Calvinist vs Jay Dyer | Succession, Gifts, Gospel, Penal Substitution Atonement
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 окт 2024
- Jay Dyer encounters a polite Calvinist on Tik Tok debates. It gets a little spicy.
Clip taken from Jay's premium Rokfin content.
Source title: "Penal Substitutionary Atonement, Filioque & The Trinitarian Critique - TikTok Debates"
The damning of the Son was what broke Protestantism for me. It’s not just Calvin or Luther, I went to an IFB church as a Calvinist when I first heard this idea in a sermon during Easter. This is what we need to hammer Protestants on, that PSA is anti-Trinitarian.
This is what started me on the path to orthodoxy as well
Same. That doctrine is absolute heresy.
What does the Atonement accomplish?
@@mkbr1992 the healing of human nature, unity with Christ, the giving of the Holy Spirit, the washing away of sins, the inclusion of the Gentiles, the beginning of the New Covenant… many things.
@@marincusman9303 True. How does Jesus dying for our sins accomplish that?
Jay just gave in 5 minutes the most complete and well versed salvation explanation ever!!! Wow!!!
I’m so thankful to God that he showed me the absolute reflexivity and utter bogusness of reformed doctrine through people like Metropolitan Jonah, St. Justin Popovitch and others. If you want the way (Christianity) in full, in essence, in purity (the apostles Church) then seek and conform yourself to Holy Orthodoxy . The west blew it. It’s chaotic plethora of incongruous denoms is the proof in the pudding (the fruit of that tree). It’s not a coincidence that Protestantism germinated and lent impetus to the atheistically conducive “enlightenment.“ Get out while the gettin’s good, all of you well-meaning, sincere, but ultimately misguided protestants out there! You will be so glad you did. Reductionism is not faith. The Church cannot be subverted. Martin Luther, Calvin and Zwingli introduced nothing of merit and they reformed nothing. They were megalomaniacs (popes unto themselves) who couldn’t even agree on what scripture is saying despite all three insisting that it was clear to every literate mind. They only misled and misinformed. They invented a brand new religion with only the most perfunctory correspondence to the true, apostolic faith/Church which Christ called invincible (Mathew 16 - 17-19).
I love St. Justin Popovich, especially this quote from his Dogmatic Theology:
"One sinless Righteous One suffered for the unrighteous and instead of the unrighteous, and thus suffered the punishment that weighed on the entire human race for sin, according to the righteous judgment of God."
("Один безгрешный Праведник пострадал на неправедных и вместо неправедных и тем самым понес наказание, тяготевшее за грех над всем человеческим родом, по праведному суду Божию.")
azbyka.ru/otechnik/Iustin_Popovich/sobranija-tvorenij-tom3/1_5
Calvin ruled a village for a few years. Everyone had to have a biblical name, on pain of death.
@@mariussielcken
Yup, the great “Christian” despot.
The effects of Jay Dyer’s attitude are he wins the battle, but loses the war. If he would practice being more patient, he could win these people to Christ and his church. Has he forgotten that he too was once a protestant?
If you're an Orthodox, learn like Jay has learned, and if the Spirit so moves you, try doing what he does and you may be able to pick up where he is deficient.
@@larryjake7783 Jay Dyer is not God. You might idolize him but the scriptures in James 1:26 If anyone thinks he is religious and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this person’s religion is worthless. This does not line up with God… it is worthless. But you go ahead and follow Jay Dyer. I will follow the church, the scriptures and the fathers.
@@believer8793 um bro, I wasn't stating that Dyer was God or a God or that he knew best... try to read what I wrote without assuming my intentions.
"Saying learn like Jay" meant his apologetic knowledge and ability to debate, and then I followed it by saying, "if you're called by the Spirit.." saying that if that's your calling to do something similar then you may be able to pull people closer to Christ in the debate forum where those like Jay may be deficient.
Why assume malice with my comment?
@@larryjake7783 James chapter 1:26 If anyone thinks himself to be religious, yet does not [z]bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this person’s religion is worthless. The scriptures warn me against this. That which he is speaking is not the holy spirit there is no gentleness whatsoever. All that’s going to happen is Jay is going to bring more people 10 times worse than himself.
@@believer8793 You're commenting for yourself at this point. I'm not endorsing Jay's style, reread my first comment then reread my second comment.
Are you trying to be charitable or do you want to just prove your point?
The Calvinist started out seeming to be curious and open to seeing distinctions between reformed theology and what the ancient church teaches, but then once the massive errors which are the core of his theological system are exposed, then he tries to tell Jay what is really “true”, without actually being able to defend it. Lord have mercy.
Our presuppositions and the lens we see things through have to be removed before we can actually understand what the scriptures mean and what the faith has been for 2000 years.
I’ve said it multiple times and I’ll say it again, Protestantism in all it’s forms is in the same family as the restorationist movements that came in the 1800’s. Whether they say it or not, their theology and practice demonstrates that they believe there was a blackout after the death of the apostles and that the Holy Spirit did not preserve the true faith and that it had to be restored by the reformed.
JAY POPS OFF WITH HIS EXPLANATION OF THE ESCHATON!
The sin debt is death itself. When Christ dies, he pays the debt. All men are indebted to death as the recompense of sin, so when Christ dies, he pays the price of sin for us.
The fact that the calvinist doesn't realize Titus 3:5 is referring to baptism just shows his utter ignorance.
"But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not born in the Church can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, "He saved us by the washing of regeneration."
-St. Cyprian of Carthage
Which is funny because then Titus 3:5 affirms the Filioque, but Orthobros do love their own interpretations I guess.
@@Fr33zy159no
The washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit (Tit. 3:5) is what Christ referred to when he said we must be born of water and the spirit in order to enter the kingdom. (Jn. 3:5).
Keep the dyer uploads coming Jiub. These are phenomenal
Thanks for the encouragement! I'll upload some more tik tok clips when I can get a moment.
Don't sleep on Zen or Jimbob tho....
@@TommyGunzzz i got some good clips of both. Will try to release them sometime soon 😉
@@saint-jiub I saw some, love it. Your clips are the best
Yeah the dude was just asking questions, didn’t come off like he was looking for a fight…
He kept repeating Titus 3:5 as if it refutes Jay when it actually refutes him
@ puritanbob yeah kind of felt the same way. But I've been watching Dyer for a while now, that's just how he is with his live streams. He will title the stream "come argue (insert religion or etc)" then people ignore that and come on live and just not respect the show. They talk about what they want to talk about and ask their own random questions, which is great but he is debating at the moment. You should check out his live streams, very informative and silly at times lmao
Where was the fight?
jay was a bit rude/cutting him off, but i didnt see jay insulting or demeaning the caller
keep in mind this is after years of arguing with these people, the same points over and over again, in the end of a multi hour livestream
hes just human, hes actually very patient
@@deus_vult8111leave popemason viii
Good one. Thanks for the edit and share.
Jay gets an A+ for knowledge but an F on teaching. Can you imagine Jesus teaching like Jay does?
Jesus and the apostles spent days, even months, years with people helping them to understand. God is wonderfully moving in the hearts and minds of protestants. Trinitarian theology holds an open seat for these people to sit and grown in Christ. But people like Jay and Sam Shamon lack the patients to stay with people till they grasp the differences.
I'm sure Jay doesn't care about any of these comments but man he's burned out. I'm a doctor specializing in emergency medicine and I've experienced this myself. People who come to you in need and while you do provide the medicine it's coated in bitterness. Jay you are stretching yourself too thin brother. Just take a breath, adjust your workload and learn to enjoy the work again
Absolutely priceless clip. Thanks J
Historically, as far as I've read, the early reformers did all the ecclesiastical-type miraculous stuff like exorcisms. Like, spontaneity in miracles , like in Pentecostalism was no godd, but anything that had a clear process and ritual they did that should result in a miraculous happening. It was only the gradual secularization that weeded it out to the point where it's now questioned if it even happens.
Most Protestants are like Vicimi in the Princess Bride after he keeps repeating ‘inconceivable!’ And Montoya says ‘I do not think that word means what you think it does’. It’s that. But with their entire theology. Over and over again. The same car crash of misunderstanding.
Will god send him to hell for misunderstanding? I’m not a genius and after a while childhood of Protestant theology I’m honestly confused on every view, will god send me to hell for not understanding the infinite god?
@@parkerscottmusic no. But even that thought that at death is either to heaven or hell immediately after death…then what is the 2nd Coming for? Both the living and the dead will be resurrected to final judgment. So…you see the issues?
Every person really should try to orient into a proper theology. And refraining from passing judgement on anyone as we work out our salvation on fear and trembling.
As a roman catholic i must say, i love me some Jay Dyer. As a Protestant i had heard him on infowars for a long time and when i converted, i discovered he was an apologist. No doubt, the most challenging apologist for me out there, love his content and the points he makes. I’m still sticking with the pope till i die no matter what but i love challenging myself with his content!
Not saying NOT to stick with the pope or that it’s wrong, but I would say one shouldn’t solidify their position. Knowledge is a lifetime pursuit, and you may find out later down the road that what you believe today isn’t the truth in its entirety.
Christ be with you and may he guide you.
Praise God that I have been ransomed out of Penal Substitutionary Atonement theory! It’s just Nestorianism with more steps.
🤣
Have got to say I think the spirit had you in this Jay you just said so much and I couldn't understand B4 wow dude the wording the flow everything was just golden
Another education from and victory to Jay...
Boyar Dyer:
Could you provide a critique of Thomas Aquinas' superabundant atonement model presented in Summa Theologica, Part III, Treatise On The Incarnation, Question 48 - Of the Efficacy of Christ's Passion, Article 2 - Whether Christ's Passion brought about our salvation by way of atonement?
I also provided for your critique what might be considered some of the consequences of Aquinas' superabundant atonement model as pertaining to Christ's Church, if so interested.
ST Part III, Q. 48, Art. 2:
"I answer that, he properly atones for an offense who offers something which the offended one loves equally, or even more than he detested the offense. BUT BY SUFFERING OUT OF LOVE AND OBEDIENCE, CHRIST GAVE MORE TO GOD THAN WAS REQUIRED TO COMPENSATE FOR THE OFFENSE OF THE WHOLE HUMAN RACE.
FIRST OF ALL, because of the exceeding charity from which He suffered;
SECONDLY, on account of the dignity of His life which He laid down in atonement, for it was the life of one who was God and man;
THIRDLY, on account of the extent of the Passion, and the greatness of the grief endured, as stated above (Q[46], A[6]).
- and -
THEREFORE CHRIST'S PASSION WAS NOT ONLY A SUFFICIENT BUT A SUPERABUNDANT ATONEMENT FOR THE SINS OF THE HUMAN RACE; according to 1 Jn. 2:2: 'He is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world.'"
[Sacred Texts Com /chr/aquinas/summa/sum499.htm]
2. In the anthropology of the human person regarding acts that are informed by reason and deliberated by the will, there are three components: Intention, circumstances and object. It is the intention that determines the nature of the act, as in the case of homicide, whether it is (A) manslaughter, (B) second degree murder or (C) first degree murder. Therefore, the intention is the greatest component of the human act.
3. In Aquinas'' answer above, he lists Christ's intention first, followed by His identity as God and man second, and the circumstances of His passion third. All three were components in the atonement which was the desired object, but it was Christ's love and obedience that determined how great was His atonement on our behalf, even preceding His identity as both God and man which gave the atonement its eternal dimension.
4. Aquinas' "superabundant atonement" of Jesus Christ involves the gifts of His mysteries/sacraments to Christians: (A) Seven in number to the Catholic and Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) Churches and the Assyrian Church of the East; and (B) two in number generally acknowledged by the Protestant Churches.
5. Employing the Protestant sacramental model but common to all as analogous to Aquinas'' "superabundant atonement" model:
A. Baptism, through Christ's death on the cross, is a one time event that initially reconciles sinners to God.
B. Eucharist, through the Last Supper as a permanent institution, is a continuous celebratory event in the life of Christians after baptism, until its perfect fulfillment in the heavenly banquet:
Revelation 19:6-9 (KJV): And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, "Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready." And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, "Write, BLESSED ARE THEY WHICH ARE CALLED UNTO THE MARRIAGE SUPPER OF THE LAMB."
6. And if the King James Bible was good enough for St. John ...
Thanks for upload this !
You bet!
The funny thing is in chapter 3 of Titus it talks about persevering in good works.
What's taught is one thing, the spirit it's taught in another.
Is the penal payment what makes Calvinism Nestorian-like
so the Son can die, but he ant be under wrath ? what does it mean to be a sin offering, to be crushed, and made a worm PENALTY of sin is death, why does this not mean PENAL
Because you are creating oppositional relations into the trinity. The Father and The Son are both God and you are also ignoring the Holy Spirit on this action. Jesus and the Father are one and the same in a transcendental way. When Jesus died, his spirit was severed from his body and he decended into Hades/Sheol and let out all the righteous from the grasp of death. And left the door of Hades open for the righteous and they ascended with him. Jesus, as his divine person trampled death with death. As a Protestant, I did not learn about the decent into Hades. Penal substitution assumes this did not happen and the wrath of God was poured out on Jesus that made him "experience Hell" as a substitution.
The Resurrection and Eschaton ... Deep wow
The Holy Spirit is not left out in substitutionary atonement because God the Son drank the Father's cup of wrath in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Calvinist can’t understand this because they work on a nominalist framework. For them there are no universals.
Jay I really need to speak with you
this was very polite
Jay man up. If you can’t run with men, how can you run with horses? You’re easily frustrated. This is not a work of the Holy Spirit. You are acting childish. You should expect opposition.
im still trying to learn more about this. and i havent finished this.
but ive always been confused of this. Did Jesus die on the Cross for our sins.? You must believe that yes..??? So should i must Say Jesus Christ died on the Cross for our sins...?
Im trying to get rid of my Protestant beliefs, but so many Protestants just like to hit that home, and most Protestant churches dont complete their teachings. its just oh Jesus Christ died on the Cross for our sins. Do you understand what im saying? Do Eastern Orthodox Must Say Jesus died on the Cross for our sins???
Consider the words of Jesus that except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone. Our baptism is regenerative because in that act of obedience we enter into death with Christ to become justified. His death is not an act of God's wrath upon sin because, if it were, the damnation of future unbelievers would dispense a second outpouring of wrath for the same sins. Another problem is that such a thing would mean the Father divided himself from the Son, which is impossible since the Trinity cannot be divided. In simple terms, Jesus gave his life willingly so that we could enter into his death and be raised with him. It doesn't need to be more complicated than that.
Damn I see a guy trying to learn and a very uncharitable teacher
lol bro couldn’t refute him so just ended the call. the strawman from the orthodox side is wild
I thought last dude was being nice and a different tone could have helped him.
You should love Calvinist God does. We are not the potter of God making God an actual savior by man's will. We believe we are the clay.
Ought naught lump Luther in with Calvin....
Wow the level of questioning reveal not only a rude attitude but also a chaotic view of the person of Christ, how can you ask separating the two natures of Christ? It almost sounds like a islamic mentality of the trinity. He just wanted to trap the guy. This wasn’t a debate but a show of ignorance and lack of humility.
Jay went into this way too hostile. The Calvinist is clearly being friendly and is just trying to understand.
Correction: except the last 3rd he was fine. Calvinist started to argue then.
@@saint-jiub Figured lol. Just an observation.
If you're gonna ask questions to j you gotta deal with j
Patience wearing thin lol. Something we all need to work on
Truth is unyielding
But was is atonement?
In other words propitiation doesn’t have a place in the ortodox church.
It’s like whenever you’re being pressed on an issue you boot them. They must bow down to you cuz it’s your live stream or what? You’re like an upset little atheist on TikTok
He'd been dealing with absolute morons for the past few hours I don't blame him
I’ve seen healing at a healing mass
I’ve seen an exorcism
They are real
Bwahaha. Prelest is fascinating.
@@MaximusWolfe
->Pagan Roman Centurion heals dying servant through faith unseen in all Judea.
Coping Jews.
-> Muh prelest.
@@HeavensMystery Snarky meme-y comments aren't helpful.
To think a schismatic body is the one who healed is prelest.
@@LadyMaria To think God's power would be limited to the schisms and disaffections of men is something worse than prelest could ever be.
@@HeavensMystery There's exceptions of course but not the normative. Good day.
But Christ DID pay our debt and take our punishment in our place and bear God's wrath. See St. Athanasius's letter to Marcellinus on the Psalms. See St. Ephrem's hymn 14 on the Nativity. See Chrysostom's homily on the Ascension. See Isaiah 53 "The *chastisement* of our peace was upon Him." See Psalm 68, "I *paid back* what I never took away."
EDIT: My replies to DeformedTheology below got deleted, so I will post it here:
Hello brother! Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I am glad you agree that we can use such language, of debt and punishment. The other things you bring up I will reply to individually:
FIRST, wrath: Ah, but Christ _did_ bear the wrath of God for us. This is how we're saved from the wrath as Paul tells us. The saints and Scriptures teach that Christ experienced God's anger (though of course God's anger isn't a passionate emotional thing, but rather -- as St. John Damascene says -- is His hatred of and aversion to sin)
"He suffered for us, and bore in Himself the wrath that was the penalty of our transgression." --St. Athanasius the Great, _Letter to Marcellinus_ www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2020/01/on-interpretation-of-psalms-letter-of.html?m=1
"The Sinless One had to bear all the wrath of God for sinners, all the punishments which the sinful nature of mankind merited. All of the chastisements and heavenly wrath which the world should have endured for its sins were taken on by the Redeemer of mankind alone." --St. John Vostorgov, Homily for Cross Veneration Sunday orthodoxlife.org/scripture/agony-christ-gethsemane/
The Scripture speaks of Christ bearing God's wrath in Psalms 87, 88, and 37. The latter Psalm is quoted as about Christ in Royal Hours of Holy Friday. 87 is quoted as about Christ in numerous hymns. Both of them, and 88, are spoken of as about Christ by various Fathers. Lamentations of Jeremiah also has Messianic prophecy of Christ bearing God's wrath, and Christ Himself in the Gospels speaks of Himself drinking a cup from God -- the cup of God's wrath, as saints such as Isidore of Pelusium, Innocent of Kherson, Innocent of Penza, John of Kronstadt, and Fr. Daniel Sysoev tell us.
SECOND, the forsaking: It is correct, of course, that "God was in Christ" (2 Cor 5:19) at the Crucifixion, so we must affirm that there was no division in Christ or the Trinity and Jesus was not abandoned as regards person or nature. Nevertheless, we can't take the saints to ever mean that Christ said anything feignedly or as a mere illusion. St. John of Damascus, in the broader quote, is speaking of Christ associating Himself with us in our sinful and forsaken state. Think of this: David, even as he -- in his chastised distress -- typified the punished Christ, himself wrote the Psalms that foretell of Christ taking our penalty... and yet though he speaks of God's forsaking, we know that the Holy Spirit was in David inspiring those very Psalms. So even in _David's_ case it's not God being absent in every sense. But we as Orthodox have the essence/energy distinction. God's favorable gaze and His comforting presence are _energies,_ and Christ -- in associating Himself with our state to take our place and save us from God's wrath while maintaining justice -- willingly and lovingly underwent deprivation of those energies for us, bearing the wrath that we deserved. "It cannot be understood here that Jesus Christ, having lost his omnipotence, complained about why He was betrayed into the hands of the Jews, why he was not delivered from them -- for He accepted voluntary suffering -- but the abandonment, if I may be allowed to explain it, is the deprivation for a time of the divinity's sweet consolation to the humanity joined to Him." --St. Innocent of Penza (+1819), _Dogmas of the True Faith_
THIRD, on Isaiah 53: The verse I quoted is the same in both LXX and MT, so in both cases Isaiah teaches us that Christ bore our chastisement to bring us to peace with God (see the Orthodox Study Bible note on that verse). You are correct, though, that there are relevant differences between the Greek and Hebrew in the chapter generally. However, there's no reason to reject the MT readings as _false._ For example, the MT (and St. Jerome's Vulgate) says that "It pleased the Lord to crush Him," whereas the LXX reads differently there, but the Hebrew text isn't wrong in what it says; it agrees with Psalm 68 where Christ says "They persecuted Him Whom Thou hast smitten," and it aligns with Zechariah, as quoted by Christ in the Gospel, when God says "I will strike the Shepherd." There are even ways that the LXX Isaiah 53 emphasizes the penal substitutionary aspect of Christ's death _more_ than the Hebrew text. It is the LXX, not the MT, which says "He shall bear their sins," where to _bear sins_ means to be punished for them, as you can see in Lamentations 5:7, for example, and Numbers 14: 32-35, and Ezekiel 4.
Legal debt language isn't the problem, it's what they mean. As long as we understand that there was never a point where the Father abandoned the Son, nor did He feel the wrath of the Father (as affirmed by reformed creeds). Read John Damascus Exposition, bk 4, ch. 18 - "For neither as God nor as man was He ever forsaken by the Father. Neither did He become sin or a curse. Appropriating, then, our person and ranking Himself with us, He used these words.", so whenever you see this legal debt language it's only problematic if we translate that to damning and wrath, as the reformers did.
If you haven't already, I would also recommend you compare Isa. 53 Septuagint with Isa. 53 Masoretic Text. The damning type language is found more so in the MT.
Thanks for this!
If you believe in PSA and that Christ bore the wrath of God then you necessarily have to believe in limited atonement and can no longer be orthodox.
Why?
Because Jesus tells Nicodemus in John 3 that whoever does not believe in the son will not see eternal life, but instead the wrath of God abides on that person. Well if Jesus' atonement is a bearing of the wrath of God not limited to the "elect" only, then it wouldn't be possible to say the wrath of God abides on anyone because all the wrath due to all of humanity was borne by Jesus on the cross.
If Jesus bore the wrath of God coming towards someone, then there would be no more wrath left over that would still be due to them. If you try to claim that Jesus is the wrath-bearer and that the wrath of God still abides on people who do not believe in The Son, then it follows necessarily that Jesus did not bear the wrath for those people who did not/do not/will not believe because the wrath abides on them, meaning it couldn't have been on Jesus. Thus, PSA leads to limited atonement by necessity.
@@iKentine No, Christ bearing the wrath of God does not necessitate limited atonement. When Christ in Psalm 87(88) speaks to God saying "Upon Me is Thine anger made strong", this doesn't constitute Christ teaching limited atonement. Nor is limited atonement implied when Ss. Athanasius, Isidore of Pelusium, Augustine, Jerome, John of Kronstadt, Innocent of Kherson, and many many others teach that Christ bore God's wrath for us.
Christ bore the punishment in such a way for it to be sufficient for the redemption of every man. But people appropriate this to themselves through faith. If I am outside of Christ, I have not joined to Him in such a way for the punishment He bore to count for me no longer standing to be punished.
"[I]f a king, wanting to have mercy on his subjects-criminals-punished his son for them and then announced that those who reformed would assimilate this punishment, such a comparison would be much like the Heavenly Father, who gave up His Son for us." -St. Innocent of Kherson, _Jesus Christ - Redeemer of the Human Race_
Orthodoxy has a weak foundation.
you cannot really believe this
@@nathanmagnuson2589 your works will not save you
Jay’s “discussions” are hard to listen to and not very productive. His constant interruptions are frustrating to those who want to understand the other side arguments. Every person I’ve sent his “debates” to ended up disliking him for his obnoxious attitude. “I am not trying to be rude but…”
two trinies talking is like watching 2 clowns or 2 politicians arguing how to understand a contradiction
Grace is not sufficient for Jay. Things need to be done. He read it somewhere.
Grace is given how and where the Lord chooses. There are many principles the Lord gave so faith requires you believe them all because the Lord is the source.
Knock and the door shall be opened to you. Grace is the offer to knock on the door. Grace is the door itself. Grace is that the door will be opened. You still have to knock.
In the bible for one.
Dyer is just being a modalist then..the divine person cannot experience His human nature because he is the divne person of the human nature same person of the divine nature..a single divine hypostasis not a human one..
literally stating the orthodox view lol. nothing close to modalism. you’re a total heretic.
@JayDyer prove it, then the divine person of logos is able to experience only that which is proper to a human person..... the people who think God can actually die in his human nature are the heretics because they're delusional..
You are confusing nature with person.
The person, the Logos, is divine by nature. Then He took up Human Nature as the same person.
@olubunmiolumuyiwa you just confused Divine person with his Human nature ...ironically
@@TheMorning_Son theres a distinction between person and nature. Who and what. Who is Logos/Son, what is Divine and Human.
14:40