Video

@@paulcox7934 I think William GT Shedd is right to argue derivation presupposes division which the church fathers precluded. You are right about Calvin and Warfield. See my video response to Mike Riccardi. The Franciscan tradition following Boniventure and Scotus articulated this as an emanation relation. If you watch my lectures I follow Scotus on divine simplicity not Aquinas. Most would say I deny divine simplicity which is fine. But to your point. I prefer to understand the relations of origin in terms of essential dependence following Mark Makin not a causal relation. I also follow Calvin and affirm the personal identity not the divine essence is the scope of the relations of origin. This is precisely how divine aseity may be preserved.

@@theeverlastingman I do not dispute we are saved by the inputted righteousness of Jesus Christ via his passive and active obedience qua truly God and truly man. I dispute a mere creature can earn or merit anything before God. Creatures are property of God thus cannot earn or merit anything. Hence, Luke 17:7-10 plainly teaches we cannot boast but solely in our great Triune God’s grace.

@@RandomTheology I think you’re omitting something.. faith is a simple action not counted as toil.. and so we can and do merit God’s favor through the simple action of faith. Simple faith is impressive to God. (Mark 5:34) it is our faith that makes us whole.

@@theeverlastingman faith is a work according to John 6:28-29 that is a gift of God Eph 2:8-10.

@@RandomTheology John does not contradict Paul, who writes “Saved by Grace through Faith and not by works..” meaning faith ≠ works. (Eph 2:8) So faith is explicitly not a work according to the Bible .

@@theeverlastingman by no means do they contradict. The type or kind of work precludes any contradiction. It is not by mere human efforts, mere human works nor mere human merits. It is a work of God not a work of man. God gives the gift of faith to believe in Christ Eph 2:8-10. So it is a work wrought by God. God does not believe for us but he gives us the gift of faith to believe via regeneration. God changes our being, beliefs and behavior qua born-again.

Great to hear from you Matthew. I understand Dr. Lake did not attempt to develop a model of the Trinity. But he said God is one being without explaining precisely in what way God is one being. This is where a model must be provided to define terms and explain the Trinity. Without clear definitions to refer to a coherent model against tritheism or modalism-they may continue to loom in the background as possible referents.

Hope you were able to get Dr. O’ Connor’s paper

@@RandomTheology Yes, I got it thanks. Any suggestion on how I can get the second paper?

@@RandomTheology Thank you so much.

Glad to hear it’s helpful. I appreciate the kind words.

Your response appears to be AI generated. An aspect is typically defined as an improper part of a substance such that an aspect is numerically identical to its substance (see Donald Baxter). If each divine attribute is numerically identical to the divine substance and each divine attribute is not numerically distinct from each other then each divine attribute is numerically identical to each other. If you watched my video dealing with the Tawhid debate or the Johnson book review I define a ‘part’ following Scotus. F is a part of S iff F is separable from S. So on my view, there is no composition in God. God is complex without composition following Scotus. Are you saying views of simplicity, like mine similar to Scotus, misrepresents God’s perfection? How can I misrepresent when I am doing constructive theology not historical theology? You say I objectify God. Well, God is a concrete particular not an abstract object. Are you saying God is neither? What on your view is the real definition of God given essentialism? The purpose of the video is to show it is logically possible for God to be complex with aseity. My intent is not to argue against other views of unity of the divine nature. But rather I aim to defend a view that allows for numerically distinct inseparable divine attributes. As an aside Classical theism following Aristotle affirms both a relational and constituent ontology, hence it does not beg the question.

​@@RandomTheology Yes, AI is helpful in cases like this where the disagreement is minor, so the grammar can be checked quickly. In this case, it's specifically useful for clarity and saving me time, and it saves you from having to deal with my unclear diatribe. Your interpretation of divine simplicity is off that was my main concern; but, as for your main point and model, you’re 'random theology', so the very heterodox vibe of the model seems on brand, so I don't necessarily disagree with your view proper (who am I to judge, you do you). My main point is the mischaracterization of divine simplicity. 'Numerical identity' involves Leibniz's law and the identity of indiscernibles, and is generally an anachronistic approach to divine simplicity as that's not what the doctrine is doing at all. If you're characterizing a heterodox definition of simplicity, that's fine, but usually, the mainstream and robust case of simplicity should be addressed, not a mischaracterization of it, as an identity framework presupposes conceptual complexity which completely misses the point. As for your view proper, it's interesting! It might misconstrue perfection and unity; like you said, it resembles fusion, and in my view a wrong view of light or sounds like you’re describing God like a sliced pie with necessary wholeness, which typically would be seen as a major theological problem for obvious reasons. (to reference your shirt: it’s not modalism Patrick it’s objectification of God Patrick.) But again, it's your random theological view, so I don't have an issue with it, and it is interesting. I was just trying to point out your misuse of divine simplicity, which loosely begs the question, and is probably a category mistake formally. And yes I get other people in “papers” have used other senses of identity, but getting more anachronistic and less mainstream then identity 101 is too tedious to deal with since the disagreement is minor. Thanks for your time!

Dr. Andani corrected me on this in the comments 😎

Both takfeered by classical sunni scholars for their heretical beliefs good job quoting something which isnt even authority over ahlus sunnah.

@@sclsaktrc3311 I do not go into the historical sources. I focus on the arguments made between Jake and Dr. Andani and attempt to evaluate them. But the debate is on two competing Islamic conceptions of Tawhid.

@@kamranahmed6446 I am trying to better grasp Islamic theology. If I neglected to engage with the proper sources it is due to my ignorance. But my intent was merely to evaluate the debate from a Christian perspective that has some investment in the debate.

I think a well balanced life will require properly prioritizing personal devotion/faith, wife, family and the church family. There is a hierarchy of duties in my view. The duties/roles are to God as Christian, husband, father and then Pastor/leader. One must lead his family prior to leading the church. But I do agree different seasons can change the dynamics of Pastoral ministry.

I take it what I have formulated is a further distinction of aseity between fundamental and derivative aseity.(Duby assumes such a distinction in his Trinitarianism between the Father and Son). The conjunction of God with properties entails God as the propertybearer confers derivative aseity to the divine attributes. They are divine precisely in virtue of God qua God as the property bearer/owner. Attributes are taken as infinite as intensively and extensively unlimited in scale and scope-no limit boundaries insofar as each attribute is consistent with each other not competing nor constraining each other.

@@RandomTheology what your propose doenst help the matter because the divine attributes are still dependent and it fundamental. Furthermore each attribute to be distinct from other attributes cannot be infinite because each excludes the rest

@@RandomTheology derivative aseity also makes no sense; it’s a contradiction. Try saying dependent independence

@@KhalilAndani I’m familiar with Spinoza and his argument for infinity. The infinity I have in mind is defined with necessary and sufficient conditions that preclude pantheism or panantheism.

@@KhalilAndani The necessary and sufficient conditions of the aseity distinction has to do with relations. The divine attributes are derivatively a se in relation to anything external to the divine nature. The divine attributes do not depend upon anything non-divine-anything external to the divine nature. But an alternative is to bite the bullet and revise aseity all together. Affirm God is symmetrically mutually dependent upon God’s divine attributes. In which case, aseity would be revised to affirm God’s nature (divine substance and attributes) is neither caused, explained, nor depends upon anything external to the divine nature.

I stand corrected then. I appreciate your work.

You are generalizing. The divine simplicity these groups affirmed ahlu kalam, sufya , philosophers and the shia is not the same as the eunomian divine simplicity that you hold to Which nobody basically believes in today

@@hotcharizard874 Did you listen to the original debate? Perhaps I did generalize. But Dr. Andani is quite clear on his position. It is similar to Anselm of Aquinas’s views. My view of simplicity is similar to Scotus not Aquinas.

@@RandomTheology Oh yeah his view is commonly present among theists. i was just refering to islamic theology specifically, in which his view is basically none existing and condemned by all.

For Maturidis, Allah’s divine attribute as the creator, sustainer, the giver of life and death is timeless and eternal;. the effects of these attributes originate in a time and place. For the Ash‘aris, Allah’s divine ability to bring something into being originates in a time and place. Which do you think Scotus advocates?

@@ZnerSamoth I’m not as familiar with Islamic theology. I have only read al-Gazali’s work. But I take Scotus sees God’s distinct attributes as both infinite and eternal.

@@RandomTheology Does not every mainstream Christian theologian see God's essential attributes as infinite and eternal? What is the significance of the "distinct" in the phrase "distinct attributes"? Is being "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob" a distinct attribute of God (and as such infinite and eternal)?

⁠@@ZnerSamoth Christians have a spectrum of views similar to the different Islamic traditions you have articulated. God’s essential attributes are necessary whereas God may express these attributes in creation. Divine wrath is understood as God’s justice expressed against sin. So God has uncreated, essential and eternal attributes. Additionally, God can take on created attributes grounded in God’s uncreated attributes such as creator, redeemer, wrathful, jealous (I can explain if needed)-being the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, King David, Solomon etc..

@@RandomTheology And where is Duns Scotus in this? Are "distinct attributes" = "uncreated attributes"? Does Duns Scotus speak of "Creator" and "God of Abraham" as divine attributes that have been temporally acquired, siding with the Ash‘aris against the Maturidis?

The thrust of my argument is found in Luke 17.

This will have to be demonstrated logically and biblically. Which premise is false in my arguments? Do you deny Jesus was an instrument of creation?

@@RandomTheology I don’t believe that it is a certainty that Jesus prexisted in a literal sense or to what creation it is being referred to in the epistles. My position on John 1 is that of the theme which is seen throughout the book of John. That Jesus was the embodiment of the wisdom or word of God. We see reference to Z Jesus saying that his words are not his but the Fathers words and his works are not his but what he sees the father doing. Both of these are aspects of what we see in the creation story. God spoke and actions took place. It is also my position that if John were trying to say that Jesus was God in a literal sense, then why did John conclude at the end of his gospel that these things were written that you might believe that Jesus is the Son of God?? Context matters as a whole book, not just a few verses or even a chapter. As to the “before Abraham was, I am”…. My explanation for this is that Jesus was refer to his being the promised messiah that was first prophesied to eve, long before Abraham was ever born. The statement “I am” is not a one to one translation of the statement God made to Moses in the wilderness either. If that were the case then when the Pharisees asked the blind man if he was the one healed by Jesus then he also would have been claiming to be God as he responded with the same Greek phrase that means “I am”

That is a non-sequitur. This cannot be the case precisely for the same reason Arminians do not earn eternal life. We are not praiseworthy for doing our moral duty. See Taylor Cyr and Matthew Flummer’s work.

@@RandomTheology it is not our moral duty to give our life as a sacrifice for the atonement of humanity. While being obedient to the law of God was a requirement to enter into his presence was. By the atonement we are now able to access the presence of God without anymore shedding of blood. We have a faithful high priest now in Jesus who lives now to make intercession for the saints. The book of revelation tells us that the lamb is worthy of praise because of this sacrifice. One of the issues I often find with trinitarian theology is that it sometimes appeals to logic or sometimes appeals to scripture or sometimes appeals to authority. Yet when anyone who actually goes and listens to Dr Tuggy; they will find that he will use logic to approach scripture at the very same time.

@@JacobRobin81 Perhaps I was obscuring my point. My point was a servant is not morally praiseworthy for serving his master just as a parent is not morally praiseworthy for feeding his children. Fulfilling one’s moral duty as a moral agent with moral duties does not earn or merit praise.

@@RandomTheology I would think that diminishing the work of atonement as just being a moral duty would diminish Jesus by your reasoning. It seems like a logical argument but what does scripture tell us about why Jesus is worthy of praise? I would also point out that the human king of Israel was worshipped as the Son of God in the Old Testament. Worship in an of itself is not wrongly given to men in the Bible. Worship as being God is only for God. I would argue that having no Gods before YHWH would actually mean that we are to worship no one other than YHWH as God.

This may be the case and I will stand corrected.

You presuppose Unitarianism. Place yourself in Trinitarian shoes with the hypostatic union. Then it is both coherent with explanatory power and scope of interpreting such texts

@@RandomTheology I was raised in oneness, converteted to trinitarian in my 20’s and ultimately became Unitarian. Not by presupposing anything. In order to put myself in trinitarian shoes, which I have actually walked in. Your argument takes a presupposing that the trinity is true in order to see the hypostatic Union. 1. The trinity was not the original teaching and it was not until the first council of Nicaea in 325 ad that it was formally introduced. 2. The doctrine of the hypostatic Union was created to bring understanding to how Jesus was coequal, coeternal and consubstantial with the Father. In conclusion, one cannot point to the doctrine of the trinity as the foundation of the understanding the hypostatic Union when the latter was formed to understand the former. In my humble opinion. This is not logical or the basis of a sound defense for either the doctrine of the trinity or the hypostatic Union.

@@RandomTheology To qualify that the doctrine of the trinity was not the original teaching; see tertullian, who was a subordinationist. He believed that Jesus was a lesser divine being, not equal to the father but rather a subordinate to the father. I believe he was late second century. I would encourage you to check out the church father’s series of the podcast transfigured. Or give a listen to some of the material Dr Tuggy has on his podcast trinities. Also, Dr Steven Nemes has so great conversations specifically about the trinity and the diety of Christ.

Our Bible study are interactive😎

I also think it's really cool you saw that requires giving up immutability and impassibility, and your willingness to do that. These attributes along with simplicity are just not great, derived more from philosophical thinking than Scripture itself. Also, associating a will with a person not a nature, makes more intuitive, Scriptural and logical sense, than ascribing it to a more generic "nature." A nature can be non-personal in the abstract, but a person can never be non-personal.

I understand. I did mention C. Stephen Evan’s and Stephen T Davis work on Kenotic Christology elsewhere. I oscillate between Loke and Pawl’s views.

@@RandomTheology I really think Calvinism is such a strong hermeneutical guiding lens that it will push a person in certain directions even in Christology and other areas, and since I can't at all justify Calvinism from Scripture, it frees me from an obligation to "match up" in these other areas. True (Libertarian) free will for example (a free will that doesn't define "free" out of existence), is completely a dividing line in theology, because if it really does exist, it is completely polarizing in the importance God clearly puts on it. It affects how one will feel and think about such things as "impeccability," when one knows that being "forced" to do something by definition is less virtuous than something freely chosen as the good, thus we certainly cannot deny God and Christ true free will, as it would deny them maximal virtue, and make the whole description of multiple viable outcomes a virtual sham. Peace in Christ and thank you for responding, I have checked out Dr. Tim Pawl and Andrew Loke a bit more.

@@Dizerner "...associating a will with a person not a nature, makes more intuitive, Scriptural and logical sense, than ascribing it to a more generic "nature."" How would you respond to a charge of Christological monotheletism (on the one hand, if Christ must have one will because you think He is one person) or Christological Nestorianism (on the other hand, if Christ must be two persons because you think He has two wills)? Of course, these are not simply questions which arise within a Calvinist hermeneutic.

@@rhedrich3 Christ having one will is simply Biblical. He said "not my will," he did not say "not one of my will" or "not my wills." In that case, those who for whatever reason considered Christ having one will a heresy, are being complete silly bears that made up nonsense.

Can you explain how they are discredited?

Perhaps you have not engaged with the best scholarship. Even Joe Schmidt and Graham Oppy would not make such a strong claim as you. A more modest claim is the arguments are strong on both sides. But to say there is no strong case for theism whatsoever is a fantastic claim.

@@RandomTheology As your response was rather more measured than I might have expected (and I suspect those of your persuasion would think rather more than I deserved), I’ve taken a little time to expound the content of my comment but first after commenting on your response. Engaging with ‘the best scholarship’ is irrelevant for two reasons. First, classifying what counts as ‘best scholarship’ is an arbitrary exercise which could be skewed to support any pre-existing bias. Second, if the ‘best scholarship’ were selected from a suitably comprehensive and representative body of expertise it would be revealed that within such a selection of ‘best scholarship’ there are competing and conflicting views in respect of the validity and merit of the specific arguments. That’s why it’s irrelevant. I don’t claim to know to what degree those who don’t believe in a deity might agree or disagree with my comments but that is neither of interest nor concern to me. I prefer to think about matters for myself and then draw my own conclusions based on analysis predicated on my knowledge and understanding. I am well of aware of scholarship in this arena about which I consider it appropriate to be knowledgeable but not obliged to be subservient. I do not accept there are strong arguments on both sides. In my view there are no credible arguments for the existence of god(s) but strong and persuasive arguments bordering on overwhelming that god is a human invention. I can articulate the case for god as a human invention but it is not relevant here as my comment was about dismissing the value of the specific arguments you listed so I will focus on that aspect. I can articulate the case undermining the credibility for the existence of god in respect of each argument you listed but this is not necessary. It is not necessary because instead I will explain the fundamental weakness inherent in all of these arguments which renders all of them intellectually worthless as a proof for the existence of god. Hence it is not necessary to address each specific argument (at least in this comment). In order to assess the validity of any existentially related argument it is necessary to identify and specify domain of applicability in which the argument functions. Broadly speaking in this context there are two core and fundamentally distinct domains of applicability in which such arguments resides - one domain is that of the reality in which we find ourselves embedded and the other domain is that of conceptual construction from spawned from the human mind. What may loosely be referred to as ‘real world’ arguments about what actually exists reside in the former domain whereas philosophical arguments reside in the latter. It is a fact of historical experience that ‘real world’ arguments can only be considered valid if they can be and have been confirmed (as far as appropriate and possible) by objective evaluation of verifiable evidence. This is the foundation of the entire modern world as mankind has intellectually progressed over the millennia by transitioning from a potpourri of mythology based explanations to a unified coherent corpus of evidence based explanations. Philosophical arguments constructed to reflect or represent anything beyond the human mind by definition cannot claim to do with an objective basis since they are conceptual constructions of the human mind. As such they are without any means of being able to verify that they actually can and do represent and reflect any external correlates beyond the human mind. Were they able to do so then such arguments would no longer be in the domain of philosophy but would be in the domain of science and be subject to the objective rigour of verification science requires. Philosophical arguments therefore do not and cannot have any valid authority or credibility in claiming to reflect or represent that which exists outside of the human mind. Therefore they have no validity in claiming rationally credible justification for the existence of god. However since god itself is a human conceptual construct philosophical arguments claiming to prove the existence of god can be appropriate and valid as they all are within and governed by the criteria of shared domain of conceptual constructs of philosophy. In this domain proof merely consists of arranging and manipulating various conceptual constructions in various internally consistent ways such that they yield a valid conceptually specified conclusion adhering to arbitrary defined rules. However such arguments as a proof for the existence of god are intellectually worthless because they have strayed beyond their own domain of applicability in claiming to prove something with criteria applicable to one domain that requires proof with criteria applicable to a different domain. It is a form of category error. The very fact the basis of philosophical argument is conceptual construction has inevitably resulted in a competing, conflicting and incompatible mishmash of philosophical (and theological) views because is an intellectual free for all without any objective arbiter to confirm validity. They are all grounded in arbitrary human conceptual constructions none of which can be tested for verification. And since they can’t be tested they also cannot be disproved. This is why apologists are so found of metaphysical arguments (such as the ones you listed) because they are safe from refutation. But what makes them safe from refutation also makes them intellectually worthless as valid claims for describing anything beyond the human mind. Taking such arguments seriously is just a manifestation of intellectual and psychological immaturity in failing to move beyond the legacy of an anthropocentric vanity from ancient times when mankind was deemed to occupy a special and central place of a deity created (in their primitive idea of what was) the universe. In such a simplistically naive view of the world it would have been natural to treat conceptual philosophical arguments as a valid way to understand aspects and the very nature of the world. Subsequently the development of science and advances in critical thinking skills have put an end to that. So the above is the explanation underpinning the reason why my original comment summarily dismissed the credibility of the arguments you listed. I stand by what I wrote.

@@turnip1744 See my generic answer to RandomTheology why they are discredited. If you are interested in specific refutation of the various arguments do some research on the net as there are numerous explanations to be found.

@@coniferviveur3788 You say a whole lot without adding any meaning or value.

It is not monetized nor will be. The gospel must go forth freely to everyone

If your god "wouldn't be God without his "other half'" as you have stated then that means your god is dependent on something other than himself. And if he's dependent on anything, whatever he's dependent on is greater than him. So if he's dependent on his "other half" than that other half would be greater than god himself. Therefore, in this scheme, "heavenly mother" is greater than god.

Agreed. That is the plan for a future video. But here is a slightly different lecture. Notes are in the video description: czcams.com/video/nLLT8iHkXJA/video.htmlsi=paq2WWLYYs-gMl7Z

Lord willing more will be posted. In the meantime, review some of Brother RC’s old videos on Paul Kaiser’s channel. czcams.com/video/7X4eFYgoM3k/video.htmlsi=sDwiaoIduDf2U82V