Debating the Nature of God// Ryan Mullins & Jordan Steffaniak

What is God like? Most people assume that God is personal. An assumption loaded with consequences. For this reason, many Christians throughout history have believed that God is timeless, changeless, and without any emotions. But, this view is also controversial. Dr. Ryan Mullins and Jordan Steffaniak discuss these competing conceptions of God, and how consequential their respective views are for our unity as a church.
Resources:
God and Emotion: amzn.to/3zPalEQ
The End of the Timeless God: amzn.to/3titAnP
Go Fund Me: gofund.me/4c927a56​​​
Social Media
FB: / nicholasnoyola
Twitter: @nicholasnoyola
Chapters:
00:00- Intro.
01:15- Concepts vs. Models of God
03:45- Classical vs. Neo-Classical Theism
06:45- Definition of Timeless & Temporal
08:35- Definition of Mutability & Immutability
16:10- Defining Passibility & Imppassibility
20:25- The Argument from Perfection for Mutability
28:25- Response
36:35- Jordan's Reply
50:15- Dr. Mullin's View of Biblical Metaphor
55:15- The Argument Against Impassibility
01:02:30- Response
01:10:20- Dr. Mullin's Reply
01:17:30- Concerns with Passibilism
01:22:30- Concerns with Foreknowledge and Passiblism
01:26:40- The Argument Against Timelessness
01:31:00- Response
01:33:40- Dr. Mullin's Reply
01:48:35- Concerns about Foreknowledge & Temporality
02:03:35- Closing Remarks
02:06:05- How Important Are These Issues?

[@nicholasnoyola3525]

Thanks for helping me hit 650 subs! You guys are the best.

[@kensey007]

Jordan does a pretty good job arguing against himself. It's kind of fun. Ryan around 58:00 is pure fire.

[@Sine-of-the-Times]

Gentlemen, this is exactly how a debate/discussion on such tough topics should take place. Thank all three of you for an excellently executed discussion.

[@screwball1010]

You mean it's not supposed to devolve into insults and character attacks?! 🤣

[@ericpowell8563]

I appreciate the dialogue, Nich. Jordan showed humility and earnestness and I always appreciate Ryan's clarity. This conversation has been so fascinating for me over the past couple of years as I've learned from Dr. Mullins. Everyone has their biases, but it's been nice to come into this discussion and allow myself to follow the arguments where they lead. As a protestant, I do not feel bound by tradition or even the ecumenical councils to an extent. With that in mind, it seems the Biblical support is overwhelmingly clear with respect to God's temporality and mutability. There was a time when God was not in a covenant with Abraham, then there was a time when he was... when the Logos was not incarnate and a time when He was. This indicates temporal succession and, at the very least, a Cambridge change which opposes strict classical theism. I feel complete consistency in affirming God as the maximally great being: eternal, omniscient, omnipotent, etc. and at the same time God has accidental properties like Creator, Savior, Lord, etc.

[@nicholasnoyola3525]

Thanks Eric, I find this really encouraging

[@christopheravery9585]

It seems to me that if you start with a firm classical theist foundation. Everything that God has done would be understood as necessary given the classical theist claims. The eternal decree of God in a single act would be the only way God could create and govern his creation. Predestination, effectual calling, election, exhaustive determinism, all these become the only option in which God could operate. This places you in a position where scripture must bend to your classical theist presuppositions. I’m not sure that’s a pill Christians should be willing to swallow.

[@inTruthbyGrace]

and thus, were we warned: 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.

[@r-naotwo6290]

Thanks guys. I really really enjoyed this discussion

[@PastorJ-qb2ts]

Glad to see this posted.

[@PixelsofLight]

Great dialogue. Thanks, Nick. Subscribed. 👍🏻

[@nicholasnoyola3525]

Thanks for watching

[@doooovid]

Good work, blessings!

[@AlexADalton]

great talk....super smart dudes.

[@jddeklerk]

Awesome discussion. Thank you

[@scottheath8302]

Love new videos

[@screwball1010]

On the matter of time, it seems to me that tensed facts are describing relationships. Now is referring to ones relationship to the timeline. So if God is timeless and has no relationship to time, tensed facts wouldn't be the kind of thing He could have. For a timeless God there is no now to know. This might mean something like now is the product of lacking something. I do not ascribe to this, but it might help resolve the issue for those who do.

[@williammcenaney1331]

Dr. Mullins believes divine timelessness means God exists without beginning and without end. But in other videos, he also seems to think God can act successively. Suppose God can does that. Then it's hard to see how he does it if time stands still during and between events. I don't know whether Dr. Mullins's definition of timelessness is logically inconsistent. Quantitative infinity differs from qualitative infinity. If you tell me that something is unlimited, does that mean it's countable?

[@fndrr42]

Subscribed to the channel - Jordan won this debate IMO but enjoyed the dialogue

[@hudsontd7778]

Actually Mullins won this debate IMO, I still see Jordan as brother in christ and hope discussion like these will happen in the future.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@hudsontd7778We need Ryan Vs David Bentley Hart and or Pat Flynn!

[@travissharon1536]

I dont think aseity is that widely accepted.