1 Catholic Chad Defends the Trinity Against Muslim and Protestant Scholars

[@drstevennemes]

“Nemes is not a Protestant.” Which reformer claimed for himself the right to decide what counts as Protestant and what doesn’t? “The reformers all believed in the Trinity.” Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli did. Michael Servetus, Faustus Socinus, and Ferenc David did not. “Those guys don’t count.” Why not? “The Protestant churches all denounced unitarianism as a heresy.” The Polish brethren and the Unitarian church in Transylvania did no such thing. “Those churches don’t count.” Why not? “Because they don’t believe in the Trinity!” Who is the Protestant Pope who decides what Protestants have to believe in order to be Protestant? “The historic Protestant churches all affirmed the trinity.” Some of them, and some of them didn’t. And of the ones that did, some of them became liberal and produced many theologians who did _not_ affirm the trinity. I am in this liberal Protestant tradition. “Liberal Protestantism isn’t Protestantism.” That’s like saying poodles aren’t dogs because they aren’t beagles. Just become Roman Catholics if you want a Pope who decides what people can believe and what they can’t! If you don’t want a Pope, then be intellectually honest and allow room for debate and disagreement. In any case, I argue for a specific revisionist conception of the trinity in my book _Trinity and Incarnation: A Post-Catholic Theology_ , ch. 5. So if a unitarian is a person who does not believe in the trinity in any sense, then I am _not_ a unitarian.

[@travispelletier3352]

"then be intellectually honest" Accusing people of intellectual dishonesty isn't the best strategy for winning converts. But since you've brought us to that level: intellectual honesty for anyone who accepts scriptural authority would lead to affirming the full deity of Christ. Also, you don't need a pope to understand the definition of a term (i.e., Protestant) and realize that someone (i.e., Steven Nemes) falls outside it. That's a weird error that some (but thankfully not all) Catholic apologists make. As you well know, for almost all our beliefs, we can have very good reason to think X even if we don't have absolute certainty about X. I can know that the earth is round even if the pope hasn't declared it, and I can know that you aren't a protestant even if the pope hasn't declared it. Edit: And once again, for any Catholics reading this, Nemes knows that there were many Arian Catholic churches for centuries - Catholic churches and Bishops who denied the full deity of Christ. So if the mere presence of counterexamples means that one's confessions mean nothing, then you have to affirm that one can be Arian and Catholic.

[@drstevennemes]

@@travispelletier3352 There is no reason (excerpt perhaps for your religious bias) for you not to admit non-trinitarians such as Servetus, Socinus, David, Paleologus, and so on as Protestants. There is no reason why only Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and their associates count as Protestant.

[@travispelletier3352]

@@drstevennemes Yeah, there is a historical reason. But the accusation of bias (like the accusation of intellectual dishonesty you made in your other comment) is just another ad hominem instead of an argument. Not a great look. As you know, the protestant movement broke away from the Roman church as a protestation against particular perceived accretions, but not as a movement away from Catholicism as such. Calvin famously said that he was more Catholic than the Romanists were. As such, protestants quickly created confessional documents and affirmed much of Catholic teaching while disagreeing in a few key areas, such as concerning the unique infallibility of scripture, of salvation by faith alone, and so on, but this movement explicitly remained in union with Catholics on various issues such as the deity of Christ and so on. In time, there has been further development such that there are a body of recognized churches that recognized not only themselves but each other as "protestants," while rejecting the claims of other heretical groups which stepped not only outside what the protestants wanted to reform, but also stepped outside what the reformers held firmly in union with the Catholic church. As such, these heretics are not protestant and are not Christians. This is a simple matter of observing the historical development of protestant denominations, and realizing that among the many things they share, they also all agree that Unitarians are out.

[@kylecityy]

@@drstevennemes this assumes that Protestants can't know what is heresy without the pope or an infallible dogma. Edit: Do you believe any beliefs can be theoretically heretical? If so what basis do you decide that?

[@drstevennemes]

@@kylecityy No.

[@sugami82]

Did Dr Khalil Andani pull out the old Dawah script "Jesus never said, I am God worship me."? I thought he was better than that. 🤨

[@CalledCall]

well he didn't

[@MOLife-mu6zx]

​@@CalledCall He accepted worship as God

[@MOLife-mu6zx]

1:04:32 bookmark

[@CalledCall]

@@MOLife-mu6zx but he didn't order the man to worchip him as well

[@MOLife-mu6zx]

@CalledCall He said "unless you believe that I Am He, you will die in your sins"

[@kylecityy]

Come on cameron, you know traditional Protestants affirm the trinity. Thats like saying ecclesialist(the church being infallible traditions) includes mormons. Its wrong to include heretical views in both protestantism vs. ecclesialist christian traditions when using the umbrella terms, so whyd you do it on the protestant side?

[@al-kimiya6962]

"Traditional Protestant" lol, that's an oxymoron, Protestantism is a breakaway from Tradition.

[@kylecityy]

@al-kimiya6962 it isn't. The protestant movement was a renewal and reforming plea to bring back historical and traditional doctrines of the early church and get rid of the unapostolic accretion that had form. It was not a resurrection of the church. The reformers were clear the church never died. and they appealed and used the early church figrures and creeds many times for doctrine. One example the reformers improved on bringing back traditional concepts that catholics now do is the usage of the recieving of the Eucharist to the laity more often in church service. Before the reformation, the laity often didn't receive the sacrament often, once a year, if that.

[@kylecityy]

@al-kimiya6962 the reformation was a renewal and a plea to go back to historic church doctrines. Because non historical doctrines developed in Roman catholicism. The reformers were clear it was not a resurrection but a reforming within the church, the church always existed. They also used early church fathers and creeds to justify their beliefs. Its very unfair when you misrepresent their views here

[@al-kimiya6962]

@@kylecityy you don't understand the term "Tradition" then, Tradition cannot be rediscovered, it has to be passed down. Protestants may have appealed to early church fathers to corroborate the doctrines they affirm but they did not deem them as a body of religious or interpretative authority.

[@newglof9558]

​@@al-kimiya6962was the 20th century patristic ressourcement in thr Catholic Church also a break from tradition too? By your logic, it should be. I'm Catholic but this dismissiveness Catholics have toward Protestantism is more polemical than substantive.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

Those who deny the Trinity are not Christian or Protestant.

[@LoveAndLiberty02]

Who says denying God is three persons means a follower of Jesus is not a Christian? Not Jesus and the apostles. They didn't teach that God is three persons. John 20:31 says he who believes Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God will have eternal life.... nothing about God being three persons.

[@Fasolislithuan]

@@bradleymarshall5489 Who in protestantism determine who is protestant?

[@drstevennemes]

Michael Servetus, Faustus Socinus, and Ferenc David were Protestants as much as Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli, and they did not believe in the Trinity. So you are wrong.

[@andys3035]

​@@LoveAndLiberty02the church that Christ established, that's who.

[@anthonypalo8191]

@@LoveAndLiberty02 Apostle Thomas literally said "my Lord and my God", and the Word was with God and the Lord was God.. those are in the Gospels and the Gospel is what the Apostle taught. you cannot cherry pick which verse you will believe and disregard other verses. the Bible is a whole.

[@calebharmon7404]

Wait who was the Protestant? Surely not Dr. Nemes.

[@drstevennemes]

I am a Protestant.

[@padraicmkelly]

@@drstevennemes what would you think of this explanation? The Trinity: God is infinite unconditional unselfish love. By His very existence for all eternity He always begets His complete infinite knowledge of Himself and that only begotten infinite knowledge is an infinite eternal Fruit/Son of His being. God by His nature loves goodness and so the Father loves the Son with infinite love and the Son loves the Father with infinite love and that two way infinite love is the Holy Spirit.

[@padraicmkelly]

it implies too that the Last Adam was tempted to take down God's divine Fruit of Knowledge (Himself) from the New Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Jesus on the Cross) on Calvary.

[@TheOtherCaleb]

@@drstevennemes You deny the creeds, the unanimous consent of tradition, and the 5 solae as classically understood. You are not a protestant.

[@blessedGod-p9h]

​@@drstevennemesyou are not a Christian talk less of being protestant

[@ElasticGiraffe]

"A Roman Catholic with an Orthodox view of the Trinity debates a Muslim and a Protestant with a non-Christian view of the Trinity" 🤔

[@easternRomanOrthodox]

☦️I hardly heard any talk about faith & tradition, all of it is basically philosophical mambo-jumbo & mental gymnastics, which they learned from the Greek philosophers of the pagans, who were condemned & demolished by all Church fathers from the beginning. Western "Christians" are mostly despicable people who impose the tradition of the polytheist pagans upon our faith & Scriptures, which is the worst thing in God's eye who will punish them for that abomination. We need this convoluted pagan metaphysics to explain our faith...unbelievable.

[@newglof9558]

Basically

[@easternRomanOrthodox]

☦️The Orthodox view is the view of traditional Catholics too. You don't know the difference between them & the 1 man pagan Aristotelian cult of Thomists?

[@roeseldelgado]

how insane are you?

[@easternRomanOrthodox]

@@roeseldelgado Projecting, after I exposed your demonic channel?

[@paqali6728]

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all share the same divine essence. Since the divine essence includes aseity, each Person possesses aseity fully. The distinction between the Persons pertains to their relations, not their essence. This is the basis of the Church's teaching that all three Persons are co-equal and co-eternal.

[@platospaghetti]

I find it interesting that a catholic defends a non-catholic view of the trinity against a protestant with a non-protestant view of the trinity 😂 nonetheless, I respect them both!

[@KnightFel]

lol he’s not a Protestant nor a Christian.

[@nholmes86]

Some Protestants believe in trinity tho…but that’s is why, Protestant exists to give other poirt3s os view

[@easternRomanOrthodox]

☦️I find it funny that clowns like you, who don't understand the difference between traditional Catholics & a the pagan 1 man cult of Thomists, exist in this world...

[@john832-w1e]

@@nholmes86 generally protestants refer to christians if someone rejects the trinity and believes jesus is not equal to god then they are not protestant nor christian in the historical sense of the words

[@SlaveofGod777]

in this debate, he did defend the Catholic belief of the Trinity as well he defended Monarchichal view in it's general form, which is accepted by all Catholic school of thoughts (as Wagner himself said), far from social trinitarian error by which protestants like WLC endorsed

[@mc07]

Protestant? Excuse me, but the Protestant view is that God is triune.

[@bradleymarshall5489]

exactly. IDK why he would say that.

[@furtherformore]

A Protestant is one who denies the authority of the Catholic and Eastern church. The Trinity is in fact a 4th century doctrine decreed by Catholic bishops. An adherence to it is foreign to the Scriptures.

[@drstevennemes]

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli were not the only Protestants. Michael Servetus, Faustus Socinus, and Ferenc David were also Protestants, and they did not believe in the Trinity. The unitarians formed churches of their own, just as the Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists did. I am not the same kind of Protestant as you, but that doesn’t mean that I am not a Protestant at all.

[@mc07]

@@drstevennemes unitarians adhere to a heretical view of God. Protestants are aligned with the Nicene Creed.

[@tionarry]

​@@drstevennemes would you debate Sam Shamoun on your Unitarian doctrine?

[@pendletondrew]

“Your interpretation is logically invalid because I can interpret it differently.”

[@nicbentulan]

Since when is Trinity not accepted by mainstream Christians namely Catholic Orthodox Protestant?

[@simonocampo]

Josh is an absolute beast. And Andani and Nemes raised very interesting and advanced objections, and I absolutely enjoyed them! This dialogue is fascinating.

[@JW-xi4yu]

You used the word "Protestant" like it refers to some heretics.

[@piouspapist]

All Protestants are heretics by definition.

[@hackbounties114]

Protestants are heretics.

[@Seanph25]

You might want to sit down for this…

[@AverageGospelEnjoyer]

@@Seanph25 lmao, so true

[@JW-xi4yu]

@@Seanph25 Are you one of those Catholic or Orthodox fundamentalists?

[@TheOtherCaleb]

Calling Nemes a protestant is an incredibly egregious mistake. You couldn’t find any orthodox Lutheran, Anglican, Reformed, Methodist, Baptist, non-denom, or even anabaptist scholar? You’ve lost the plot, Cameron.

[@ZenIslam19]

Unitarians are also protesting the tradition.

[@KnightFel]

@@ZenIslam19they aren’t Protestant, they aren’t even Christians.

[@drstevennemes]

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli were not the only Reformers. Michael Servetus, Faustus Socinus, and Ferenc David were also Reformers, and they did not believe in the Trinity. There were also non-trinitarian anabaptists. I am not the same kind of Protestant as you, but that doesn’t mean that I am not a Protestant at all.

[@TheOtherCaleb]

@@drstevennemes Protestantism affirms the creeds. I couldn’t care less if some unitarians also diverged from Rome in the 16th century.

[@piouspapist]

Sure you can find a "classical Protestant" and they have slightly better theology but they are all heretics and dissenters at the root .

[@TennisFreakHD]

Thank you Joshua Sijuwade for stepping in two days in a row. This stream today is especially needed against people who attack Christian doctrine!

[@BenM61]

Yeah, Christian doctrines which were imposed by emperors and by “particular faction of Christian theology which anathematizes and condemns to hell and excommunicates and calls you a heretic.”

[@WaterMelon-Cat]

Can you stop using “Protestant” it is a buzzword. What is a Protestant? Is he a Lutheran or Anglican ? Both could easily affirm a Thomistic DS Trinity. Is he a “Protestant” who denies the ecumenical creeds and in essence rejects Christianity and is hence not a Protestant anyways.

[@robertlaprime6203]

That’s a weird standard to call someone a a non Christian. All Protestants reject some ecumenical councils. Some will either deny they are ecumenical and others will say scripture has authority over the councils and their personal interpretation of scripture conflicts with the councils so they will reject it.

[@carakerr4081]

Non Catholic Christian may be more accurate

[@mc07]

@@robertlaprime6203Protestants do not deny the trinity.

[@newglof9558]

I'm a Catholic so I have no dog in the fight. With that said, "Protestant" is more useful as a historical category (as well as the churches descended from the Reformation, Protestation of Speyer) than a catch-all theological one. To be a Protestant means to have a church directly descended from those that resulted from the Reformation/Protestation at Speyer (namely Lutheran but also Calvinist and Anglican). Anabaptists, modern evangelicals, post-second Great Awakening sects and unitarians are not Protestants in my mind, which is probably where I differ from many Catholics. Nemes is a unitarian and thus is precluded from being a Protestant. Maybe he was one at one point, but he is not one now.

[@robertlaprime6203]

@mc07 Says who? The only infallible rule of faith for protestants is scripture so if someone denies the trinity on the basis of scripture then why are they no longer protestant? As a Catholic whether or not you believe Catholicism is true we can confidently say which beliefs are Catholic and which aren’t because we have explicitly definitive statements from the magisterium. Protestants don’t have anywhere they can go to except scripture and they might appeal to traditional interpretations and councils but even those who do that will admit that these interpretations and councils are not infallible and scripture is superior. Someone can deny the trinity and still hold to the five solas of the reformation.

[@travispelletier3352]

Nemes is not a valid representative of Protestantism, nor is he defending a Protestant position in this video. It would be like having Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi on here defending pro-choice views against a protestant, and titling it: "Protestant defends the sanctity of life against Catholics." Technically true? Sure, but wildly disingenuous framing. But any way to make Protestants look bad is fine I guess? Who cares about intellectual honesty. Nemes's "liberal Protestantism" is a position that denies a central tenet of all major historic Protestant positions. It isn't Protestantism any more than Pelosi's views on Abortion are "Catholic."

[@theticoboy]

As a Catholic I would generally agree with this statement. I would add I haven’t listened to this in its entirety yet. Also, to be balanced, it is a bit difficult to define who is and isn’t a Protestant since they do have at times significant differences. But if we use the standard classical Protestant denominations (which is typically what most people think of that term) then yes I agree.

[@_JRA_]

He doesn't care about that. He cares about the views. 🤷

[@John_Six_Twenty-Nine]

It's no biggy anyway. For example 'there are many ways to arrive at God', and 'Panchammama' worship are both valid Catholic positions, since those are the beliefs of their pontiff, who presumably is a valid Catholic

[@drstevennemes]

There is no reason to limit “Protestantism” to the particular ecclesial communities you find representative.

[@Fasolislithuan]

Travis, Nemes is the perfect example of protestantism. At the end the only infallible rule is the personal interpretation of the Scriptures so his position it's so legitime than the position of an anglican, a Lutheran or an evangelical that rejects ecumenical councils. That's the protestant paradigm, so no one can appropriate the protestant identity in protestantism.

[@emmanueladedeji3335]

Get a grip, incredibly disingenuous. Branding a unitarian as protestant is disgusting and is really telling of who you are. Seriously, fear the Lord.

[@drstevennemes]

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli were not the only Protestants. Michael Servetus, Faustus Socinus, and Ferenc David were also reformers during the same era, and they did not believe in the Trinity. I am not the same kind of Protestant as you, but that doesn’t mean that I am not a Protestant at all.

[@emmanueladedeji3335]

@@drstevennemes Protestantism/Reform matters are an internal Christian discussion/critique, naturally. Meaning no offense, you’re completely outside of the faith by not professing the trinity. Thus I can’t legitimately consider you, or those you mentioned, as Protestants. I’m not sure what your specific position is, but I assume you do not even accept the Council of Nicea I?

[@drstevennemes]

​@@emmanueladedeji3335 I do not accept the premise that not professing the trinity puts me outside of the faith. There is no reason to think that. No, I do not accept Nicaea I. Neither did very many Christians in the Roman empire. There is nothing special about Nicaea I.

[@tesfayerobeletesfaye2480]

I didn't realize Nemes was such a strong advocate for Arianism in practice. It's disappointing. If Nemes is Arianism why do you introduce him as “Protestant“?

[@drstevennemes]

I am not an Arian.

[@tesfayerobeletesfaye2480]

@@drstevennemes May be a Muslim

[@floydthomas4195]

@@drstevennemes You are.

[@YeabsraAdeme]

ዶ/ር ዲቤቱ እንዴት ነበር? ሲጅዋዴ ዲፌንድ አርጓል?

[@k9leadstheway531]

Dang I've been watching Cameron a long time, seemed to be fair and nuanced but nemes being a protestant.... like cmon??? Unsubscribed.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

Why would you unsub for that? Cam clearly does not hold Dr. Nemes' views. Cam normally presents people how they wish to be presented, so he may have requested for it.

[@jobinkoshy8197]

What a misrepresentation capturing Christianity 👏 protestant👏

[@andre_theist]

Cameron rlly? I as a Protestant feel deeply offended by calling the heretic nemes a Protestant! There are 5 Solas, 2 of them are Solus Christus and Soli deo Glori. The Reformers clearly defined what they mean with that, only praying and praising in prayer The Trinity and not to Saints cause that would give them to much glory. He doesn’t believe in Soli deo Gloria and he does not in Solus Christus. I will deabbo you, I hope Ortlund or somebody else will criticise you, you laughable Person!

[@drstevennemes]

Martin Luther, John Calvin, and Ulrich Zwingli were not the only Reformers. Michael Servetus, Faustus Socinus, and Ferenc David were also Reformers, and they did not believe in the Trinity. I am not the same kind of Protestant as you, but that doesn’t mean that I am not a Protestant at all.

[@andre_theist]

@@drstevennemes of course you re not a protestant, if you re protestant then also Mormons, Mohammedans and Sinchonijs can call themselves Protestants, you dont believe in the definition of the reformers/ reformation concerning Soli deo Gloria and Solus Christus. You are just a heretic (not a reformer) like servetus

[@WaterMelon-Cat]

@@drstevennemes you are not a Christian, hence you are not a Protestant. Non Christian reformers, are not reformers lol. No Trinity no salvation, not Christianity.

[@FreeLevant-b1d]

That's an unfortunate title Cameron. My opinion is that you should change it and probably issue a clarification.

[@harvestcrops3983]

Lol, Protestants are Christians, Protestants are an extension of Islam at this point.

[@salibthaqil9408]

What I've understood from this up until the 1:28:30 mark: Dr. Sijuwade is saying that aseity is only extrinsic and not intrinsic when speaking about the relations of origins or the hypostatic (personal) existence of the Trinity. I mean to say that the Son and Spirit are said to derive their personal (hypostatic) existence from the Father. This means the Son and Spirit have their existence by relationship with the Father, its eternal and relational. What this means is that The Father has aseity when talking about the personal relations between each person of the Trinity. This means that the Father because he is unbegotten and his personal existence is uncaused is the only person with aseity, when speaking of the origins (relational origins/extrinsic) of the 3 persons. (He casues the other two persons timelessly, cause as source and not cause as brings about an effect in time) My question would be, wouldn't in terms of essence aseity be intrinsic? The essence has aseity by nature, and is self-existent, correct? From my understanding the essence is communicated to the Son and Spirit fully without derivation or separation, by nature and necessity. They (the 3 persons) fully participate in the divine essence I think Dr. Andani was trying to point out that the essence of God has aseity, and if the essence of God does have aseity as an intrinsic property, then the Son and Spirit would also have aseity. Is he saying this implies 3 gods because there are 3 persons that can be said to have aseity? Or put another way, because 3 persons possess the divine nature, and the divine nature has aseity, then there are 3 that possess aseity, not one. Wouldn't this be 3 gods? Now Dr. Sijuwade, as I can remember, has only argued that aseity is extrinsic (relational) as far as I can tell. That's where I'm at now. I think the point, the foundational point all this argumentation is grounded on is whether we assume God is Triune or not. If the divine nature is triune God can depend on his nature to be what he is. Said another way, God can depend on who he is to be what he is. If we assume he is not Triune, that he is one person with one essence, and this is the only way it can be, then it follows God cannot be Triune. I think both sides can be philosophically defended, but at the end of the day what do we believe God explained himself or showed himself to be. How can we be so sure about it? Their rigorous systems all rest on the foundation of faith, that is divine revelation. How do you analyze and measure divine revelation to make a determination of its truthfulness or falsehood? This entails there will be mystery, for if there was no mystery, why then did the divine revelation come, if not for guidance. What do you put your faith in? The prophet Muhammad's understanding of God and his interactions and teachings about him or Jesus the Messiah, and his interactions and teachings about God? Maybe you say neither, but we all put faith in something. If you made it this far thanks.

[@Jano342000]

I've felt like you for so many years. You're making a great point.

[@J_Nwachukwu]

I don't know if the intension of this title is to further divide protestants and catholics, but with the way it's worded, it sure is contributing to the division

[@Chris-Stockman]

You can safely ignore anyone who says Steven Nemes is a Protestant. He’s not even a Christian.

[@abdullahimusa9761]

1:09:02- 1:09:12- Dr. Sijuwade's view of aseity is simply paradoxical. One is not independent if they depend on another in any way, even if they depend on the negative property of another.

[@MrGustavier]

If being "a se" is reducible to being uncaused then any brute fact is "a se".

[@abdullahimusa9761]

Dr. Sijuwade is an incredibly formidable Christian philosopher. Respect!

[@john832-w1e]

idk if he thinks he is a protestant or not a defining characteristic of protestants is that they believe in sola scriptura however, he seems to ignore most of the new testament to make his point

[@andys3035]

I think Nemes appeal to his understanding of the biblical text is flawed on many levels. If Jesus is just a human who attains theosis and is deified at the resurrection, the idea of Him being called the creator and sustainer of all things (Colossians 1:16 & Hebrews 1:3) directly contradicts this view. Furthermore, Jesus shares the honor due to God, He shares the attributes, the names, deeds and throne of God. He is prayed to and omniscient (Matthew 18:20). This is why the early church took a stance against Arianism.

[@Jeem196]

Yeah he is clearly inferior to Arians who do not reject the Son’s pre existence. His version of Christology was held by nobody except the Ebionites. Whereas the Arians were the plurality in Germania, Spain, North Africa, and part of Anatolia for a notable period of history. The only non Trinitarianism view that makes even a semblance of coherency is Arianism, not adoptionism

[@andys3035]

​@@Jeem196thanks for chiming in Jeem, enjoy your channel brother.

[@AlonzoHarris235]

How do you know what the necessary properties are to be god?

[@andys3035]

@@AlonzoHarris235 certainly not a composed god with 2 right hands and a foot that is not anything like a foot or hands.

[@AlonzoHarris235]

@@andys3035 You can’t answer my question. How do you know what the necessary properties are to be god? Your bible interpretation completely relies on using the trinity to ‘prove’ the trinity. You can’t answer my question. You immediately start to deflect with misrepresentations because you can’t answer the question. The only one that affirms real physical body parts for his god are you. You believe the second person in the trinity has a physical behind right now.

[@carakerr4081]

There is no Catholic view here. Why is Catholic in the Title?

[@ElasticGiraffe]

"There is no Thomistic view here." fix'd

[@jeremias-serus]

To be clear, the standard Catholic model of the Trinity (the Augustino-Thomistic model) is not required by the Church to be the only Trinity model, it just happens to be the most taught and believed model. As with most of theology, the Church tells you where you can and can't go, not always specifically what you must believe. The Eastern Orthodox Christians who rejoined the Catholic Church in the 1600s-1900s were allowed to keep their Palamite model of the Trinity, the Magisterium agreed that it is well within the boundaries. There are a few other models of the Trinity that fit what must be held in regards to the Trinity in the Church. Personally, I am not yet sure if Dr Sijuwade's does perfectly fit all criteria, but assuming it does there would be no problem. Also it should be noted that Josh's model is basically between the Ante Nicene father's model and the current EO's view, so in my estimation it is fairly likely that it is orthodox.

[@SlaveofGod777]

@@jeremias-serus a legitimate Catholic Trinitarian view has to be intrinsically Monarchichal (as Wagner himself said), any other "trinitarian" religion like social "trinitarianism" was always rejected

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

Because Joshua is a Catholic lol Catholics also hold to the form of the Trinity Joshua presents

[@AbebaDamesa-wc7ls]

Who deny trinity in Protestant???? Protestant schoolers 😂😂😂 Even you if you want learn more about trinity come to protestant.

[@andrejuthe]

Andani is wrong in saying that it is problematic to begin with the conclusion and then found a framework that solve the problem as long as one can *justify* the framework. You can dream up a theory, it is as good as any other way of discovering a theory, what is crucial is if it can be justified by arguments and evidence.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Cameron, you should bring on Pat Flynn about all of this. My understanding of Flynn’s case for classical theism would be in tension with Dr Siduwade’s take on aseity (Flynn argues for a self-explanatory self-existent God as essential, without bruteness)

[@JW-xi4yu]

So are you actively against Protestantism now? Do you think it’s a heresy? We think we all want some elaborations from you, Cameron.

[@eskimo227]

The idea that Jesus is a creature is so unbiblical. I really don’t see how an honest person could read the Bible and come to that conclusion.

[@Mentat1231]

Both Col. 1:15 and Rev. 3:14 seem to call Jesus a creature.

[@kingcimtv4351]

@@Mentat1231The next verse in Col. directly contradicts that claim. “Firstborn” in that context refers to supremacy not ontology

[@Mentat1231]

@@kingcimtv4351 You can't be the firstborn of a group you don't belong to. Whether he is being called the supreme creation or the first creation (or both), he is being called a member of the group. And nothing in the next verse contradicts that.

[@kingcimtv4351]

@@Mentat1231 v.16 says “in Him all things were created…all things have been created through Him and for Him”. I see no reason to believe things can be created through you while you yourself are in that group. It’s a contradiction

[@Mentat1231]

@kingcimtv4351 When Paul is praising Timothy for his generous disposition at Phil. 2:20, is it a contradiction for him to say in verse 21 "for all seek their own interests"? Or is the exception of Timothy obvious (so obvious that many translations just add the word "others" so it says "all others seek their own")? Paul himself tells us that exceptions can be so obvious that they are left unsaid. Notice his quotation and application at 1 Cor. 15:27.

[@Thomas.apologia]

Great civil discussion between Andani and Sijuwade. I think Andani made some great points on aseity and Sijuwades intrinsicality criteria.

[@ToursPoitiers732]

But Josh pushed back and paraded brilliantly. I am not convinced by MT, but his performance against such great opponents was impressive. Respect for all of them

[@Kalypso24]

​@@ToursPoitiers732Out of curiosity, why aren't you convinced of MT

[@ToursPoitiers732]

@@Kalypso24 I am not sure about his distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic. I will wait for his papers to get a better understanding.

[@everettpeabody8024]

Steven Nemes is NOT a Protestant. You should know better

[@drstevennemes]

Yes I am.

[@everettpeabody8024]

@@drstevennemes Interesting. Which Protestant confession do you hold to?

[@WaterMelon-Cat]

Stupid slander video. You can not be a Protestant and deny the Trinity, you automatically forfeit the claim to any part of Christianity when you deny the Trinity. Lumping him in with a Muslim is ridiculous.

[@JB-xp6tg]

Why? What makes it essential?

[@QBlessed93]

Protestants don’t agree on anything within Protestantism. It’s everybody’s own interpretation against everybody else’s. There is no unity found in Protestantism. Everybody is called to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

[@newglof9558]

​​@JB-xp6tg ​if you deny the Trinity, you deny the Nicene Creed and there is no non-Nicene Christianity as far as I'm concerned Nemes is not a Protestant. Nemes is a Unitarian non-Christian

[@JB-xp6tg]

@@newglof9558"As far as I'm concerned." I guess that's my point. Sola Scriptura as an authority leaves everything up to one's interpretations. This guy just happens to read scripture differently than you. If the council of Nicea is a binding council, when do the councils stop in that function? It seems to be when a particular Protestant disagrees with it.

[@newglof9558]

​@@JB-xp6tgI'm a Catholic so I have no reason to defend Protestantism (and I probably differ from many Catholics on this). But I like words having definitions. If you have an idea of non-Nicene Christianity, I'd love to hear it and why it's Christianity

[@abdullahimusa9761]

I'm amazed Dr. Sijuwade says the God could be logically contingent yet in the same breath say the idea the God might or might have not existed is false.

[@westsi1]

After all these years, people still complicate the topic of Trinity. I’ll make it easy for you all: If God is like a Tree… Father = Vine Son = Branch Holy Spirit = Sap End of discussion.

[@orthochristos]

The monarchy has always been the view of the Eastern Orthodox Church since the beginning of the Church. It's interesting and hopeful, if I am honest, to see that some people in the West are discovering it even if it is this far down the road of Church history. It's the old and correct view.

[@faithfultheology]

Correct, this is what apostles taught

[@andys3035]

Amen ☦️

[@evanrojas2561]

Amen! ☦️🔥

[@platospaghetti]

Cameron I don't know if you chose the title in order to get clicks (which I totally understand), but it has become such a distraction that the points discussed is noe ignored. I hope this discussion continues, even on this channel, because I think this is one of the best topics to debate due to its importance. That being said, WLC vs Joshua? 👀

[@zekdom]

Time-stamp 3:33 - nominative and predicate 5:17 - relationally distinct, ontologically equal persons who have one divine nature.

[@seanrodrigues12]

Joshua, the simple problem with your model is that if the Son and Spirit are not the Father (which I agree), and the divinity of the Father entails being fundamental, then how are they not also fundamental (if divinity entails fundamentality). My reply would be that they are consubstantial. So the same substance has the same properties, including fundamentality. So with respect to substance all three are fundamental. This avoids positing two different definitions for divinity and divine nature, one that includes fundamentality and one that does not, which seems necessary in your model. What's the point of "divine nature" if it’s not fundamental, that seems...fundamental to the definition. So yes, I'd rather make the "relative identity" move, as you call it. The difference IS the relation. So a (Father) is b (Divine Substance/Nature) and c (son) is also b with respect to substance. By transitivity we get a is c, but with relation to substance. That is, the Father and the Son are the same divine Substance/Nature, we agree. They are only different in the relations which are necessarily opposed. Like the egg cannot also be the hen that laid it. So the Father cannot also be a Son without first ceasing to be the Father, and the terms are non-collaspsible even when consubstantial, and bearing in mind that cobsubstantiality in every other case must entail a collapse of terms. If the chicken and the egg it laid were consubstantial, they could only be one or the other, not both. It must be the case that this is not entialed with the Divine Nature. Either that, or Trinitarianism if not possible.

[@luisr5577]

Thank God I stopped supporting this channel. What historical Protestant Church is Nemes representing?

[@drstevennemes]

There were Unitarian churches in Poland and Transylvania. The Transylvanian church still exists to the present day.

[@travispelletier3352]

@@drstevennemes And there were many Arian Catholic churches, especially among Germanic Churches as late as the 7th century. Do you think one can validly be Catholic and Arian simply because we can find a few historical examples?

[@drstevennemes]

@@travispelletier3352 Yes, the Arians were as much catholics as the Nicenes. Irenaeus, Tertullian, Novatian, and the like were catholics (as opposed to gnostics), though they were not Nicene trinitarians.

[@jeremias-serus]

Why are historical forms of Protestantism the only allowed forms of Protestantism? Who made you God of defining Protestantism? Besides, if Protestants really truly cared about being faithful to historical Protestantism, they would all look much more Catholic as all of the original Protestant reformers believed in the Marian doctrines and much else. Yet 99.9% of Protestants will say "oh but the reformers and original Protestants were just mistaken about those Catholic things, we still had more to reform after them giving us our pure Protestantism we have now," so why can't a Unitarian Protestant do the same? Protestantism boils down to anyone being a Christian if they accept the Bible and their interpretation of Scripture is at least possible. Unitarian Christianity is possible within Scripture (not provable, not disprovable), so it's fair game

[@luisr5577]

@@jeremias-serus You’re right; they may be considered Christians, but they wouldn’t represent the historical Protestant Churches. Simple as that. Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, Sedevacantists, Palmarians, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and others all claim to be the true Catholic Church, but nominally, we need to distinguish each from the others

[@dfwherbie8814]

Why does he say “obedience” like that…?

[@ZenpaiV]

“Catholic Chad defends trinity against Protestant” Making Catholics out to be superior isn’t a very inclusive look for your channel.

[@jeremias-serus]

I don't see anything wrong with it. Protestants can and frequently do have very different theologies than the 5-6 forms of the trinity that various ancient Christians groups can accept while still being orthodox. WLC is one that comes to mind. Not to mention Nemes is a Protestant anyway, there's tons of unitarian Protestants. The Chad part is pretty clear to me, most Protestants and all ancient Christians and Cameron as well are trinitarians, and muslims are unitarian and Nemes is a unitarian Protestant. So it's trinitarianism (which we like here, so chad) vs. unitarianism.

[@newglof9558]

He's not making Catholics look superior. He's making Trinitarianism look superior. And it is superior to unitarianism, since it is true.

[@ora_et_labora1095]

”Defends the Trinity against Protestant scholar” what the hell happened to this channel? Read up on Lutheranism (you know the first successful reformers) and they agree with exactly everything about the Trinity with the Romans. Even the same model, compared to the EO. Unfollow.

[@drstevennemes]

Lutherans were not the only Reformers.

[@ElasticGiraffe]

​@@drstevennemesWhich reformers do you have in mind? The Sozzinis?

[@hackbounties114]

@@drstevennemes You don't get the Reformation without Luther though.

[@ora_et_labora1095]

@@drstevennemes Did you see the word ”successful”?

[@Reluctant.Unitarian.Preexister]

1:00:45 Andani gently confronts Sijuwade’s looking for a way to establish aseity as non essential to God’s divinity 1:15:00 omniscience is _essential_ *intrinsic* property; aseity is _essential_ *extrinsic* property 1:26:50 aseity is a description of the mode of the Father 1:28:30 no logically possible world that the Son doesn’t love the Father

[@ethiopicmiaphysite5527]

we can add an illustration for the simple theory of intrinsicality solution. Consider Adam (The first man) he has the property of Being ungenerated from a human although all subsequent humans after him are all generated from a human. only he has the property of being ungenerated from another human. does that mean he got a different intrinsic ontology ? another essence? and that other humans are of different nature? of course not. and that is because him being ungenerated from another human is an extrinsic property he has in virtue of a negative property (the absence of a human cause) .

[@meamisano]

did NOT want this to end!

[@nholmes86]

What the heck just happened here ??? Once you believe in Jesus there’s no denying the trinity..otherwise you don’t know what it means .

[@abdullahimusa9761]

1:28:40- pace Dr. Sijuwade, it is logically conceivable that there is a possible world where the Father is not loved by the Son thereby decoupling the attribute of being loved from His existence thereby reinststing Dr. Andani's objection. Also, how on earth can a property be both essential and extrinsic? I reject this, because for a quality to be essential, it must be intrinsic by definition. Any extrinsic quality is not essential. I am essentially a rational animal but not a son for Adam did not have a father yet shares the same essence of humanity of mine.

[@blamtasticful]

Nemes idea of Jesus having derivative divinity is interesting to me; when I was a Christians I was Charismatic/Pentecostal and I was taught that Jesus powers in the NT was the result of the HS not because Jesus knew everything in the way God the Father did. We subscribed to Kenotic Christology, but we still believed Jesus was fully God.

[@osmansaid4601]

When christian opens his mouth they redefine all words.

[@floydthomas4195]

Cameron totally fumbled the title. Calling Nemes a Christian let alone a protestant is egregious.

[@examinetruth5392]

Khalil's little remark that the idea that existence (esse) and essence (essentia) are identical in God was invented by Muslim philosophers is absolutely laughable. It's as if he’s conveniently ignoring the writings of St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Boethius, St. John Damascene etc. Just have a look at what they say in their works on the Trinity or in their commentaries about the name of God as "I Am that I Am" and how it relates to existence and essence 😉

[@ToursPoitiers732]

He left out to mention that a second time. he represents islamic philosophy as the historical foundation of the kalam argument. Truth is, it was a Christian philosopher of the 6th century, John philoponus, who is the historical founder of that argument. He was a Coptic Christian. Dear Professor Khalil, please clarify that.

[@borneandayak6725]

John Philoponus (490-570 AD).

[@KhalilAndani]

Aquinas and the Scholastics get the notion of essence and existence from Latin translations of Ibn Sina. They did not get those ideas from Augustine. Yes divine simplicity goes back before Ibn Sina to the Church Fathers, but I am speaking particularly about the concepts of existence and essence and these being the same in God.

[@KhalilAndani]

Among the most influential philosophical doctrines of Arabic origin is the distinction between essence (māhiyya, essentia) and existence (wujūd, ens), which the Latin West got to know from Avicenna’s Metaphysics, chapters I.5 and V.1-2. The distinction was very influential historically: it found adherents among philosophers and theologians of the Arabic, Hebrew and Latin cultures. The essence-existence distinction was used by Avicenna in several metaphysical contexts, i.e., in the discussion of primary concepts, of universals and of the first cause. The following presentation focuses on the context of universals. Avicenna’s core idea was to differentiate between two components of universals: essence and universality. The essence of “horseness”, to use Avicenna’s example (Metaphysics V.1), is in itself neither universal nor particular. Only existence, which in itself is distinct from essence, adds universality or particularity, depending upon whether “horseness” exists in the mind, that is, as a universal, or in the exernal world, that is, as a particular. In some of his writings, Avicenna emphasizes that there is universality only if the essence is found in several objects in the external world (Marmura 1979, 49). Thomas Aquinas adopts Avicenna’s distinction already in his early On Being and Essence (De ente et essentia IV). Essence can be considered either in itself or with respect to its existence in the soul or in the particular things. Universality and particularity are accidents of essence, which in itself is neither universal nor particular. Thomas Aquins adopts the expression “accidents of essence” from Averroes (Comm. magnum Metaph. IV.3). The universal, according to Thomas, is a natura communis, which has existence only in the intellect. Individuals are essences individuated by matter with quantitative dimensions, but only at the time of their origin; later individuation is due to the form. In later writings, Thomas develops his concept of essence and existence so that existence is that which actualizes essence (Summa theol. Ia q. 3 a. 4) (Wippel 1990; Black 1999). plato.stanford.edu/entries/arabic-islamic-influence/#EssExiUniInd

[@LiamTorres-g4w]

I'm sorry but anyone with a small knowledge in Islamic philosophy knows that the distinction between existence and essence was first stablishwd explicetely by Avicenna. Sure, you may say there was other philosophers who anticipated it, but didn't stablish it explicetely.

[@andrejuthe]

Andani fails to distinguish between extrinsic properties that are essential to an object and those that are not, as well as intrinsic properties that are essential to an object and those that are not. It might sound strange that there are extrinsic properties that are essential to an object, but that vanishes when one realizes that extrinsic is a relational property and nothing per se dictates that relational properties are non-essential. Aseity is an essential property of the Father, yet since it is a relational property it is extrinsic.

[@KhalilAndani]

If aseity is extrinsic then God is ase due to something other than God, which makes Him dependent

[@MarkPatmos]

Aseity might depend on God having always been in existence and maintaining His powers throughout eternity

[@J.repent]

​​@@KhalilAndani I'm not quite sure of Dr sijuwades position fully, but I do believe Dr Beau Branson would affirm that aseity is both intrinsic and extrinsic in a different sense. It's intrinsic to the hypostatic property of the father being uncaused but extrinsic to the essence. In eastern Orthodox theology they lean more towards platonic and neoplatonic metaphysics the analogically describe the essence of God. The essence of God does not have an independent subsistence what exists as a thing possessed by the persons. It's not contingent because in neither has a beginning nor separate existence from the persons.

[@andrejuthe]

@@KhalilAndani It is important to distinguish between "logical dependence" and "ontological dependence" it's only the latter that is a problem for the concept of God. A relational property like "being a son of a father" is of course dependent on there being a father. God is of course logically dependent on himself and his nature, but that is no problem. The difference between intrinsic and extrinsic is that the latter is a relational predicate, but what relation is an open question. A modal relational property like "y not dependent on any x nor any possible x" where x is any other entity than y, entails a *logical dependence* on the fact that no other entity stand in a supportive relation to y. However, that is a logical dependence not a ontological dependence. Let say, I have the essential extrinsic property that: "Being a father of x", then in all possible worlds, I am a father of x and me having that property is logically dependent on x but I am not *ontologically* dependent on x. Hence, aseity is a relational property but does not make God ontologically dependent on something.

[@KhalilAndani]

@@andrejuthe there must be an ontological basis for logical dependence

[@Snowforest60]

the more i watch these philosophers get stumpedby basic questions the more i realise philosphy might just be a game of words nothing more.

[@highlander548]

Dr Sijuwade is not giving credit to Dr Beau. He's even using the same slides as Dr Beau in his presentations on the Monarchia of the Father. Also, Dr Beau popularised this view on the internet, and not dr Sijuwade. Last discussion they had together Dr Sijuwade ate up all the time and Dr Beau barely spoke. Lastly, you cannot be a Catholic and defend and Orthodox view of the Trinity, meanwhile uplholding other Catholic errors such as absolute divine simplicity and Filioque. This is just a complete schizophrenia. Does dr Sijuwade as Catholic affirm Creed in its Catholic form, i.e. filioque? How can he still be a Catholic if he doesn't? If he does, that alone completely undermines Monarchia of the Father.

[@NickNorelli]

Hey Cameron, are you using Ecamm Live for your streaming software? Just curious because your streams always look so clean and professional.

[@blessedGod-p9h]

This is clickbait garbage this guy is not protestant

[@shawnjohansen2022]

Channel is mainly clickbait now. That's why every second video is about demons and exorcism. Gotta farm those Catholic clicks

[@thehumanjesus]

Joshua, do you agree with Bauckham, Hurtado that Paul “split the Shema” that is, Jesus is included (not added) to the Shema (Deut 6:4; cp. 1Cor 8:6)? If yes, how does that align with your monarchical view of the Trinity, I.e., only the Father is numerically “the one God”?

[@YaksoHD]

I thought Dr. Joshua Sijuwade was apart of the Eastern Orthodox Church? Is he apart of the Eastern Catholic Church in communion with Rome or a Roman Catholic? Could someone in the comments clarify this for me?

[@faithfultheology]

I don't think he has said he studies in philosophical theology, so he definitely defends the church of East but which one hasn't said

[@YaksoHD]

@@faithfultheology Okay, it seems to me that he also defends the Papacy so I would assume from that he is a Eastern Catholic. Thank you for clarification

[@faithfultheology]

@YaksoHD i was a unitarian forever, and this past yr accepted the orthodox model of trinity . I reject protestantism wholeheartedly

[@YaksoHD]

@@faithfultheology I as well reject Protestantism wholeheartedly. I however accept the Thomistic view on the Trinity. God bless brother

[@faithfultheology]

@@YaksoHD u 2 thanks

[@cious_96]

What slander. Calling someone who rejects the Trinity a Protestant. Yeah I’ll be unfollowing 👋🏽

[@MisguidedPolicyIsBurdensome]

Immaculate conception. Totally impossible for humankind other than Jesus Christ. Jesus as a name. Christ as His title. One does not become God by acts or even grace (acts that are good and can be clearly discerned from bad conduct). God is. We are created and sustained according to God and His will. (Keep in mind, this does not say, all of our actions are set by God; we are responsible for our choices, and we are given many on a daily basis). God is wonderful. So cool!

[@TheRoark]

Not to pile on, as I think this is an interesting debate, but if your definition of Protestant includes Dr. Nemes then it ceases to be a useful category. Might as well call Mormons Protestant if we are including non-Christian groups that self identify as Christians.

[@al-kimiya6962]

If intrinsic property is a property that exists by virtue of itself and the reason it exists by virtue of itself because it doesn't exist by virtue of another thing then every intrinsic property is an extrinsic property because every intrinsic property lacks a grounding relation with another thing. Sijuwade's definition of intrinsic property is self-defeating.

[@andrejuthe]

I think you perhaps have misunderstood what an intrinsic property is. An intrinsic property is not something that exist “by virtue of itself” (which makes no sense). Rather if F is an intrinsic property of x, then F depends entirely upon what x is like in itself, unrelated to non-x.

[@al-kimiya6962]

@andrejuthe of course any property exists in some substance, it cannot hang in the air, I thought this part was redundant to the point I was making based on the definition of Sijuwade.

[@jaysealenduro5618]

Let The brothers in arms William albrecht and Sam shamoun debate those 2 heretics, surely even on a 1v2 either william or Sam can properly defend the Trinity and Destroy their Arguments.

[@dartheli7400]

Cameron‘s theology has always been somewhat vague and shady, or at least liberal. That‘s why I wasn‘t that surprised that he converted to Romanism. But calling Progressives and Unitarians „Christians“ is just beyond anything related to orthodoxy…

[@padraicmkelly]

Romanism is not liberal, for example we don't believe in contraceptives.

[@Firegoof411]

Bring in David K Bernard to explain the One God theology vs trinity.

[@MarkPatmos]

What is the Islamic understanding of God as a necessary being or uncaused cause that the Islamic guest referred to? Could do another video?

[@MarkPatmos]

If God has always existed and continues to maintain His powers throughout eternity, does that mean He has aseity and continues to have aseity? God the Father is sharing His aseity with the persons of Jesus and the Holy Spirit from a position of omniscience?

[@zdravzivot3016]

Joshua's view is very grounded in deep knowledge..the way he answers this really complicated objections isnimpressive

[@BenM61]

If you have problems with your argument just redefine terms to suit your claims. That’s what Joshua did. Aseity is a simple term to understand yet he resorts to redefine it because he has an eye for the contingency of the so called son and the third one of his trinity theory.

[@brianaalece5314]

🔥

[@MarkPatmos]

Jesus says after His Resurrection 'And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age' I think this is also interesting because I think it means that Jesus returns to having omniscience and omnipresence with God the Father and the Holy Spirit after His Ascension.

[@sm2z24]

After seeing this title I'm convinced that all Catholics venerate Santa muerte😒

[@padraicmkelly]

The Trinity: God is infinite unconditional unselfish love. By His very existence for all eternity He always begets His complete infinite knowledge of Himself and that only begotten infinite knowledge is an infinite eternal Fruit/Son of His being. God by His nature loves goodness and so the Father loves the Son with infinite love and the Son loves the Father with infinite love and that two way infinite love is the Holy Spirit.

[@MarkPatmos]

If Steven Nemes doesn’t believe in the Trinity because of the Book of Revelation. First of all it is a vision, also Jesus might again have human form for Second Coming. Probably am misrepresenting his views because just looked it up online.

[@ExerciseForLifePls]

Timestamps please!?

[@Adonza-c9k]

Josh is drunk he want to be called catholic while having non catholic view infact its easter orthodox view

[@MarkPatmos]

Do you think you could do a video on Thomas Aquinas' understanding of the Trinity? Thomas Aquinas believed Jesus was begotten from the father?

[@Thomas.apologia]

This would be a fantastic idea!

[@ramadadiver7810]

Even bart erhman agrees that in philipeans 2 . Jesus was divine prior to taking on the form of a servant and taking on the appearance of a human . Collosians 2 . The fullness of divinity dwellled bodil y . Jude . Says jesus saved the israelites out of egypt and links jesus to sodom and gamorah . Jesus is the angel of the lord . Who is yhwh physcally embodied

[@ramadadiver7810]

The philipeans 2 creed is also pre Pauline . Moat likely comes from James and Peter Btw . The son of man 'coming on the clouds of heaven ' Yhwh is the cloud rider . Which was a title.of Baal . Divinties ride the clouds

[@mc07]

You’re great at misrepresenting and misunderstanding Protestantism Cameron.

[@newglof9558]

Yeah Nemo here isn't a steelman of Protestantism

[@arrocoda3590]

Steven saying to Sijuwade: "The Father being a Brute fact does not say why God exists, if you can't answer, that means you think he is an accident," is nonsensical and laughable. He literally just asked Sijuwade, "What caused God?" But in a more complicated roundabout hidden way, lmao.

[@arrocoda3590]

Also Andani not knowing that Brute Facts don't imply contingency lmfao

[@drstevennemes]

​@@arrocoda3590 The common answer to “what caused God?” is: God is the sort of thing that exists by nature. Josh denies that God exists by nature. He exists, but this fact is not explained with reference to his nature, nor with reference to anything else. He just exists and that’s all. Like Khalil said, one had might as well say the universe just exists and that’s all.

[@KhalilAndani]

@@arrocoda3590of course a brute fact is a contingent fact without an explanation

[@arrocoda3590]

@@KhalilAndani so true a fact that can't be explained by more deeper fundamental facts does indeed imply contingency (literally doesn't)

[@arrocoda3590]

@@drstevennemes his aseity isn't by his universal essence, his particular essence has aseity. His general essence has Eternality (which he shares with the son and spirit because he is eternally a father, and the son and father eternally love one another) which is different than aseity. God is first in Order of Theology, so his Particlar essence is "God", he then shares the entirety of himself minus aseity and fatherhood to the Son and Spirit which is the General Essence. The General Essence is "less" only in that it lacks Aseity, which is irrelevant because God actualizes the Son and Spirit eternally so they are all but Ase. God the Father (his particular essence) is the Fount, not the General Essence that he shares with the Son and Spirit.

[@MarkPatmos]

Does Nemes believe Jesus is just a human being, who didn't exist prior to human conception?

[@drstevennemes]

It’s complicated.

[@MarkPatmos]

@@drstevennemesIn John 8:58 Jesus says ‘Before Abraham was, I am.’

[@drstevennemes]

​@@MarkPatmos As a matter of grammar, that verse should be translated: “Before Abraham will come to be, I am he.” πρὶν Ἀβραὰμ γενέσθαι ἐγὼ εἰμί. When you have πρίν + an aorist infinitive, the translation of the infinitive is dependent upon the tense of the verb in the main clause. Because εἰμι is present, the aorist infinitive should be translated as future. This is not grammatically impossible because the aorist is more about aspect than about time. For example, in John 14:29 Jesus says: νῦν εἴρηκα ὑμῖν πρὶν γενέσθαι. Here you have πρίν + aorist infinitive (γενέσθαι, the same infinitive in John 8:58) and the aorist is translated as future because the other verb is in the present tense. Thus we have the translation: "I tell you this now before it will happen."

[@MarkPatmos]

In Mark 14:62 Jesus refers to Himself as 'I am', but I get you've had a long debate and don't need to answer. I don't know anything about original languages but have heard this might be understood as Jesus using name for God for Himself.

[@drstevennemes]

@@MarkPatmos The man who was born blind also says "I am" (Ἐγώ εἰμι) in John 9:9, but he is not _referring to himself as_ "I am." He's just identifying himself as someone who is under discussion. So also with Jesus.

[@BenM61]

How many trinity models are there? Many. If trinity dogma is true and taught in your bible why so many models which are based purely on speculations and opinions of men. It boggles the mind that you all make that doctrine the basis for your faith without real good proof.

[@Seanph25]

It’s literally just what the Bible says

[@tysonguess]

Because conceptualization is the only way for us to understand that which we cannot fully conceive of rationally since the nature of God is beyond our intellectual capacity. If one can 'understand' God's nature 'fully' then they are not thinking of God.

[@padraicmkelly]

Jesus was condemned to death for claiming to be the divine Son of God which to Jews sounds like blasphemy because it seems to imply two Gods but in the doctrine of the Trinity they are One God. The high priest knew that Jesus believed Himself to be the Christ and also that He believed Himself to be a divine Son of God and so he asked Jesus, 'Are you the Christ the Son of the Blessed One?' and Jesus knew what the high priest was asking Him but nevertheless He replied, 'I am' and then the high priest said to the others, 'You have heard his blasphemy, what is your judgement?' and they replied He deserves to die. In Matthew 22: 41-45 Jesus asked the Pharisees who they thought is the ancestor/father of the Messiah and they replied, 'David' but Jesus asked them why does King David call the Messiah 'Lord' if the Messiah is only his descendant? Jesus was teaching them that the Messiah is the Divine Son of God, He is 'Lord'. 41 Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them this question: 42 “What do you think of the Messiah?[a] Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David by the Spirit[b] calls him Lord, saying, 44 ‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, until I put your enemies under your feet”’? 45 If David thus calls him Lord, how can he be his son?” 46 No one was able to give him an answer, nor from that day did anyone dare to ask him any more questions. Jesus claimed to be the divine Son of God: John 5:18 "18 Therefore, the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God."

[@arifkizilay]

You guys are all interpreting from your understanding. You have no direct knowledge of the scripture. You can't interpret what belief is or should be. As for biblical studies, I am sure you all are familiar with the name Bart Ehrman. best.

[@arismaroulakis4556]

2 activities that gives Joshua physically the biggest workout: 1.)The gym. 2.)The mental, logical, and linguistic gymnastics his brain has to do for the idea of the Trinity to sound remotely coherent.

[@didimockets]

Lots of whining in the comments. This title is accurate: if sola scriptura is true and the Church isn't an infallible authority, then one can be a unitarian and a protestant.

[@drstevennemes]

Very true.

[@travispelletier3352]

@@drstevennemes But you also affirm that you can be a Catholic and deny magisterial infallibility. From which it would seem that one can also be a unitarian and Catholic.

[@drstevennemes]

​@@travispelletier3352 The word “catholic” refers to the episcopal-conciliar tradition that distinguished itself from gnosticism in the second century and further refined its dogmatic commitments in the so-called "ecumenical councils." This tradition came to define itself in a way that unitarianism is now incompatible with it. That is just a fact of evolution. What is possible or impossible for species _now_ was not necessarily possible or impossible for their evolutionary forebears. Or I can give you another example. A post-menopausal woman can no longer bear children. That doesn’t mean that she could never bear children, or that she was never a woman who could bear children. Time brought about a change that is effectively irreversible.

[@travispelletier3352]

@@drstevennemes Why is it irreversible? I've met Catholics who thought they didn't have to submit to the Catholic magisterium. You seem to agree in another comment that Catholics can validly reject the authority of the Roman magisterium (unless you've reversed yourself on that claim because it is backing you into a corner). If so, who is to say that a Catholic can't reject the deity of Christ?

[@blessedGod-p9h]

​@@travispelletier3352i love your comment thanks for defending historic protestant position against this heretic label as protestant..I didn't expect this from this channel clickbait and misleading..

[@zelenisok]

God's aseity is extrinsic and not internal and not grounded in him; there is no possible world there God isnt loved by the Son; God couldnt not exist given hus omnipotence, lol, Sijuwade is off the rails.

[@Heroicmultiplicity]

I find it hilarious how many people here are more concerned with the Dr Nemes not being a trinitarian and yet calling himself a Protestant… while the video was not about Protestantism lol! Some Christians will look for anything to quarrel with

[@MOLife-mu6zx]

2:03:43 bm

[@silverltc2729]

All of creation is a tawheed. Consider the relationship between Space, Mass and Time. They are each unique and identifiable. However one aspect can not exist without the other two. In order to have mass, you need somewhere to put it. Once it is placed, when was it placed? Each of these has a mini tawheed. Space is Height, Length, Width Mass is Solid, Liquid, Gas Time is Past, Present, Future Tawheed comes from the Ethiopian word Tawaheedo/ተዋሕዶ. It was added to the Yemeni lexicon in the 3rd century (300 years before Islam's creation) by the Axsum Empire. God is One. One perfect Tawheed/Trinity.

[@MOLife-mu6zx]

2:09:01 bm

[@frederickanderson1860]

Nothing to do with definitions. Its about jesus comment the kingdom of God is within you. That debunks original sin dogma.

[@theautodidacticlayman]

Steven Nemes is awesome. I listened to a few of his episodes about the deity of Christ on khanpadawan’s channel (Trinities Podcast) and he was really challenging. Yes, there is tradition and all, but if we accept tradition without challenging it, it’s possible that we accept falsehoods, so challenging tradition is important if we want to seek the Truth.

[@KnightFel]

He’s a heretic.

[@LoveAndLiberty02]

​@@KnightFel He's a follower of Jesus who believes he is the Son of God and Messiah (John 20:31). No verse says one must believe God is three persons to have life in the age to come.

[@drstevennemes]

@@KnightFel There is no such thing as heresy.

[@sm2z24]

​@@LoveAndLiberty02It's Ironic how Thomas said to Jesus in that very Chapter "My Lord and My God"(20:28).

[@KnightFel]

@@LoveAndLiberty02 Believing the gospel entails believing in Christ being God - as it’s clearly shown. Unitarians are heretics. Denying the divinity of Christ has been a heresy for Millenia.