Monarchical Trinitarianism | w/Dr. Joshua Sijuwade - PPP ep. 131

[@ParkersPensees]

Putting these episodes together takes a lot of research and a ton of time. If you enjoy my high effort philosophy and theology podcast episodes, consider supporting me on Patreon: www.patreon.com/parkers_pensees

[@eternalbyzantium262]

Dr.Sijuwade is amazingly humble! I love his work, and he did great on the Orthodox Shahada youtube channel.

[@orthobro4806]

He was there?

[@adriang.fuentes7649]

This seems to be correct. Awesome, really marvelous philosopher...

[@grantmiller2420]

Parker this guest was so helpful! I'll have to look more into Dr. Sijuwade's work!

[@clashx9]

I really really loved this interview this is an amazing way to look at the Trinity!! I wanted to do an amateur Bible study into the biblical passages that I could use as evidence to support Trinitarianism and this view captures a lot of what I've been wrestling with

[@SamuelAdamsT]

I came for the talk about monarchical trinitarianism, stayed for the talk about american (aka real) football

[@ParkersPensees]

amen.

[@Apologia14]

American football where you run with the ball in your hands is real football?😅

[@torix316]

Leaving this note for myself. Joshua goes into the explanation at 18:00

[@Repentee]

The God of Mormonism isn't the ultimate source of reality from what I understand.

[@IAmisMaster]

I agree completely with Sijuwade's monarchical trinitarianism, as that is what the Bible plainly teaches and what all ante-nicene Christians believed. But I get off the Sijuwade bus when he starts going into Aristotelian mumbo jumbo. The Bible clearly supports middle-platonic philosophy over Aristotle's philosophy. The Gospel of John, Colossians, and Hebrews plainly cite and approves of Plato's theory of shadows and ideal heavenly universals rather than Aristotle's realist philosophy.

[@AlexADalton]

Great interview. I guess where I'm confused is between the predicative sense and the nominal sense. Firstly, on not bearing the name God, doesn't Philipians 2 say Jesus bears the "name above every name", which scholars think is "the Lord", which is a sort of stand-in for Yahweh? Secondly, the nominal sense seems to be the less robust sense according to Joshua. The more meaningful sense of attributing divinity on Joshua's account seems to be the predicative sense - the predicative indicates a being's perfection/divinity. But the nominal sense attributed to the Father on his account, is the aspect that does the grounding work. So the Father does seem to have a greater ontology in some sense (e.g. is more ultimate), beyond what the "nominal" label would lead you to believe.

[@aydentrevaskis8390]

I understand what your objection is, but Sijuwade means in the predicative sense that all internal attributes of God are the same between the persons of the trinity. The Nominal sense in which God is the father is semantical. There is no ontological difference within them, and the ontological difference that does exist (the father being asei) is actually an external thing. Hopefully that made sense

[@squarecircles4846]

I think the term God is "properly" applicable to the Father but the 2 persons are God. For just as in Genesis 1:26 and Gen 5, Eve is called Adam, it is properly applied to the first created male. Note there is one Existence of the 3 persons, they dont have their individual, separate existences

[@IAmisMaster]

"This then is the order of the rule of our faith, and the foundation of the building, and the stability of our conversation: *God, the Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this is the first point of our faith* . The second point is: The Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, who was manifested to the prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the dispensation of the Father: through whom all things were made; who also at the end of the times, to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible, in order to abolish death and show forth life and produce a community of union between God and man. And the third point is: The Holy Spirit, through whom the prophets prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led forth into the way of righteousness; and who in the end of the times was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth, renewing man unto God." - Irenaeus, Proof of Apostolic Preaching, Pt 6

[@severian_matachin]

I'd just like to get his home workout through covid dude.

[@robb7855]

Could the Father refrain from eternally generating the Son? I'm wrestling with the idea of the Son and Spirit being nessesary or not.

[@collin501]

I don't think so. I think it would be in His nature as Father. Unless fatherhood is a attribute of creation at a point in time that God took on. But if God created all things through the Son (John 1, Colossians), then that attribute was there before creation, already present in the beginning, and therefore part of His eternal nature (co eternal). If part of His nature, then necessary, although sort of a contingent necessity. Contingent upon the Father, but could not have been otherwise.

[@RLG6728]

@@collin501 I'm actually beginning to accept monarchical trinity but, it seems hard to me sometimes to fit it with some biblical verse about how God speaking about having no rival or equal, and Him saying that "you should have no other gods before me" I see these verses to easily fit with the trinity that i have been taught(God is one essence shared by three Coequal Persons). God speaking in this verses would be in the sense of one united divine essence where all members of the trinity are included and what God says. But, with monarchical trinity, if the only the Father was speaking here then, it makes it seem that the other members aren't divine and equal. Any thoughts here guys? am i missing something about monarchical trinity?

[@chaznavarro4470]

@@RLG6728 Monarchical trinitarianism seems to be more concerned with "word games," loosely speaking. "God" refers specifically the the Father as a name, but because the Father, Son, and Spirit share the same divine essence, they are equally God in the sense of being "equally divine". In Scripture, when God says "you shall have no other gods before me," the monarchical trinitarian must say which "God" is speaking (either the Father or the Trinitarian Godhead as a whole). The widely-held view today seems to have the better case in terms of simplicity in reading, but it depends on the biblical context of that statement from God, and where it is repeated too. Whether one takes the monarchical view or not, I don't think I can accept a monarchical view (I also oppose EFS, ERAS, etc.) because I think there isn't just trinity, but triunity (one-in-three, three-in-one). Monarchical trinitarianism, as well as social trinitarianism, seems to be wrong because they pose three (or at least more than one) divine will, but that's a complex issue historically. Monarchical trinitarianism seems to not be able to hold to a trinitarian nature of God if the name "God" cannot be applied wholesale to the Father, Son, and Spirit equally. I hope I shed some light on the issue for you! But I am no expert, so do take my words here with a grain of salt. God bless!

[@collin501]

@@RLG6728 I think you make good points. It could be that the generation of the Son inherits oneness so that it's still the one name of God. Exodus 23:21 says, "My name is in him." And Jesus in John 17 said "you have given me your name." From that standpoint there is a lot of oneness. I'm not sure if there are varying monarchical views and how they account for these things. To me when thinking about the trinity, it's all about figuring out which ways they are one and which ways they are three. Classically it's one substance and three persons. I think it's our way of staying safe in our theology. I've been asking whether that's the most accurate language to use. We just don't want to separate where they are one and join where they are distinct. When the Bible speaks of the actions of God, it's as if they are singular. "And God said, 'let there be light,' and there was light." The NT says all things were made through the Word. If God made them through the Son, the action is still singular, so how does that fit into our concept of persons? I typically think of persons as acting from themselves. And yet the Son definitely has some kind of personhood. Anyway, I'm not necessarily settled on the monarchical view, at least as described in the video. But I think it's pretty solid that the the Father is the source of the Son.

[@collin501]

@Kek Kek Does the monarchical view see "the Lord is one" Deuteronomy 6:4 as referring to the Father alone?

[@ReformedR]

This leads to so many issues the concept bodes well but you'd have to go deeper into the literature to answer the nature of subordination, ie justifying that The Father is that primordial source and ho that effects equality between the three of course if you are dealing with a muslim then the quran should be the point of call for their idea of monotheism and considering the quran doesnt state God is not the trinity or one being three persons even in the monarchial sense yet that doesnt deny it either it just says say not three in relation to the false idea that Christians take Mary Jesus and Allah as God considering also what allah says of himself speaking of himself in plural our spirit surah 19:16-19 we us and him surah 2:28. under the qurrans idea of monotheism we do not have three Gods but one God. it does state allah begets nor is begotten and yet in surah 29:46 allah says The Christian God and Allah are one (God forbid) so either allah contradicts himself as he frequently does or he does believe christians have one god completely demolishing the muslim idea of monotheism. unfortunately saying allah is one doesnt get you any of the precepts of the essence energy distinction relation to attributes are they one or 99? and then comes the problem of Allahs spirit which appears as a man in surah 19:16-19 and says he will give mary a son then allah gives mary a son surah 66:12 and is the quran uncreated? if so then we now have 3 uncreated first principles or gods two enters the world in some form allahs word in book form allahs spirit in human form and i could continue showing verse after verse ultimately at least from the islamic case a plain reading of the quran gets them multiple gods whether allah denies it or not is irrelevant because he has to according to them be the standard of godness so how does he view oneness in relation to his word and his spirit? just a thought regarding the talk and the verses josh quoted they are not in a vacuum john 17:3 in the greek relates the two parties to The one God Jesus is called God in 1 john 5:20 Titus 2:13 not saying Josh is wrong i think the concept looks good but this isn't something i would use just off the cuff because its likely uneducated people wont want to understand it though i admit that even if you explain basic algebra to someone who doesn't want to understand it they likely will run from the topic completely. rejection of the trinity whether social or monarchial isn't a logical problem its a spiritual problem many don't want Christ to be sovereign and equal with God because they are demonized i think its an area that should be discussed but used more with polemics than anything

[@philosopher25]

Looks like two gods to me, especially if you press on the human father and son example. They both have a human nature, but they are numerically distinct. If that's what you say about the Father and the Son, then you've got two gods--three when you add in the HS. The fact that only one of them is named God doesn't change the math.

[@ReformedR]

That would only be the case of we relate the categories based on anthropromorphisism

[@IAmisMaster]

It's funny that you are not so worried that the NT literally tells us the One God is the Father (1 Corinthians 9:6), and you are also not worried about the numerous logical and mathematical contradictions of saying each member of the Trinity is numerically equal to the One God but yet are not equal to each other (so you have the irrational contradiction of F = G, S = G, HS = G, yet F =/= S, etc.)...but suddenly you very worried about the math of monarchical trinitarianism!

[@hjc1402]

This can be compared to when Adam was first created and was the only human in existence, you could say “Adam is man” nominally and predicatively. But there are two others that are man predicatively. But there is only one man. But that one man is only Adam. But there’s two others that are not Adam that are man also. But there’s only one man that is Adam. Really doesn’t make much sense when you look at it that way.

[@hjc1402]

⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠@@IAmisMasterrejecting his version of monarchism tronotarianism does not mean you believe each person is numerically equal to the one God. It’s not either/or.

[@ReformedMike]

But there are two specific places Jesus is identified as “Ho Theos” …..

[@AstariahJW]

Yea hes never called almighty God or most high God

[@ReformedMike]

@@AstariahJW first off.. wrong. And secondly I’m addressing a specific comment he made in the video. That Jesus is never called “Ho Thoes” or “The God” in Greek only the Father is . And that’s wrong he’s called Ho Theos twice that I know of off the top of my head

[@aydentrevaskis8390]

@@ReformedMikeiirc, he wasn’t saying it was never, he was saying 99% of the time, the word “God” refers to the father

[@ReformedMike]

@@aydentrevaskis8390 I’m almost positive he used the word never. And honestly. Does it matter? If Jesus is “The God” then the debate is over

[@aydentrevaskis8390]

@@ReformedMike it might have been another discussion he had on the “transfigured” channel. And yeah, it does matter, as I’m sure you know, just as well as I do, that there are many trinitarian models. Social, Latin, monarchical, subordination, some interesting ones proposed by Leftow and Van Inwagen, etc. it ultimately comes down to which one is the most 1) philosophically sound, 2) Biblically sound, and 3) rooted in tradition

[@truthlifefishing1730]

Dr. Joshua Sijuwade is going to do stand up comedy tomorrow when he pretends the trinity is NOT polytheism. He is the Dave Chappelle of not knowing his chosen field of study.

[@collin501]

If anything this could lean towards tri- theism, not modalism, because in his statement @44:55 he was not including all members of the trinity in the one person of God, but only the Father. Now I'm sure Josh affirms the eternally begotten Son, and that the Spirit is equally eternal. Co eternal is the credal language. So my question is if the three were always present, but only one called God, how it avoids a hierarchical tri-theism. There needs to be oneness of being like in traditional trinitarian theology. The Son can't have a separate form of diety that is different from the Father, like a separate God, but sharing in the one being of God. This is how I believe they share oneness and avoid tri-theism. John 16 talks about the Spirit not speaking from Himself, but "what He hears He will speak," as a He will take from the Son and a declare it. And the same with the Son, is not from Himself but only from the Father. So the Son and the Spirit, in this context, don't even have words of their own, but everything comes from the Father as their source. In contrast, we are created beings, so we have words from ourselves. But the Son and the Spirit are uncreated and have their being from the Father. This does have a sort of monarchical quality to it. Their personhood is in some way subordinate or at least derived from the Father. Concerning subordinationism, it's possible that the Son be considered less simply because He is not the source(which Josh mentioned). But in reality there may be equality. Because if it's the nature of God the Father to give all to the Son and withhold nothing, then there would never be a moment when the Son is subordinate in any practical sense. Because the problem with subordination is that it might imply separation and therefore plurality. But if it is God's nature to give all of Himself (all of His divine nature) to His Son, then there is in reality complete equality and oneness, even though the Father always remains the source. But in eternity, the Father will be in some sense preeminent. As 1 Corinthians 15:24,28 days, - "Then comes the end, when he(Christ) delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power... When all things are subjected to Him(Christ), then the Son Himself will also be subjected to him(the Father) who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all." It seems like there is this a reciprocal relationship between the Father and the Son, where the Father gives all to the Son (including the Father's own nature), then the Son in turn gives honor, glory, His own life(in the incarnation and crucifixion), and He gives the kingdom, all to the Father. It seems the equality lies in that Father and Son relationship, that the Father elevates the Son, and then the Son gives back in return and makes the Father preeminent.

[@GregVasquez777]

The Son perpetually emanates from the Father and is a Son, thus so. The Father is a Father because he emanates the Son. People claim that all fathers proclaimed Monarchial ideal. This is not true. This is a common style of challenge for most who aren't versed in the fathers to claim dispensationalism or unitarianism/monarchial ideas, when i reality they often said things for or against monarchical trinitarianism. I enjoy a quote that Gary de Mar uses. The Fathers are informative and not, authoritative. I would add that many also do not know the fathers and claim exaggerated claims. Here listen to Origen 185ad "For we do NOT hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from non-existent substances, that is, from a substance outside Himself, so that THERE WERE A TIME WHEN HE DID NOT EXIST [i.e. the Son ALWAYS existed according to Origen]. "No, rejecting every suggestion of corporality, we hold that the Word and Wisdom was begotten OUT OF the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon, in the manner of an act of the will proceeding from the mind....The expression which we employ, however, -- that there NEVER was a time when He did not exist -- is to be taken with a certain allowance. "For these very words WHEN and NEVER are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the FATHER, SON, and HOLY SPIRIT, is to be understood as transcending ALL TIME, ALL AGES, and ALL ETERNITY. [here is where Origen specifically uses the term "Trinity"] "For it is the TRINITY ALONE which exceeds every sense in which not only temporal but even ETERNAL may be understood. It is all OTHER things [i.e. not the SON, not the HOLY SPIRIT], indeed, which are OUTSIDE the TRINITY, which are to be measured by times and ages." (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1, Jurgens, volume 1, p. 199) Or Irenaeus 130ad on 'subordination' which Christ often had to the Father For him [Irenaeus] the Son is “the visible one” of the Father, as the Father is “the invisible one” of the Son…He is eternal like the Father,-On the other hand, we find most assuredly in the Adversus haereses some expressions savoring of subordinationism, as, for instance: the Son has received sovereignty from His Father (III, 6, 1; V, 18, 3); He is supported by the Father with creation, “for there exists but one God Father above all” (V, 18, 2); but, St. Irenaeus here only repeats the expressions of the Gospels and of St. Paul, and any one who considers the Father as the source of the Trinity can scarcely avoid a certain subordinationism. (J. Tixeront, History of Dogmas - Volume I, p. 234. There are many more quotes. Don't buy in to this just yet. I'm not saying it's not tru, but study this out first. The scripture is the plumb line of truth. Not the fathers.

[@hjc1402]

I think he confirms this leans toward tri theism when he says that a Mormon could be a Mormon using his idea and language and still be considered a monotheist. Quite ridiculous really.

[@collin501]

@only ridiculous if you can explain it yourself. Can you answer these questions? When the Bible says “God”, who does that refer to? For the most part, the Bible refers to God as the Father. Are the Son and Spirit parts of God or separate Gods? If parts, then are they truly whole persons? Does “God” refer to the group? If so, then why does scripture say to pray to the Father and not the group? Do you say God is one being and three persons? If so, how would you define “person”? How would you define “being”?

[@hjc1402]

@@collin501 I was agreeing with your original comment… do you not hold that stance anymore that you made before? I understand it was 3 years ago and your view could have changed. Do you agree with Sijuwade’s model now then? God also refers to the Son and Spirit in places in the Bible. Even in the Old Testament the name of God YHWH refers to two people in various passages, some being the Father, some being the Son. “Are the Son and Spirit parts of God or separate Gods?” Neither. It’s not either parts or separate. Either one would deny the Trinity. God in various places can refer to an individual person, Father, Son or Holy Spirit, and at other times refer to God in Himself without any reference to one relation. We are told to pray to Jesus also. Yes. Being and persons are different categories. Being simply means one’s essence/existence, substance. God as being is all that He is in Himself. His entire nature from essence to existence to attributes. Person is an integral and individual substance of a rational nature, the possessor and principle of operation in the nature. Each person is God considered under their respective aspects. The Father is God considered under the aspect of paternity. God considered under the aspect of filiation is the Son. The Father is the unprincipled principle of the Son and Holy Spirit, the source of the other two persons.

[@collin501]

@ I lean toward the monarchy view with some differences or clarifications. If I can try to summarize what you’re saying, the Trinity is made up of identical instances(of the one substance) and the instances only differ by their relations. If not, then what does the substance/person distinction mean? Here are some questions. 1. How does what you say differ from saying humanity is a single substance, having a single existence, essence, and attributes, with many persons? If it’s different, what makes humanity into many beings? 2. If each person has their own separate “rational nature”, are there three minds in God? I thought that the historic doctrine of the Trinity holds there is only one mind and will in God. 3. If they are identical instances joined by their relations, I don’t see how that avoids tri theism. Since relations between multiple people implies multiple entities, at least in the minds of worshippers. 4. If there is only one mind and will in God, according to the historic Trinity doctrine, then I don’t understand the use of the word “person”. Could it be a translation issue from the ancient languages? 5. A Father and Son could imply bi-theism, unless there is oneness shared between them that is beyond nature. Although I disagree with it, modalism is an attempt to find oneness. How do you account for oneness beyond a shared nature? Since humanity could technically match that concept. My dilemma is that if I try to separate them too much I read, “if you have seen Me you’ve seen the Father.” If I try to combine them too much I read, “He was with God in the beginning.” When I try to make them identical I read “He is the express image of His person.” The image has a source other than Himself. The source has an image other than Himself. The essence of the source and the essence of the image match each other, but they’re not instances of the same thing. From the standpoint of a source-image relationship, and a person-word relationship, it seems the image and word are extensions of their source. In this case, “Extensions” that are given agency to act. Note the wording in the gospel of John, “whatever I speak, just as the Father has told me, so I speak.” (John 12:49) And likewise with actions, “the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.” (John‬ ‭5‬:‭19‬) If we take the historic trinity view, in its various forms, we have to ask, what is the connection of the three persons to the essence? Is it unique to the essence of God that there be three persons? If the essence of God requires three persons and the three persons they make up the one God, they are parts. This doesn’t mean they are only partially God. A part may be given the fullness of the whole, which is to some extent what trinitarianism is all about. I would still see this as coming from the fountainhead of the Father. I’m not sure how to see the Trinity as three identical instances except in a partial sense. I see the Trinity more as extensions of the Father and parts of a whole which share in the very fullness of the Father. I’m not sure on Dr Sijuade’s view how the Trinity maintains oneness. It seems to me the Son and Spirit gain agency and personhood from the Father, but only in connection to Him and His singular will. They cannot exist apart from Him like we can exist apart from our parents. Therefore, they are only partially distinct. Seeing the Son is seeing a declaration of the Father. This is how I see God being truly one, and not having three Gods. The Father, the source, has an image. Apart from the Father the Son can do nothing.

[@thebiblerefutesheretics2054]

Monarchical Trinitarianism is basically a form of Modalism (Oneness). By saying that the one true God is the Father alone (in the nominal sense) and not the Trinity, yet there still are three persons who are God (in the predicative sense), you are basically admitting that the Son and the Holy Spirit are simply aspects or modes of the Father’s existence. That is basically Modalism right there. If God is only “one person” (The Father) than what are the other two persons? They cannot really be “persons” in the sense that The Father is a person. I’m referring to the statement at 44:55.

[@thebiblerefutesheretics2054]

@Dustin Neely Yeah, maybe he spoke unintentionally there.

[@StasBalabay]

@Dustin Neely I think Dr. Joshua Sijuwade misspoke there. You can check out his interview on Orthodox Shahada "Mohammed Hijab and the Trinity | Dr. Joshua Sijuwade & Dr. Beau Branson | Debate Review" and some other videos of his. As far as for his personal views, If I remember correctly when he did this talk on Orthodox Shahada he mentioned it somewhere that he's been back and forth between RC and Orthodoxy but I may be confusing him with someone else so don't take my word for it. But I did have a good impression of him.

[@francisaltitude9763]

What are you talking about 🤣 we affirm three distinct persons so clearly not modalism

[@thebiblerefutesheretics2054]

@@francisaltitude9763 No, you don’t affirm 3 distinct divine persons in the nominal sense of “God”.

[@MBarberfan4life]

The Trinity is not God. That's tri-theism.

[@JamesBond-fz7du]

you just making things complicated, the bible identifies the father as the only true God yes but this father has a Word born or generated from him (the son of GOD) through whom the father created everything and he has a spirit precedes from him gives life the Spirt is preceding from the father so it is okay to call it also God same thing with the Word he is the wisdom & the reason of the father so it is okay to call him God too

[@TempleofChristMinistries]

You are a single man and have no children so you are not classed as a father, but when you bear children you now become a father, it is the same with God, man is made in the image of God, and it is this image we reflect God, God being the living one who is and always was, having no name therefore I am that I am, he becomes a father because he gives birth to a child, just like you are not a father until you bare a child, the father rules over the son,the son is under the father and they are of one spirit, the Holy Spirit, for the father is the Holy Spirit, the son is the Holy Spirit, the Christ is the light of the father, they are separated because one is the father and one is the son, they are one because of the one spirit, the Holy Spirit, the father is Holy and the son is Holy because they are of the Holy Spirit, the son exist because of the masculine, the daughter because of the feminine, thus the title, son, daughter, Son of God exist because the son the human being the man having the light of the father God, and this man being the son of God, because he has the spirit of God, the father in him and he in the father, and they are one,

[@LookOutForNumberOne]

So, he gets injured and cannot play anymore, then receives a revelation from his imaginary friend. Well, he has to resort to convince people of his BS encounter.

[@ParkersPensees]

Lol nice

[@michealbadman6411]

Unfortunately, this was regarded as a heresy.

[@orthobro4806]

No it's not, the contrary. It's dogma.

[@MrSmith-zy2bp]

No, it isn't. The Monarchy of the Father is the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church that created the Christian Creeds.