Classical Theism: Is God Personal Like Us? Ryan Mullins + Steven Nemes

In this video, I'm joined by Dr. Ryan Mullins (Theistic Personalist) and PhD candidate Steven Nemes (Classical Theist) to introduce something that is known as the "Theistic Personalist vs Classical Theist" debate. This debate has a rich history, but many people aren't even aware it exists!
Link to Dr. Mullins' podcast: www.rtmullins.com/podcast
Link to Steven Nemes: stevennemes.com/
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on KZbin: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
--------------------------------- LINKS ---------------------------------
Website: capturingchristianity.com
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchristianity.com/fre...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchristianity.com/ult...
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Theism #God #Personal

[@slamrn9689]

Definitely among the best videos on this channel. Kudos to the guests, and Cameron, you did a great job. :-)

[@chaldavgc]

Surprisingly as an atheist this may have been my favorite video on this channel so far! Literally so much to think about. I can’t wait to do some deep dives into theology like this. Thank you for the content!

[@mikepeterson78]

It’s no wonder an atheist would love this it’s heretical af

[@chaldavgc]

Mike Peterson :)

[@mikepeterson78]

Papa Smurf exactly, it’s not any god there in rebellion against it’s the one and only true God the great I AM so when they hear some man made god they love it an atheist isn’t exactly anti religious like they think there just anti God

[@philotheos251]

Cameron, you should get Dr Gaven Kerr on your show! He's a Thomist philosopher from Ireland and is brilliant :) Btw, this was one of your best shows!

[@barry.anderberg]

I second this motion. Dr. Kerr has been on the Pat Flynn Show multiple times. He's a great guest.

[@RadicOmega]

Yessss Kerr would be perfect!

[@fujiapple9675]

He has been a remarkable guest multiple times on the channel Intellectual Conservatism with Suan Sonna.

[@victorcanavra5688]

I'm beyond grateful to have had Dr. Nemes as my professor this past school year. He is incredibly well-spoken which allows him to explain complex wording/theories in a way that is very understandable.

[@sillysyriac8925]

This was a great discussion! I especially enjoyed how I completely saw the merits and weaknesses of both positions and how each contained compelling arguments with important connections to our approach to hermeneutics.

[@ericpowell8563]

RT Mullins has an awesome podcast. Thanks for hosting the discussion Cameron.

[@DesEssentis]

The Reluctant Theologian Podcast.

[@auxtas]

I am glad to watch this video. I studied this in my Theodicy class during my undergraduate in Nigerian catholic seminary as of 2013. What a refreshment to listen to the discussion.

[@tanner955]

Great discussion!

[@danielcartwright8868]

I guess the struggle that I'm having with the classical concept of God is the question of why God would ever do anything at all.

[@pureone8350]

The Incarnation makes it the more complicated

[@blamtasticful]

Totally agree. One attempt to resolve this among Thomists is to reject what is referred to as the Difference Principle in philosophy. It seems terrible to accept this. It would deny the legitimacy of producing counterfactuals. It would mean that the same thing with no difference at all could produce more than one possible effect. It destroys the notion of predicting things back in time which is developed by trusting standard notions of causation.

[@danielcartwright8868]

@@blamtasticful Yeah; that doesn't make sense, and it just seems ad hoc, just like when the classical thiest said that the relationship/actions in the trinity are unique/special.

[@Ammiraglio100]

Unless, considering there is no time involved (not a before or after), his eternal state of being is existing with the universe and us. Or, in other words, if he's a trinity it means that he's always been the father the son and the holy spirit. So it means he's always been the son. So it means he's always been the man Jesus. So, from God's point of view, there is not a time where the universe didn't exist and then it exist.

[@jacobkats3670]

@@blamtasticful If you accept indeterminism you're already denying the DP, though.

[@jonnichols4663]

One of the most thought-provoking discussions on this channel. I want more on this (these) topic(s).

[@nataliediscovers]

Amazing discussion!!

[@nataliediscovers]

Thank you for exposing us Christians to things we should think more often about to get closer to God as we learn more and more about Him!!!

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Can we get Feser to talk to Mullins?

[@rogerparada4995]

I don't think Mullins would agree to it. They had a written exchange. I believe Mullins found him uncharitable and decided not to invite him on to his podcast because of it.

[@blamtasticful]

I hate to say it but Feser can be sharp, hyperbolic, and can overstate things. He's definitely smart, but he is not the only one.

[@blamtasticful]

FantasticGlobule I think he can overstate. Like the idea that a person cannot be a theist unless one holds to simplicity. Funny enough I tend to prefer Feser’s style. I think many academics just aren’t very good at debates even congenial ones.

[@blamtasticful]

@FantasticGlobule "These are the reasons why defenders of divine simplicity sometimes go so far as to argue that to deny the doctrine entails atheism. For if being an uncaused cause and being absolutely unique entail simplicity, then to deny that there is anything that is simple or non-composite is implicitly to deny that there is an absolutely unique uncaused cause. And since to be God just is to be an absolutely unique uncaused cause, to deny divine simplicity is therefore implicitly to deny the existence of God.The stakes in this debate are therefore much higher than Mullins lets on, and for a theist to refute the doctrine of divine simplicity would require more than merely raising objections of the kind Mullins does. It would require explaining how such objections could avoid inadvertently refuting theism itself." theopolisinstitute.com/conversations/simply-irresistible/

[@blamtasticful]

@FantasticGlobule No the fact that he even HAS to say MAY shows he is overstating. It would be like a professional in the field stating that the logical problem of evil of evil may entail the refutation theism without ever mentioning Plantinga's free will defense. The literature is full of possible God-concepts.

[@roderictaylor]

I'm a student of Advaita Vedanta (in the tradition of Shankara). In that tradition, Brahman, the ultimate foundation of all that is, is conceived to be timeless, spaceless, and so on, as well as being necessary being. As such, Brahman is not conceived to be a personal agent that interacts with the creation. For me, it's difficult to conceive of necessary being as a person. So it's interesting to me to see a video like this discussing whether God is personal from a Christian perspective. I had no idea that there were some similarities between classical theism and what I believe in. I've just started listening, but that's my initial reaction.

[@tingowealeans5712]

Caught this during the q&a live the other day thought was great glad I came back to watch the whole thing damn as someone not philosophically trained but like most of us had probably picked things up from 'research' (read: procrastination) online over the years this was such a great discussion with so much clarity, the two chaps come across so well and so likeable and enlightening

[@tingowealeans5712]

and look forward to part 2

[@masonrosado1534]

Mad respect for the Marvel shirt bro! Keep doing your thing!

[@lowkeytheology]

Yeah this is for sure a great video that needs to be rewatched a few times

[@anglozombie2485]

Is it just me or Ryan's view sounds better all around. There just seems to be way more problems with taking the classical theist viewpoint.

[@anglozombie2485]

@FantasticGlobule where did he say he was a classical theist? The video description even says he is a personal theist. However he said he doesn't like that title.

[@fujiapple9675]

Is God personal? Yes. Infinitely so. Like us? No. Not at all.

[@alriktyrving5051]

In the thomistic conception of God, how can you say that God is rational or even conscious at all? Seems to me that the thomistic idea of ”God” is no ”god” at all, but rather simply an ontological ground that could readily be accepted by atheists without compromizing their position.

[@rebelape4257]

Your my hero

[@mikedawson975]

Cameron, you should have John Peckham on your show (Ryan mentioned him during the discussion) to talk about his view of God and particularly the issue of theodicy, which he takes a canonical approach to. See his book Theodicy of Love for more, it's a fascinating read.

[@dynamic9016]

Interesting discussion.

[@piotr.ziolo.]

Great discussion! And I say this as an atheist. I would be very glad if in a future debate you could also tackle a bit different approach to the problem, namely, what can we say about God and with what level of certainty. I'll try to explain what I mean by that. We can distinguish three ways to acquire knowledge: 1. Through repeatable experiments. 2. Through logic. 3. Through personal experience (may also be in the form of testimony). Of course, only methods 1 and 2 can be reliable, but I wouldn't completely dismiss the third way, but treat it as weak evidence. Do we have any evidence for God in the first group? How repeatable such experiments are? To what level of certainty can we compare it to - theory of gravity, theory of relativity, string theory, evolution theory, ...? Which traits of God can we ascertain from logical arguments, like for instance Kalam? What other traits can we impose on God so that we don't arrive at a logically inconsistent worldview? Which of these traits are consistent with the scripture (and which parts of the scripture)? We can go further than that - if we believe that God has certain traits we can also hypothesize what we should see in the real world. If God answers prayers then there must be a consistent pattern in reality (we know that in the case of prayer there is none). If God is omnipotent and wants the best for us then this must translate to distinguishable patterns in reality and moreover excludes certain events. Therefore, we can ask which traits of God are consistent with reality? Maybe one could even create a map of God's traits, properties of reality and logical connections between those, as well as color all nodes according to our certainty towards given claims. Probably a couple of maps would be needed, as it seems from the discussion that there are many concepts of God.

[@juliandoyley2103]

At 1:05, Dr. Ryan Mullins mentions that the denomination he belongs to does not hold to any of the creeds. Which denomination is this?

[@thinkingright]

Enjoyed seeing Peckham referenced. He'd be great to have on to discuss his Theodicy of Love -- a compelling canonical approach to the problem of evil.

[@Acek-ok9dp]

You cannot be Reformed and deny Classical theism in general, but you don't have to be fully Thomistic. I think that goes for Lutherans as well.

[@KChrest]

Am I wrong or does Steven's "the bible is good to get you started" sound gnostic?

[@TheBrunarr]

I loved the metal question lol

[@FlamSalad]

Aquinas would definitely be into YOB. It is positive Doom Metal.

[@Quoprimunitus]

Steven killin'it!

[@roderictaylor]

Steven addressed the interesting question of why we should worship God under classical theism, given that God does not have a relationship with the creation. In my tradition of advaita Vedanta which I discussed in another post, we don't seem to worship Brahman. However we do worship Isvara.

[@richardgamrat1944]

Kayo dot t-shirt? Never seen it on someone. Nice.

[@joshuapearson9950]

@CapturingChristianity What is meant by “God is not a being”? Is that meant as “God is not a created being”? This seems very different than a lot of discussions of God’s personal nature that I listen to like Oneness vs. Trinity debates. I thought it was interesting that they accused a popular Trinitarian scholar of being close to tritheism and that you kept referring to God as “a person”. Trinitarians think of God as one in Being but three in Persons. These descriptions seem inconsistent to me as a Oneness Pentecostal.

[@mariembuenaventura1278]

He means God as personal right? My basic understanding is that before the creation the triune God has a perfect personal relationship with each other. So God didn't create to fulfill a void or His not bored as a reason of creation.

[@jonnichols4663]

Ryan what are you favorite metal bands?

[@edwardtbabinski]

Using conclusions drawn from the Baylor Religion Survey first published in 2006, two Baylor University professors theorize that Americansʼ view of God can be characterized as one of four basic types: Authoritative (different from Authoritarian?) 28% of Americans believe in an authoritative god that is very judgmental and engaged in the world. These types of believers tend to be evangelical and male. Benevolent 22% of Americans believe in a benevolent god that is very involved in the world, but is loving and not stern. These tend to be evangelical women. Critical 21% of Americans believe in a critical god who is removed from daily events but will render judgment in the afterlife. There is a tendency for African Americans and people who have lower levels of income and education to believe in the critical god. Distant 24% of Americans believe in a distant god who set the universe in motion but then disengaged. People who say that they are spiritual but not religious tend to believe in the distant god. By knowing which of the four types of God an American believes in, these scholars can predict that personʼs views on many of the pressing issues facing the country. As an antidote to the prevailing but simplistic dichotomy between religious and nonreligious Americans, this thesis is more nuanced. But it, too, has its limitations. Itʼs not clear that people stick to one view their whole lives, and it doesnʼt fully account for the views of those who occupy middle ground, somewhere between a judgmental and forgiving God. Still, the fourfold God typology is a step toward better understanding how Americans regard morality, how they understand the presence of evil, and what narrative they tell about their lives.

[@BrianWright-mi3lc]

I'm inclined to side with Steven because of the Kayo Dot shirt!

[@screwball1010]

I think he almost just said that God is an absolute unit 💪 30:00

[@mwngw]

This panel speaks on the theories of God's nature, but Christendom in all its expressions claim to know (preach) what God actually is (see the 4 Spiritual Laws). I contend God's nature is infinitely Personal and has many attributes of humans, and loves them each deeply for what they are, despite sin.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Steven looks and sounds like a young Dean Radin lol

[@ifoldaa0078]

Hey Cameron, what are your thoughts on sexual intercourse in married christian couples? Can married charistian couples have recreational sex, as in using it as an expression of love for your partner? Without the intention of wanting a child? Or are christians only meant to engage in sexual activity for the sole purpose of reproduction? I know in the song of solomon, there’s a particular verse explaining the fruits of sex, but shouldn’t sexual intercourse only be used as a means of both expressing love with your partner along with reproducing simultaneously? It doesn’t make sense to me how god would permit such things as contraception, condoms, morning after pill etc, when the bible clearly states to be fruitful and multiply. How is it not possible to show love and connection with your spouse with the possibility of a pregnancy? Isn’t the point of a christian marriage to secure the bond and form a covenant with the eventual oncomings of children? “Be fruitful and multiply” - “apart from when you want a physical release and just slap on a rubber, all for love” right?

[@RighteousPaladin]

Why are atheists always so obsessed with their genitals? The Bible isn't merely a book of rules, pottymouth. It teaches us that we're all in violation of the moral law and in need of salvation.

[@ifoldaa0078]

Righteous Paladin I’m not an atheist

[@RighteousPaladin]

@@ifoldaa0078 I think I can be forgiven for thinking so: your username is very vulgar.

[@ifoldaa0078]

Righteous Paladin Forgive my 2013 highschool self, I don’t think a person’s youtube username however, is what you should be worried about

[@RighteousPaladin]

@@ifoldaa0078 I'm not worried about anything. What is it that you think I "should be worried about?" You could always change your username to avoid misunderstandings..but the subject matter of your comment is also banal and leads to skepticism of your sincerity.

[@rogersacco4624]

We made it up .See The Cognitive Science of Religion by Claire White

[@roderictaylor]

This is a long digression, but you piqued my interest when you mentioned Richard Swinburne. When he says God is not a metaphysically necessary being, I don’t believe he’s saying something about the nature of God; he’s saying something about the nature of necessity. Metaphysical necessity, what is necessarily true regardless of our ability to prove or know it, is distinct from epistemic necessity, what can be known or proven to be necessary. There are roughly two views of the relation between epistemic and metaphysical necessity. One view that philosophers such as Plantinga and Peter Van Inwagen hold is that metaphysical necessity can be completely independent of epistemic necessity. Given this view, conceiving of God as a metaphysically necessary being makes sense. We’re not saying that we can prove God exists by using logic and unwinding definitions; rather God is a necessary being because God is the foundation of all that could have possibly existed. Another view, which Richard Swinburne holds, is that while metaphysical necessity is distinct from epistemic necessity, it’s not completely distinct. Metaphysical necessity is in a sense idealized epistemic necessity, a limiting case of epistemic necessity (I think this can actually be defined mathematically). Under this conception of necessity, the idea of a necessary being makes no sense. How could we ever derive a contradiction from not assuming some being exists? So when Richard Swinburne rejects that God is a metaphysically necessary being, he’s not saying anything negative about God. Given the way he conceives of metaphysical necessity, he’s saying that it’s just not the proper tool for conceiving of God’s necessity. Even Plantinga once wrote an article arguing something similar (I think he later changed his mind). If we conceive of metaphysical necessity this way, then saying God is not a necessary being in this sense does not necessarily say anything negative about God. Imagine someone stomping up to God and saying, “Ah ha! I can coherently conceive of you not existing. Ha ha ha ha!” Of course the only reason that person can conceive of anything at all is because of God. One might argue that it is a positive attribute to be able to create living beings with free will and the capacity to meaningfully conceive of you not existing.

[@ifoldaa0078]

Gary Habermas Vs Matt Dillahunty ?

[@mariembuenaventura1278]

I'm just not convinced haha

[@ifoldaa0078]

Mariem Buenaventura What haha?

[@contactpinacolada]

they both build their own god. god is ikea

[@ifoldaa0078]

Hey guys, what are christians thoughts on married christian couples having sex for recreational purposes? And what I mean by that is, having sex not to necessarily have a child, but more for connecting or sharing love with your partner? Are christians permitted by god to have protected sex? Or is sex simply here for us to be fruitful and multiply?

[@st.mephisto8564]

Yes absolutely. The prohibition of contraception is only found in the Catholic Church because of a misunderstanding of natural law. But go for it, don't worry

[@juliandoyley2103]

Philosophy only goes so far. The best chance of knowing God is by what He has revealed in His Word. Contrary to philosophy, God's being was fully manifested in the person of Jesus Christ. Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. God made a single living soul not three!

[@mikepeterson78]

Who teaches God is in eternal bliss? Certainly not the better bible I’m only 20 min in but this sounds like different versions of Christian idealism which is heretical and these dudes have said fk the revealed word of God there thinking is better. Human beings can not operate without constants the Bible is our constant if it isn’t I’d love to hear an alternative also saying we can’t know God ,we can’t know anything unless we know everything or have things revealed to us by someone who does what God wants us to know about himself is revealed in his word

[@blamtasticful]

Dang it is crazy that divine simplicity is admitted to as a hermeneutic that one must use to interpret scripture. This clearly seems to be putting philosophy over standard exegetical practices. It's very similar to what I've seen Calvinists and other systematic theologians do to contort scripture.

[@abhbible]

Using theological concepts from the Bible to help interpret other sections of the Bible is literally one of the most standard exegetical practices you will find.

[@slamrn9689]

We see as through a glass, darkly.

[@blamtasticful]

A H Divine simplicity comes from arguments from Aristotelian philosophy. It’s not from other Bible passages.

[@blamtasticful]

slamRN More like we are divinely inspired to write through a glass darkly.

[@abhbible]

blamtasticful That’s adorable

[@AlexADalton]

The Bible: God made man/woman in his image and likeness. Classical Theism: God is not like us at all.

[@Miatpi]

Yeah thats a strawman.

[@georgechristiansen6785]

@@Miatpi no. It's hyperbole.

[@ProclaimeroftheGospelofJesus]

Created in God’s Image! Do you think it is important to know why you were created and who created you and what purpose we should have when we have identified such things? If we as humans are made in the image of our creator, then we can see we were created to glorify God. No other creature of any sort was made in what God calls “ our image” as His Image in Him the Father, His Word, and His Holy Spirit. All are God, 0f God, with God. Can we understand we are created in what God said “our image?” God the Father, The Word( Son)and the Holy Spirit. Let’s look at what is put in His Word. Here is the worlds philosophy that is far from what God said. Well evolution says we came from what is already created? Matter and time and space and energy already existed and basically came from nothing. Nothing they can explain or document. Makes since they say such foolish things, considering the logical fallacy of “God doesn’t exist “, when going about to establish the theory of evolution. Simply the creation itself shows there is a Creator. The intelligent design shows there is a intelligent designer. First verse in Genesis. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning( time), God( oops they left the answer out) created( energy) the heavens( space) and the earth( matter). The very first verse in the Bible will wipe out any theory of origin men come up with. Think about this. There is nothing on earth like a human except a human. Fish are like other fishes in many different species of fish. The same with everything else. The seed that multiplied, multiplied of that same seed. I don’t need science to show me this, the creation speaks for itself. If fish eventually is our ancestors, then why do we eat our ancestors. Why did the evolving stop? God never said any primate, fish, or creature of any type was in His image. God said, Let’s make man in our Image, and He made them male and female. He created man to have dominion over all things in this earth. We are nothing like what evolution says we are evolved from. The origin of species only explains origin through evolutionary processes. Origin is the beginning, not the evolving afterwards to prove the origin. Do you see yourself in the image of fish, or any other species, other than humans? Watch this. 1 John 5:7-8 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. Verse 7 is what God referred to as“ our image” in heaven. There is only One God with His Word and His Holy Spirit. They are One in God. Verse 8 is His image on earth. This is Jesus. The Word of God that became flesh in and of the Spirit of God. Jesus is uniquely of the Spirit of God and came through the womb of a virgin, never had sex, but was conceived in her Womb; of God through His Holy Spirit. God speaks and the Spirit moves upon what is spoken knowing the mind of God. The will of God according to His Word. God created through His Word. We know nothing was created that was created outside of His Word. God created heaven and earth and the earth was without form and void( water) and the Spirit moved upon the depths of darkness. ( waters) The Spirit knew Gods will according to His Word. His Word became flesh. When He was born, her water broke, and He was put into this world of the Spirit of God in flesh and blood. They say flesh is 70 % water. Water, blood, and Spirit. Jesus was said to be the invisible image of God. These three agree in One on earth; that He is the image of the invisible God born in the flesh. Now watch when the first man was created in “ our image”. Genesis 2:5-7 Gods breathe (being His Spirit)to give us a fleshly spirit, to become a living soul. Adam became a fleshly living soul. 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. Note: (Water in the dust)in the flesh) Jesus is the full Godhead in fleshly form. God is a Spirit. His Word and Holy Spirit abide in Him as One in heaven. End note: 7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. Do you see how we are in His image. Do you see it in Jesus. Are you looking to Jesus to understand this? The one of God that came to earth in the flesh? Can you see the resemblance? Man was given dominion over all creatures and created in our likeness according to God. We can speak and we have a spirit that knows our mind as Gods Spirit knows His. We can have a will and purpose and reasoning to know right from wrong or make decisions. What is the difference between man and what He was given dominion over? Memory for stimulus sequences distinguishes humans from other animals. Summary: Humans possess many cognitive abilities not seen in other animals, such as a full-blown language capacity as well as reasoning and planning abilities. Understanding a Spirit and how it functions and the reason for it shows the similiarity to God the Father in purpose and will. The Word in that we speak our thoughts, His holy Spirit that knows the mind of God and our Spirit that knows our mind and can be reasoned to change because we make mistakes. Man in the image of God. We repent because of our wrongs and need to learn where God is pure holy mature and perfect always in all His ways. We are in His image but not in His perfection without the blood of Jesus perfecting us in Him. The difference between Adam ( man)and Jesus is that Adam was a fleshly spirit, and Jesus is the creator of all things, a life giving Spirit of the Holy God. One is created( Adam). Given life. One is of God and created Adam.life giving So our Spirit must be reborn of the fallen Adam spirit that multiplied, by the quickening Spirit ( life giving Spirit of God) of God only found in Jesus Christ. We must be reborn in Spirit. We must be born of water into this flesh to have a spirit needing to be reborn of Spirit. Which is to be born from above. We are made in His Image, we are reborn of His Spirit in our spirit, when Jesus redeems you and gives you the Holy Spirit. How do we do this? We repent of our sins and turn in belief in Jesus to give us eternal life in a reborn Spirit from God.To cleanse us of all sin and unrighteousness and follow in baptism as a testimony of being dead in trespasses and sin and resurrected into life through belief in Jesus with faith in God by the power of the Holy Spirit. A good conscience towards God which is to believe God. Take Him for His Word as all needed to do so. Believe God. The devils temptations all have a origin, that is to doubt what God said. This continues by belief in His Word into putting off the old man and putting on the newness of Spirit in Jesus. Works worthy of repentance should follow; which is worthy of belief and a result of belief in Jesus to save you. Being built up in Him to do good works. Believe in Jesus!

[@AlexADalton]

I like Mullins' conception of God much better tbh, and it comports much better with the biblical account, but Nemes had great points around the Classical Theism grounding monotheism.

[@roderictaylor]

This was a fascinating discussion. As I said in my other post, I am a student of Vedanta (in the tradition of Shankara), and I was surprised to see there are similarities between what I’ve been taught about Brahman and classical theism. I think Advaita Vedanta goes further than classical theism. For example, as Brahman is timeless, spaceless, and so on, God cannot be said to know anything, as knowledge is a relationship that occurs within the creation. Brahman is said to be one without a second. From the perspective of Brahman, there is no other. Brahman is sat-cit-ananda, existence-consciousness-bliss. However that is not to say that Brahman is in a state of bliss. Rather Brahman is what is most beloved, what all creatures knowingly or unknowingly seek. We also speak about Isvara, which is a pantheistic notion of deity. Isvara is the creation together with Brahman. Isvara is not limited to the universe or the multi-verse; I don’t think pantheism has to be. It includes all orders of manifest reality, including for example the moral order, the mathematical order, the order of subjective experience, and the various heaven and hell realms if you believe in those. Isvara is the manifestation of infinite knowledge. We are all part of Isvara. And since we all share the same self as Isvara, we all are Isvara. We are directed to treat all other beings as Isvara. My teacher once mentioned in passing there was debate about whether Isvara could be said to know the future. So I guess there are traditions of open pantheism as well as open theism.

[@tymmiara5967]

I really admire how both speakers were owning the consequences of their worldview. Not evading any questions, but bluntly: Yes, the Bible does give a picture of God that is in tension with Classical Theism. Yes, the concept of worship in classical theism is going to be different than what you probably have believed your entire life. I have no problem rejecting a concept of divine rationality. God is not a rational agent making choices.

[@G8rfan61]

May I ask how you came to the conclusion that this god you've mentioned exists?

[@pureone8350]

@@G8rfan61 Classical theism doesn't give proof for some "god", it simply states that God is Pure Subsistent Existence, or just Existence itself.

[@G8rfan61]

@@pureone8350 I didn't ask for proof for some god nor for a simple statement. I was asking the original poster how he came to the conclusion that the god he had mentioned exists. Did I not?

[@pureone8350]

@@G8rfan61 Oh alright, my bad.

[@G8rfan61]

@Qwerty I can't answer that but I can provide 10 facts as to why I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods.

[@alwayslearningtech]

Why are you so tyrannical in what comments you allow and why do you ban people so frequently? Your Facebook group is a complete mockery of everything you do and what you pretend to stand for.

[@Masterpaintingnowlearn2draw]

I'm a classical theist but I take it to the logical conclusion. I don't see how God is conscience because that is a tensed concept. I thus do not see how God interacts with us tensed beings, thus I do not believe God has a son or that God became human or died or rose. All that is religious nonsense to me that doesn't fit into classical theism.

[@pureone8350]

@Qwerty Are you a classical theist?

[@pureone8350]

@Qwerty So in classical theism, (if you're Christian) if God is simply pure actuality or existence itself, how is it that God does anything at all, much less manifest in Jesus Christ? I kinda find it hard that Existence itself told Moses anything. How can Pure Actuality 'love' us?(Sorry if I have any misunderstandings)

[@rebelape4257]

Classical theism is just atheism bro. Who cares if God exists if God is only analogically a person and not a real person

[@henrybarr7307]

Classical theism doesn’t claim that God isn’t a real person. It claims that God is not a person in the same way we are persons. In other words, God’s personhood (which is triune for the Christian) is analogous but not univocal to our personhood.

[@rebelape4257]

​@@henrybarr7307 "is a person" is a sentence predicate If "is a person" means "is a being composed of the properties X,Y &z" then to attribute the predicate "is a person" to god would entail he is made of parts If god is made of parts then he's contingent on them and thus not ultimate This is why the doctrine of analogy was conceived. So the predicate "is a person" can mean something else .

[@nicholocadongonan1074]

I find it ironic that Dr Mullins uses the apparent personality of God in the Bible as an argument. Seems to me that those details would only apply under the condition that the Bible accurately portrays God. I'm not too sure Dr Mullins himself would commit to that, and further to the point - if the Biblical God can be spoken of analogously, then Christian classical theism is still coherent. Also, the portrait of a Deity who can feel anger and jealousy, who can win and lose battles, who is top dog but not sovereign is closer to an open view of God.

[@axp8598]

FTM master race

[@gsharpslayer3287]

5:00 did he say pat metheny, and that pat metheny is finite? Heresy. Thumbs up if you like pat metheny 👍👍

[@piotr.ziolo.]

Included in what we can say God is not is the Trinity. If you believe in Trinity, you also believe that God=Jesus and at the same time God!=Jesus (in other form "not God=Jesus"). This contradicts the law of noncontradiction. As this is one of the most basic logical laws, if you believe in Trinity you reject logic altogether. Hence you also reject all science and even the right to make any statements, as logic is at the basis of any reasoning. In effect, if you believe in Trinity then the only life you can have to be consistent with your own views is to live as an ascetic somewhere in a cave and praise God. Of course, most people believing in Trinity just hold to contradictory beliefs and are just fine using logic everywhere except for their own God. But if you care what is true you must choose: it's either Trinity or logic. You can't have both.

[@piotr.ziolo.]

@J.W. H. Is Jesus God or not? That's a yes or no question. According to believers in the Trinity Jesus is God. It means Jesus=God (the word "IS" is equivalent to the equal sign). On the other hand, they say that Jesus is a different person than God, i.e. Jesus!=God. Logical contradiction.

[@piotr.ziolo.]

@J.W. H. Have you ever heard of Catholicism? :-) Catholics are a primary example of Christians believing that Jesus is God. But many protestant denominations also believe that Jesus is God. Here are some references, but you can find thousands yourself. archeparchy.ca/wcm-docs/docs/catechism-of-the-catholic-church.pdf (Catechism of the Catholic Church) "We can believe in Jesus Christ because he is himself God" www.christianity.com/god/trinity/god-in-three-persons-a-doctrine-we-barely-understand-11634405.html "When we say these things we mean that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God" www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/jesus-is-god "Jesus Is God"

[@piotr.ziolo.]

@J.W. H. There are three DIFFERENT persons in the Trinity, hence Jesus is DIFFERENT from God. In notation it means Jesus!=God. And the != sign means "is not". Therefore, Jesus is not God.

[@piotr.ziolo.]

@J.W. H. Man, it's not that complicated to fill the little gaps I left. (EDIT: I do not mean to be condescending - I kind of understand how hard it is to go over cognitive dissonance when you heard about the Trinity and "Jesus is God" stuff millions of times, always expressed as something obvious) I already showed that in the creed you have Jesus=God. Exactly the same way from the creed you get Father=God. Therefore, Jesus=Father. On the other hand, Jesus!=Father because as the creed states they are different. Or you can equally well write Jesus!=God and Father!=God, because from the previous reasoning you can always substitute Jesus for God and Father for God and vice versa.

[@piotr.ziolo.]

@J.W. H. I was not fully precise, I'll give you that. My claim properly stated is the following: - If the law of noncontradiction is true and the relation of equality is transitive, then Trinity is false. - If one believes in Trinity, he/she must reject either the law of noncontradiction or transitivity of equality, i.e. the most basic logic there is. One conclusion from that is the following: if a Christian believes that Jesus is God and the Father is God and also accepts basic laws of logic, then he/she believes that at the same time Jesus=God and Jesus!=God (but of course most people are careless enough to not bother with such contradictions).