Thanks for coming on. You've helped me understand the formation of the United States in a way that I didn't before. You've also cleared up many conceptions that the founding Fathers were Trinitarians. And for that you have my sincere thanks.
I love these because not only is Trent explaining the Catholic faith but he is also providing an excellent example of how to respectfully dialogue with people who disagree with us. This is definitely something I could work on!
Love these dialogues. Calm, informative and non-confrontational. Keep it up. I like these better than debates. They are less stressful for the listener. Well, for this listener anyway.😅
☦🤝✝️Yes, to pseudo Christians debating who has the Orthodox ideas. It would be hilarious if it wasn't sad, having been deceiving so many innocent souls
Sam says (around 1:33:53) that Justin Martyr thinks Jesus is not with the same essence as the Father but this is just not true! in Dialogue with Trypho Ch.128 Justin says "when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same." this same type of analogy is used in Tertullian, Athanasius, and in the Nicene creed to show that Jesus is eternally begotten by the Father and the same essence as Him as well. Sam also says Justin thinks Christ came into existence as a Person at creation but in Ch.42 Justin says Jesus is "the eternal Priest"
But he says that he was begotten by an act of will of the Father chapter 61: "God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself (...) and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled." He compares generation of the Son to us uttering a word, which means that there is a point when the word isn't uttered. This is the so-called 2-stage Logos christology.He also calls him a second God. The same sentiment is echoed in Tertullian in Against Praxeas ch. 5: "Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call λόγος, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; " So, when it was time to create, i.e., in the beginning, the Father uttered his Word in order to create (A.P ch. 19) It must also be He who says, "I am the First, and to all futurity I AM." The Word, no doubt, was before all things. "In the beginning was the Word;" John 1:1 and in that beginning He was sent forth by the Father. The Father, however, has no beginning, as proceeding from none; nor can He be seen, since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have had order or rank. Most clearly in Against Hermogenes ch. 3: "Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him." Yes, he thinks that the Son is made of the same substance, of the same stuff, as the Father, but that doesn't preclude the Son being created at a certain point, after not really existing as a separate entity. With regards to Dialogue with Trypho and Christ being called the eternal priest, that's not the atemporal eternity but the everlasting future type of eternity. Trypho says in ch. 36: "Trypho: Let these things be so as you say- namely, that it was foretold Christ would suffer, and be called a stone; and after His first appearance, in which it had been announced He would suffer, would come in glory, and be Judge finally of all, and eternal King and Priest. Now show if this man be He of whom these prophecies were made." So Christ would be the eternal king and priest AFTER his first appearance. Also ch. 39 says: "it is declared in the Scriptures that Christ must suffer, and come again with glory, and receive the eternal kingdom over all the nations, " Does that mean that his kingdom over the nations spans infinitely into the past? no. it only has not end into the future. Sometimes, by eternal, he just means supernatural (ch. 47): "and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety,". Ch 89: "and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. " again, resurrection is endless only into the future Ch 113: "this is He who shall shine an eternal light in Jerusalem; this is he who is the king of Salem after the order of Melchizedek, and the eternal Priest of the Most High." the light is endless only into the future, and so is his priesthood since he wasn't a priest before but was made priest. Ch 119: "And He has called all of us by that voice, and we have left already the way of living in which we used to spend our days, passing our time in evil after the fashions of the other inhabitants of the earth; and along with Abraham we shall inherit the holy land, when we shall receive the inheritance for an *endless eternity*, being children of Abraham through the like faith. " In the Mass, during the institution narrative, it is said "novi et aeterni testamenti", but if the covenant is new, and is eternal, it can't really be infinite into the past, but only everlasting into the future. Yes, in ch. 96 he says: "this is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ", but that is compatible with unitarianism (the "arian" kind), or subordinationism more broadly. Heb 5:10 says that Christ became the high priest, and the reason (i think) he's called an eternal high priest by Justin is because he's priest for ever. If we're going to say that it can be argued that the Son exited eternally because the substance of the Father existed eternally, then you could say that the chair you're sitting on is as old as the universe. You can't conclude Son's eternal past from one word alone.
Thanks so much for not doing this over Zoom, but actually being in the same room and being present with each other. It adds so much to the authenticity to the friendliness of the discussion.
Loving these discussions Trent. I became Catholic last year and paradoxically I've been more open to hearing differing views like these now that my denominational grounding is in the apostolic hierarchy and the teaching authority of the church and not from reason in a vacuum where I felt anxious and confused before thinking that I needed to figure out these highly technical issues myself. But then again paradoxically once I accepted this authority I came to appreciate the depth and reasonableness of what the church teaches
Catholicism and its doctrines shut down any other different way of understanding who the Almighty and how this Spirit is. It is for those who do not want to or not feel capable of pondering about this things. Basically, all the thinking has been done by others. I grew up Catholic and the Bible took me away from Catholicism when I discovered truths ignored or wrongly interpreted by them. The Bible gives us truths not religion or rituals but we have to be willing to open our minds and get deep into those questions and doubts we may have. After many years of listening and reading the Scriptures, my conclusion is that there is no Trinity and that Jesus is not God, this conclusion totally harmonizes with the Old and New Testament and all the words of Jesus. The book of John, which some argue proves Jesus is God, actually has a clear statement from John himself about the purpose for writing this book, we can find it in John 20:30-31, in those days, the question was: is Jesus the Messiah? That was the question, there was not even a hint to think that Jesus was YHWH, and this is the reason for John to write this book.
@@fcastellanos57 Alright, but you're reading a canon established by the authority of the church. There are billions of unique interpretations and realistically there must be a structure to settle these disputes such as what we see with the apostles and then there successors. I choose to humble myself to their teaching authority on these matters as this is the process established by Christ through the Holy Spirit. And within orthodoxy there is still a vast amount to ponder and broadly speaking it comes together in a cohesive whole. Look even just at someone contemporary like Bishop Barron or Jimmy Akin on UA-cam, and how we can always dig deeper and deeper into Scripture and it's an infinite pool of wisdom. What you said has no bearing on the Catholic tradition but would be more appropriate to certain people and sects such as many biblical literalists/fundamentalists.
@@AjaxNixon Yes, I know that Catholic tradition does not necessarily goes along with Scripture. You talk about the authority of the church, however, I do not see historically or biblically that this authority was passed to those who were after the apostles. The church Jesus founded is not physical or is limited to a group, this church started in Pentecost and has continuously grown and have been replace by believers that have existed through the centuries. Everyone who has received the Spirit of the Father is part of Jesus's body who is the head. Catholicism in my opinion of many years of dealing with this, has misunderstood many things concerning what was given to us by Jesus and the apostles. Everything that comes from the Father, who is God Almighty, comes by His Spirit. Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman in John 4, how he would give her living water. In John 7:37-39, Jesus speaks about the rivers of living water that those who believed in him were to received, and John said, Jesus was talking about the Spirit that was not given yet until Jesus was to die and be raised. In John 6, Jesus says he is the bread of life, "he who believes in me will never hungry and he who comes to me will never thirst", so, this is how we eat and drink of Jesus, by believing and coming to him. Catholicism has made all these a ritual purportedly to give us this spiritual food, however it is not through a ritual but through the Spirit as I showed in John 6 and John 7 above. We have already been forgiven by the Father in what Jesus suffered, so there is no need for further asking for forgiveness, it has already been taken care of. God, who is the Father only as John 7:37 says, wants everyone to live righteous lives and grow in love by the power of His Spirit, that is His will.
how sure are you of this certain exegesis? I think it would make more sense to follow the actual historical church instead that was a community of faithful that was gathered together under the bishops and that real institution has passed on throughout the ages and is the living body of christ, and bodies are physical.@@fcastellanos57
Interviews like this show why we shouldn't pigeon hole a certain position. This was very informative and he kept up with Trent throughout the interview. This interview also shows the importance of a magisterium. Sola Scriptura leads down many divergent paths. To disagree would be to fall into the two fallacies Trent brought up... "No true Scotsman" and the "Texas Sharpshooter fallacy "
He does have a point, you can reject all the teachings of the ecumenical councils, or you can accept them all, but to accept some and reject others seems arbitrary and capricious
6 місяців тому+3
@@Michael-bk5nzBut even Augustine said councils can err
The views of individual Church Fathers is meaningless if the same view isn't held by other such Church Fathers. The singular focus on Augustine and 1 or two others gives him a level of infallibility that he simply doesn't have, regardless of the title.
Awesome discussion. I left the OCIA class about the Trinity tonight and felt dissatisfied with the lack of depth of discussion. This was exactly what I needed :)
@@Fassnight No, my answer was the correct one brother: Catholic Answers blaspheme. Also, don't be influenced by Akin - American idols shirts are idolatry, so get rid of that wicked profile pic, it isn't befitting to a Christian🙏❤
@@Thedisciplemike Brother, this isn't uncharitable at all, on the contrary, I am warning my Roman Catholic brothers from false profits who destroy their faith, and there's nothing more heretical than Catholic Answers, especially Akin. False prophet are fair game in this sense, because they drag thousands of innocent souls with them to the everlasting fire of Sheol. Where has the world come to when most Catholics AND Catholic schools teach the abomination of evolution & not to take Scripture at face value...look what is happening to your Roman Catholic Church with that modernist/Protestant infiltration for the past 100 years. You need to stop it now & save your Popes from this yoke
@@TimSpangler-v9iprotestants don't agree to Catholics at all..they don't believe in Saints so protestants see Mary as a whore of Babylon.. EUCHARIST is just a symbol while Catholics believe its literally body and blood of Jesus that we eat. Baptism is just a symbol while Catholics believes its a regeneration of our soul..when u baptize u are born again.. Catholics believe that God's Words is Scripture and Tradition..while Prots is only Scripture ..Protestants don't believe in Pope or the sit of Peter Authority.. Catholics believe that We are the True Christians and have the wholeness of truth while Protestants believe we are not christians and just a other denomination.. Catholics don't get angry to Protestants instead rebuking them for thier wrong teachings about those.. Where does Protestants agree to Catholics? Only in trinity..but Not all Protestants because u have thousands of divisions some are Unitarian,Calvanist,so on and so fort in which they have wrong perspective about God..
Unitarianism is not Christian. We cannot worship Jesus if He not God. The Diety of Christ is affirmed by Scripture. Jesus cannot be our saviour if Jesus is only human. Blessings from Protestant.
@@igorlopes7589it think the diety of Christ is clear in the bible. Matthew 1:21 “She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” Jesus means “Yahweh saves” Psalm 130:7-8 “7 Israel, put your hope in the Lord, for with the Lord is unfailing love and with him is full redemption. 8 He himself will redeem Israel from all their sins.”
As an agnostic, you either didn't watch the video or didn't understand the arguments on both sides lol. The Unitarian said multiple times they think Christ is the literal, biological son of God, and that his cosmic importance & ability to live sinlessly & die for the world comes from that. This doesn't make any less logical sense than the Trinity, (three distinct persons but only one god) and the idea that Christ importance comes from being one of those three persons (god the son) incarnate They are just different interpretations of the bible, & the nontrinitarian is actually way closer to you than the secular, scholarly class or the growing ranks of athiests lmao
I agree 100% that unitarianism is not Christianity, but I think that a unitarian who does not understand divine simplicity and the theological implications of the philosophical nuances involved can still be Christian. Strictly speaking, they could still hold to the words of the apostles creed - "I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who is conceived by the Holy Spirit ..." They may think of Christ as God's only begotten son, subordinate to the Father, without understanding that Christ is of one substance with the Father. This is surely a less dangerous position than denying Christ's deity, or thinking of Him as an angel. My argument hinges on an understanding that one can be theologically ignorant and simoultaneously hold to contradicting beliefs about God, thereby not falling prey to all of the implications of one's own views. However, to be ignorant is a precarious place to be.
I found this more enjoyable than a debate, and i probably learnt more in this format plus it shows the guest in a more charitable way as opposed to an opponent, although he seems very likeable anyway.
With regard to "my Lord and my God" from John: I suspect that Trent does not know Greek because there is no possibility of a lower case 'g' here. Greek distinguishes between theos and ho theos (the term god with and without the definite article) and ho theos always means God in the absolute sense of that term. "ho kyrios mu ho theos mu" means: my LORD and my GOD. It is actually the most unequivocal statement of the full divinity of Christ.
It isn't, the most you could say is that Jesus according to this verse was acting as a manifestation or mirror showing God while himself is a mere human even if he has perfections only reserved for his rank. So Thomas realized the true God in this manifestation as if he was seeing God.
@@T_K_R_G Correct. The whole point was about SEEING and BELIEVING. They kept asking to SEE THE FATHER. Jesus told them if they had SEEN HIM, they had SEEN THE FATHER and to believe because of the works themselves as the FATHER WHO DWELLED IN HIM PERFORMED HIS WORKS. From now on you have KNOWN THE FATHER AND HAVE SEEN HIM When Thomas SAW Jesus resurrected he SAW Jesus physically there AND HE SAW THE FATHER'S works which had just raised Jesus from the dead. Also, important note. Immediately after the statement of Thomas, John tells us the entire point he wants us to get out of all his writings and it's to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Not God the Son or God almighty. Trinitarians always forget the Father Two persons are being identified in John 20:28. In the greek it's The Lord of me AND the God of me Mary and the other apostles saw Jesus before Thomas did and they didnt' say we have seen our Lord and God or that God had risen from the dead...It would make ZERO sense for Thomas to finally come to the understanding that Jesus was God by seeing holes in Jesus's hands and feet and that God raised Jesus from the dead Matthew Mark and Luke don't even hint that Jesus is God Jesus is a reflection of who God is..he mirrored God. He was God's image. To see him is to see the Father as God the Father was working through the MAN Jesus (Acts 2:22) etc blessings
In Orthodoxy, the Father is “the God” from Whom the Son/Word/Wisdom/Power and the Spirit receive Divinity which is the ousia/nature of the Father. The Father does not possess divinity; He is the very source of it. This is the monarchical Trinity clearly taught in the NT, shadowed in the OT, explicated by the Fathers, and upheld by the Ecumenical synods. The Son can call the Father “only God” and “greatest” because of this. The Son is begotten of the Father, not created, and possesses “all” the Father has because it has been given Him. The amazing thing is that the Son “gives all things” to those “in Him” by grace which He has from the Father by nature. Stunning.
I guess you get almost everything right here. Congrats for the descriptive and explanatory parts of the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. The only problem would be Eastern Orthodoxy Pneumatology (= Monopatrism) and the part you affirmed the Father doesn’t “possess divinity”, in which one could probably deduce, since the Son or the Spirit aren’t the uncaused cause (=arché) in the Trinity, that they - on the contrary - possess divinity by their relational causation (respectively, from the Father and from the Father through the Son), but “possessing the essence” or possessing the very being would be a wrong metaphysical description of the One who Is, I guess. I really think that’s not what you meant though. God bless!
@@masterchief8179you are correct! I was driving to work thinking, Somebody will catch the “possess” thing! The Father self-exists in His divinity which He freely shares relationally with His Logos & Spirit. Anymore and I’m out of my depth!
Hello friend! I don’t blame you! You will be blown away at how consistent the Catholic faith is! I will be confirmed into the Catholic faith this Easter, 2024! You may already know this, but if you don’t you need to sign up for their RCIA class. Visit around to a couple of different parishes on Sunday. Some classes, are during the week., and some might be on a Sunday, before or after mass.. but most importantly, as you study, keep your eyes on the Eucharist! The Catholic faith is biblical , liturgical, And Jewish! Many people may try to stop you so don’t be surprised when the opposition comes your way. Pray! Pray! Pray! Find a good parish! Find a caring priest! Asked the Lord to guide you . When you go to church on Sunday, don’t be surprised If people SEEM unfriendly. Fellowship is different in the Catholic faith in the sense, in that Fellowship, and visiting doesn’t happen in the sanctuary right before or right after mass. But, afterwards outside, and or at their other activities. Blessings to you on your journey! You can learn a lot from people like Trent Horn , Scott Hahn, Joe Hershmeir, and Brant Pietre. 🙏🏻😃
LOVED this episode. Unitarianism was so well represented during this discussion. Loved the back and forth. Very interesting and informative. I love at 55mins how Trent basically says if people like it, they’ll keep watching- so true! 😂
I've only just recently encountered Unitarianism as a serious and thoughtful position in Christianity, in its "Biblical" incarnation (pardon the pun), and I hadn't heard of this guy, so 1) I'm glad to see Trent engagng with this Christian doctrine and 2) I think he's picked a fairly good person to explore this with, though I think maybe Dr. Tuggy may be the primary voice for this. Still, again, I love seeing someone else defend it and do it fairly well, and with great charity and irenicism, and for Trent to grapple honestly with this view.
Unitarians are not Christian’s, they deny the deity of our Lord, very important for our Salvation. Don’t fall for the bait that his setting up for you to actually consider his position, he’s view couldn’t be more unbiblical
You honestly can’t be a Christian if you’re a Unitarian, but then again, you’ve probably heard this sentiment a million times already. Here is my thinking. Just because there could be “good” arguments for a position, doesn’t make it true or close to true. In fact, I think there can be such thing as good arguments for something that is objectively wrong and way off.
@@thelonelysponge5029 That’s probably the silliest thing I’ve ever heard in my life, you follow a three person God, that nobody in the gospel ever tries to make the case for…. And we are never told to believe or preach it to anybody, yes, you can be a Christian if you’re biblical Unitarian, because that’s what a true Christian is True worshipers worship the father in spirit and truth, not a triune God, in spirit and truth
@@CommonSenseChristianityT Biblical Unitarianism? I don’t believe there is a case to be made. Worshiping the Father in truth and Spirit, hmmm. How do you know you worship the Father in truth and in spirit? How do you “worship” in truth and in spirit? Besides, should we also not give worship to the Spirit of the Lord? Or give worship to his Son? Who is God almighty?
Hey Trent love all the work you're doing! The only thing I can say is don't sacrifice pushing back on certain points especially when a person claims a false ciew is biblical, like when he tried to use John 17:3
Reminds me of the end of the discussion between Gavin Ortland and Fr Stephen De Young, which was supposed to be about Sola Scriptura and Ortland turned into a critique of Nicea 2. Ortland ends by saying the historical evidence doesn't support Nicea II, and Fr Stephen comments that his unitarian friend says the exact same thing about Nicea I. Ortland says it's different because he can get the building blocks of the Trinity from Scripture, to which Fr Stephen says he can do the same with icon veneration. ua-cam.com/video/GPqNu60tX30/v-deo.htmlsi=JyR06stDW7d1hbde&t=1h31m50s
St John of Damascus heavily relied on the Holy Scriptures in his treatise "On the Holy Images" in which he defended iconography. If you want Scriptural evidences, read him; he does better than I could. But those get dismissed by iconoclasts as not being direct or specific or not having a clear enough historical precedent. They explain how those Scriptures don't really support iconography, and demand an explicit Scripture. In the exact same way Unitarians argue against the Trinity, and the popular proof texts don't actually prove the doctrine, and demand a Scripture that directly states the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity and that you have to believe in the Trinity to properly worship God. That's Fr Stephen's point.
That’s pretty bad really if that’s what ortlund did, changing the subject like that. Have to check it out. Ortlund does seem to have made icons his hobby horse recently
@l21n18 I think believes it is the easiest thing to attack as an accretion that he can play the game of both saying "I'm not convinced this is necessary for salvation" and insinuating "This idolatry/borderline idolatry and proof of the problems of Holy Tradition." And in a discussion on _sola scriptura_ it's easier to keep the frame on the offensive, since the jump from mere Christianity to _sola scriptura_ is hardly an easy or self-evident one. The problem is that his same methodology and criteria undermine the Trinity.
The Trinity is fully taught in scripture, it is very irresponsible to tell protestants that unless they are ready to be catholic, they should reject the Trinity. Edit: what we call "the Trinity" is not a single doctrine but actually a collection of doctrines such as: there is only one God, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Son is not the Father. Each of these is clearly taught in scripture so it is right to say that the Trinity is taught in scripture, even though they are not all in one place.
I haven’t encountered a single Catholic suggest you should be ready to reject the Trinity to become Catholic (perhaps Protestants have suggested that; they wrongly believe many things about Catholicism) The only time I’ve heard people suggest anything like “Well then you shouldn’t believe in the Trinity” in regards to Catholicism is when Catholics respond to Protestants when they try to argue “if it isn’t explicitly stated in the Bible, then it’s wrong to believe it”. The trinity isn’t explicitly stated in the Bible; it’s implicit. This isn’t saying “you should reject the Trinity” to become Catholic. It’s moreso saying you should reject explicit Sola Scriptura to become Catholic. However, I fully recognize I may have completely misunderstood your comment
I think his observation is that the same Protestants who would eagerly adopt the conciliar teaching about the Trinity and nature of Christ are also very ready to reject many other aspects of their theology because contradicted/not found in Scripture.
If a Protestant holds to the claim (which some do) that every Christian doctrine needs to be explicitly taught in Scripture, then this type of Protestant should logically reject the trinity, since the trinity is not explicitly (albiet implicitly) taught in scripture. But you are right that we shouldn't assume every protestant believes that every Christian doctrine needs to be explicitly in scripture. Although it appears that this guest does believe this, so we shouldn't say it is completely irresponsible.
@@user-hj8vd2od9hof course that is very few Protestants and not Sola scriptura historically. So it would telling all Protestants to do because a very small minority believe. Maybe I should tell all Roman Catholics to stop believing Mary is divine because a very small minority might believe in her divinity.
Trent , it was an amazing podcast Can you please do a video on scientific evidence for some catholic miracles I already love a documentary on the Lady of Guadalupe by gabiafterhours which have helped in my devotion to our lady🙏🙏 Thank you
I rather he doesnt do that because the "skeptics" will say, well we cant be sure... because uh... acient sewing technics that are undiscovered !! Proceeds to list lost welding, proceed to use a source of a non scientist who is biased and hipothecises about it withou actually doing the experiment, and it will just be more tiring arguments and discussions.
I had a bunch of thoughts yesterday and came to the conclusion that being made Imago Dei only makes sense within the context of trinitarian Incarnational Theology. I’m now gonna spend the rest of the day trying to figure out how my arguments stack up in a “Christian” Unitarian framework. Yesterday, my arguments concerning Imago Dei were objections to Jewish and Muslim frameworks, which could be seen as Unitarian in some capacity). Definitely something for me chew on.
Should clarify *rabbinic* Judaism. Jews were much more trinitarian before Christianity. Obviously Paul and John were trinitarian. Modern Judaism's hostility towards the intrapersonality of God is largely reactionary to Christianity
There is so much wrong with Sam's "biblical Unitarianism" (an oxymoron) that I'll just have to let go of most of it. But, as a Protestant, I'm saddened by how many of the tired old caricatures of Protestant faith reemerged in this conversation. Sam seemed to glom onto Protestantism the way Mormons glom onto Christianity in general. Right at the start, Sola Scriptura is claimed when he is nowhere near understanding it properly. Then we are told that Protestants don't believe that Mary is the theotokos. Protestants do believe that Mary is the theotokos, but many Protestants at street level just haven't thought about Mary much and are unfamiliar with the term. I'll stop at that, but since we're only one day out from St. Patrick's Day, maybe this would be a good time to review "St. Patrick's Bad Analogies" of Lutheran Satire.
Yep. Basically, Trent found a heretic who claims to be protestant (despite holding views rejected by all major protestant figures), so he can now make some clips in which protestants look bad. It would be like a Muslim talking to a Mormon and clipping the Mormon saying, "if you believe in only One God, you need to become a Muslim." Ummm, sorry but no. Mormons don't get to say they're Christian just because they want respectability. And Unitarians don't get to be Christian either - much less protestants - just because they claim to be.
Your final reference is lost on me, but regarding the Protestant distaste for referring to Mary as the mother of God, this really has nothing to do with belief in the deity of Jesus by most Protestants. Rather, it is reluctance to extend such terminology to Mary as a kind of appellation, which Protestants feel is going too far. To me as a former Protestant who came to embrace the Orthodoxy, I don't view this as doctrinally important.
@@SevereFamineyes the Protestant reformers who penned the term “sola scriptura” believed the early church councils were authoritative. They all deemed the trinity to be an essential doctrine.
1) The point of this conversation was to explain Unitarianism since Unitarianism is getting too popular and Muslims are taking advantage of that. So it is important that we learn about it from Unitarians themselves so that we could counter Islamic arguments taking advantage of this position. Often time, I see Christians just saying "oh, that isn't what the vast majority of Christians believe" but that doesn't do the argument justice and isn't gonna convince any Muslim that Unitarianism is completely absurd from a Biblical perspective. 2) There are Protestants who don't believe in the term "Theotokos" and many even go to the point of calling it Babylonian goddess. You must be very unfamiliar with American Evangelical Protestantism. There are WAY too many Protestants who reject the title and call it pagan. This includes many popular ones like Alex, Mike, etc..
Oh My, you mentioned Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ), that was founded in the PH a hundred years ago. they are the 1st to come into my mind when Unitarian was mentioned. there were actually some people who said that their founder died a Catholic. when he was in death bed, he apparently screamed "Jesus Christ is God!" many times then called a priest but his followers decided to hide this because they already have many members. Prayers for them though ✝️🙏
in the beginning of the video Sam starts off by criticizing other protestants that think that Sola Scriptura cant lead to multiple interpretations of Jesus's divinity and ends the video saying that all protestants should be Unitarians if they really subscribe to sola scriptura. Cant have it both ways guys.
Hey Trent, do you really think Protestants should be Unitarians? Or was that just a catchy punch line? I know that it may not have been your goal, but I actually thought you did a good job of showing the stronger case for Trinitarianism from scripture. As a Trinitarian Protestant, I appreciated that! :)
My fiance is protestant and this, and a recent trip to a multi campus non-denominational church decrying "religiosity" (when they've struggled to keep out the kooks pastor wise in the past) has clarified how I should speak about the structure, and religiosity, of the Church. There's structure for a reason.
How to argue like an atheist: insist that trinitarianism is not found in scripture 🙄. This honestly disgusts me Trent. I may unsubscribe for this. 1. Lack of push back. Trying to let linger a distinct impression that trinitarian theology cannot be supported by the biblical text. The Nicean fathers drew heavily on the Bible in defending trinitarianism, appealing to it as the deciding factor between their customs and traditions and the Arians' customs and traditions, so by your presentation, I guess the take away is that they were wrong? 2. In your haste to undermine protestantism, you're far more likely to drive protestants into unitarianism than to lead them to Roman Catholicism.
@@JW_______ I just don't get why you're overreacting so much... comes off as very whiny. Why even use words to threaten Trent? Be a man and walk away silently, hold to your word.
@@UniteAgainstEvil You're acting like I'm walking away from a fight This is more akin to canceling a magazine subscription. I have the right to let the publisher know why I canceled. Frankly it's for the publisher's own good. Ironically, you are the overreacting by trying to bring manhood into it.
ua-cam.com/users/liveLMXNT7CLra0?si=hT-E6cvVzjlfSvW2 I’m Eastern Orthodox, but I love your work Trent. I was Protestant before and James White was a big resource for me. The purgatory debate was great, but I’m watching this sermon from James and it’s like he didn’t even try to listen to a word you said during it. Anyway, I hope you’re having a blessed Lent.
Trent brings up John 20:28 where Thomas says “ My Lord and my God”, if we go to John 20:30-31, just the following verse, the apostle John gives a reason for writing this gospel which is to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God; if John wanted to show Jesus is God, did he just forget what he wrote in the previous verse in the account with Thomas?
Because it was meant to be gradually received. Just like the Canon of the New Testament ...over time, the church decided what books should be included.
@@fcastellanos57 Jesus himself in John's gospel said " I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." Just like the revelation of the messiah, things have come in stages. Even the canon of scripture. 1 Timothy 3 "If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth" The Church helped preserve and copy the Word of God, and she was integral in slowly coming to a consensus on the content of the canon, just like she did with regards to the nature of God's Son. Things came in stages. The Church is the Pillar of Truth, or Foundation of Truth, as Paul informed us, and via the Church we have before us the Word of God both on the written page, and the content of the Word of God, but also she has pointed to the Word of God, in the flesh. The Word of God ...The Bible-...was God and Man together The Word of God-In the Flesh- Was God and Man together. Jesus didn't come as a failure, he came so the world would see who he was as the gospel was to go out into the world.
3:46 "multiple groups independently come to the same conclusion." And that's why the Bible shouldn't be read outside of its context. It's not surprising modern eyes don't understand the multiple ways in which Jesus claims and shows his divinity in ways that Jews of that time would understand. Thank you Jesus for your Church 🙏
The true Catholic position agrees with the mainstream Protestant tradition that Scripture itself is sufficient to teach us that the one God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that Jesus is God become man for our salvation. This has always been the understanding of the Church, that we believe those things on the authority of Holy Scripture. As a recent example of the affirmation that the truth of Jesus being God is from Scripture itself, read Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus of 1893. Speaking of the Holy Scriptures, he says that Jesus appealed to them to prove that he himself is God. "nam per occasionem ex ipsis etiam sese a Deo missum Deumque declarat". He uses them (the Scriptures) at times to prove that he is sent by God, and is God himself".
Trent, I say with utter seriousness. You need to spend some time studying with Sam Shamoun. "There's no slam dunk verses" for the divinity of Jesus. Are you serious? Hebrews 1:8 ESV - 8 *But of the Son he [the Father] says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,* the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. Acts 20:28 ESV - 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, *to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.*
Neither of those verses are clear the way you think they are, "Your throne O god" was originally applied to a Davidic king, and people other than God are called god and gods all the time in the Bible.
@@maxspringer01 I'm not here to defend his conduct. Are his teachings on the Bible negated by how he handles blasphemers and heretics who call into his platform?
That dialogue was enlightening. It clearly shows that the Bible - although absolutely necessary - is not sufficient: we need a legitimate authority to interpret the scriptures correctly. We need the Church’s magisterium. How could Gold have let His people err in faith?
Trent great chat. I would love to participate in one with you. I am A Nazarene who shares many of Sam’s views on Jesus but have some important views which I would expand on.
After learning about Monarchical Trinitarianism from Dr., Beau Branson (see his interviews on Transfigured), it is plain that neither Protestants nor Catholics can defend their ridiculous Augustinian model of the Trinity. How can they even explain why the Nicene Creed says the One God is synonymous with the Father?
I just heard about him yesterday. It sounds interesting to at least learn more about that as I'm currently looking into trinitarianism, because eventhough I "get" it I feel I l the need to comprehend it fully myself in perspective to the Bible.
@@marlena. Dr. Beau Branson has good videos on his website. Some of it is very complex philosophical discussion, but it’s worth thinking through. Most importantly, the history shows the earliest Christians believed in the Trinity but, like Sam from Transfigured mentioned, Saints like Justin Martyr clearly thought of the Father alone is the Most High God (or as Irenaeus says often the “One God”) and Jesus, though eternal and “theos” by having the same nature (as the Nicene Creed says “homoousios” ie same nature/substance), Jesus is still a “hetero theos” (read Dialogue with Tryoho ch 56). This makes sense of the NT whoch does in fact say the Father is the One God (1 Cor. 8:5-6) and Jesus is primarily the Son of God.
The Catholics, Orthodox, and most protestants do not defend an Augustinian model of the Trinity. If anything, it is the Athanasian model, or the Alexandrian model. But ultimatley, we defend the Nicaean Credal view of the Trinity. Augustine was a Nicaean Christian, but was not even born when the council closed. Secondly, Nicene Creed does not say that the One God is synonymous with the Father. "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, the only-begotten, born of the Father before all ages. Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in essence with the Father; through whom all things were made." Where does it say that the One God is only the father. It clearly says that Jesus is of the same essence and is God from God. Nowhere does it say that God the Father is the only true God.
@@josephmoya5098 Hello. I used to believe like you but I hope you consider this evidence. First, The Nicene Creed which we should agree is the most important Creed of the Christian faith (300+ bishops signed in AD 325) says unambiguously that the One God is the Father, and it does not refer to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. That is because “One God”, “Most High God”, “the Only True God” is a particular philosophical category of the “First Cause.” Even Trent would admit that, since Jesus is eternally Begotten from the Father, only the Father has no cause/source/principle. That’s what the Bible means by saying plainly the Father is the One God (1 Cor 8:5-6) and Only True God (John 17:3). The Bible never once uses those terms for Jesus, since His source is the Father. Second, you are mistaken that Protestant/Catgolic beliefs follow Athanasius. Athanasius explicitly said the One God is the Father. The “Athanasian Creed” is widely acknowledged to be pseudonymous and based on Augustine’s Trinitarian theology. Third, the historic evidence from primary sources is overhelming that all Trinitarian Christians agreed the One God of Christian monotheism is the Father, and Jesus is “Theos” in a different, predicate sense due to being the fully divine Son of the One God. Read St. Irenaeus’ Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, pts 4-7 and 47. This is the oldest summary of the Christian faith we have (circa AD 180). Irenaeus plainly defines the One God as the Father, and Jesus is His Son and thereby God just as a human’s son is also human. Irenaeus is a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, but for some reason Augustine’s theology got all the attention. St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lecture #4 is also another old summary of early christianity during the Nicene period, and it says plainly the One God is the Father.
I'm really getting tired of people like Trent lumping all Protestants into one category. I mean, the Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Roman Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, etc don't agree on everything at all, yet they all claim Tradition™️ guides them. So I guess they have the same problem Sola Scriptura has.
"The fact that St. Paul regarded Jesus Christ as the Son of God does not in itself imply, as we are carelessly inclined to suppose, that he thought of Him as God. The Messiah was called the Son of God, but no Jew ever thought of him actually as God; and even Adam could be called the Son of God [Luke 3.28], while all believers were reckoned as sons of God [Rom 8.14 and elsewhere]." Weigall, Paganism in our Christianity, page 182.
John 1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of Grace and truth… (and) we have beheld his glory as of the only Son of the father…For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth through Jesus Christ. Can’t be any more clear than that. The Gospel of John was written by a Jew
I understand this was a "Dialogue" and not a "Debate" similar to Trent's debate vs. the Calvinist James White over "Sola-Scriptura" and "Purgatory" that was held a few weeks back at the Lutheran church in Houston. Regarding the Trinity or the Doctrine being defined with definitive Dogmatic Terminology. While it is true that the Council of Nicea in 325 AD gave us the Creedal language regarding a formal Definition of the Trinity, it is also true that their were clear teachings against views of the Trinity that were viewed as not orthodox. Sam Tidman mentioned several doctrines prior to Nicea. 1) Gnosticism and 2) Modalism along with Justin Martyr's writings that have some subordinationism views in it. In 144 AD, Marcion was in Rome wanting a narrow NT canon to be defined and preaching that the God of the OT not the Father revealed in NT by Christ. He was excommunicated by Pius 1, the Bishop of Rome unilaterally with no Council or no consulting of anyone. Henry Chadwick in his Penguin History of the Early Church (Revised Edition) writes (p. 40) Marcion came from Asia Minor to Rome where he was excommunicated by the Church. Of course, he does not say which Church (it wasn't in the British Isles) and does not say who was the Bishop of Rome, it was Pius 1, but is as a Protestant-Anglican pointing out the historical truth. Modalism, another anti-Trinitarian view proposed by the likes of Sabellius was formally excommunicated around 220 AD by Pope Callistus. Again, unilaterally at the Church of Rome. By the time of Pope Saint Dionysius, we see a clear letter to Patriarch Dionysius of Alexandria around 262 AD clearly defending orthodox Trinitarianism from both Modalism and Subordinationism. So while there were Gnostic, Modalist and Subordinationist views pre-Nicea, there is also a clear legacy of the Bishops of Rome and Church of Rome declaring all these views as unorthodox. Regards
I use to think trent was very dismissive of unitarians simply as heretics. I grew a lot of respect that he sat down and had a discussion with one. Im a unitarian and im glad he gave respect and understanding to our views despite not agreeing. Personally i believe god loves those who actively seek him out regardless if they are right or wrong on any given issues. I think this discussion also brings out that trinitarian views are not as definitive as they are sometimes portrayed.
The bigger problem for unitarians is Matthew 18 where Jesus teaches that should a dispute arise in the church, the apostles have the final authority to bind the members to judgments. And if the people in question refuse to comply, they should be treated as pagans. At Nicea, a dispute arose and it was brought before the successors of the apostles. They near-unanimously bound the church to the doctrine of Jesus' eternal divinity (and later the trinity). Unitarians aren't heretics because they made an intellectual error on a tough issue; they're heretics because the explicitly reject the binding judgement of Jesus' church
@@sivad1025 two problems. One they were not the apostles. If the do hold authority as the successors then so did the unitarians at nicea. Two he was taking about someone sining not disputing on an intellectual issue. The passage about treating them as pagans is about unrepentant sinners.
@@mitslev4043 If Jesus is God, it would be highly sinful to tell people to not worship him. That's why Nicea is dogmatic. If Matthew 18 died with the apostles, then there is no real church authority today and none of Paul's commands to submit to the church make any sense. As Catholics will point out, the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" given to Peter allude back to the prime minister's keys to Israel that were passed on. Unless I'm mistaken, only two out the 318 Bishops at Nicea rejected the creed and were excommunicated. All that to say, it's strange for unitarians 2,000 years later to come in and claim to have the right answer when the overwhelming majority of the church firmly rejected that position.
@@sivad1025 that logic works in reverse. If Jesus is not God it would be highly sinful to say he is. I typically believe the authorities of the church in instances that don't conflict with Scripture. In this case I think you can make a good case for both the Trinity and a unitarian view. In which case the bible would take president and we would have to conced that it is an unknown. Not that we can't have a view but it's one thing we should not say for sure Yes only a few objected but out of all of the bishops invited very few actually showed up. Many from the regions that did not make it were unitarians. I don't think it's strange. Unitarianism has been around a long time. But even if it hasn't our understanding of history and our methods of reasoning have developed over the years. We are not saying the scriptures are wrong but refining our understanding of them. And I don't think just because something was historically believed or was believed by the majority makes it true.
It was a more controversial dogma than any of the other dogmas as far an I am aware. The understanding of the Eucharist was not in question then and rather accepted that the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ. While I am not a Unitarian it was a hard for me to accept the Trinity. Took some time to discern and accept the Church’s teaching
@@bradleyperry1735 It’s because he’s a great and brilliant debater when it comes to mere Christianity, and is formidable against atheists (Just like James White btw). But when he’s cross examined on the specific details of theology within the faith, that’s when his views can really be picked apart. In summary, his defense of Mere Christianity is great; his defense against Catholicism (or Orthodox) is less so
@@bradleyperry1735for two reasons mostly 1 Many evangelicals are just as indifferent to orthodoxy as Craig, the Hellenization thesis (that much of traditional Christian orthodoxy is the result of the influence of Greek philosophy and you need to root it all out to get back to “real Christianity”) is distressingly common among evangelicals 2. Many others only know Craig as the expert debater who “pwns” the skeptics and don't know about his problematic views, which can only be found in his non-apologetical works
In regards to Jesus knowing the thoughts of people, The Pharisees said about Jesus getting his feet washed by the woman in the Pharisees house, “if he were a prophet he would know what kind of woman she is” So even the Pharisees think prophets can have super human knowledge
In Acts 21:10-11, the prophet Agabus predicts the future. Prophets can have the past and future revealed to them. This is why Simon the Pharisee thought Jesus should know the woman's past in Luke 7:39. However, I do not think he expected Jesus to know the inner thoughts of people because this is something only God knows according to 2 Chronicles 6:30. Interestingly, Jesus also knows the inner thoughts of people according to Mark 2:6-8.
@@AaronOfJerusalemAndAthens Hello I think it’s the case that prophets can do this by God’s power 2 Kings 6:12 And one of his servants said, “None, my lord, O king; but Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the words that you speak in your bedroom.” Daniel is able to not only interpret the dream of someone, but do it without even being told what the dream is Daniel knew what someone dreamt without being told!! because of God Prophets can do this and it’s always because of God Dan 2:30 But as for me, this secret has not been revealed to me for any wisdom residing in me more than in any other living person, but for the purpose of making the interpretation known to the king, and that you may understand the thoughts of your mind.
@@mitchellc4Hey Mitchell. Thanks for the response. Here is why I do not think these examples are quite the same as what Jesus does in Mark 2:6-8. In 2 Kings 6:12, Elisha knows what words are spoken, he is not seeing the king's inner thoughts. And in Daniel 2:30, Daniel only knows this because it was revealed to him in a dream, as is seen in Daniel 2:19, but he is not seeing into Nebuchadnezzar's heart. In contrast, Jesus sees into the hearts and minds, Revelation 2:23, which is what God also does, Jeremiah 17:10.
@@AaronOfJerusalemAndAthens Thanks for the response I think God can enable humans to do whatever he wants them to do, heal people, know information, even raise the dead! Obviously only God can do these things but he enables humans to do them. I think we will have to disagree I think we have both provided evidence and people can decide Thanks!
@@mitchellc4 Thanks. It seems there are two ways of knowing the inner thoughts of another person. The first way is to have the power to see into their mind. Jesus and God have this power. The second way is to have it revealed to you by someone who knows what is in the person's mind, either the person themself or God. This is how a prophet like Daniel can know what is in the person's mind. I think God can enable someone to know the inner thoughts of a person by the second way, but I am less sure about the first way. It seems the first way only applies to God and Jesus in scripture. I think 2 Chronicles 6:30 and Mark 2:6-8 offer another important insight. Biblical unitarians often use the fact that God alone created the world in Isaiah 44:24 to say that Jesus did not create the world. But 2 Chronicles 6:30 and Mark 2:6-8 show that Jesus does not have to be excluded whenever scripture says that God alone did something. That undermines this particular biblical unitarian argument. Take care.
@@maxspringer01yes it does, definitely teaches it for sure I’ll give you the exact order John 8:24, Isaiah 41:4, Isaiah 43:10 Isaiah 46:4, Revelation 1:17-18, John 4:26, John 13:19, John 18: 5-8, Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 43:13, Isaiah 43:25, Isaiah 46:4, Isaiah 45:18-19, Isaiah 51:12. Jesus is your God no matter how much you want to reject it Acts 4: 5-14, then read verse 12 again Psalms 25:11, psalms 54:1, Acts 4:12, psalms 79:9, Isaiah 43:25, Isaiah 45:22, 1 Samuel 17:45, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 16:18, Acts 9:33-35, psalms 123:1-2, Jude 1:1, Jude 1:4 John 20:28, Psalms 35:23 Romans 9:5, 2 Peter 1:1 Psalms 34:8, 1 Peter 2: 3-5, 2 Samuel 23:2-3, Nehemiah 9:20, Nehemiah 9:30, Psalms 51:11, Micah 3:8, 1 Peter 1:10-12 All in that exact order and this only a hint of the Bible teaching that Jesus is your God almighty, Revelation 1:7-8 Repent before you condemn yourself to the Lake of Fire for ignoring the word of God
Interesting dialogue. I noticed though that there are some few parts/aspects that weren't enough deepened, especially on understanding the Trinity/Incarnation and the "begotten" according to the Creed in other languages. I will have to come back to them later when I do a list.
Acts 3:15 seems like a solid refutation of this idea that Jesus is “a” god and not “the” God. *Acts 3:15* “and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.” The author of life clearly signifies the creator of all things, of heaven and earth-“the” God in Genesis, and not “a” god.
Incorrect, the author is the start of things, this is talking about the resurrection, Jesus is the one who’s bringing forth the resurrection, not the old creation, everything is being made new through the Messiah And not all of them say author, that shows that either you’re disingenuous, or you just haven’t studied much ”but put to death the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.“ Acts 3:15 NASB2020 ”and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.“ Acts 3:15 KJV
@@maxspringer01 Correct, the more I hear from Trinitarians, the more I realize just how unstudied they are, it’s no wonder they believe the way they do
@@CommonSenseChristianityT In Hebrews, Jesus had an Old Testament Psalm, which describes YHWH in the Hebrew, associated with Him. *Hebrews 1:8-12* “But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.” And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands; they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment, like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” So He (the Father) said of the Son “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,” It’s taken from Psalm 102:25, and just 3 verses earlier it says “when peoples gather together, and kingdoms, to worship the LORD.” With the fully caps LORD signifying use of YHWH in the Hebrew. If Jesus wasn’t the God why would the writer of Hebrews associate a Psalm about YHWH to Him and credit Him with laying the foundations of the earth?
It's bizarre to have Trent make arguments that effectively push non-Catholics into heretical views of the Trinity. I'm grounded enough to where I'd quickly become Catholic rather than a Unitarian (if that choice was necessary). But surely he realizes that many poorly educated protestants will rather watch this video and say, "Well I guess there isn't as much reason to be a trinitarian as I thought." What a bizarrely irresponsible way of framing things.
Very much so! This video is divisive. It's meant as a deliberate wedge for Protestants, especially given the sound bite in the beginning. Rather than seeking to create unity, this creates discord and pushes more people from the Faith. Trent has been interacting with increasingly non-orthodox sources and it's frustrating to see it. Protestants, under Vatican 2, are separated brethren. Trying to take those churches and destroy them is a sin, clearly. This is not to be encouraged and should be condemned. Open dialogue with heretics and dissenters is an important part of apologetics, but it should never become polemical for those who are Christian. James White is guilty of this as well. It's lamentable to see.
@@atanas-nikolov My response seems to have disappeared. Can you confirm that? That said, I think Protestants can claim heresy, at least on certain items. Just like the Catholic Magisterium has to be interpreted, so does the Bible. There has to be at least some plain meaning that is allowed, otherwise the Protestant can say that Catholics have no right to call out heretics either. Given this, and given that the Trinity is one of the clearer teachings in Scripture (not an exact formulation, as found in the Nicene Creed) to the extent that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also God in a very real way, then it follows that Protestants can call out heretics. There may not be a legal, ecclesial authority, but certainly there is a spiritual authority granted de facto by the mere existence of God's Word being available on Earth.
This is heartbreaking that Trent, a brother in Christ, would give this heresy such gracious airtime, harming the greater body of Christ, just to gleefully score that anti-Protestant sound bite at the beginning. This view is not a Christian option for anyone - Catholic or Protestant. We should care for the body of Christ more than the appearance of a win for our tribe.
So far the only people Trent has talked to in this format are people he believes hold to atleast some heretical views. Should he not have dialogued with RZ on Calvinism? Sorry if this one went too far for you.
@trismegistus2881 tbh I’m not sure if this applies. Did he start the other dialogue videos with a sound bite like he did this one? Genuine question, I haven’t seen the others.
@@nickl4855 This is completely different. Calvinism is within the bounds historic catholicity. Calvinists are our brothers in Christ. Non-trinitarians are not.
So on the Justin Martyr part of the dialogue, I don't think that Justin needs to be read in such a way that he is Arian. If God speaking is the Word coming forth and being begotten, that doesn't mean the Word is created or distinct from God. Remember Arius was famous for saying "there was a time when He was not," but in order for there to be time, there must have been creation. The Word being begotten as the catalyst for the first moment to come into being doesn't seem to me to be distinct from the Word being begotten eternally. In either case, the Word is begotten outside of time, prior (logically) to the beginning of all passable creation and all time. Justin doesn't say the Word was created. And Scripture says all things were created through the Word. That is in fact part of Arius' theology, too, that the Word was an organ for God to work through in order to create. We reject that the Word was an organ for creation in Arius' sense because in making the Word an organ for creation he makes the Word something distinct from God, but there is an orthodox sense in which the Word is an organ for creation, since all things were created through the Word. I don't think we need to say Justin got this wrong (though Trent is right that it's possible for individual Church Fathers to err theologically), but rather that he perhaps didn't have precise enough language. Yes, he was a brilliant theologian and philosopher, but he still lacked access to certain linguistic nuance because of his place on history.
Glad Sam Shamoun is calling out Trent for his weakness in this discussion and that Trent needs to stay in his lane. Imo, Trent did more harm than good here even tho he doesn't realize it. Hope he takes Sam's counsel on this.
Absolutely wonderful conversation Trent however it is surprising that no mention was made of Dr Michael heiser's work and the idea of the two powers of Heaven prevalent in the second temple and prior. Unfortunately for us the dear doctor has passed to his reward but perhaps you could have the Catholic Brothers on? The whole last 30 minutes would be cleared up by the good doctors work on the ancient world concept of "Elohim".
By this logic, if all current heresy can be (questionably) traced back to and blamed on Luther (all opposed and condemned by Luther as heresy), just go one step further and trace it back to the Catholic Church that formed him.
@@Mic1904 Luther was not the first heretic but almost all heresies today were made possible by his violation of Matthew 18:15-18, which removes the Catholic Church from the blame you're trying to put on it. Since the Catholic Church was established by Jesus and not a heretic, there is no equivalence to luther
@@Mic1904 You can count the amount of heresies pre-luther on your fingers and toes. Since luther, yes, most if not all of those have been resurrected, but the other 39,980 trace their roots, as in the possibility to claim to be a Christian in violation of Matthew 18:15-18, to Luther. Satans second greatest accomplishment after tempting Eve was the reformation.
@@MasterKeyMagic _"You can count the amount of heresies pre-luther on your fingers and toes."_ As you can today. _"Since luther, yes, most if not all of those have been resurrected"_ They have to be dead first to be resurrected. Most of these were never dead. _"but the other 39,980"_ I assume this is a lazy reference to some manner of imaginary '40,000 Protestant denominations' figure (33,000 is another popular one), which is an urban legend readily and easily debunked, including by Catholic sources themselves. '40,000' is a faulty number of not just so-called 'Protestant' groups, but also hundreds of Catholic and Orthodox groups (including different geographical administrations and liturgical rites counted separately), as well as straight up pagan, wiccan, spiritualist groups, and even radio stations. Complete nonsense from start to finish. This, of course, doesn't mean by itself that your Catholic faith is wrong, merely that I'd examine the confidence of the foundations upon which I rested if they were built upon at least 2-3 plainly demonstrable falsehoods (as above). God bless.
Mr. Tiderman is so cool. As the interviewee, he mostly simply presented his beliefs and did not challenge those of Trent. Trent on the other hand was perhaps more defensive or aggressive as an interviewer should be. He tried to defend the Trinitarian belief when he had the chance, at one point invoking the need for magisterium. The magisterium argument tries to quash logical arguments from opponents. So, if the other has a valid or even better logical explanation, then a Catholic would be prompted to use the magisterium card by saying, "this is how it should be interpreted" which practically erases the need for any logical or reason based study of scriptures. Also, I think it is somehow unfair for Trent to call his position the Orthodox position. Of course everyone believes what he believes is actually orthodox. So to call oneself as such, seems to imply the other is not. Trent also is not a member of the Orthodox Church. And while Catholics may sometimes claim the Catholic and Orthodox beliefs are the same with regards to the Trinity. The Orthodox do not generally do so. The Orthodox view the Catholic belief as heretical. Also, it seems to justify Trinitarianism, one would have to sometimes shift from "Jesus is god" to "Jesus is man" and vice versa every now and then when convenient. So when speaking of foreknowledge, Trinitarians would say it's because of Jesus' divine nature. When it comes to Jesus not knowing when the end will be, they say it's because of Jesus' human nature. And they don't explain when one is at play and when it is not. They also don't explain how they determine this. Sometimes they also use the excuse that although Jesus said he didn't know when the end will be, he simply lied for he knew when it will be but it's not part of something he has to reveal. In addition, the Church also seems to disagree with Jesus who says not even the angels, or the Son know the end. Only the Father does. If the Son and HS are distinct persons, both of them don't know when it will be. Again, only the Father does. But the Church seems to believe that all three do know. The discussion on Justin is great, especially the two-stage theory. It shows that at the earliest stages of Christianity - even post Biblically - the belief that the Father and Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) are equal was not a thing yet. Also, let me share what I understand what Arianism is. Arianism is a belief declared as heresy in the Council of Nicea in the year 325. At the said council, the Nicene Creed was formulated in response to the priest Arius. Arians believe Jesus was the only begotten of Son of the Father. He was thus born of the Father (how they define "begotten"). As such, Jesus was truly Son; and God was truly Father to Jesus. He came from the Father. All Jesus had came from the Father (John 5:19). The Father is in Jesus (Jn 14:11). And so who sees Jesus sees the Father (Jn 14:9). Jesus can heal the sick, raise the dead, forgive sins and judge at the end of time. Jesus was the first born of all creation (Colossians 1:15). That is something that cannot be said of the Father. God made everything thru Jesus (Colossians 1:16). And while he said let "us" make man in our image, his command was to worship no god but "me" (Deuteronomy 5:7), not us. At the end of times, Jesus will judge (Matthew 25:32). Because of this, Jesus is called the Beginning and the End (Revelation 22:13). But ultimately, after everything have been subjected to Jesus, he will also be subjected to God (1 Corinthians 15:28). Jesus is the Way, not the end. No one goes to God, except thru him (John 14:6). Jesus is the mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). Jesus was sent by the Father (John 17:3). The Father can send Jesus because the Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28), not equal. The Son cannot send the Father. They are not equals. The Son is inferior. The Father is greater. All throughout the gospels, Jesus was called man or Son of Man... and if one of the main reasons for his coming to the world was to reveal God, then he said it explicitly. Never he called himself god; instead, he explicitly called only the Father god: "Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only TRUE God" (John 17:3). Everything Jesus had came from the Father (John 17:2) - his power, his authority, etc. Unlike Jesus, nothing can be added or given to God. God is unoriginated. God is not begotten. Jesus came from the Father. Jesus had an origin. Jesus was begotten. Everything Jesus had was GIVEN to him by the Father. Arians use the following verses, among others, for their belief: Mark 13:32 - “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father. 1 Cor 15:24-28 - Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE GOD HIMSELF, who put everything under Christ. WHEN HE HAS DONE THIS, THEN THE SON HIMSELF WILL BE MADE SUBJECT TO HIM who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. Mark 10:18 - Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? NO ONE IS GOOD BUT GOD ALONE. John 20:17 - Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, TO MY GOD AND YOUR GOD.’” Ephesians 1:17 - I pray that THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know him, John 17:3 - And this is eternal life, THAT THEY MAY KNOW YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. 1Cor 8:6 - yet FOR US THERE IS BUT ONE GOD, THE FATHER, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. Ephesians 4:4-6 - There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL, who is above all and through all and in all. 1 Tim 2:5 - FOR THERE IS ONE GOD AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MANKIND, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS, John 14:28 - You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, BECAUSE THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I. The Arians referenced these passages to show that the Father is god and that Jesus is the lord sent by God (who is the Father). The Holy Spirit was not given the same importance/reverence… or actually was totally disregarded: Romans 1:7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from GOD OUR FATHER and from the Lord Jesus Christ. (no mention of the Holy Spirit) 1 Cor 1:3 Grace and peace to you FROM GOD OUR FATHER and the Lord Jesus Christ. (no mention of the Holy Spirit) 2 Cor 1:2 Grace and peace to you from GOD OUR FATHER and the Lord Jesus Christ. Praise be TO THE GOD AND FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort. (no mention of the Holy Spirit) Gal 1:3-5 Grace and peace to you from GOD OUR FATHER and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of OUR GOD AND FATHER, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (no mention of the Holy Spirit) Arians believe that Jesus could perform miracles, heal the sick, judge, forgive sins because the Father gave him authority. He is begotten (born / generated / came from). The Father is not. Only the Father is not. They believe that whoever sees Jesus sees the Father not because Jesus is god but because God is in Jesus. They believe that in the end, Jesus will hand over the kingdom to God the Father. He, the Son, will be made subject to God (the Father). If there is belief that Jesus is God, they believe it is mainly because of the Council of Nicea. They believe their belief is faithful to the Gospel. Here's video on Arianism made by an actual Arian (because usually, the explanation we have on Arianism comes from non-Arians): ua-cam.com/video/EV7-IAFlzKk/v-deo.html Thanks! :-)
When Philippians 2:7 says Jesus was "made" in the likeness of men, it uses a form of the word "ginomai". This is similar to Galatians 4:4 where "ginomai" is used to say Jesus was "made" of a woman and "made" under the law. Romans 1:3 also uses "ginomai" to say Jesus was "made" of the seed of David. The connection between these passages is unavoidable. All three passages use a form of the word "ginomai" to speak about the Messiah being born. This is significant because since Philippians 2:7 describes Jesus being born as a human, then Philippians 2:5-6 must describe Jesus before he was a human. This rules out the possibility for a biblical unitarian interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11. Furthermore, these three passages are connected to John 1:14 which also uses "ginomai" to say that the Word was "made" flesh.
Dear God, the prots are already wrong and heretical so much, how could it possible get any worst? Hey, Trent just posted a new video. Wonder what its about...
Wow. Throwing shade at the Church Fathers for not engaging with the arguments of the heretics, but impugning their character. It’s a bold move, Cotton. Let’s see how it plays out.
Reflecting about what they said I still don't think that "sola scriptura" brings naturally to Unitarism, but rather to Arianism. Very interesting dialogue though.
Do NOT call this Protestant! The 16th century reformers were fully Trinitarian and orthodox Reform, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist and most evangelicals are fully Trinitarian. They take the tradition and creeds very seriously. Read, for example, Matthew Barrett’s Simply Trinity. He is a reform Baptist and fully orthodox. Listen to Lutheran Jordan B. Cooper’s Just and Sinner podcasts on the Trinity. They are also fully orthodox. Trent, you should know better than to choose weak versions of non-catholic teaching and call it Protestant. So-called biblical Unitarians are simply heretics. Unfortunately, you can find heretics everywhere, including within the Catholic Church.
The Roman Catholic Church should be better equipped to explain the Trinity. As it was what they brought into Church teachings. However, hardly anyone believes in that concept anymore. People have their own theories as to what the Trinity should be. Something that cannot be logically explained would qualify as a twisted teaching. Paul's prophecy at: (Acts 20:30) and from AMONG YOU YOURSELVES men will rise and SPEAK TWISTED THINGS to draw away the disciples after themselves. Jesus is God's son. If Jesus was God, we would have Jesus worshipping himself. Which would be an ego issue.
Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions KNOW and are fully aware that all of them - 1. REJECTED the Creator as the True and Sovereign God 2. REJECTED Jesus Christ as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth ETERNAL LIFE and EXISTENCE on EARTH for FOLLOWERS and BELIEVERS of JESUS CHRIST Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions DON'T KNOW and understand that all lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons on earth who honor and obey Jesus Christ as their loving, kind, and merciful Master and Heavenly King and believe his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" as written in Luke 4: 43 and John 11: 25, 26 will definitely bring themselves honor and the loving, kind, and merciful Creator's favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death on a safe and peaceful earth without liars, slanderers, perverts, traitors, and murderers as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4, 8. Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions who deliberately rejected the BIBLICAL teachings of Jesus Christ about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" DON'T KNOW and understand that the teaching of Jesus Christ about the "Resurrection of the Dead" is the Creator's guarantee that all lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Job, Ruth, Naomi, King David, Jesus Christ's Followers and disciples, and many others will all be RESURRECTED back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily, abundantly, and peacefully live and exist on earth forever as subjects and citizens of the "KINGDOM of GOD" and fully enjoy the eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings of the Creator and his Christ for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.
1:38:13 To say that Colossians 1 of the NWT of the JWs is a “mistranslation” I find to be unfair. . The Greek word here rendered “all things” is panʹta, an inflected form of pas. At Luke 13:2…, • the Revised Standard (RS) translation renders this “all… other”; • the Jerusalem Bible (JB) translation reads “any other”; • the New English (NE) says “anyone else.” (See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.) In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding Jesus as the Son of God (and not God himself), the New World (NW) translation assigns the same meaning to panʹta at Colossians 1:16, 17 as these others translations have in other scriptures. This can be done because of context, not only because what the rest of the Bible teaches, but also because of the Apostle Paul says in his other writings. As he wrote Colossians, he also wrote 1 Corinthians, and specifically quoting from 15:27, Paul writes: (1 Corinthians 15:27) “For God “subjected all things under [Jesus’] feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him.” (NWT) “For he hath put all things under [Jesus’] feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.” (KJV) “For, He put all things in subjection under [Jesus’] feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him.” (ASV) . Using the same logic that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 15:27, it is evident that when he writes here in Colossians that “all things” were created by means of Jesus that this statement excludes the obvious, which is that he did not create himself, and he did not create Jehovah who has no beginning. Just as God subjected all things to Jesus (except Himself obviously), Jesus created all things that were created (except himself obviously). The “obvious” in both occurrences are meant to be already understood when the writers say “all things” in both cases.
Thanks for having me on your channel Trent! I really appreciated your respectful yet serious tone in this conversation.
Thanks for coming on the show!
Loved your candor. Thanks for coming.
Thanks for coming on. You've helped me understand the formation of the United States in a way that I didn't before. You've also cleared up many conceptions that the founding Fathers were Trinitarians. And for that you have my sincere thanks.
Fantastic ambassadorship, Sam. Well done.
It was a good episode
I love these because not only is Trent explaining the Catholic faith but he is also providing an excellent example of how to respectfully dialogue with people who disagree with us. This is definitely something I could work on!
Love these dialogues. Calm, informative and non-confrontational. Keep it up. I like these better than debates. They are less stressful for the listener. Well, for this listener anyway.😅
Certainly less stressful for the dialogue partners too
Yes, I felt myself actually hearing the opposing side rather than waiting for Trent’s rebuttals.
☦🤝✝️Yes, to pseudo Christians debating who has the Orthodox ideas. It would be hilarious if it wasn't sad, having been deceiving so many innocent souls
Sam says (around 1:33:53) that Justin Martyr thinks Jesus is not with the same essence as the Father but this is just not true! in Dialogue with Trypho Ch.128 Justin says "when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but remains the same." this same type of analogy is used in Tertullian, Athanasius, and in the Nicene creed to show that Jesus is eternally begotten by the Father and the same essence as Him as well.
Sam also says Justin thinks Christ came into existence as a Person at creation but in Ch.42 Justin says Jesus is "the eternal Priest"
But he says that he was begotten by an act of will of the Father chapter 61: "God begot before all creatures a Beginning, [who was] a certain rational power [proceeding] from Himself (...) and since He was begotten of the Father by an act of will; just as we see happening among ourselves: for when we give out some word, we beget the word; yet not by abscission, so as to lessen the word [which remains] in us, when we give it out: and just as we see also happening in the case of a fire, which is not lessened when it has kindled [another], but remains the same; and that which has been kindled by it likewise appears to exist by itself, not diminishing that from which it was kindled."
He compares generation of the Son to us uttering a word, which means that there is a point when the word isn't uttered. This is the so-called 2-stage Logos christology.He also calls him a second God.
The same sentiment is echoed in Tertullian in Against Praxeas ch. 5: "Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call λόγος, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; "
So, when it was time to create, i.e., in the beginning, the Father uttered his Word in order to create (A.P ch. 19) It must also be He who says, "I am the First, and to all futurity I AM." The Word, no doubt, was before all things. "In the beginning was the Word;" John 1:1 and in that beginning He was sent forth by the Father. The Father, however, has no beginning, as proceeding from none; nor can He be seen, since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have had order or rank.
Most clearly in Against Hermogenes ch. 3: "Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him."
Yes, he thinks that the Son is made of the same substance, of the same stuff, as the Father, but that doesn't preclude the Son being created at a certain point, after not really existing as a separate entity.
With regards to Dialogue with Trypho and Christ being called the eternal priest, that's not the atemporal eternity but the everlasting future type of eternity. Trypho says in ch. 36: "Trypho: Let these things be so as you say- namely, that it was foretold Christ would suffer, and be called a stone; and after His first appearance, in which it had been announced He would suffer, would come in glory, and be Judge finally of all, and eternal King and Priest. Now show if this man be He of whom these prophecies were made."
So Christ would be the eternal king and priest AFTER his first appearance.
Also ch. 39 says: "it is declared in the Scriptures that Christ must suffer, and come again with glory, and receive the eternal kingdom over all the nations, "
Does that mean that his kingdom over the nations spans infinitely into the past? no. it only has not end into the future.
Sometimes, by eternal, he just means supernatural (ch. 47): "and [wish to perform] the eternal and natural acts of righteousness and piety,".
Ch 89: "and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. " again, resurrection is endless only into the future
Ch 113: "this is He who shall shine an eternal light in Jerusalem; this is he who is the king of Salem after the order of Melchizedek, and the eternal Priest of the Most High." the light is endless only into the future, and so is his priesthood since he wasn't a priest before but was made priest.
Ch 119: "And He has called all of us by that voice, and we have left already the way of living in which we used to spend our days, passing our time in evil after the fashions of the other inhabitants of the earth; and along with Abraham we shall inherit the holy land, when we shall receive the inheritance for an *endless eternity*, being children of Abraham through the like faith. "
In the Mass, during the institution narrative, it is said "novi et aeterni testamenti", but if the covenant is new, and is eternal, it can't really be infinite into the past, but only everlasting into the future.
Yes, in ch. 96 he says: "this is He who existed before all, who is the eternal Priest of God, and King, and Christ", but that is compatible with unitarianism (the "arian" kind), or subordinationism more broadly.
Heb 5:10 says that Christ became the high priest, and the reason (i think) he's called an eternal high priest by Justin is because he's priest for ever.
If we're going to say that it can be argued that the Son exited eternally because the substance of the Father existed eternally, then you could say that the chair you're sitting on is as old as the universe.
You can't conclude Son's eternal past from one word alone.
Shows you even the so called nicest mannered person can lie, what do you expect from a protestant, totally demonic and hell bound
Loved this, Trent. Your friendliness and willingness to listen reflects the best of Christian dialogue. Peace!
Thanks so much for not doing this over Zoom, but actually being in the same room and being present with each other. It adds so much to the authenticity to the friendliness of the discussion.
Loving these discussions Trent. I became Catholic last year and paradoxically I've been more open to hearing differing views like these now that my denominational grounding is in the apostolic hierarchy and the teaching authority of the church and not from reason in a vacuum where I felt anxious and confused before thinking that I needed to figure out these highly technical issues myself. But then again paradoxically once I accepted this authority I came to appreciate the depth and reasonableness of what the church teaches
I know exactly how you feel!
Catholicism and its doctrines shut down any other different way of understanding who the Almighty and how this Spirit is. It is for those who do not want to or not feel capable of pondering about this things. Basically, all the thinking has been done by others. I grew up Catholic and the Bible took me away from Catholicism when I discovered truths ignored or wrongly interpreted by them. The Bible gives us truths not religion or rituals but we have to be willing to open our minds and get deep into those questions and doubts we may have. After many years of listening and reading the Scriptures, my conclusion is that there is no Trinity and that Jesus is not God, this conclusion totally harmonizes with the Old and New Testament and all the words of Jesus. The book of John, which some argue proves Jesus is God, actually has a clear statement from John himself about the purpose for writing this book, we can find it in John 20:30-31, in those days, the question was: is Jesus the Messiah? That was the question, there was not even a hint to think that Jesus was YHWH, and this is the reason for John to write this book.
@@fcastellanos57 Alright, but you're reading a canon established by the authority of the church. There are billions of unique interpretations and realistically there must be a structure to settle these disputes such as what we see with the apostles and then there successors. I choose to humble myself to their teaching authority on these matters as this is the process established by Christ through the Holy Spirit. And within orthodoxy there is still a vast amount to ponder and broadly speaking it comes together in a cohesive whole. Look even just at someone contemporary like Bishop Barron or Jimmy Akin on UA-cam, and how we can always dig deeper and deeper into Scripture and it's an infinite pool of wisdom. What you said has no bearing on the Catholic tradition but would be more appropriate to certain people and sects such as many biblical literalists/fundamentalists.
@@AjaxNixon Yes, I know that Catholic tradition does not necessarily goes along with Scripture. You talk about the authority of the church, however, I do not see historically or biblically that this authority was passed to those who were after the apostles. The church Jesus founded is not physical or is limited to a group, this church started in Pentecost and has continuously grown and have been replace by believers that have existed through the centuries. Everyone who has received the Spirit of the Father is part of Jesus's body who is the head. Catholicism in my opinion of many years of dealing with this, has misunderstood many things concerning what was given to us by Jesus and the apostles. Everything that comes from the Father, who is God Almighty, comes by His Spirit. Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman in John 4, how he would give her living water. In John 7:37-39, Jesus speaks about the rivers of living water that those who believed in him were to received, and John said, Jesus was talking about the Spirit that was not given yet until Jesus was to die and be raised. In John 6, Jesus says he is the bread of life, "he who believes in me will never hungry and he who comes to me will never thirst", so, this is how we eat and drink of Jesus, by believing and coming to him. Catholicism has made all these a ritual purportedly to give us this spiritual food, however it is not through a ritual but through the Spirit as I showed in John 6 and John 7 above. We have already been forgiven by the Father in what Jesus suffered, so there is no need for further asking for forgiveness, it has already been taken care of. God, who is the Father only as John 7:37 says, wants everyone to live righteous lives and grow in love by the power of His Spirit, that is His will.
how sure are you of this certain exegesis? I think it would make more sense to follow the actual historical church instead that was a community of faithful that was gathered together under the bishops and that real institution has passed on throughout the ages and is the living body of christ, and bodies are physical.@@fcastellanos57
Interviews like this show why we shouldn't pigeon hole a certain position. This was very informative and he kept up with Trent throughout the interview. This interview also shows the importance of a magisterium. Sola Scriptura leads down many divergent paths. To disagree would be to fall into the two fallacies Trent brought up... "No true Scotsman" and the "Texas Sharpshooter fallacy "
He does have a point, you can reject all the teachings of the ecumenical councils, or you can accept them all, but to accept some and reject others seems arbitrary and capricious
@@Michael-bk5nzBut even Augustine said councils can err
He means in non definitive matters.
The views of individual Church Fathers is meaningless if the same view isn't held by other such Church Fathers.
The singular focus on Augustine and 1 or two others gives him a level of infallibility that he simply doesn't have, regardless of the title.
@@Proclivitytolife Can any church leadership declare infallibly? If so...who told you that?
Well done! I’m loving the new interview format for the show!
That highlight at the beginning is so good. Had to be satisfying to get that sound bite
I am super excited to see this format on your channel. Keep going!
Awesome discussion. I left the OCIA class about the Trinity tonight and felt dissatisfied with the lack of depth of discussion. This was exactly what I needed :)
You’d think this debate (*dialogue*) would be so diametrically opposed and tense but this conversation was very chill.
☦🤝✝️because both are blasphemers, you need to stay away from Catholic answers
That's because it was a dialogue. It wasn't a debate. Neither guy was pushing back on the other side.
@@Fassnight No, my answer was the correct one brother: Catholic Answers blaspheme. Also, don't be influenced by Akin - American idols shirts are idolatry, so get rid of that wicked profile pic, it isn't befitting to a Christian🙏❤
@LyovaCampos how in God’s green earth does that follow in the least? So only fiery and uncharitble discussion leans on the side of truth?
@@Thedisciplemike Brother, this isn't uncharitable at all, on the contrary, I am warning my Roman Catholic brothers from false profits who destroy their faith, and there's nothing more heretical than Catholic Answers, especially Akin. False prophet are fair game in this sense, because they drag thousands of innocent souls with them to the everlasting fire of Sheol. Where has the world come to when most Catholics AND Catholic schools teach the abomination of evolution & not to take Scripture at face value...look what is happening to your Roman Catholic Church with that modernist/Protestant infiltration for the past 100 years. You need to stop it now & save your Popes from this yoke
Trent we like the long form content! Keep it up!
I have been bumping into Sam's material all week. Looking forward to this dialogue ☦️
Right back at you.
COTEL has done a couple videos on Sam. They’re worth a watch if you haven’t seen them yet. Would be interesting to see the two talk with each other.
@@BazedPhilosophy Why would Catholics get mad at us Protestants when we AGREE with them?
@@TimSpangler-v9iprotestants don't agree to Catholics at all..they don't believe in Saints so protestants see Mary as a whore of Babylon.. EUCHARIST is just a symbol while Catholics believe its literally body and blood of Jesus that we eat.
Baptism is just a symbol while Catholics believes its a regeneration of our soul..when u baptize u are born again.. Catholics believe that God's Words is Scripture and Tradition..while Prots is only Scripture ..Protestants don't believe in Pope or the sit of Peter Authority.. Catholics believe that We are the True Christians and have the wholeness of truth while Protestants believe we are not christians and just a other denomination..
Catholics don't get angry to Protestants instead rebuking them for thier wrong teachings about those..
Where does Protestants agree to Catholics? Only in trinity..but Not all Protestants because u have thousands of divisions some are Unitarian,Calvanist,so on and so fort in which they have wrong perspective about God..
@@TimSpangler-v9iagree with them on what?
Unitarianism is not Christian. We cannot worship Jesus if He not God. The Diety of Christ is affirmed by Scripture. Jesus cannot be our saviour if Jesus is only human. Blessings from Protestant.
I don't think the Diety of Christ is affirmed by Scripture, but his Deity surely is!
@@igorlopes7589it think the diety of Christ is clear in the bible.
Matthew 1:21 “She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins”
Jesus means “Yahweh saves”
Psalm 130:7-8
“7 Israel, put your hope in the Lord,
for with the Lord is unfailing love
and with him is full redemption.
8 He himself will redeem Israel
from all their sins.”
As an agnostic, you either didn't watch the video or didn't understand the arguments on both sides lol.
The Unitarian said multiple times they think Christ is the literal, biological son of God, and that his cosmic importance & ability to live sinlessly & die for the world comes from that.
This doesn't make any less logical sense than the Trinity, (three distinct persons but only one god) and the idea that Christ importance comes from being one of those three persons (god the son) incarnate
They are just different interpretations of the bible, & the nontrinitarian is actually way closer to you than the secular, scholarly class or the growing ranks of athiests lmao
I agree 100% that unitarianism is not Christianity, but I think that a unitarian who does not understand divine simplicity and the theological implications of the philosophical nuances involved can still be Christian. Strictly speaking, they could still hold to the words of the apostles creed - "I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who is conceived by the Holy Spirit ..."
They may think of Christ as God's only begotten son, subordinate to the Father, without understanding that Christ is of one substance with the Father. This is surely a less dangerous position than denying Christ's deity, or thinking of Him as an angel.
My argument hinges on an understanding that one can be theologically ignorant and simoultaneously hold to contradicting beliefs about God, thereby not falling prey to all of the implications of one's own views. However, to be ignorant is a precarious place to be.
@@Jk-ow8ny You didn't get it, did you?
I found this more enjoyable than a debate, and i probably learnt more in this format plus it shows the guest in a more charitable way as opposed to an opponent, although he seems very likeable anyway.
The Podcast Production quality is getting better, some more work on background is enough for Trent horn podcast to compete against Pints with Aquinas
Also a wider table
Indeed! This was just my desk turned sideways. Plans are in the works to upgrade the set.@@Qrischun
He needs Michael Lofton’s wall of fake books from Bishop Barron.
With regard to "my Lord and my God" from John: I suspect that Trent does not know Greek because there is no possibility of a lower case 'g' here. Greek distinguishes between theos and ho theos (the term god with and without the definite article) and ho theos always means God in the absolute sense of that term. "ho kyrios mu ho theos mu" means: my LORD and my GOD. It is actually the most unequivocal statement of the full divinity of Christ.
wow thank you.
I Appreciate this comment very much!May God continue to give you wisdom, knowledge and understanding
It isn't, the most you could say is that Jesus according to this verse was acting as a manifestation or mirror showing God while himself is a mere human even if he has perfections only reserved for his rank. So Thomas realized the true God in this manifestation as if he was seeing God.
@@T_K_R_G Correct. The whole point was about SEEING and BELIEVING. They kept asking to SEE THE FATHER. Jesus told them if they had SEEN HIM, they had SEEN THE FATHER and to believe because of the works themselves as the FATHER WHO DWELLED IN HIM PERFORMED HIS WORKS.
From now on you have KNOWN THE FATHER AND HAVE SEEN HIM
When Thomas SAW Jesus resurrected he SAW Jesus physically there AND HE SAW THE FATHER'S works which had just raised Jesus from the dead. Also, important note. Immediately after the statement of Thomas, John tells us the entire point he wants us to get out of all his writings and it's to believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. Not God the Son or God almighty. Trinitarians always forget the Father
Two persons are being identified in John 20:28. In the greek it's
The Lord of me AND the God of me
Mary and the other apostles saw Jesus before Thomas did and they didnt' say we have seen our Lord and God or that God had risen from the dead...It would make ZERO sense for Thomas to finally come to the understanding that Jesus was God by seeing holes in Jesus's hands and feet and that God raised Jesus from the dead
Matthew Mark and Luke don't even hint that Jesus is God
Jesus is a reflection of who God is..he mirrored God. He was God's image. To see him is to see the Father as God the Father was working through the MAN Jesus (Acts 2:22) etc
blessings
@@T_K_R_G How is that the most you could say? Wouldn't it be the least you could say? Not to mention that is a little bit of a stretch on the text.
“If you believe in the trinity, then you should probably be Catholic” I could not agree more my friend.
In Orthodoxy, the Father is “the God” from Whom the Son/Word/Wisdom/Power and the Spirit receive Divinity which is the ousia/nature of the Father. The Father does not possess divinity; He is the very source of it. This is the monarchical Trinity clearly taught in the NT, shadowed in the OT, explicated by the Fathers, and upheld by the Ecumenical synods. The Son can call the Father “only God” and “greatest” because of this. The Son is begotten of the Father, not created, and possesses “all” the Father has because it has been given Him. The amazing thing is that the Son “gives all things” to those “in Him” by grace which He has from the Father by nature. Stunning.
I guess you get almost everything right here. Congrats for the descriptive and explanatory parts of the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. The only problem would be Eastern Orthodoxy Pneumatology (= Monopatrism) and the part you affirmed the Father doesn’t “possess divinity”, in which one could probably deduce, since the Son or the Spirit aren’t the uncaused cause (=arché) in the Trinity, that they - on the contrary - possess divinity by their relational causation (respectively, from the Father and from the Father through the Son), but “possessing the essence” or possessing the very being would be a wrong metaphysical description of the One who Is, I guess. I really think that’s not what you meant though. God bless!
@@masterchief8179you are correct! I was driving to work thinking, Somebody will catch the “possess” thing! The Father self-exists in His divinity which He freely shares relationally with His Logos & Spirit. Anymore and I’m out of my depth!
@@traceyedson9652 Nah, I really liked your insights! Thank you, sir. God bless!
I wish you had a space like Shapiro for these...always such good content.
Much respect to Trent for hosting a Biblical Unitarian on the podcast.
You respect people for allowing heretics on their show to mislead people and spew their heretical lies?
Oddly with easter coming up , this conversation has solidified my decision to be Catholic.
Hello friend! I don’t blame you! You will be blown away at how consistent the Catholic faith is! I will be confirmed into the Catholic faith this Easter, 2024! You may already know this, but if you don’t you need to sign up for their RCIA class. Visit around to a couple of different parishes on Sunday. Some classes, are during the week., and some might be on a Sunday, before or after mass.. but most importantly, as you study, keep your eyes on the Eucharist! The Catholic faith is biblical , liturgical, And Jewish! Many people may try to stop you so don’t be surprised when the opposition comes your way. Pray! Pray! Pray! Find a good parish! Find a caring priest! Asked the Lord to guide you . When you go to church on Sunday, don’t be surprised If people SEEM unfriendly. Fellowship is different in the Catholic faith in the sense, in that Fellowship, and visiting doesn’t happen in the sanctuary right before or right after mass. But, afterwards outside, and or at their other activities. Blessings to you on your journey! You can learn a lot from people like Trent Horn , Scott Hahn, Joe Hershmeir, and Brant Pietre. 🙏🏻😃
LOVED this episode. Unitarianism was so well represented during this discussion. Loved the back and forth. Very interesting and informative. I love at 55mins how Trent basically says if people like it, they’ll keep watching- so true! 😂
Great conversation! Thanks for having this guest on
I've only just recently encountered Unitarianism as a serious and thoughtful position in Christianity, in its "Biblical" incarnation (pardon the pun), and I hadn't heard of this guy, so 1) I'm glad to see Trent engagng with this Christian doctrine and 2) I think he's picked a fairly good person to explore this with, though I think maybe Dr. Tuggy may be the primary voice for this. Still, again, I love seeing someone else defend it and do it fairly well, and with great charity and irenicism, and for Trent to grapple honestly with this view.
Dale Tuggy, Sean Finnegan, Anthony Buzzard are some of the main ones I know of. I'm also glad to see this position being seriously discussed.
Unitarians are not Christian’s, they deny the deity of our Lord, very important for our Salvation. Don’t fall for the bait that his setting up for you to actually consider his position, he’s view couldn’t be more unbiblical
You honestly can’t be a Christian if you’re a Unitarian, but then again, you’ve probably heard this sentiment a million times already.
Here is my thinking.
Just because there could be “good” arguments for a position, doesn’t make it true or close to true. In fact, I think there can be such thing as good arguments for something that is objectively wrong and way off.
@@thelonelysponge5029
That’s probably the silliest thing I’ve ever heard in my life, you follow a three person God, that nobody in the gospel ever tries to make the case for…. And we are never told to believe or preach it to anybody, yes, you can be a Christian if you’re biblical Unitarian, because that’s what a true Christian is
True worshipers worship the father in spirit and truth, not a triune God, in spirit and truth
@@CommonSenseChristianityT Biblical Unitarianism? I don’t believe there is a case to be made.
Worshiping the Father in truth and Spirit, hmmm. How do you know you worship the Father in truth and in spirit? How do you “worship” in truth and in spirit? Besides, should we also not give worship to the Spirit of the Lord? Or give worship to his Son? Who is God almighty?
Love the long form content Trent, keep it up
While watching this video, my mind goes...
That's _______ism, Samuel!
Come on, Patrick.
That video is absolute gold! Thanks for reminding me lol.
Hey Trent love all the work you're doing! The only thing I can say is don't sacrifice pushing back on certain points especially when a person claims a false ciew is biblical, like when he tried to use John 17:3
Reminds me of the end of the discussion between Gavin Ortland and Fr Stephen De Young, which was supposed to be about Sola Scriptura and Ortland turned into a critique of Nicea 2. Ortland ends by saying the historical evidence doesn't support Nicea II, and Fr Stephen comments that his unitarian friend says the exact same thing about Nicea I. Ortland says it's different because he can get the building blocks of the Trinity from Scripture, to which Fr Stephen says he can do the same with icon veneration.
ua-cam.com/video/GPqNu60tX30/v-deo.htmlsi=JyR06stDW7d1hbde&t=1h31m50s
Pretty sure Sam Tideman *is* his Unitarian friend
Where does the Scripture say you must venerate icons?
St John of Damascus heavily relied on the Holy Scriptures in his treatise "On the Holy Images" in which he defended iconography. If you want Scriptural evidences, read him; he does better than I could. But those get dismissed by iconoclasts as not being direct or specific or not having a clear enough historical precedent. They explain how those Scriptures don't really support iconography, and demand an explicit Scripture. In the exact same way Unitarians argue against the Trinity, and the popular proof texts don't actually prove the doctrine, and demand a Scripture that directly states the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity and that you have to believe in the Trinity to properly worship God. That's Fr Stephen's point.
That’s pretty bad really if that’s what ortlund did, changing the subject like that. Have to check it out. Ortlund does seem to have made icons his hobby horse recently
@l21n18 I think believes it is the easiest thing to attack as an accretion that he can play the game of both saying "I'm not convinced this is necessary for salvation" and insinuating "This idolatry/borderline idolatry and proof of the problems of Holy Tradition." And in a discussion on _sola scriptura_ it's easier to keep the frame on the offensive, since the jump from mere Christianity to _sola scriptura_ is hardly an easy or self-evident one. The problem is that his same methodology and criteria undermine the Trinity.
This was super fascinating. Thanks, Trent and Sam!
That's one heck of a soundbite in the beginning.
The Trinity is fully taught in scripture, it is very irresponsible to tell protestants that unless they are ready to be catholic, they should reject the Trinity.
Edit: what we call "the Trinity" is not a single doctrine but actually a collection of doctrines such as: there is only one God, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Son is not the Father. Each of these is clearly taught in scripture so it is right to say that the Trinity is taught in scripture, even though they are not all in one place.
I haven’t encountered a single Catholic suggest you should be ready to reject the Trinity to become Catholic (perhaps Protestants have suggested that; they wrongly believe many things about Catholicism)
The only time I’ve heard people suggest anything like “Well then you shouldn’t believe in the Trinity” in regards to Catholicism is when Catholics respond to Protestants when they try to argue “if it isn’t explicitly stated in the Bible, then it’s wrong to believe it”.
The trinity isn’t explicitly stated in the Bible; it’s implicit.
This isn’t saying “you should reject the Trinity” to become Catholic. It’s moreso saying you should reject explicit Sola Scriptura to become Catholic.
However, I fully recognize I may have completely misunderstood your comment
I think his observation is that the same Protestants who would eagerly adopt the conciliar teaching about the Trinity and nature of Christ are also very ready to reject many other aspects of their theology because contradicted/not found in Scripture.
I like this guy… more protestants should listen to him.
If a Protestant holds to the claim (which some do) that every Christian doctrine needs to be explicitly taught in Scripture, then this type of Protestant should logically reject the trinity, since the trinity is not explicitly (albiet implicitly) taught in scripture.
But you are right that we shouldn't assume every protestant believes that every Christian doctrine needs to be explicitly in scripture. Although it appears that this guest does believe this, so we shouldn't say it is completely irresponsible.
@@user-hj8vd2od9hof course that is very few Protestants and not Sola scriptura historically. So it would telling all Protestants to do because a very small minority believe. Maybe I should tell all Roman Catholics to stop believing Mary is divine because a very small minority might believe in her divinity.
Really interesting conversation!
Trent , it was an amazing podcast
Can you please do a video on scientific evidence for some catholic miracles
I already love a documentary on the Lady of Guadalupe by gabiafterhours which have helped in my devotion to our lady🙏🙏
Thank you
I rather he doesnt do that because the "skeptics" will say, well we cant be sure... because uh... acient sewing technics that are undiscovered !! Proceeds to list lost welding, proceed to use a source of a non scientist who is biased and hipothecises about it withou actually doing the experiment, and it will just be more tiring arguments and discussions.
@onlyafool172
Thanks 👍
Majority of Protestants believe in the Trinity just like Catholics. The thumbnail is a bit deceiving. Trent Horn is the reason I am protestant btw.
Thanks for being respectful! Even those we heavily disagree with we should treat honorably!
We didn't treat heretics with honor in the past. Were we wrong?
I had a bunch of thoughts yesterday and came to the conclusion that being made Imago Dei only makes sense within the context of trinitarian Incarnational Theology.
I’m now gonna spend the rest of the day trying to figure out how my arguments stack up in a “Christian” Unitarian framework. Yesterday, my arguments concerning Imago Dei were objections to Jewish and Muslim frameworks, which could be seen as Unitarian in some capacity).
Definitely something for me chew on.
Should clarify *rabbinic* Judaism. Jews were much more trinitarian before Christianity. Obviously Paul and John were trinitarian. Modern Judaism's hostility towards the intrapersonality of God is largely reactionary to Christianity
There is so much wrong with Sam's "biblical Unitarianism" (an oxymoron) that I'll just have to let go of most of it. But, as a Protestant, I'm saddened by how many of the tired old caricatures of Protestant faith reemerged in this conversation. Sam seemed to glom onto Protestantism the way Mormons glom onto Christianity in general. Right at the start, Sola Scriptura is claimed when he is nowhere near understanding it properly. Then we are told that Protestants don't believe that Mary is the theotokos. Protestants do believe that Mary is the theotokos, but many Protestants at street level just haven't thought about Mary much and are unfamiliar with the term. I'll stop at that, but since we're only one day out from St. Patrick's Day, maybe this would be a good time to review "St. Patrick's Bad Analogies" of Lutheran Satire.
Yep. Basically, Trent found a heretic who claims to be protestant (despite holding views rejected by all major protestant figures), so he can now make some clips in which protestants look bad. It would be like a Muslim talking to a Mormon and clipping the Mormon saying, "if you believe in only One God, you need to become a Muslim." Ummm, sorry but no. Mormons don't get to say they're Christian just because they want respectability. And Unitarians don't get to be Christian either - much less protestants - just because they claim to be.
Who are you to say he is using “Sola Scriptura” correctly. Are you saying these an authority outside of the Bible that you must consult?
Your final reference is lost on me, but regarding the Protestant distaste for referring to Mary as the mother of God, this really has nothing to do with belief in the deity of Jesus by most Protestants. Rather, it is reluctance to extend such terminology to Mary as a kind of appellation, which Protestants feel is going too far. To me as a former Protestant who came to embrace the Orthodoxy, I don't view this as doctrinally important.
@@SevereFamineyes the Protestant reformers who penned the term “sola scriptura” believed the early church councils were authoritative. They all deemed the trinity to be an essential doctrine.
1) The point of this conversation was to explain Unitarianism since Unitarianism is getting too popular and Muslims are taking advantage of that. So it is important that we learn about it from Unitarians themselves so that we could counter Islamic arguments taking advantage of this position. Often time, I see Christians just saying "oh, that isn't what the vast majority of Christians believe" but that doesn't do the argument justice and isn't gonna convince any Muslim that Unitarianism is completely absurd from a Biblical perspective.
2) There are Protestants who don't believe in the term "Theotokos" and many even go to the point of calling it Babylonian goddess. You must be very unfamiliar with American Evangelical Protestantism. There are WAY too many Protestants who reject the title and call it pagan. This includes many popular ones like Alex, Mike, etc..
Oh My, you mentioned Iglesia Ni Cristo (Church of Christ), that was founded in the PH a hundred years ago. they are the 1st to come into my mind when Unitarian was mentioned. there were actually some people who said that their founder died a Catholic. when he was in death bed, he apparently screamed "Jesus Christ is God!" many times then called a priest but his followers decided to hide this because they already have many members. Prayers for them though ✝️🙏
INC is a cult much like MCGI by eli soriano, both do not recognize the Trinity.
Loving these dialogues, Trent. The setup could use some upgrading haha, but the content is what matters and it is good
in the beginning of the video Sam starts off by criticizing other protestants that think that Sola Scriptura cant lead to multiple interpretations of Jesus's divinity and ends the video saying that all protestants should be Unitarians if they really subscribe to sola scriptura. Cant have it both ways guys.
Hey Trent, do you really think Protestants should be Unitarians? Or was that just a catchy punch line? I know that it may not have been your goal, but I actually thought you did a good job of showing the stronger case for Trinitarianism from scripture. As a Trinitarian Protestant, I appreciated that! :)
Great episode. Very educational!!!
Thank you!
Unfortunately, Craig DOES call himself "classical theist." Often with an irritated tone of disagreement.
My fiance is protestant and this, and a recent trip to a multi campus non-denominational church decrying "religiosity" (when they've struggled to keep out the kooks pastor wise in the past) has clarified how I should speak about the structure, and religiosity, of the Church. There's structure for a reason.
How to argue like an atheist: insist that trinitarianism is not found in scripture 🙄. This honestly disgusts me Trent. I may unsubscribe for this.
1. Lack of push back. Trying to let linger a distinct impression that trinitarian theology cannot be supported by the biblical text. The Nicean fathers drew heavily on the Bible in defending trinitarianism, appealing to it as the deciding factor between their customs and traditions and the Arians' customs and traditions, so by your presentation, I guess the take away is that they were wrong?
2. In your haste to undermine protestantism, you're far more likely to drive protestants into unitarianism than to lead them to Roman Catholicism.
Bye.
@@UniteAgainstEvil what's the point of your comment? Use words
@@JW_______ I just don't get why you're overreacting so much... comes off as very whiny. Why even use words to threaten Trent? Be a man and walk away silently, hold to your word.
@@JW_______See ya later!
@@UniteAgainstEvil You're acting like I'm walking away from a fight This is more akin to canceling a magazine subscription. I have the right to let the publisher know why I canceled. Frankly it's for the publisher's own good. Ironically, you are the overreacting by trying to bring manhood into it.
ANSWER TO TITLE: YES, YES HE IS 🔥🙏✝️❤️
ua-cam.com/users/liveLMXNT7CLra0?si=hT-E6cvVzjlfSvW2
I’m Eastern Orthodox, but I love your work Trent. I was Protestant before and James White was a big resource for me. The purgatory debate was great, but I’m watching this sermon from James and it’s like he didn’t even try to listen to a word you said during it. Anyway, I hope you’re having a blessed Lent.
Trent brings up John 20:28 where Thomas says “ My Lord and my God”, if we go to John 20:30-31, just the following verse, the apostle John gives a reason for writing this gospel which is to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of God; if John wanted to show Jesus is God, did he just forget what he wrote in the previous verse in the account with Thomas?
Because it was meant to be gradually received. Just like the Canon of the New Testament ...over time, the church decided what books should be included.
@@nthdegree1269 is that what John wanted us to understand? How do we know? John plainly explains why he wrote his gospel.
@@fcastellanos57 Jesus himself in John's gospel said " I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now."
Just like the revelation of the messiah, things have come in stages. Even the canon of scripture. 1 Timothy 3
"If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth"
The Church helped preserve and copy the Word of God, and she was integral in slowly coming to a consensus on the content of the canon, just like she did with regards to the nature of God's Son.
Things came in stages. The Church is the Pillar of Truth, or Foundation of Truth, as Paul informed us, and via the Church we have before us the Word of God both on the written page, and the content of the Word of God, but also she has pointed to the Word of God, in the flesh.
The Word of God ...The Bible-...was God and Man together
The Word of God-In the Flesh- Was God and Man together.
Jesus didn't come as a failure, he came so the world would see who he was as the gospel was to go out into the world.
3:46 "multiple groups independently come to the same conclusion."
And that's why the Bible shouldn't be read outside of its context.
It's not surprising modern eyes don't understand the multiple ways in which Jesus claims and shows his divinity in ways that Jews of that time would understand.
Thank you Jesus for your Church 🙏
"Biblical Unitarian" might be the textbook definition of a contradiction in terms.
The fact that it isn't is the point of this video. You don't have grounds to dismiss this guy's interpretation of the Bible.
Trent, my man, you don't have to teach him or explain to him what catholics believe. Sam is sufficiently knowledgeable on those matters.
The true Catholic position agrees with the mainstream Protestant tradition that Scripture itself is sufficient to teach us that the one God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that Jesus is God become man for our salvation. This has always been the understanding of the Church, that we believe those things on the authority of Holy Scripture. As a recent example of the affirmation that the truth of Jesus being God is from Scripture itself, read Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus of 1893. Speaking of the Holy Scriptures, he says that Jesus appealed to them to prove that he himself is God. "nam per occasionem ex ipsis etiam sese a Deo missum Deumque declarat". He uses them (the Scriptures) at times to prove that he is sent by God, and is God himself".
Trent, I say with utter seriousness. You need to spend some time studying with Sam Shamoun.
"There's no slam dunk verses" for the divinity of Jesus. Are you serious?
Hebrews 1:8 ESV - 8 *But of the Son he [the Father] says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,* the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Acts 20:28 ESV - 28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, *to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood.*
Neither of those verses are clear the way you think they are, "Your throne O god" was originally applied to a Davidic king, and people other than God are called god and gods all the time in the Bible.
The verse in Acts is more literally read as "by the blood of His own."
@@Wully02 Let's focus on Acts 20:28 first. In the verse, who's Church is it?
Sam Shamoun, who has a reputation for his foul mouth??
@@maxspringer01 I'm not here to defend his conduct. Are his teachings on the Bible negated by how he handles blasphemers and heretics who call into his platform?
This sounds like a discussion between actual friends.
Jose Ventilacion is from the INC.
I watched his debates with Alvin Gitamondoc, James White and Mr. Keating.
That dialogue was enlightening. It clearly shows that the Bible - although absolutely necessary - is not sufficient: we need a legitimate authority to interpret the scriptures correctly. We need the Church’s magisterium. How could Gold have let His people err in faith?
Trent great chat. I would love to participate in one with you. I am
A Nazarene who shares many of Sam’s views on Jesus but have some important views which I would expand on.
After learning about Monarchical Trinitarianism from Dr., Beau Branson (see his interviews on Transfigured), it is plain that neither Protestants nor Catholics can defend their ridiculous Augustinian model of the Trinity. How can they even explain why the Nicene Creed says the One God is synonymous with the Father?
I just heard about him yesterday. It sounds interesting to at least learn more about that as I'm currently looking into trinitarianism, because eventhough I "get" it I feel I l the need to comprehend it fully myself in perspective to the Bible.
@@marlena.
Dr. Beau Branson has good videos on his website. Some of it is very complex philosophical discussion, but it’s worth thinking through. Most importantly, the history shows the earliest Christians believed in the Trinity but, like Sam from Transfigured mentioned, Saints like Justin Martyr clearly thought of the Father alone is the Most High God (or as Irenaeus says often the “One God”) and Jesus, though eternal and “theos” by having the same nature (as the Nicene Creed says “homoousios” ie same nature/substance), Jesus is still a “hetero theos” (read Dialogue with Tryoho ch 56). This makes sense of the NT whoch does in fact say the Father is the One God (1 Cor. 8:5-6) and Jesus is primarily the Son of God.
The Catholics, Orthodox, and most protestants do not defend an Augustinian model of the Trinity. If anything, it is the Athanasian model, or the Alexandrian model. But ultimatley, we defend the Nicaean Credal view of the Trinity. Augustine was a Nicaean Christian, but was not even born when the council closed. Secondly, Nicene Creed does not say that the One God is synonymous with the Father. "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, the only-begotten, born of the Father before all ages. Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in essence with the Father; through whom all things were made." Where does it say that the One God is only the father. It clearly says that Jesus is of the same essence and is God from God. Nowhere does it say that God the Father is the only true God.
@@josephmoya5098Right there in the Creed. You literally typed it. “I believe in One God, the Father Almighty…”
@@josephmoya5098
Hello. I used to believe like you but I hope you consider this evidence.
First, The Nicene Creed which we should agree is the most important Creed of the Christian faith (300+ bishops signed in AD 325) says unambiguously that the One God is the Father, and it does not refer to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. That is because “One God”, “Most High God”, “the Only True God” is a particular philosophical category of the “First Cause.” Even Trent would admit that, since Jesus is eternally Begotten from the Father, only the Father has no cause/source/principle. That’s what the Bible means by saying plainly the Father is the One God (1 Cor 8:5-6) and Only True God (John 17:3). The Bible never once uses those terms for Jesus, since His source is the Father.
Second, you are mistaken that Protestant/Catgolic beliefs follow Athanasius. Athanasius explicitly said the One God is the Father. The “Athanasian Creed” is widely acknowledged to be pseudonymous and based on Augustine’s Trinitarian theology.
Third, the historic evidence from primary sources is overhelming that all Trinitarian Christians agreed the One God of Christian monotheism is the Father, and Jesus is “Theos” in a different, predicate sense due to being the fully divine Son of the One God. Read St. Irenaeus’ Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, pts 4-7 and 47. This is the oldest summary of the Christian faith we have (circa AD 180). Irenaeus plainly defines the One God as the Father, and Jesus is His Son and thereby God just as a human’s son is also human. Irenaeus is a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church, but for some reason Augustine’s theology got all the attention. St. Cyril of Jerusalem’s Catechetical Lecture #4 is also another old summary of early christianity during the Nicene period, and it says plainly the One God is the Father.
And now we’re denying the traditions of our Saints. Fascinating.
What is the Protestant Trinity problem?
I'm really getting tired of people like Trent lumping all Protestants into one category. I mean, the Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Roman Catholics, Oriental Orthodox, etc don't agree on everything at all, yet they all claim Tradition™️ guides them. So I guess they have the same problem Sola Scriptura has.
"The fact that St. Paul regarded Jesus Christ as the Son of God does not in itself imply, as we are carelessly inclined to suppose, that he thought of Him as God. The Messiah was called the Son of God, but no Jew ever thought of him actually as God; and even Adam could be called the Son of God [Luke 3.28], while all believers were reckoned as sons of God [Rom 8.14 and elsewhere]."
Weigall, Paganism in our Christianity, page 182.
John 1:
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of Grace and truth… (and) we have beheld his glory as of the only Son of the father…For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth through Jesus Christ.
Can’t be any more clear than that.
The Gospel of John was written by a Jew
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. - Unitarianism is a completely false doctrine full stop.
Trent please get a bigger table.
The small table feels very intimate, I'll just say that.
The thumbs up to the camera got me 😂
1:20:30 “…heretics…opponents are caricatured to a point where [it’s just simple tribal character assassination].”
Amen.
I understand this was a "Dialogue" and not a "Debate" similar to Trent's debate vs. the Calvinist James White over "Sola-Scriptura" and "Purgatory" that was held a few weeks back at the Lutheran church in Houston. Regarding the Trinity or the Doctrine being defined with definitive Dogmatic Terminology. While it is true that the Council of Nicea in 325 AD gave us the Creedal language regarding a formal Definition of the Trinity, it is also true that their were clear teachings against views of the Trinity that were viewed as not orthodox.
Sam Tidman mentioned several doctrines prior to Nicea. 1) Gnosticism and 2) Modalism along with Justin Martyr's writings that have some subordinationism views in it. In 144 AD, Marcion was in Rome wanting a narrow NT canon to be defined and preaching that the God of the OT not the Father revealed in NT by Christ. He was excommunicated by Pius 1, the Bishop of Rome unilaterally with no Council or no consulting of anyone. Henry Chadwick in his Penguin History of the Early Church (Revised Edition) writes (p. 40) Marcion came from Asia Minor to Rome where he was excommunicated by the Church. Of course, he does not say which Church (it wasn't in the British Isles) and does not say who was the Bishop of Rome, it was Pius 1, but is as a Protestant-Anglican pointing out the historical truth.
Modalism, another anti-Trinitarian view proposed by the likes of Sabellius was formally excommunicated around 220 AD by Pope Callistus. Again, unilaterally at the Church of Rome. By the time of Pope Saint Dionysius, we see a clear letter to Patriarch Dionysius of Alexandria around 262 AD clearly defending orthodox Trinitarianism from both Modalism and Subordinationism.
So while there were Gnostic, Modalist and Subordinationist views pre-Nicea, there is also a clear legacy of the Bishops of Rome and Church of Rome declaring all these views as unorthodox.
Regards
I use to think trent was very dismissive of unitarians simply as heretics. I grew a lot of respect that he sat down and had a discussion with one. Im a unitarian and im glad he gave respect and understanding to our views despite not agreeing. Personally i believe god loves those who actively seek him out regardless if they are right or wrong on any given issues. I think this discussion also brings out that trinitarian views are not as definitive as they are sometimes portrayed.
The bigger problem for unitarians is Matthew 18 where Jesus teaches that should a dispute arise in the church, the apostles have the final authority to bind the members to judgments. And if the people in question refuse to comply, they should be treated as pagans.
At Nicea, a dispute arose and it was brought before the successors of the apostles. They near-unanimously bound the church to the doctrine of Jesus' eternal divinity (and later the trinity).
Unitarians aren't heretics because they made an intellectual error on a tough issue; they're heretics because the explicitly reject the binding judgement of Jesus' church
@@sivad1025 two problems. One they were not the apostles. If the do hold authority as the successors then so did the unitarians at nicea. Two he was taking about someone sining not disputing on an intellectual issue. The passage about treating them as pagans is about unrepentant sinners.
@@mitslev4043 If Jesus is God, it would be highly sinful to tell people to not worship him. That's why Nicea is dogmatic.
If Matthew 18 died with the apostles, then there is no real church authority today and none of Paul's commands to submit to the church make any sense. As Catholics will point out, the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" given to Peter allude back to the prime minister's keys to Israel that were passed on.
Unless I'm mistaken, only two out the 318 Bishops at Nicea rejected the creed and were excommunicated.
All that to say, it's strange for unitarians 2,000 years later to come in and claim to have the right answer when the overwhelming majority of the church firmly rejected that position.
@@sivad1025 that logic works in reverse. If Jesus is not God it would be highly sinful to say he is.
I typically believe the authorities of the church in instances that don't conflict with Scripture. In this case I think you can make a good case for both the Trinity and a unitarian view. In which case the bible would take president and we would have to conced that it is an unknown. Not that we can't have a view but it's one thing we should not say for sure
Yes only a few objected but out of all of the bishops invited very few actually showed up. Many from the regions that did not make it were unitarians.
I don't think it's strange. Unitarianism has been around a long time. But even if it hasn't our understanding of history and our methods of reasoning have developed over the years. We are not saying the scriptures are wrong but refining our understanding of them. And I don't think just because something was historically believed or was believed by the majority makes it true.
It was a more controversial dogma than any of the other dogmas as far an I am aware. The understanding of the Eucharist was not in question then and rather accepted that the Eucharist becomes the body and blood of Christ.
While I am not a Unitarian it was a hard for me to accept the Trinity. Took some time to discern and accept the Church’s teaching
Phil 2:7 at the 59 min mark Sam gives one of the coherent explanations of Phil 2:7 anyone needs to understand this passage in spirit and truth.
Kids, that‘s how you discuss topics with each other! Thanks guys.
(yes I said ‚kids‘. Deal with it).
Don't just do an episode on the Protestant heretics, it could be an entire book. William Lane Craig alone could have several chapters devoted to him
This is wildly misunderstood. WLC holds so many heretical views, but is somehow championed as the premier Christian apologist.
@@bradleyperry1735
It’s because he’s a great and brilliant debater when it comes to mere Christianity, and is formidable against atheists (Just like James White btw).
But when he’s cross examined on the specific details of theology within the faith, that’s when his views can really be picked apart.
In summary, his defense of Mere Christianity is great; his defense against Catholicism (or Orthodox) is less so
@@bradleyperry1735for two reasons mostly
1 Many evangelicals are just as indifferent to orthodoxy as Craig, the Hellenization thesis (that much of traditional Christian orthodoxy is the result of the influence of Greek philosophy and you need to root it all out to get back to “real Christianity”) is distressingly common among evangelicals
2. Many others only know Craig as the expert debater who “pwns” the skeptics and don't know about his problematic views, which can only be found in his non-apologetical works
@@Michael-bk5nz I guess that’s what happens without proper catechesis.
@@bradleyperry1735 not really, Judas was catechized by Jesus himself and it didn't help
In regards to Jesus knowing the thoughts of people,
The Pharisees said about Jesus getting his feet washed by the woman in the Pharisees house, “if he were a prophet he would know what kind of woman she is”
So even the Pharisees think prophets can have super human knowledge
In Acts 21:10-11, the prophet Agabus predicts the future. Prophets can have the past and future revealed to them. This is why Simon the Pharisee thought Jesus should know the woman's past in Luke 7:39. However, I do not think he expected Jesus to know the inner thoughts of people because this is something only God knows according to 2 Chronicles 6:30. Interestingly, Jesus also knows the inner thoughts of people according to Mark 2:6-8.
@@AaronOfJerusalemAndAthens
Hello
I think it’s the case that prophets can do this by God’s power
2 Kings 6:12
And one of his servants said, “None, my lord, O king; but Elisha, the prophet who is in Israel, tells the king of Israel the words that you speak in your bedroom.”
Daniel is able to not only interpret the dream of someone, but do it without even being told what the dream is
Daniel knew what someone dreamt without being told!! because of God
Prophets can do this and it’s always because of God
Dan 2:30
But as for me, this secret has not been revealed to me for any wisdom residing in me more than in any other living person, but for the purpose of making the interpretation known to the king, and that you may understand the thoughts of your mind.
@@mitchellc4Hey Mitchell. Thanks for the response. Here is why I do not think these examples are quite the same as what Jesus does in Mark 2:6-8. In 2 Kings 6:12, Elisha knows what words are spoken, he is not seeing the king's inner thoughts. And in Daniel 2:30, Daniel only knows this because it was revealed to him in a dream, as is seen in Daniel 2:19, but he is not seeing into Nebuchadnezzar's heart. In contrast, Jesus sees into the hearts and minds, Revelation 2:23, which is what God also does, Jeremiah 17:10.
@@AaronOfJerusalemAndAthens
Thanks for the response
I think God can enable humans to do whatever he wants them to do, heal people, know information, even raise the dead! Obviously only God can do these things but he enables humans to do them.
I think we will have to disagree
I think we have both provided evidence and people can decide
Thanks!
@@mitchellc4 Thanks. It seems there are two ways of knowing the inner thoughts of another person. The first way is to have the power to see into their mind. Jesus and God have this power. The second way is to have it revealed to you by someone who knows what is in the person's mind, either the person themself or God. This is how a prophet like Daniel can know what is in the person's mind. I think God can enable someone to know the inner thoughts of a person by the second way, but I am less sure about the first way. It seems the first way only applies to God and Jesus in scripture.
I think 2 Chronicles 6:30 and Mark 2:6-8 offer another important insight. Biblical unitarians often use the fact that God alone created the world in Isaiah 44:24 to say that Jesus did not create the world. But 2 Chronicles 6:30 and Mark 2:6-8 show that Jesus does not have to be excluded whenever scripture says that God alone did something. That undermines this particular biblical unitarian argument.
Take care.
I am protestant and I believe in the Trinity and full divinity of Christ. Unitarians are not Christians.
nowhere does the Bible say anything like "believe in the full divinity of Christ to be saved"
@@maxspringer01 tell that to Catholics then.
@@maxspringer01yes it does, definitely teaches it for sure I’ll give you the exact order
John 8:24, Isaiah 41:4, Isaiah 43:10 Isaiah 46:4, Revelation 1:17-18, John 4:26, John 13:19, John 18: 5-8, Isaiah 43:10, Isaiah 43:13, Isaiah 43:25, Isaiah 46:4, Isaiah 45:18-19, Isaiah 51:12.
Jesus is your God no matter how much you want to reject it
Acts 4: 5-14, then read verse 12 again
Psalms 25:11, psalms 54:1, Acts 4:12, psalms 79:9, Isaiah 43:25, Isaiah 45:22, 1 Samuel 17:45, Acts 2:37-38, Acts 16:18, Acts 9:33-35, psalms 123:1-2, Jude 1:1, Jude 1:4
John 20:28, Psalms 35:23
Romans 9:5, 2 Peter 1:1
Psalms 34:8, 1 Peter 2: 3-5, 2 Samuel 23:2-3, Nehemiah 9:20, Nehemiah 9:30, Psalms 51:11, Micah 3:8, 1 Peter 1:10-12
All in that exact order and this only a hint of the Bible teaching that Jesus is your God almighty, Revelation 1:7-8 Repent before you condemn yourself to the Lake of Fire for ignoring the word of God
Interesting dialogue.
I noticed though that there are some few parts/aspects that weren't enough deepened, especially on understanding the Trinity/Incarnation and the "begotten" according to the Creed in other languages. I will have to come back to them later when I do a list.
Smash like if you love Sam
No to unitarianism heresy.
33:24 See Father John Behr. When and how to the Disciples finally see with purified, singularity of vision?
Acts 3:15 seems like a solid refutation of this idea that Jesus is “a” god and not “the” God.
*Acts 3:15* “and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses.”
The author of life clearly signifies the creator of all things, of heaven and earth-“the” God in Genesis, and not “a” god.
pro-Trinitarian Bible commentaries note that "author" is also translated as "prince" or "captain".
Incorrect, the author is the start of things, this is talking about the resurrection, Jesus is the one who’s bringing forth the resurrection, not the old creation, everything is being made new through the Messiah
And not all of them say author, that shows that either you’re disingenuous, or you just haven’t studied much
”but put to death the Prince of life, whom God raised from the dead, a fact to which we are witnesses.“
Acts 3:15 NASB2020
”and killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses.“
Acts 3:15 KJV
@@maxspringer01
Correct, the more I hear from Trinitarians, the more I realize just how unstudied they are, it’s no wonder they believe the way they do
@@CommonSenseChristianityT You’re presuming that Peter was speaking of the resurrection, but there is no textual basis for that interpretation.
@@CommonSenseChristianityT In Hebrews, Jesus had an Old Testament Psalm, which describes YHWH in the Hebrew, associated with Him.
*Hebrews 1:8-12*
“But of the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
And,
“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will have no end.”
So He (the Father) said of the Son “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,”
It’s taken from Psalm 102:25, and just 3 verses earlier it says “when peoples gather together, and kingdoms, to worship the LORD.”
With the fully caps LORD signifying use of YHWH in the Hebrew. If Jesus wasn’t the God why would the writer of Hebrews associate a Psalm about YHWH to Him and credit Him with laying the foundations of the earth?
It's bizarre to have Trent make arguments that effectively push non-Catholics into heretical views of the Trinity. I'm grounded enough to where I'd quickly become Catholic rather than a Unitarian (if that choice was necessary). But surely he realizes that many poorly educated protestants will rather watch this video and say, "Well I guess there isn't as much reason to be a trinitarian as I thought." What a bizarrely irresponsible way of framing things.
How is it irresponsible?
I think Trent has given good responses to his points. Though I do think he should have emphasised on Philippians 2:5-11
Very much so! This video is divisive. It's meant as a deliberate wedge for Protestants, especially given the sound bite in the beginning. Rather than seeking to create unity, this creates discord and pushes more people from the Faith. Trent has been interacting with increasingly non-orthodox sources and it's frustrating to see it.
Protestants, under Vatican 2, are separated brethren. Trying to take those churches and destroy them is a sin, clearly. This is not to be encouraged and should be condemned.
Open dialogue with heretics and dissenters is an important part of apologetics, but it should never become polemical for those who are Christian. James White is guilty of this as well. It's lamentable to see.
@@TheEpicProOfMinecrafThe point is that protestants can't really claim heresy.
@@atanas-nikolov My response seems to have disappeared. Can you confirm that?
That said, I think Protestants can claim heresy, at least on certain items. Just like the Catholic Magisterium has to be interpreted, so does the Bible. There has to be at least some plain meaning that is allowed, otherwise the Protestant can say that Catholics have no right to call out heretics either.
Given this, and given that the Trinity is one of the clearer teachings in Scripture (not an exact formulation, as found in the Nicene Creed) to the extent that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are also God in a very real way, then it follows that Protestants can call out heretics.
There may not be a legal, ecclesial authority, but certainly there is a spiritual authority granted de facto by the mere existence of God's Word being available on Earth.
This is heartbreaking that Trent, a brother in Christ, would give this heresy such gracious airtime, harming the greater body of Christ, just to gleefully score that anti-Protestant sound bite at the beginning. This view is not a Christian option for anyone - Catholic or Protestant. We should care for the body of Christ more than the appearance of a win for our tribe.
So far the only people Trent has talked to in this format are people he believes hold to atleast some heretical views. Should he not have dialogued with RZ on Calvinism? Sorry if this one went too far for you.
According to that logic he shouldn’t dialog with anyone other than orthodox catholics.
Protestantism is heretical
@trismegistus2881 tbh I’m not sure if this applies. Did he start the other dialogue videos with a sound bite like he did this one? Genuine question, I haven’t seen the others.
@@nickl4855 This is completely different. Calvinism is within the bounds historic catholicity. Calvinists are our brothers in Christ. Non-trinitarians are not.
So on the Justin Martyr part of the dialogue, I don't think that Justin needs to be read in such a way that he is Arian. If God speaking is the Word coming forth and being begotten, that doesn't mean the Word is created or distinct from God. Remember Arius was famous for saying "there was a time when He was not," but in order for there to be time, there must have been creation. The Word being begotten as the catalyst for the first moment to come into being doesn't seem to me to be distinct from the Word being begotten eternally. In either case, the Word is begotten outside of time, prior (logically) to the beginning of all passable creation and all time. Justin doesn't say the Word was created. And Scripture says all things were created through the Word. That is in fact part of Arius' theology, too, that the Word was an organ for God to work through in order to create. We reject that the Word was an organ for creation in Arius' sense because in making the Word an organ for creation he makes the Word something distinct from God, but there is an orthodox sense in which the Word is an organ for creation, since all things were created through the Word.
I don't think we need to say Justin got this wrong (though Trent is right that it's possible for individual Church Fathers to err theologically), but rather that he perhaps didn't have precise enough language. Yes, he was a brilliant theologian and philosopher, but he still lacked access to certain linguistic nuance because of his place on history.
Glad Sam Shamoun is calling out Trent for his weakness in this discussion and that Trent needs to stay in his lane. Imo, Trent did more harm than good here even tho he doesn't realize it. Hope he takes Sam's counsel on this.
Sam Shamoun, the guy with the reputation for his foul mouth?
This conversation reminds me to have gratitude for not being a theologian ❤
Absolutely wonderful conversation Trent however it is surprising that no mention was made of Dr Michael heiser's work and the idea of the two powers of Heaven prevalent in the second temple and prior. Unfortunately for us the dear doctor has passed to his reward but perhaps you could have the Catholic Brothers on? The whole last 30 minutes would be cleared up by the good doctors work on the ancient world concept of "Elohim".
Luther opened pandoras box
By this logic, if all current heresy can be (questionably) traced back to and blamed on Luther (all opposed and condemned by Luther as heresy), just go one step further and trace it back to the Catholic Church that formed him.
@@Mic1904 Luther was not the first heretic but almost all heresies today were made possible by his violation of Matthew 18:15-18, which removes the Catholic Church from the blame you're trying to put on it. Since the Catholic Church was established by Jesus and not a heretic, there is no equivalence to luther
@@MasterKeyMagic Almost all heresies today have existed since the foundation or early years of the church, and were very much 'possible' at all times.
@@Mic1904 You can count the amount of heresies pre-luther on your fingers and toes. Since luther, yes, most if not all of those have been resurrected, but the other 39,980 trace their roots, as in the possibility to claim to be a Christian in violation of Matthew 18:15-18, to Luther. Satans second greatest accomplishment after tempting Eve was the reformation.
@@MasterKeyMagic _"You can count the amount of heresies pre-luther on your fingers and toes."_
As you can today.
_"Since luther, yes, most if not all of those have been resurrected"_
They have to be dead first to be resurrected. Most of these were never dead.
_"but the other 39,980"_
I assume this is a lazy reference to some manner of imaginary '40,000 Protestant denominations' figure (33,000 is another popular one), which is an urban legend readily and easily debunked, including by Catholic sources themselves. '40,000' is a faulty number of not just so-called 'Protestant' groups, but also hundreds of Catholic and Orthodox groups (including different geographical administrations and liturgical rites counted separately), as well as straight up pagan, wiccan, spiritualist groups, and even radio stations. Complete nonsense from start to finish.
This, of course, doesn't mean by itself that your Catholic faith is wrong, merely that I'd examine the confidence of the foundations upon which I rested if they were built upon at least 2-3 plainly demonstrable falsehoods (as above). God bless.
Mr. Tiderman is so cool. As the interviewee, he mostly simply presented his beliefs and did not challenge those of Trent. Trent on the other hand was perhaps more defensive or aggressive as an interviewer should be. He tried to defend the Trinitarian belief when he had the chance, at one point invoking the need for magisterium. The magisterium argument tries to quash logical arguments from opponents. So, if the other has a valid or even better logical explanation, then a Catholic would be prompted to use the magisterium card by saying, "this is how it should be interpreted" which practically erases the need for any logical or reason based study of scriptures.
Also, I think it is somehow unfair for Trent to call his position the Orthodox position. Of course everyone believes what he believes is actually orthodox. So to call oneself as such, seems to imply the other is not. Trent also is not a member of the Orthodox Church. And while Catholics may sometimes claim the Catholic and Orthodox beliefs are the same with regards to the Trinity. The Orthodox do not generally do so. The Orthodox view the Catholic belief as heretical.
Also, it seems to justify Trinitarianism, one would have to sometimes shift from "Jesus is god" to "Jesus is man" and vice versa every now and then when convenient. So when speaking of foreknowledge, Trinitarians would say it's because of Jesus' divine nature. When it comes to Jesus not knowing when the end will be, they say it's because of Jesus' human nature. And they don't explain when one is at play and when it is not. They also don't explain how they determine this. Sometimes they also use the excuse that although Jesus said he didn't know when the end will be, he simply lied for he knew when it will be but it's not part of something he has to reveal. In addition, the Church also seems to disagree with Jesus who says not even the angels, or the Son know the end. Only the Father does. If the Son and HS are distinct persons, both of them don't know when it will be. Again, only the Father does. But the Church seems to believe that all three do know.
The discussion on Justin is great, especially the two-stage theory. It shows that at the earliest stages of Christianity - even post Biblically - the belief that the Father and Jesus (and the Holy Spirit) are equal was not a thing yet.
Also, let me share what I understand what Arianism is. Arianism is a belief declared as heresy in the Council of Nicea in the year 325. At the said council, the Nicene Creed was formulated in response to the priest Arius.
Arians believe Jesus was the only begotten of Son of the Father. He was thus born of the Father (how they define "begotten"). As such, Jesus was truly Son; and God was truly Father to Jesus. He came from the Father. All Jesus had came from the Father (John 5:19). The Father is in Jesus (Jn 14:11). And so who sees Jesus sees the Father (Jn 14:9). Jesus can heal the sick, raise the dead, forgive sins and judge at the end of time. Jesus was the first born of all creation (Colossians 1:15). That is something that cannot be said of the Father.
God made everything thru Jesus (Colossians 1:16). And while he said let "us" make man in our image, his command was to worship no god but "me" (Deuteronomy 5:7), not us. At the end of times, Jesus will judge (Matthew 25:32). Because of this, Jesus is called the Beginning and the End (Revelation 22:13). But ultimately, after everything have been subjected to Jesus, he will also be subjected to God (1 Corinthians 15:28).
Jesus is the Way, not the end. No one goes to God, except thru him (John 14:6). Jesus is the mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). Jesus was sent by the Father (John 17:3). The Father can send Jesus because the Father is greater than the Son (John 14:28), not equal. The Son cannot send the Father. They are not equals. The Son is inferior. The Father is greater.
All throughout the gospels, Jesus was called man or Son of Man... and if one of the main reasons for his coming to the world was to reveal God, then he said it explicitly. Never he called himself god; instead, he explicitly called only the Father god: "Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only TRUE God" (John 17:3).
Everything Jesus had came from the Father (John 17:2) - his power, his authority, etc. Unlike Jesus, nothing can be added or given to God. God is unoriginated. God is not begotten. Jesus came from the Father. Jesus had an origin. Jesus was begotten. Everything Jesus had was GIVEN to him by the Father.
Arians use the following verses, among others, for their belief:
Mark 13:32 - “But about that day or hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, NOR THE SON, but only the Father.
1 Cor 15:24-28 - Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE GOD HIMSELF, who put everything under Christ. WHEN HE HAS DONE THIS, THEN THE SON HIMSELF WILL BE MADE SUBJECT TO HIM who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.
Mark 10:18 - Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? NO ONE IS GOOD BUT GOD ALONE.
John 20:17 - Jesus said to her, “Do not hold on to me, because I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to MY FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, TO MY GOD AND YOUR GOD.’”
Ephesians 1:17 - I pray that THE GOD OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and revelation as you come to know him,
John 17:3 - And this is eternal life, THAT THEY MAY KNOW YOU, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
1Cor 8:6 - yet FOR US THERE IS BUT ONE GOD, THE FATHER, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.
Ephesians 4:4-6 - There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, ONE GOD AND FATHER OF ALL, who is above all and through all and in all.
1 Tim 2:5 - FOR THERE IS ONE GOD AND ONE MEDIATOR BETWEEN GOD AND MANKIND, THE MAN CHRIST JESUS,
John 14:28 - You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I am coming to you.’ If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, BECAUSE THE FATHER IS GREATER THAN I.
The Arians referenced these passages to show that the Father is god and that Jesus is the lord sent by God (who is the Father). The Holy Spirit was not given the same importance/reverence… or actually was totally disregarded:
Romans 1:7 To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: Grace and peace to you from GOD OUR FATHER and from the Lord Jesus Christ. (no mention of the Holy Spirit)
1 Cor 1:3 Grace and peace to you FROM GOD OUR FATHER and the Lord Jesus Christ. (no mention of the Holy Spirit)
2 Cor 1:2 Grace and peace to you from GOD OUR FATHER and the Lord Jesus Christ. Praise be TO THE GOD AND FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort. (no mention of the Holy Spirit)
Gal 1:3-5 Grace and peace to you from GOD OUR FATHER and the Lord Jesus Christ, who gave himself for our sins to rescue us from the present evil age, according to the will of OUR GOD AND FATHER, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. (no mention of the Holy Spirit)
Arians believe that Jesus could perform miracles, heal the sick, judge, forgive sins because the Father gave him authority. He is begotten (born / generated / came from). The Father is not. Only the Father is not. They believe that whoever sees Jesus sees the Father not because Jesus is god but because God is in Jesus. They believe that in the end, Jesus will hand over the kingdom to God the Father. He, the Son, will be made subject to God (the Father). If there is belief that Jesus is God, they believe it is mainly because of the Council of Nicea. They believe their belief is faithful to the Gospel. Here's video on Arianism made by an actual Arian (because usually, the explanation we have on Arianism comes from non-Arians): ua-cam.com/video/EV7-IAFlzKk/v-deo.html Thanks! :-)
When Philippians 2:7 says Jesus was "made" in the likeness of men, it uses a form of the word "ginomai". This is similar to Galatians 4:4 where "ginomai" is used to say Jesus was "made" of a woman and "made" under the law. Romans 1:3 also uses "ginomai" to say Jesus was "made" of the seed of David. The connection between these passages is unavoidable. All three passages use a form of the word "ginomai" to speak about the Messiah being born. This is significant because since Philippians 2:7 describes Jesus being born as a human, then Philippians 2:5-6 must describe Jesus before he was a human. This rules out the possibility for a biblical unitarian interpretation of Philippians 2:5-11. Furthermore, these three passages are connected to John 1:14 which also uses "ginomai" to say that the Word was "made" flesh.
Dear God, the prots are already wrong and heretical so much, how could it possible get any worst?
Hey, Trent just posted a new video. Wonder what its about...
Ahhh the fruits of the Solas
Can someone timestamp where the soundbite at the beginning takes place later in the video?
Sam seems very bright and was fun to listen to. As a Catholic I obviously disagree with him, but this was a great episode.
Wow. Throwing shade at the Church Fathers for not engaging with the arguments of the heretics, but impugning their character. It’s a bold move, Cotton. Let’s see how it plays out.
Reflecting about what they said I still don't think that "sola scriptura" brings naturally to Unitarism, but rather to Arianism. Very interesting dialogue though.
Do NOT call this Protestant! The 16th century reformers were fully Trinitarian and orthodox Reform, Lutheran, Anglican, Baptist and most evangelicals are fully Trinitarian. They take the tradition and creeds very seriously. Read, for example, Matthew Barrett’s Simply Trinity. He is a reform Baptist and fully orthodox. Listen to Lutheran Jordan B. Cooper’s Just and Sinner podcasts on the Trinity. They are also fully orthodox. Trent, you should know better than to choose weak versions of non-catholic teaching and call it Protestant. So-called biblical Unitarians are simply heretics. Unfortunately, you can find heretics everywhere, including within the Catholic Church.
As someone with a trinitarian background, who is now a biblical unitarian, I appreciate the respectful dialogue.
As someone who used to be biblical unitarian who is now Catholic, i understand why one would be a BU.
If you don't repent and join the Catholic faith before the end of your life, you will go to hell. That's what happens to all heretics.
No disrespect to this fellow, he is very calm and fair. But this is what happens when you step outside the Church
The Roman Catholic Church should be better equipped to explain the Trinity. As it was what they brought into Church teachings. However, hardly anyone believes in that concept anymore. People have their own theories as to what the Trinity should be.
Something that cannot be logically explained would qualify as a twisted teaching.
Paul's prophecy at:
(Acts 20:30) and from AMONG YOU YOURSELVES men will rise and SPEAK TWISTED THINGS to draw away the disciples after themselves.
Jesus is God's son. If Jesus was God, we would have Jesus worshipping himself. Which would be an ego issue.
Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
KNOW
and are fully aware that all of them -
1. REJECTED the Creator as the True and Sovereign God
2. REJECTED Jesus Christ as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth
ETERNAL LIFE and EXISTENCE on EARTH for FOLLOWERS and BELIEVERS of JESUS CHRIST
Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
DON'T KNOW
and understand that all lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons on earth who honor and obey Jesus Christ as their loving, kind, and merciful Master and Heavenly King and believe his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead"
as written in Luke 4: 43 and John 11: 25, 26
will
definitely bring themselves honor and the loving, kind, and merciful Creator's favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death on a safe and peaceful earth without liars, slanderers, perverts, traitors, and murderers
as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4, 8.
Atheists, Agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
who deliberately rejected the BIBLICAL teachings of Jesus Christ about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead"
DON'T KNOW
and understand that the teaching of Jesus Christ about the "Resurrection of the Dead"
is
the Creator's guarantee that all lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Job, Ruth, Naomi, King David, Jesus Christ's Followers and disciples, and many others
will
all be RESURRECTED back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily, abundantly, and peacefully live and exist on earth forever as subjects and citizens of the "KINGDOM of GOD"
and fully enjoy the eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings of the Creator and his Christ for eternity
under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.
1:38:13
To say that Colossians 1 of the NWT of the JWs is a “mistranslation” I find to be unfair.
.
The Greek word here rendered “all things” is panʹta, an inflected form of pas.
At Luke 13:2…,
• the Revised Standard (RS) translation renders this “all… other”;
• the Jerusalem Bible (JB) translation reads “any other”;
• the New English (NE) says “anyone else.”
(See also Luke 21:29 in NE and Philippians 2:21 in JB.)
In harmony with everything else that the Bible says regarding Jesus as the Son of God (and not God himself), the New World (NW) translation assigns the same meaning to panʹta at Colossians 1:16, 17 as these others translations have in other scriptures.
This can be done because of context, not only because what the rest of the Bible teaches, but also because of the Apostle Paul says in his other writings. As he wrote Colossians, he also wrote 1 Corinthians, and specifically quoting from 15:27, Paul writes:
(1 Corinthians 15:27)
“For God “subjected all things under [Jesus’] feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that this does not include the One who subjected all things to him.” (NWT)
“For he hath put all things under [Jesus’] feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.” (KJV)
“For, He put all things in subjection under [Jesus’] feet. But when he saith, All things are put in subjection, it is evident that he is excepted who did subject all things unto him.” (ASV)
.
Using the same logic that Paul used in 1 Corinthians 15:27, it is evident that when he writes here in Colossians that “all things” were created by means of Jesus that this statement excludes the obvious, which is that he did not create himself, and he did not create Jehovah who has no beginning.
Just as God subjected all things to Jesus (except Himself obviously), Jesus created all things that were created (except himself obviously). The “obvious” in both occurrences are meant to be already understood when the writers say “all things” in both cases.