hurt your arm"... if Joe bled a little, he didn't LOSE himself in any significant way unless he bled so much he died. But if I cut off Joe's pinky, he has been diminished. Even more so if I gave Joe a traumatic brain injury. But if I cut off both of Joe's legs he doesn't become 3 Joe's, nor is he no longerJoe, he's still Joe. He's lost parts but his identity is retained.
So "parts" aren't what you're "made of" necessarily. They can still be distinct, but not like Legos or something.
So it's almost as if the topic itself is deeply flawed.
@@ravissary79 excellent contribution. Thanks. But I wonder, if Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which are distinct, can be co eternal, why can't the parts of God and God Himself be co eternal, not one preceding the other? If God is necessary, then His self existence makes sense, so what if his self assembly were part of his self existence as a result of his necessity?
My problem with self assembly is the same problem I have with arianism, which is that Paul identifies Jesus as the wisdom of God, and John identifies Jesus as the Logos (word/reason) of God. If either is true, then there was a time when God was imperfect in His parts.
Unless self assembly may be the wrong way of thinking about it, and maybe God is self composed, rather than assembled. If God has complexity of being, and is the definition of those parts (i.e. love) that doesn't necessitate that those parts preexist God, but are necessary parts of God, and God would be incomplete without them so because God is necessary, God's parts are necessary.
Batteries included, no assembly required.
@@bugslayerprime7674 I think in the case if God, as with many things, the appeal to parts is an abstraction about function, and this informs how we draw lines or see the shape of forms.
It need not require we view that which has "attributes" as constructed of them.
The fact is, we don't REALLY understand how the persons of the trinity are related on a higher level... is it like a giant space amoeba with 3 heads? Sounds blasphemous, but peel back the unpleasant connotations... maybe? Not literally, but by way of extremely messy analogies... 🤷♂️
We can't relate to that image it sounds like a monster. The more EO version of understanding this is almost like saying the father IS God in a more essential way, and the Son is like a projection of the father into the world, and the spirit is also a projection of the father that links them and believers... but I don't mean projection as in an image of light, as if it's illusory, nor does it mean Jesus is a sock puppet, or an avatar, etc.
@@ravissary79 I agree, we don't know how the Trinity actually works/looks. I like the EO version over the Augustinian one usually. Father/God seems to be the wording of the Apostles, the Son is begotten of the Father and the Spirit proceeds from Him. Both necessary for God to be God, not separate from Him but also not identical with the Father in person, each serving a distinct role.
I don't like the term projection, for all the reasons you mentioned it not meaning, but also because it leans more toward modalism.
Divine simplicity seems very complex😅!
What is interesting (and I may be wrong) is that the divine simplicity view of God seems to be held by the reformed/Calvinists.
Does the divine simplicity view of God go part and parcel with:
1. Calvinistic anthropology
2. Classical Theism
3. Divine Determinism
in order to maintain coherence in their doctrines?
It couldn't. Monergism implies God is evil which is fundamentally counter to classical theism.
@@Qwerty-jy9mjMonergism makes God evil? Is that just your misunderstanding? What's the difference between you in heaven and the guy in hell? Is it your work of choosing to believe?
Did Jesus die for all the sins of every single human being? If so, did He die for the sin of unbelief as well? Does that logic lead to universalism?
@@Gondor149
Limited atonement is blasphemy.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj
Monergism does not at all imply God is evil, and limited atonement is not blasphemy.....how are you coming to these conclusions? It is a secondary issue (not essential for salvation).
@@Joseph-e9p1x
Both of those doctrines reflect directly about who gets saved, so the opposite is true.
You also didn't make a rebuttal to what I said before, you just said it isn't true. Why isn't it true?
OK this is epic.
How does the incarnation fit into divine simplicity?
Good question.
It doesn't.
It's a Cambridge change
@@wheatblue7592 WRONG. The human nature of Christ is not simple, but the divine nature of Christ is simple.
@@MBarberfan4lifechapter, verse please
The way I see divine simplicity is according to wisdom.
We are told that the wisdom of God is first "PURE" and the word pure means without unnecessary elements.
In the garden, Adam was warned not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil because once the wisdom of the world is introduced it causes confusion, and simplicity is thrown out the window. Once Eve swallowed the wisdom that the serpent fed her she became tainted by it. She freely ate it because it sounded like it would make her all the wiser but it actually made her a fool and then she fed it to Adam and he "did eat".
We must be careful as to what we hear ( freely swallow) because we will become full of unnecessary elements that feed our ego and puff us up in the world.
We are warned that it was by WISDOM (Sophia) that we know not God because she leads us away from divine simplicity and causes us to become spiritually "dead", which is why we need God's servants to chase after us and feed us His wisdom so that we can pass from death to life when we swallow what we are being fed and come to understand what we made of ourselves without God which is quite embarrassing because we really thought we were something SPECIAL...not! 😲
Proverbs 5:20
“And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?”
Proverbs 5:20
“And why wilt thou, my son, be ravished with a strange woman, and embrace the bosom of a stranger?”
Is this like a turn-based RPG style of debate where you can avoid the real-time elements and have more time to deliberate?
"It's super effective!"
Like old school debates, I'll publish a pamphlet and wait for your response... Could be six months to a year but hey!!
These two are not even in the same weight class. Sad to read the comments, so many uneducated Christians blindly following tradition without even understand what Dr. Mullins is saying.
Question: Is Jesus a se? If so, what good reasons are there to reject the Cappadocian view of the monarchy of the Father?
According to Bible, God has a body. Bodies are made of parts. Debate over
Now that is true simplicity, taking God's word as it plainly reads. I agree, debate over but unfortunately both of these debaters believe in an immaterial God without form so this view won't be mentioned.
Speculate, if you enjoy speculation; we are free to speculate. But nobody ought to turn philosophical/theological speculation into a doctrine. First, there is the pesky, real danger of our faith being hurt by "philosophy and vain deceit". Maybe it would be someone else's faith which was hurt. No born again Christian would want to hurt the faith of another believer.
When they do turn their speculations into doctrine, how are they not trying to become religious authorities, and even "Noble Lie" godmakers? (Maybe even entertainers?)
Yeah, I'm just a guy.
I sort of just glaze over at times when the philosophizing and quoting "church father so-and-so" starts coming out,
so I probably don't understand the "Divine Simplicity" gobbledygook fully;
But, if we human meat machines are pretty complex, then I'd reckon it's a bit naive and "simplistic" to think God ain't at least a million times more complex than us...
It's almost like that isn't what divine "simplicity" means. Obviously, God is infinite, all-powerful, and incomprehensible. None of that conflicts with God not being a composite being.
I have a question for Gavin: Do you have any book or resource recommendations for a beginner to this doctrine who would like to study patristic thought on Divine Symplicity?
I'm greatly looking forward to this conversation.
Somehow the disciples heard Him speak plainly....and could easily understand...
I am not in this crowd...my faith although a work in progress is still...under a yoke that is easy...and a light burden.
😊
Totally new to these concepts but is Dr. Mullins taking his position to align with Dynamic Omniscience? I am not criticizing his opening as I need to learn more of this subject, just curious if this connects in one way or another to DO?
I believe the reason Warren Affirms Dynamic Omniscience is because of Ryan Mullins?
Ryan Mullins wrote a book called "End of the Timeless God"
These are the same reasons why I Affirm Open Theism/Dynamic Omniscience as well.
@@hudsontd7778 is Dr. Mullins a Trinitarian?
@@andys3035yes, without the processions, no eternal begetting, no eternal proceeding. For the eternal begetting belief is equal to a timeless god which means no begetting actually happened, the begetting just becomes an empty meaningless word in a sentence. Throw it out and you have the same thing, three personalities who have always existed.
@@andys3035 Yes Ryan Mullins believes In the Social Trinity view NOT the Creedle View
Yes, He believes the Social Trinity view NOT the Creedle Articulation.
Gavin doesn’t base his argument from Scripture
Sad to see
I love Gavin, but I am not sure about DS.
Stuff in the present changes, how does this make the simple God not change? To me it seems obvious that obtains and loses knowledge of the present based on how the present is
Creation changes in relation to God, not God
@@Qwerty-jy9mj his knowledge changes too
@@petrosgkionis720
He knows all of time so there is no time at which he was ignorant of any fact. The alternative is open theism which means God isn't omnipotent, so no.
I'm not sure the phrase 'God is utterly unique' has any real meaning.
In a sense, everything and everyone is unique in that there is always some aspect about them that is just of them.
Gavin seems to be using the term 'unique' here to suggest there is nothing that is like any part of God.
But when God created the universe, he expressed Himself and in particular when he created Adam & Eve, He created them in His image.
Here, 'image' means 'to be 'like' Him'.
you could say God 'was' unique before he created his children, but from that point on, God was no longer wholly unique.
God shares the characteristic that we all have in having aspects that are unique to just ourselves, and maybe to a greater degree than individual humans. But I don't think it's correct to assert that God is wholly unique.
Humans often assign value to something based on scarcity, but that to commodify it and this would not be a good way to give glory to God.
A think can have intrinsic value regardless of it being unique or one of trillions. None of us would doubt that about the flowers in the field, how much more so for our creator and the children he created?
And on the topic of God having composite parts, He created Adam and Eve in His image, male and female. This clearly indicates that God has both masculine and feminine nature.
We only have what God has chosen to reveal, mostly about his character and not his nature. We must also remember that what he has revealed is specifically for our practical good, to encourage relationship with him, and not to satisfy scholarly curiosity.
The reality of God is beyond our minds to comprehend. As Paul said about these spiritual things, we currently see through a glass darkly.
So, let us always be humble in claiming to know things.
24:35 Mullins is being a smart aleck. Jesus also didn't say word for word, "Truly, I tell you, there is one God that exists as three distinct persons." The Bible isn't a philosophy textbook
I believe his purpose in that statement would be to bring levity to a debate about something so philosophically complex. But I would like to note, that at least he mentions the Bible in his opener...
That was such a stupid statement made by Mullins.
"Divine simplicity is really important because it undergirds who God is"
Don't define a God into existence. Philosophize a God into existence.
Gavin's claim that if God exercises different attributes then He somehow depends on them or that they exist as abstractions outside of Himself doesn't make any sense. God exists. Does that make 'existence' some platonic thing floating out there that God depends on? No. It's just a word that describes something that is true about God.
That's a good point. If the attributes are just "true predications" then the divine simplicity proponent has no problem with a multiplicity of attributes.
Question for Gavin and Ryan: what are the implications of pure act on God's freewill? What if it could be demonstrated that God sometimes chooses to not act?
You could only do it in an analogical way
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Jeremiah 42:10, just as one example.
"If you stay in this land, I will build you up and not tear you down; I will plant you and not uproot you, for I have relented concerning the disaster I have inflicted on you."
I think there's lots of room for potentiality in God, and plenty of times God ceases action, changes action, etc. No analogy needed.
@@bugslayerprime7674
These are created beings talking analogically about God
@@Qwerty-jy9mj in verse 9 Jeremiah says "thus saith the Lord."
He's quoting God, not speaking analogically about God.
Besides, how do you know that it's an analogy? What Biblical context or cue provides such an interpretation?
I think the Bible is God revealing Himself to us. If plain and simple statements such as these do not accurately convey God's meaning, then He failed as a revelator, which does not reflect well on His omnipotence or omniscience.
I find it rather odd and convenient that so many such simple statements can be handwaved away to mean nothing like what they say by asserting that they are analogy or anthropomorphic.
Seems like human traditions to me.
@@bugslayerprime7674
because created beings can only refer to God analogically. "Thus said the Lord" is an idiomatic phrase, it's meant to command authority and it's possible it's literally what Jeremiah prophesized but it doesn't mean the subject of the predicate that's about to follow is a Zeus like figure that gets moody and is appeased or angry depending on how much he's pleased that day.
A better example is Jesus being baptized while everyone present hears a voice coming from the sky saying "This is my son". Is God a being that inhabits the sky? obviously not, and it isn't to discount that all of these things did happen, it's to say that these features of creation point towards the transcendent God as a mixed relation rather than require something (change) from him, which implies metaphysical imperfection.
Mullins extensively addressing Islamic, Jewish, and Hindu thought seems a bit out of place. Isn't he a Christian? What in the world do Yoram Hazony and Maimonides have to do with whether or not divine simplicity is true?
Yeah, it's a tough call. But since Ortlund's foundation conforms the God of Scripture to the vain speculations of ancient Greek pederasts, it's hard to blame Mullins for counter-referencing other philosophers.
I don't like Mullins but I think that's very reasonable. After all the whole point is whether we can know anything at all (including if God is simple) by reason alone.
@@pontificusmaximus6716
philosophy isn't paganism
@@Qwerty-jy9mj The original context was Mullins responding to a claim made by perennialists like DBH about whether divine simplicity is common to all major faith traditions. I don't think Ortlund has ever made that claim. Since all participants in the debate are Christians, I don't see the relevance of whether or not Abu Mansur al-Maturidi affirmed the attributionist thesis.
@@pontificusmaximus6716 Ortlund is simply articulating what the vast majority of Christians down the ages believed. From patristic and Medieval theologians such as Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas all the way to the Westminster Confession.
Also, Aristotle was not a pederast.
God has to have contingent properties that aren't merely cambridge properties, but also aren't necessary or identical with his essence.
Why?
Because imaginary objects can have cambridge properties by virtue of me talking about them, they may not actually have ANYTHING to do with the thing itself in any real way.
God is not the God "of Abraham Isaac and Jacob" in aby necessary sense that's identical with his essence... yet it's also not just because I say that, or because of what others do. He called HIMSELF that by wat of his own free actikns vy wgich he chooses to relationally self-define himself.
That's real, but not essential, yet its not fully extrinsic either, the same way the incarnation isn't extrinsic.
And pointing this out doesnt theregore mean God was once assevled out of abstract lego pieces and can therefore be cut up into pieces by our lawyerly rhetoric.
Its such a weird philosophical patanoia to think God can be somehow separated by our words if we say he has real conditional attributes.
geat
The problem with Gavin defending only a minimsl view of simplicity is that NO modern teacher of theology who teaches any focus on simplicity at all (like Dolozel), is ever content to leave the definition of simplicity as a simple one, but they MUST inevitably apply the idea to other ideas, eventually leading of all of the problems we can see.
The history of theology has refused to leave this idea in its simple form. Except as a kind of minimal metaphorical formula, its not a useful idea unless all you're defeating is a kind of arcane, complex form of paganistic concept of deity.
Would Mullins say he is a Christian? I’ve listened to him elsewhere and I’m curious. The closest thing I’ve heard from him…. Was him laughing at the claim from someone saying they could prove he wasn’t a christian. And I don’t intend this in a negative manner. Btwn his references to other religions as though they are equivalent to Christianity and his massive objectivity… I just cannot tell. It almost seems this is his goal, that he can be so objective in his “models” of God that one cannot assume what God he speaks of…. I thoroughly enjoy listening to his brain... but personally would love to hear him be passionate about Jesus.
He identifies himself as a Molinist, runs a podcast called the Reluctant Theologian, and bases a significant amount of his argumentation for his beliefs on the Bible, so I feel like it would be safe to believe so. Though I agree with you that he does come across as very objective when discussing philosophy coming out of other religions, unusual for Christian apologists.
@@calebnorvell4309 I'm familiar with his podcast, have read that his denomination is church of Christ. It just seems like his manner of reference to Christianity is that of someone who doesn't necessarily identify. Objectivity can be great because it can be associated with truth! But Love, once it takes residence, generally has its way with our objectivity to some degree. All that being said, I feel I have to emphasize how much I like Dr. Mullins!
I am an ordained Christian minster.
@@TheReluctantTheologian thank you for addressing my question...Would you say you're a christian? Forgive me. Having grown up with a dad who is an ordained Christian minister.... I reluctantly observe perhaps distinction may remain.
Yes. But how do you explain God to a fifth grader?
I think a fifth grader can grasp why DS is necessary, even if he can't grasp DS. For example if God is the greatest thing, and God is love, and love is not God, then God is subject to something outside of God, and thus is not the greatest thing.
Why do we as Christians have to keep calling ourselves after all these fallible men?? Calvinist, Armanians, Thomist!!! This is just so ridiculous in my opinion. Our identity should only be in Christ. He is the star of the show. Get a grip people 🙄🙄🙄
What is the date of this debate?
Is Gavin a Monarchical Trinitarian or Social?
That's a Good Question, I think Calvinist in general have a Catholic view of the Trinity Agustine and Thomas Equinas come to mind?
I Personally am a Social Trinitarian
@@hudsontd7778 Me too.
"If I were a rich man"
Janet Jackson always had the best back up dancers
Warren McGrew is saved. Just sayin'
Is Saved?
That's Sounds Like Present Positional Justification Jamie? How could Warren McGrew lose his position IN Christ (Eternal Life) in the Future, just like a Child Can leave the Family doesn't mean they are NOT DNA Last Name Family.
Warren McGrew is IN the Family of God and if he wants to walk away from God using his Freewill in the Future then God will let him But Warren is Secure in God (In Christ) the DNA Family of God that is Unbreakable you can't be Unborn Again in the Spirit and you can break the Seal of God.
Warren Testimony would be Trashed and his works and Inhartance would be burned up at the Judgment seat of Christ but HE (In Christ) will be Saved as so by Fire.
"Reality subsists within God"
Is dangerously close to pantheism.
It is also biblical
@@TheApsodist where?
It's basically panentheism
@@awesomefacepalm I think it's just vague enough to go either way.
But it certainly isn't transcendent.
I would reject it because it's at odd with the classical theist view. God is totaliter aliter, the radical "other" outside of competition with it's created beings.
I wouldn't agree that it denies transcendence because as a previous comment said, it's more or less panentheism
A perfil y supremely simple God is arelational
Mullins is such a ham (in a good way).
So let's create a new ontology then make up a few unfalsifiable claims about it.
Question: If divine simplicity is so fundamental to a biblical model of God, then how can it permit so radically different views on simplicity as you note between Palamas and Scotus? Further, how can we observe the differences in the simplicity that was affirmed from Athenagoras to Aquinas and still call it the same doctrine? Would the real simplicity please stand up?
Isn't the fact Jesus came in the flesh a rejection of Divine Simplicity if you hold to Jesus as God in the flesh?. Also, isn't the trinity a rejection of Divine simplicity since the Godhead is composed of at least three parts? BTW, when Jesus was resurrected still had flesh. Thomas shook his hand, he ate food, he walked on the shore, he spoke with his mouth.
I'd God had parts then there would be a common substance that the parts are made of, that would be God instead
@@Qwerty-jy9mj no, does not have to be common.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj did Jesus have arms and legs, hands and feet? is Jesus God? did he have these things after the Resurrection?
@@aaronhaskins9782
Jesus is God. Say it, Jesus is God.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj he is God the Son, there is also God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, Divine Simplicity denies this, since if Divine Simplicity is true, God is composted of parts, part Son, part Holy Spirit, part Father, you cannot have DS and call them co-equal.
To Gavin Q: You say that the opposite of real is logical not fake. But nonetheless you don't believe that God has a real relationship to creation. That because of simplicity God doesn't relate to anyone in a real sense. Yet Jesus is shown to have relationship with the Father throughout the gospels. This is a sticking point that always comes up in debates between Oneness and Trinitarians. So the Question: Does the logical relationship apply to Jesus or not? If so how is this consistent with the Trinitarian position on the interrelatedness of the Persons? Wouldn't it just entail a modal collapse between the persons that even us Oneness wouldn't hold to? If not, why not?
"real relation" means change to both parties, it's not the only type of relation that incorporates change. A "mixed relation" has a real change from on side but no change on the other.
Creation changes in relation to God, not the other way around.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj find that in scripture. Find the statement "creation changes in relation to God not the other way around."
@@TatteredBiblePodcast
The fact that you don't have the ability to parse the Bible doesn't make whatever your happen to believe is in there
@@Qwerty-jy9mj so the answer is you can't find it? Well that's old news. What's next?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj see the problem is that you're reading the Bible with your presuppositions in mind. I'm reading it for what it actually says.
11:08
Subject and Predicate Nominative.
On 1 John 4:8: ὁ θεὸς ἀγάπη ἐστίν (God is love)
"A subset proposition is clearly seen in this passage. God has the quality of of love, but is not identical with it."
- Beyond the Basics, 45.
wut? The passage says the opposite. God is love isn't God possesses love
Gavin isn't a real Calvinist. No beard. 😂
I think it was Dexter's Laboratory that said "It's the beard on the inside that counts."
@@IdolKiller 😂
And he’s too nice.
I though Gavin was Baptist?
@@Spinozasghost he's a Reformed Baptist.
I know this is just opening statements, yet zi find myself swayed to the negative view due to scripture having been brought up and causing me to think about why Adonai said, "I am that I am". Could it be that this is not only how we may know Him by seeing and hearing what He says and does, but also how we may know ourselves and others, thus following His example like sons following their fathers?
Give some examples of how you believe in this debate would affect how you live your everyday life....one way vs. the other..
The God of Christian classical theism is utterly immutable, utterly impassible, utterly absolute, utterly infinite, utterly timeless, utterly simple, yet He 'humbled' Himself into the being of mere man. Yet, this God really did suffer, really did became a man, really did change, really did came into time, really was finite, et all. There is no way to reconcile this other than making a weaker claim to simplicity.
That's all true if you reject classical Christology and embrace kenotic theory
Look up Timothy pawl
He explains this really well
@@jackcrow1204I have read his works. He makes a weaker claim to simplicity. He is also sceptical of the usual account of reduplicative predication. You just can't have both, either God is absolutely transcendent or He really did suffer for humanity by literally becoming a man and adding a human nature to himself.
@@wheatblue7592 would you please point me to a place where he rejects divine simplicity as articulated by people like Aquinas?
@@jackcrow1204 Read his paper 'Incarnation of a simple God'. According to him, what is considered simplicity should be revised from absolutely having no parts at all even in the metaphysical sense to merely at least having one nature that is simple. So God is still 'simple' even if He has a complex nature so long as one of His nature is simple. So the Son is 'simple' despite having a human nature that is complex. Utter sophist nonsense, it's just irreconcileable.
Why would a Christian care about what Islamic and Hindu theologians have to say about God?
Exactly what I am thinking while listening to this.... strange take.
Because it relates to what about God's nature pertains to mystery and what can be known through reason.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Sure, but it assumes we are all using the same information that is helping to guide our reason, which just isn’t the case.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj For example, Islam teaches that there is absolutely no way for man to relate in any way to God which we can understand. Which is why when the Quran says God has “a shin”, they say “yeah, but it isn’t a shin like we know a shin to be”. Points like this show that the conclusions of which “God” we are trying to reason towards are possibly, and more than likely going to be vastly different.
@@brando3342
If that were true, that quran would be logically impossible. I think we also need to differentiate between good and bad arguments in any given religion. What some goat enthusiast says doesn't erase Avicenna
😮
Divine simplicity is true indeed are you now starting to come around?
I find this doctrine of Divine Simplicity quite disturbing.
One, it finds its roots in pagan Greek Philosophy predating the NT by centuries with zero input from the OT.
Two, I find it to be arrogant and presumptive of mere humans telling God what He consists of. To say that God is ONLY love, peace, holiness etc. is limiting and presumptuous. On a related note, to say that each of God's characteristics are absolutely identical in magnitude, again is bizarre. How could we ever know that? Any human is far more than his characteristics, does that mean we are greater than God?
The whole idea is nonsense coming from the minds of pagan Greek philosophers around 400BC based on their whims.
The simplicity is purity. God always acts consistently and according to his nature.
We, on the other hand, are complex in the sense that one day we hate the other we love. We are tired one day and full of energy the next. We are inconsistent and impure in our wills and action.
This is fideism.
@@Devlunshof No, you have placed the God of the Bible into a small pagan Greek box. Let God out!
That's completely incorrect. Our understanding of God is not from Greek Philosophy. We can say things about God because he's revealed analogical attributes about himself that we can understand from Scripture. By no means does this limit God or put him in a box. We cannot know anything about God as he knows himself - only as he reveals himself to us through analogy.
@@Brian_L_A
This merely shows you don't understand what the category "God" means
My question is for Ryan Mullins. Why does he appeal to Islam, which is a teaching of Satan, when he talks about God? Islam teaches that the trinity is God, Jesus, and Mary. Why would Islam be anywhere near correct on any similar description of God?
The answer to your question is in my opening statement.
Can Gavin give some scriptures that declare divine simplicity to be the case? At the moment Gavin's argument seems to be entirely the philoophy of men.
are there double truths?
@@Qwerty-jy9mj i've never heard of double truths. Is "lions are felines and mammals" a double truth?
@@paulthomson8798
no. It means that contradictory propositions may both be true one by reason and another by faith
@@Qwerty-jy9mj can you give an example? A philosophy can begin from untrue a priori assumptions. So can a faith. So it is no surptise that any faith or philosophy can of course arrive at a truth claim that disgrees with some other philosophy's or faith's truth claim.I think what we are considering here is whether the Bible disgrees with a philosophical truth claim, namely, God is simple. Is the argument for divine simplicity sound and valid and is there any scripture that supports it? And is the argument against divine simplicity sound and valid and is there any scripture that supports it? As a Christian, I am looking forward to seeing the case each makes to demonstrate that the God described in the Bible is or is not simple.
@@paulthomson8798
if philosophy is false because it begins from false assumptions, then there is no double truth, the statement would be false.
And that's precisely the point, there are no double truths. We wouldn't expect true things to be metaphysically incongruent
Divine simplicity really doesn't seem to work with the existence of Jesus
John 17:24 (KJV 1900): 24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
Zzzz
Trinitarians *DO NOT* believe Creator GOD YHVH is a Person; Trinitarians believe Creator GOD YHVH is a “divinely simple”, “headless”, “bodiless”, “partless”, “attributeless”, -----------------> *”what/non-Person/IT/object/being/thingamajiggy/GLOB ESSENCE”* -----------------> concocted out of three glob essence Persons.
Those would be Platonists disguised as Christians. 😅
Anyways, no one says YHWH created. If they do they're just mistaken.
God in Genesis 1 is Adonai.
And according to John's Gospel Christ Jesus, was God. That all things were created by Him.
Which means the God of Genesis, Adonai, is God the Son - second person of the Godhead, later Incarnated as Jesus of Nazareth.
This is bible, (and is not a allegorised, Greek model for god).
Early Jewish philosophors like Philo of Alexandria, just before the Incarnation of Christ, began allegorizing the Torah, but more importantly to the point of this reply, attributed Greek Platonic attributes to the God of Judaism. Namely, what is now known as "Divine Simplicity".
The cross-pollination of Platonism with (first) Judaism, (then) Christianity had begun, (although Alexander the Great's policy of Hellenization, 3rd cent. bc, paved the way)
These Platonic ideas of God, which had no resemblance to the God revealed in Scripture when written, continued right through the first century, being adopted by may so called christian church "fathers", to the point where someone, (name escapes me atm), said,
"Christianity didn't defeat Platonism - it absorbed it?
So you are partly right.
There are "christians" who describe god in the way you did, but what they don't possess is a view of Scripture ,that it is true, but rather, only somewhat true. That what was needed was Greek philosophy to complete the picture, claiming those Old Testament stories were for the unsophisticated, primitives- ancient Jews.😅
That the Greeks - they REALLY knew what they were talking about 😅
God in Scripture, is a person, has emotions, changes His mind depending on changing condutions of humans (ie:the flood, He regretted creating man), learns new things (ie: Sodom and Gomorrah and tower of Babel event), has some kind of body, (ie: ate a meal with Abrahm), holds court among His spiritual beings, (Angels), is described as sitting on a throne in Daniel, (called the "Ancient of Days"), and He even appeared as a man in the story of the 3 Hebrew children, thrown in the superheated oven for execution, which they survived, unharmed.
He is personal, loving, patient. Has the attributes of personhood.
A Loving Father
Not this weird, philosophical "thing", this concoction of some Greek dudes 400bc, who probably knew very little about Judaism at the time.
Hope this helps
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi --- YOU >>> Those would be Platonists disguised as Christians.
ME >>> No, those would be *EVERYBODY* who claims to be a Trinitarian. The fact that neither you nor they don’t know that is what they believe is 100% irrelevant to the irrefutable *FACT* that is what they believe.
YOU >>> Anyways, no one says YHWH created. If they do they're just mistaken.
ME >>> lol!
YOU >>> And according to John's Gospel Christ Jesus, was God. That all things were created by Him.
ME >>> Those are bold words for a one-eyed no-exegesis bible exsquirt.
@@UnfrozenCavemanLawyer-xq1qi that was Fantastic, I will surely Copy Paste this and will reference your channel name.
Any Christian Philosophers that you like to read? Do you have any book recommendations on the model of God?