As a former Oneness Pentecostal on a spiritual journey trying to find the truth about Christ and Christianity, I greatly appreciate this discussion about Christology and Trinitarianism.
@@lowcountryswampfoxYou know that the Oneness churches, like the UPC, are only around a century old? They can’t trace their lineage or teachings from the ancient church. Their whole understanding of history is that the Holy Spirit had to “revel” to men, living centuries after the “true church” has been utterly destroyed, what that church actually taught. But Christ said the gates of Hell could never prevail against the church. How then could The Gates of Hell have prevailed so long over the church so much so that it took centuries to reach the point where Oneness Pentecostals could restore the church, which was never supposed need restoration in the first place?
1:00 Hypostasis Versus Ousia 7:50 Eunomian Controversy 20:32 Idiomata 30:00 Equivocation of God as name versus as quality 34:30 Cappadocians different language same concept to describe trinity 37:10 Christ as Source from From The Source 38:30 Monotheism - One Source without Source - Monarchy as One Source without Source 42:32 2 Fathers 2 Gods 43:05 3 definitions of God so far - Monarchy as shared One Rule/activity 4th 45:25 Verbal Nouns such as King and God as activity 46:20 Father as source of all activities that is shared with Son and Spirit 46:45 If Son and Spirit aren’t Divine what activity/action does the Father do that the Son and spirit don’t do? God as activity of the Father, shared with Son and Spirit. 47:15 “whatsoever things the father doeth the son doeth the same” 2:35:30 How is Christ our Savior 2:40:20 How we identify beings, through their actions not their origins. Otherwise how can we know who God is? When God acts we judge based on how he acts not on whether he’s uncaused. Is a dog not a dog unless you see it’s birth?
Response to 2:20:00 According to Rene Girard's philosophical anthropology, finite personhood JUST IS precisely learning to become who you are by being formed by the pre-existing desire(s) of other persons. Desire/will/goals, etc, are LEARNED. Our openness to (and co-creation of )the desire of other persons is precisely what finite personhood is.
We can see an example in ourselves Insofar as will being one and multiple. We can have thoughts and then choose to obey or disobey, in a sense, those thoughts even though they belong to us and are not separate from us. In one way they are distinct from us, and in another they are our will simultaneously. In that manner we share a will with ourselves or our bodies while it just being one singular will. With The Father, Son, and Spirit there just is no ambivalence because of the divine perfect goodness and absolution so it is truly one will at all times in 3 distinct persons. I don’t know if that’s a good example, just a thought.
Honestly the paradigm of Triunity permeates the very fundamental nature of reality. 1 universe composed of space, time and matter. 3 states of matter: Solid, liquid, gas. 1 family is composed of mother, Father, child. 3 primary colors compose all colors in the electromagnetic spectrum. 1 atom is made of 3 types of subatomic particles. The list goes on. This is how I've come to see this hypostatic union concept: If you imagine an upright triangle, each point is a different person in the Trinity, but the shape itself is that One God-nature that they share. Man, as a reflection of God's image, is an upside down triangle representing 3 natures in 1 person. A mirror image. In the hypostatic union, the 2 triangles come together and make "the star of David". In the occult they would call this "as above, so below". In Christianity, we believe the utmost "above" came to the lowest of "belows" to reconcile all things in reality at the focal point of the God-man. Whatever division occured at the fall was unified in the incarnation, which is the new race of humans in the bloodline of the second Adam. This is why we partake in the flesh and blood of Christ, to partake in that divine reality and become literal new creatures on a DNA level.
In regards to the activities not being divided how does orthodox soteriology detail what happened on the cross then? I'm a former protestant, currently homeless Christian, trying to figure out if the Orthodox church is where I should be, do you have a discussion on orthodox soteriology and Christology?
Yes we do not think that the Father and the Son were divided at the cross. Our soteriology centres around Christ victorious and Theosis. Some good sources would be Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" and also there are some books on the atonement by Georges Florovsky and I'm sure you will find many good audio pieces at Ancient Faith radio. ruclips.net/video/FQSjB5-x8hI/видео.html
@@OrthodoxShahada thank you SO much, that has always been the astrological view that made the most sense to me, I could never understand how or why nearly all protestant denominations held the view of penal substitution, it always seemed so ludicrous to me. Awesome, thanks so much for the suggestions, I'm halfway through Athanasius's Discourse Against the Arians, I'll absolutely read "on the incarnation" next! We are so blessed to have these early writings accessible to us! Thank you again and peace and love in Christ ❤
It may or may not be helpful to remember that English "person" comes from Latin "persona" which was like a mask or identity (I believe masks used in plays were called personae); this is similar to Greek "prosopon" which I think also is used in our theology
I have a question , I believe Christ shares the same substance with the Father , how do Christ come into time and space if he is one with the essence, is it simply he is omnipresent like the Father ?
At 1:14:25 and still no mention of “will.” Just an observation, but I don’t see how a theological discussion of Trinity and unity can fail to mention the unity of the divine will. Edit: Ah, “will” 27”
I'm afraid not, just on here. I might consider uploading a podcast version though because I understand you have to pay for YT premium to treat it that way.
"And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." John 17:3 Islam adopted this paradigm, but replaced Jesus with Muhammad and now posits that Muhammad is the perfect example to follow instead of Jesus. Ironic because they believe associating partners with God is shirk, yet they associate a partner with him by saying that accepting him as God's messenger will wipe your sins clean, and the only way to "submit to God" is to submit to Muhammad 🤔
It still seems that there is a difference in stress or emphasis between you two regarding the doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father. Dr. Beau Branson holds to what he calls the "Strong view" of the Monarchy. This view can basically be formulated as "there is one God, the Father, but three divine persons." Basically, in the truest sense of the word God, only the Father qualifies. This is because in this view, the divine nature is not primarily what is meant by the word God. When you said something to effect of, "but that's just one sense of the word God," it seemed like you wanted to hold to the equality of the senses of the term, which doesn't seem to be what Dr. Branson is going for. I'm not saying who is correct, but I just wanted to make the observation. Dr. Branson goes through the differences between the weak and strong view of the Monarchy in one of his videos.
@@Kingfish179 Ya I just veered a slight emphasis to the multiple senses because people were getting nervous that Dr. Beau didn't believe the Son could *really* be called God because of his divinity. But it all just boils back down to *definitions*.
@@OrthodoxShahada it seems that Branson would say that Jesus can be called God not because He possesses the divine nature, but because he partakes in the divine activity. He doesn't think the word "God" means the divine nature (which is what his doctoral thesis was about). Will you have a stream with him regarding this topic?
@@Kingfish179 We literally spoke about that in the stream - he has no problem with calling Jesus "God" by virtue of the divine nature per se. But that's just not a Cappadocian useage which is what his studies focus on. It just boils down to definitions. And I agree with him!
Does Beau Branson believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have their own individual (or separate) minds? In other words, does he believe the Godhead consists of 3 centers of consciousness? Sorry, I didn't have time to listen to the full video.
@@OrthodoxShahada Ok, thanks. I have listened to complete videos of his elsewhere but I was still scratching my head at the end. I'm glad he's not a 3-mind Tri-Theist. So, for Dr. Branson is the Father the only "person" in the Trinity, and the other 2 persons are not actual persons in the modern sense of the word "person"? I will try to listen to the video but I'm asking now in case he did not address that question.
@@SeekingAllahFindingJehovah The Persons of the Trinity share one mind, one will, one essence, and all their actions in common. However, they are truly distinct individuals. Dr. Beau prefaces by saying They're not persons in the modern sense because person in the modern sense implies something with a distinct mind and conscious. It's come to take on that connotation due to the philosophical definitions of people like René Descartes, who defined "person" in a new way, which the ancient Church and ancient philosophy did not define it as. If you want the traditional definition of "person", Boethius provides the older one.
imagine an example: someone gives you a bottle wich contains some liquid inside and in one side of the bottle it is written "the liquid in this bottle is pure toxic,do not drink it" and in the other side of that same bottle its written "the liquid in this bottle is a healer of all diseases,drink it if you are ill" and you suffer from some sort of disesase, would you drink it??? The same example applies to the Trinity, there are clear verses that say that Jesus pbuh isnt a God.And, in the other side you base your Trinitarian doctrine in some verses that YOU think that they "prove" the trinity.Now, from the point i laid above is the New Testament 100% reliable to believe the trinity or you should belive the most certain that Jesus pbuh was the Messenger of God and nothing more.??!!
Here are the notes for the stream:
cutt.ly/NotesOnTrinity
Thank you very much for your hard work Brother.
As a former Oneness Pentecostal on a spiritual journey trying to find the truth about Christ and Christianity, I greatly appreciate this discussion about Christology and Trinitarianism.
What happened? I grew up trinitarian but have recently come to see the truth about the Oneness of God.
I also left the UPC and couldn't be happier. The lights went on when I left that cult.
@@lowcountryswampfoxYou know that the Oneness churches, like the UPC, are only around a century old? They can’t trace their lineage or teachings from the ancient church. Their whole understanding of history is that the Holy Spirit had to “revel” to men, living centuries after the “true church” has been utterly destroyed, what that church actually taught.
But Christ said the gates of Hell could never prevail against the church.
How then could The Gates of Hell have prevailed so long over the church so much so that it took centuries to reach the point where Oneness Pentecostals could restore the church, which was never supposed need restoration in the first place?
@@lowcountryswampfox God is One and Many.
Watch Sam Shamoun heretic.@@lowcountryswampfox
Thanks for this ,I have never heard the Trinity explained in depth like this,
I really needed this
It's cause this isn't protestantsim
Apologies for the cut off at the end - we will do a part 2 picking up where we left off *pure Q&A* session - likely on Tuesday.
This is top quality content, thank you!
In that debate ppl were too dumb to get this.. Great work Dr. Beau Branson
1:00 Hypostasis Versus Ousia
7:50 Eunomian Controversy
20:32 Idiomata
30:00 Equivocation of God as name versus as quality
34:30 Cappadocians different language same concept to describe trinity
37:10 Christ as Source from From The Source
38:30 Monotheism - One Source without Source - Monarchy as One Source without Source
42:32 2 Fathers 2 Gods
43:05 3 definitions of God so far - Monarchy as shared One Rule/activity 4th
45:25 Verbal Nouns such as King and God as activity
46:20 Father as source of all activities that is shared with Son and Spirit
46:45 If Son and Spirit aren’t Divine what activity/action does the Father do that the Son and spirit don’t do? God as activity of the Father, shared with Son and Spirit.
47:15 “whatsoever things the father doeth the son doeth the same”
2:35:30 How is Christ our Savior
2:40:20 How we identify beings, through their actions not their origins. Otherwise how can we know who God is? When God acts we judge based on how he acts not on whether he’s uncaused. Is a dog not a dog unless you see it’s birth?
Bro thank you, Jonathan, a fellow Anglo-ortho- bro
Response to 2:20:00 According to Rene Girard's philosophical anthropology, finite personhood JUST IS precisely learning to become who you are by being formed by the pre-existing desire(s) of other persons.
Desire/will/goals, etc, are LEARNED. Our openness to (and co-creation of )the desire of other persons is precisely what finite personhood is.
Wish you were able to debate a oneness Unitarian. Would be great to see how the arguments would look.
You might be interested in several discussion, a couple with Beau, on Transfigured. The host is a “biblical Unitarian.” Very in-depth, very congenial.
I am seeing some of those book shelves curving downwards, Dr Beau save your books before its too late!
We can see an example in ourselves Insofar as will being one and multiple. We can have thoughts and then choose to obey or disobey, in a sense, those thoughts even though they belong to us and are not separate from us. In one way they are distinct from us, and in another they are our will simultaneously. In that manner we share a will with ourselves or our bodies while it just being one singular will. With The Father, Son, and Spirit there just is no ambivalence because of the divine perfect goodness and absolution so it is truly one will at all times in 3 distinct persons. I don’t know if that’s a good example, just a thought.
Honestly the paradigm of Triunity permeates the very fundamental nature of reality.
1 universe composed of space, time and matter.
3 states of matter: Solid, liquid, gas.
1 family is composed of mother, Father, child.
3 primary colors compose all colors in the electromagnetic spectrum.
1 atom is made of 3 types of subatomic particles.
The list goes on.
This is how I've come to see this hypostatic union concept:
If you imagine an upright triangle, each point is a different person in the Trinity, but the shape itself is that One God-nature that they share.
Man, as a reflection of God's image, is an upside down triangle representing 3 natures in 1 person.
A mirror image.
In the hypostatic union, the 2 triangles come together and make "the star of David".
In the occult they would call this "as above, so below".
In Christianity, we believe the utmost "above" came to the lowest of "belows" to reconcile all things in reality at the focal point of the God-man.
Whatever division occured at the fall was unified in the incarnation, which is the new race of humans in the bloodline of the second Adam.
This is why we partake in the flesh and blood of Christ, to partake in that divine reality and become literal new creatures on a DNA level.
That was an enjoyable listen, though I had to break it up into three days.
What’s the St Basil book that Lewis kept holding up?
Against Eunomius
In regards to the activities not being divided how does orthodox soteriology detail what happened on the cross then? I'm a former protestant, currently homeless Christian, trying to figure out if the Orthodox church is where I should be, do you have a discussion on orthodox soteriology and Christology?
Yes we do not think that the Father and the Son were divided at the cross. Our soteriology centres around Christ victorious and Theosis.
Some good sources would be Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" and also there are some books on the atonement by Georges Florovsky and I'm sure you will find many good audio pieces at Ancient Faith radio.
ruclips.net/video/FQSjB5-x8hI/видео.html
@@OrthodoxShahada thank you SO much, that has always been the astrological view that made the most sense to me, I could never understand how or why nearly all protestant denominations held the view of penal substitution, it always seemed so ludicrous to me. Awesome, thanks so much for the suggestions, I'm halfway through Athanasius's Discourse Against the Arians, I'll absolutely read "on the incarnation" next! We are so blessed to have these early writings accessible to us! Thank you again and peace and love in Christ ❤
Lewis' beard looks so good
It may or may not be helpful to remember that English "person" comes from Latin "persona" which was like a mask or identity (I believe masks used in plays were called personae); this is similar to Greek "prosopon" which I think also is used in our theology
I have a question , I believe Christ shares the same substance with the Father , how do Christ come into time and space if he is one with the essence, is it simply he is omnipresent like the Father ?
He is omnipresent like the Father. Its a divine attribute. God is not limited by spacio-temporal categories.
What does “shahada” mean?
Confession/witness
At 1:14:25 and still no mention of “will.” Just an observation, but I don’t see how a theological discussion of Trinity and unity can fail to mention the unity of the divine will.
Edit: Ah, “will” 27”
do you have a podcast service that this is uploaded on ?
I'm afraid not, just on here. I might consider uploading a podcast version though because I understand you have to pay for YT premium to treat it that way.
Where is the orthodox shahada in the Bible?
Where is muslim shahada in the quran?
"And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent."
John 17:3
Islam adopted this paradigm, but replaced Jesus with Muhammad and now posits that Muhammad is the perfect example to follow instead of Jesus.
Ironic because they believe associating partners with God is shirk, yet they associate a partner with him by saying that accepting him as God's messenger will wipe your sins clean, and the only way to "submit to God" is to submit to Muhammad 🤔
Tu pourrais traduire en Français te vidéo stp
It still seems that there is a difference in stress or emphasis between you two regarding the doctrine of the Monarchy of the Father.
Dr. Beau Branson holds to what he calls the "Strong view" of the Monarchy. This view can basically be formulated as "there is one God, the Father, but three divine persons." Basically, in the truest sense of the word God, only the Father qualifies. This is because in this view, the divine nature is not primarily what is meant by the word God.
When you said something to effect of, "but that's just one sense of the word God," it seemed like you wanted to hold to the equality of the senses of the term, which doesn't seem to be what Dr. Branson is going for.
I'm not saying who is correct, but I just wanted to make the observation. Dr. Branson goes through the differences between the weak and strong view of the Monarchy in one of his videos.
No, we are in agreement. Just pointing out different senses of the term God.
@@OrthodoxShahada very good! Thanks for the quick reply. Looking forward to part two.
@@Kingfish179 Ya I just veered a slight emphasis to the multiple senses because people were getting nervous that Dr. Beau didn't believe the Son could *really* be called God because of his divinity. But it all just boils back down to *definitions*.
@@OrthodoxShahada it seems that Branson would say that Jesus can be called God not because He possesses the divine nature, but because he partakes in the divine activity. He doesn't think the word "God" means the divine nature (which is what his doctoral thesis was about). Will you have a stream with him regarding this topic?
@@Kingfish179 We literally spoke about that in the stream - he has no problem with calling Jesus "God" by virtue of the divine nature per se. But that's just not a Cappadocian useage which is what his studies focus on. It just boils down to definitions. And I agree with him!
Jesus then grants the disciples the authority to forgive sins, so that section around 2:50:00 isn’t rock solid. But not terrible.
Does Beau Branson believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each have their own individual (or separate) minds? In other words, does he believe the Godhead consists of 3 centers of consciousness? Sorry, I didn't have time to listen to the full video.
No. Also, please do listen to the whole series - I know it's laborious but it's worth it.
@@OrthodoxShahada Ok, thanks. I have listened to complete videos of his elsewhere but I was still scratching my head at the end. I'm glad he's not a 3-mind Tri-Theist. So, for Dr. Branson is the Father the only "person" in the Trinity, and the other 2 persons are not actual persons in the modern sense of the word "person"? I will try to listen to the video but I'm asking now in case he did not address that question.
@@SeekingAllahFindingJehovah No I don't know how you're getting that - just watch the series.
@JL-CptAtom It's another guy. He's a modalist.
@@SeekingAllahFindingJehovah The Persons of the Trinity share one mind, one will, one essence, and all their actions in common. However, they are truly distinct individuals. Dr. Beau prefaces by saying They're not persons in the modern sense because person in the modern sense implies something with a distinct mind and conscious. It's come to take on that connotation due to the philosophical definitions of people like René Descartes, who defined "person" in a new way, which the ancient Church and ancient philosophy did not define it as. If you want the traditional definition of "person", Boethius provides the older one.
imagine an example: someone gives you a bottle wich contains some liquid inside and in one side of the bottle it is written "the liquid in this bottle is pure toxic,do not drink it" and in the other side of that same bottle its written "the liquid in this bottle is a healer of all diseases,drink it if you are ill" and you suffer from some sort of disesase, would you drink it???
The same example applies to the Trinity, there are clear verses that say that Jesus pbuh isnt a God.And, in the other side you base your Trinitarian doctrine in some verses that YOU think that they "prove" the trinity.Now, from the point i laid above is the New Testament 100% reliable to believe the trinity or you should belive the most certain that Jesus pbuh was the Messenger of God and nothing more.??!!
Genesis 1:26, if Allah is the creator .. why is the pronouns multiple?
@@science_is_fake_and_gay2710 Ehad also means One in islam.In Surah Ikhlas there is written that Allah is Ehad wich means one.
@@B.Y.A ehad means one in unification .ahad in arabic one of not one
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας we muslims with the word Ehad, we believe the Core Belief of Islam as God is One, as i said earlier.
@@B.Y.A at first quran says ahad that means on of not one. The word one in arabic is not ahad .ahad is one of so Allah is one of who???
So much heresy.
In western christian faith